Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

Four years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the world is bracing for another energy crisis. The US-Israel bombing of Iran and then the blockade of the strait of Hormuz have forced up the price of oil. The price of natural gas in Europe has also risen sharply.

In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a £50 million package to support consumers who heat their homes with oil. The government is also considering a U-turn on the decision to increase fuel duty (currently almost 53p per litre of petrol or diesel) in September after a 15-year freeze. Other taxes would need to go up to compensate.

But the main question concerns what will happen to electricity prices this summer. A sustained crisis could push prices higher for both households and businesses. It could also push the Bank of England to avoid interest rate cuts, making mortgages more expensive. And the government could even end up paying part of everyone’s bills directly as it did between 2022 and 2024, piling up tens of billions of pounds of public debt.

To secure most of the future production of electricity – wind farms or new nuclear power stations for instance – the government signs what are known as “contracts for difference” with electricity producers. These contracts fix the price of electricity for decades, typically above expected wholesale prices.

These guaranteed prices correspond roughly to the expected average cost of producing electricity. Unlike gas, once a wind farm is built, each additional unit of electricity costs almost nothing to produce. So, without a guaranteed price, renewable producers would fear having to sell the electricity for free and never recouping their investment.

Consumers are shouldering the risk

The UK is not as sunny as somewhere like Spain and so will never get very cheap solar power. It is also trying to build new nuclear power plants, but the first attempt (Hinkley point C, currently expected to begin delivering electricity in 2030) is so expensive that the French state-owned energy operator EDF lost £10 billion in the process. Future projects now ask taxpayers to take most of the risk and pay upfront in the form of higher bills.

Consumers mostly notice these extra costs added to their bills (called “environmental levies”) when gas prices are low. The levies currently make up 6.5% of a typical bill, which is down from 13% after the government shifted some costs so that they would be paid for through general taxation.

So given that they’re paying upfront for the infrastructure, consumers might expect renewables to cut their bills when gas prices spike. But that is not how markets work: the price is set by the most expensive unit sold. Around 85% of the time in the UK this most expensive unit uses liquefied natural gas (LNG) transported by boat.

If one day the UK becomes like Spain where prices are mostly set by renewables (thanks to huge leaps in wind and solar), wholesale prices will often be zero. But consumers will still pay more, because they will still be charged the environmental levies that were put in place years before to invest in the infrastructure.

This is what led the CEO of energy giant E.ON, Chris Norbury, to declare in parliament that “even if the wholesale price was zero, bills would still be where they were today”. That’s true, but also a bit misleading.

Wholesale prices only go to zero because the country invested in renewables. The alternative – going back to more gas – would probably be much more expensive for everyone. It would certainly be more risky as the current conflict in the Middle East is illustrating.

Sunshine and wind do not need to pass through the strait of Hormuz and cannot be used as leverage by dictators. And what looks like a costly subsidy heaping pressure on billpayers in good times becomes insurance in a crisis.

During the peak of the energy crisis in 2022, the wholesale price of electricity was higher than the guaranteed one, and renewable generators paid money to the government instead of receiving subsidies. But because the government was helping out with everyone’s bills, consumers never saw the benefit.

In 2025 in the UK, less than a third of electricity was generated using gas. Replacing renewables with gas would mean building power plants and importing more gas at ever-higher prices and greater geopolitical risk.

Gas is cheaper in the US where fracking makes the country almost energy independent. But fracking is much harder in places that are as densely populated as England. The government is currently planning to ban it everywhere in the UK.

But the UK’s vulnerable situation also gives it a chance to innovate and export. The key is making sure that consumers pay a price that reflects the real cost of electricity at any given moment.

The more we switch from fossil fuels – heating, cars, trucks – to electricity, the more battery capacity we have to fill. The price signal (the gap between cheap and expensive electricity) gives industries and households a strong incentive to innovate and invest in storage.

Most people only care about their monthly bill and won’t adapt directly. But smart appliances, home batteries and vehicle-to-grid systems (where vehicles can store electricity and sell it back to the grid when required) will do it for them.

The UK can gain in efficiency what nature has not provided in resources. This could give Britain a chance to sell its innovations to the world. Selling services is what the UK does as a country, after all. The large majority of global investments in energy are in renewables, and there will be huge opportunities for the countries that figure out how to run a grid on intermittent electricity sources.

Renaud Foucart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The UK’s high electricity prices are here to stay. But could they offer an opportunity? – https://theconversation.com/the-uks-high-electricity-prices-are-here-to-stay-but-could-they-offer-an-opportunity-278584

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Henry Taylor, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham

What can you see right now? This might seem like a silly question, but what enters your consciousness is not the whole story when it comes to vision. A great deal of visual processing in the brain goes on well below our conscious awareness.

Some studies have probed the unconscious depths of vision. One source of
evidence comes from the neurological condition known as blindsight, which is caused by damage to areas of the brain involved in processing visual information. People with blindsight report that they are unable to see, either entirely or in a portion of their visual field. However, when asked to guess what is there, they can often do so with remarkable accuracy.

For example, in an experiment published in 2004 on someone with blindsight, a black bar was displayed in the portion of the visual field to which the person was blind. The person was asked to “guess” whether the bar was vertical or horizontal.

Despite denying any conscious awareness of the bar, the participant could answer correctly at a level well above chance. The participant even showed evidence of being able to pay attention to the bar – they were faster to respond when an arrow (placed in a healthy area of their visual field) correctly indicated the location of the bar.

The most popular interpretation (though not the only one) is that people with blindsight can see these objects, but not see them consciously. They see what is there, but it all goes on unconsciously, below their awareness.

The phenomenon of inattentional blindness seems to show you can see without the information crossing into your consciousness. Anyone can experience inattentional blindness. The phenomenon has been known about for a long time, but we can most easily get a handle on it by looking at a well-known experiment reported in 1999.

In this experiment, participants are shown a video of people playing basketball, and told to count the number of passes between the players wearing a white shirt. If you’ve never done this before, I urge to you stop reading now and watch the video.

In many cases, people are so busy counting the passes that they completely miss a large gorilla walking across the middle of the scene and beating its chest, then walking off. The gorilla’s right there, in the centre of your visual field. Light from the gorilla enters your eyes, and is processed in the visual system, but somehow you missed it, because you weren’t paying attention to it.

The gorilla has more to teach us. In another experiment reported in 2013, radiologists were given a series of lung scans. They were told to look for nodules (which show up as small light coloured circles) on each scan. In one of the scans, a large picture of a dancing gorilla was superimposed on top of the lung scan. In this study, 83% of the radiologists failed to spot it, even though it was 48 times bigger than the average nodule they were looking for. Some of them even looked directly at the gorilla and still didn’t notice it!

The interpretation of these experiments is controversial. Some scientists suggest that in these kinds of cases, you consciously see the gorilla, but immediately forget it (although a dancing gorilla in someone’s lung doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you’d forget). Others argue that you see the gorilla, but the information never made its way into consciousness. You saw the gorilla, but unconsciously.

Let’s assume that in the case of blindsight, and inattentional blindness, the information is seen, but didn’t make it all the way to consciousness. Then, the question is: what makes some information conscious, rather than the information that stays unconscious? This is one of the central questions for consciousness studies in philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

The brain’s loudspeaker

There’s no agreement on which is the best theory of consciousness, but in my
opinion, the strongest contender is the global neuronal workspace theory.

According to this theory, consciousness is all to do with a particular area of the brain which is the seat of the “workspace”. The workspace is a system with a small capacity, so it can’t hold a lot of information at any one time. The job of the workspace is to take unconscious information and broadcast it to lots of different networks all across the brain. Global neuronal workspace theorists say that broadcasting the information in this way is what makes it conscious.

The job of the workspace is to act like the brain’s loudspeaker, and consciousness is the information that gets broadcast. The workspace takes unconscious information and boosts it so that many of the different systems in the brain hear about it and can use that information in their own processes. The late philosopher Daniel Dennett used to call consciousness “fame in the brain”. The workspace idea is similar.

One of the most striking implications of the global neuronal workspace theory is how little information makes it to consciousness. Since the workspace has quite a small capacity, it follows that we can only ever be conscious of a little at a time. We might think there’s a rich visual world in front of us, full of details, all of which we’re conscious of, but really – according to the theory – we’re only ever conscious of a small portion of that.

Some philosophers and scientists have objected to the theory on these grounds. They suggest that consciousness “overflows” the workspace: we are conscious of more information than can “fit” into the workspace at any one time. Even with these debates still ongoing, I think the global neuronal workspace theory gives us a reasonably clear answer to the question of what consciousness is for, and how it interacts with other systems in the brain.

In our brains, consciousness is only the tip of a very large iceberg. But the global neuronal workspace theory might give us insight into what makes that tip so special.

Henry Taylor has received funding from the Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Human vision: what we actually see – and don’t see – tells us a lot about consciousness – https://theconversation.com/human-vision-what-we-actually-see-and-dont-see-tells-us-a-lot-about-consciousness-276310

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Fuller, PhD Candidate in Music, University of Sheffield

The Barbican Centre’s 2025-26 concert season, Fragile Earth: Sounds of a Living Planet, brings the connection between music and nature, and its vulnerability to climate change, to the fore.

The chamber orchestra Britten Sinfonia embraced the theme with their contribution, Nature and Rapture: Recycling Concerto, which took place on March 12 and 13. The concerto was written by Gregor A. Mayrhofer for the virtuosic percussionist Vivi Vassileva. Together, the pair have collected and tuned an enormous battery of percussion from repurposed rubbish.

The stage presented a striking array of litter, including an enormous plastic bottle marimba, a wall of tuned glass bottles, discarded flower pots, cooking pans and a washing machine drum.

The first movement, The Happy Tsunami of Wealth, emerged with the crackling and rustling of plastic bags as Vassileva threw them across the stage. She then, with astonishing accuracy, used makeshift single-use beaters such as corks, plastic lids and coffee capsules, throwing them at the traditional tuned percussion and leaving them discarded on the floor. The music built to a dense sound, described by Mayrhofer as “an insurmountable pile of acoustic rubbish”.

In the second movement, Meltdown Meltup, the mood of the piece moves from joy and abandon into reflection, recycling music from the first movement. It also references the theme from Charles Ives’s The Unanswered Question as recognition that we don’t have the answers yet, but we can’t just sit back and let this assault on our planet continue.

In the Plastic Bottle Cadenza, Vassileva performed a virtuosic cadenza with just two plastic drinking bottles that changed pitch as she released air from them. Mayrhofer and Vassileva have made something quite stunning out of rubbish. The beautiful sounds of the unique instruments provide quite the juxtaposition to the pile of used bottles, pans and pieces of non-descript metal with which they started.

In the final movement, Recycling Music, Mayrhofer continues to recycle existing themes within the composition. Several of these are taken from the advertising jingles of some of the biggest polluting corporations in the world – think soft drinks, fast food, coffee and communications companies. These themes weave into the performance like a musical naming and shaming.

The orchestra, soloist and conductor brought the performance to a peaceful close, quoting again The Unanswered Question, ankle deep in plastic bags, discarded lids and other rubbish. It was a visually and aurally striking end to a moving plea to take more care of our environment.

From the noise of pollution to the sounds of nature

The second half of the evening opened with a breathtaking performance of Einojuhani Rautavaara’s Cantus Arcticus: Concerto for Birds and Orchestra. Rautavaara combines recordings of birdsong, recorded in the Arctic Circle and the marshlands of Limnika, with the orchestra, creating an immersive experience of music and nature combined.

The first movement, The Bog, opens with two flutes calling and answering to one another. They’re soon joined by a recording of marsh birds. The movement evolves with instruments mimicking the birdsong.

I was completely absorbed by the sound-world, often unable to differentiate between true birdsong and the orchestral imitations.

Movement two, Melancholy, begins with the call of the shorelark, but transposed down two octaves, described by the composer as a “ghost bird”. This is accompanied by a chorale-like structure, first in strings only until it builds to a full orchestral sound that is almost overwhelming for a short time before quickly fading back to nothing.

The final movement, Swans Migrating, features the call of the whooper swan which builds to a cacophony of music and birdsong, fading in the final few moments of the piece. It is a beautiful expression of nature that was a striking contrast to the first half of the concert.

The concert closed with Beethoven’s Symphony No. 6 Pastoral, which is truly evocative of the environment. The five movements describe the countryside while portraying Beethoven’s emotional connection to nature.

I left the concert on a musical high, but also feeling reflective. To hear the sounds of nature as experienced by Beethoven, an early 19th-century nature enthusiast, in the same programme as the Recycling Concerto was extremely thought-provoking.

Musicians are increasingly using their craft to communicate the climate crisis. This potential to influence audiences in their attitudes to the environment is currently a subject of research, for example at the Influencing Environmental Values Through Music research group at the University of Sheffield.

In the orchestral music sphere, intentional programming to address the climate crisis is starting to become more common. Ensembles like the Orchestra for the Earth aim to inspire audiences to connect with and care for the natural world. Julie’s Bicycle is an international non-profit supporting creative organisations to take climate action in their practices, and in terms of engaging their audiences, and the Association of British Orchestras offers guidance to help orchestras operate sustainably.

If music can convey the message of environmentalism to audiences, as research suggests, then cultural organisations could be said to have a duty to take action. There is research that shows audiences for classical music are in decline and lack diversity. Further research explores the motivations of audiences attending cultural events: sustainability messaging could be a way to reach out to a new audience for whom this is an important issue.

Britten Sinfonia, with its innovative approach to programming and public engagement, is well placed to lead the way.

The climate crisis has a communications problem. How do we tell stories that move people – not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? This article is part of Climate Storytelling, a series exploring how arts and science can join forces to spark understanding, hope and action.

Jennifer Fuller receives funding from the Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures.

– ref. A concerto played with trash: Barbican offers a masterclass in thought-provoking classical programming – https://theconversation.com/a-concerto-played-with-trash-barbican-offers-a-masterclass-in-thought-provoking-classical-programming-278482

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lowri Sian Wilkie, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Psychology, Swansea University

With the Senedd (Welsh parliament) election due in May, Wales faces a test of whether long-term thinking can survive short-term political pressure.

In 2015, Wales made a bold move. Through the Well-being of Future Generations Act prevention was written into Welsh law, requiring public bodies to consider how today’s decisions shape the wellbeing of future generations.

It requires them to set wellbeing objectives, work across organisational boundaries and prioritise prevention over short-term reaction. Success is measured not only through economic growth but through health, equality, environmental resilience and strong communities.

Take Sian, aged 41, who lives in Swansea and was one of the participants in our recent study. She works full time, has two children, doesn’t sleep enough and had stopped exercising. After rising blood pressure and a health scare, she was introduced to a local community coordinator.

They met for coffee, then walked to a small Sunday sea swim. The first time, the coordinator went into the water with her. Sian was hooked. Through the group she met other women. She now helps organise the swims, and her children go to the beach in all weathers. What began as a referral became part of her life and community.

What shifted was not just her blood pressure, but her connection to movement, people and place. Our research on local area coordination suggests this relationship-centred support can strengthen wellbeing, confidence and social ties before problems escalate into crises.

If this type of preventive work is scaled back, crises may become more frequent and costs may rise, leading to further pressure on hospitals and social care. Health and social care already consume more than half of the Welsh government’s budget. With services stretched and more people living longer with complex needs, that path is not sustainable.

Politically fragile

Passing a law is one thing. Changing how an entire system behaves is another. Politics naturally pulls towards the immediate. Election cycles are short and budgets are set year by year. Members of the Senedd must respond to urgent concerns from voters. Visible problems demand visible progress.

Prevention, by contrast, produces quieter results that often emerge slowly and may not appear within a single parliamentary term. Implementation is also hard. Frontline services and staff are stretched. Legislation can set direction, but embedding change in strained organisations requires sustained backing, culture change and investment.

Public attention follows the same pattern. When uncertainty rises, attention narrows. Waiting lists, rising living costs and visible migration are immediate and emotionally charged. Policies designed to reduce future risk can feel abstract by comparison.

Psychological research helps explain this. Studies suggest that when people feel under threat, they look for stories that explain what is happening and who is responsible. These narratives can restore a sense of control, but they may also simplify complex problems into clear lines of blame.

For a policy built around prevention, this creates a difficult political environment. Polarised debate tends to reward immediate fixes and simple villains rather than the slower work of building the conditions that allow people to stay well.

The Wales the Act imagines

The wellbeing approach takes a broader view of health. Rather than seeing health solely as an individual responsibility, it recognises that wellbeing is shaped by social and environmental conditions. In other words, safe neighbourhoods, strong communities and access to nature.

International evidence suggests that investing earlier in community support can reduce pressure on crisis services. Wales is now exploring a similar redesign, but it will require leadership support and investment.

Research published in 2023 that had followed Welsh communities over a decade found better mental health in greener neighbourhoods, particularly in more deprived areas. Access to nature improves wellbeing directly and can also strengthen people’s sense of connection to the environment, which in turn encourages more sustainable behaviour.

These insights are already influencing local initiatives. Our work has embedded neurorehabilitation – support for people recovering from brain injury or neurological illness – into everyday community life through partnerships between health services and local organisations.

Ecotherapy programmes have been developed through relationships with locally valued initiatives, including community farms and a surfing charity that works with the coastline as part of recovery.

The aim is a shift from simply fixing what is “wrong” to rebuilding agency, purpose and connection. These are all factors linked to resilience and reduced demand on services over time.

Read more:
A decade on, six things the world can learn from Wales’ innovative future generations law

Our work also incorporates “biophilic” design – architecture that integrates greenery, natural light and outdoor spaces into buildings – into social housing developments. This work is re-imagining preventive health by bringing nature into our cities, offering residents an opportunity to reconnect to nature, tend to community gardens and grow their own food.

The goal is what we refer to as “sustainable wellbeing”, which means improving health while also nurturing the skills and mindsets needed for a more sustainable future.

Wales is making decisions amid overlapping crises, including widening inequality, rising chronic illness and the accelerating effects of climate change. In this context, the Well-being of Future Generations Act is either a framework for building more resilient systems, or a piece of legislation that is often praised but rarely followed.

Governments ultimately decide whether prevention is protected when finances tighten. But voters shape those choices too. A question facing this Senedd election is whether the Act continues to guide party manifestos, budgets and service design, or slips behind the pressure for immediate solutions.

On May 7, Wales will not only choose its representatives. It will also decide whether the wellbeing of people – and the planet they depend on – remains at the heart of public decision-making.

Lowri Wilkie is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in Psychology at Swansea University. She is funded by the Welsh Graduate School for the Social Sciences.

Andrew H. Kemp has previously received funding from Health and Care Research Wales and currently receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, including support for research on biophilic living, sustainable wellbeing and wellbeing policy. He is Professor of Psychology at Swansea University and holds an honorary clinical research appointment with Swansea Bay University Health Board. He is a member of the Green Party of England and Wales in a personal capacity.

Zoe Fisher has previously received funding from Health Care Research Wales. She is employed by Swansea Bay University Health board and seconded to the West Glamorgan Regional Partnership Board. She also holds an Associate Professor role at Swansea University.

– ref. Can Wales’ wellbeing law survive the pressures of the next Senedd election? – https://theconversation.com/can-wales-wellbeing-law-survive-the-pressures-of-the-next-senedd-election-276121

Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Garbett, PhD Candidate in History, Lancaster University

A tall, well-built man saunters past a band and onto the stage. He is handsome and slick, the parody of an American talk show host. Magnanimously he interviews the band, only to cut off one guitarist, patronise another and upstage the saxophonist with a mimed solo. And so, Swedish actor Alexander Skarsgård opened the 1,000th episode of the American sketch show Saturday Night Live (or SNL) on January 31.

SNL is essentially a variety show, with sketches, a bit of stand-up and live music from bestselling artists. Although streaming has revolutionised how we consume television, almost as many American viewers are tuning in to SNL as they were ten years ago. The programme – which has run on the US commercial TV channel NBC since 1975 – clearly has staying power.

Clips from SNL have long been available to British audiences on YouTube, and full episodes are often available on streaming services. But on March 21, Sky will broadcast a British adaptation of the programme. The received wisdom is that British and American humour mixes poorly, and the decision to adapt SNL for the British market has been met with some derision.

British comedy is sometimes judged too “acerbic” for American tastes. When adapted word-for-word for the American market, it can be disastrous (think the 2005 US Peep Show pilot, featuring Johnny Galecki, or the 2012 US adaptation of The Inbetweeners). Often, these adaptations require changes in tone to be successful. In the US version of TV comedy series The Office, Steve Carrel’s Michael Scott is much more likeable than Ricky Gervais’ David Brent.

Some American comedies are popular in Britain, and repeats of sitcoms like The Simpsons and Brooklyn Nine-Nine dominate E4’s afternoon scheduling. But, American programmes (and SNL sketches) can leave British audiences bemused, or even offended, as happened with a recent sketch making fun of the Mancunian White Lotus star Aimee Lou Wood’s teeth. In my opinion, there are no good examples of an American comedy successfully adapted for a British audience.

No laughing matter

The format of SNL – which will presumably be the format of SNL UK – isn’t the problem. It is reminiscent of the British “alternative cabaret” scene of the 1970s and 1980s (in part inspired by a Los Angeles club called the Comedy Store) that featured young, political comedians and alternative music. It launched the careers of the likes of English comedians Alexei Sayle and Dawn French.

This movement ( which is covered in depth in the book Alternative Comedy by Oliver Double) inspired a British television show much like SNL called Saturday Live (1986-88). It made comedians including Ben Elton and Harry Enfield household names.

It is the glamour and the tone of American comedy that might make the transition to British television difficult, however. In Britain, there is nothing quite like the sometimes-comfortable American relationship between entertainment, politics and satire.

Many of SNL’s hosts – like Skarsgård – are celebrities rather than comedians, with Timothée Chalamet, Scarlett Johansson and Ariana Grande hosting in recent years. More intriguingly, politicians occasionally host SNL. The most notable example of this is Donald Trump, who hosted during the run-up to the Republican primaries in the autumn of 2015. But Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have also appeared.

British comedies are less sympathetic towards those with political or cultural power. In 1997 and 2001, Chris Morris’s mockumentary, Brass Eye lured politicians and celebrities into lending their credibility to public information campaigns around fake but plausible moral panics. This resulted in the late MP David Amess earnestly raising a question about an invented drug in parliament and in football pundit Gary Lineker reading out some bizarre fake paedophile slang. In the last few years, Diane Morgan’s satirical Netlix show Philomena Cunk has confronted academics with the absurdity of their expertise.

Some British politicians appear on panel shows – it is one way to raise their profile or to humanise themselves – but it is hard to say whether this has ever translated into political success in the short term. A notable exception to the rule could be Boris Johnson, who appeared seven times on the BBC’s long-running satirical panel show Have I Got News for you between 1998 and 2006.

Last year, the leader of the Liberal Democrats Sir Ed Davey appeared on Have I Got News for You, but was taken to task over his failure to investigate the Post Office scandal while serving as minister for postal affairs in the 2010-15 coalition government.

SNL regularly attracts high-profile politicians, and Americans are used to seeing people in power on satirical television. In 2004, the progressive senator John Edwards chose to launch his (unsuccessful) presidential bid on John Stewart’s The Daily Show, while in 2008 Senator Hilary Clinton chose to appear on Stewart’s programme on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries (which she won – but she did not win the Democrat nomination).

American comedy is more glamorous, and while spectacle has little relationship to success, there is perhaps a little more deference for politicians on American TV. As former president Barack Obama neared the end of his second term in 2016, he appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, delivering his thoughts on his presidency and that year’s election over a live band.

British politics is less spectacular than its American counterpart. It is difficult to imagine Keir Starmer (or even Boris Johnson) delivering an opening monologue to musical accompaniment. And, it is even more difficult to imagine British voters rewarding it, especially at a time when our politics is already saturated with viral moments and attempts at forced authenticity.

As a tried and tested format SNL UK will hopefully raise the profile of young comedians, but is it going to be able to thread the needle of American spectacle and British cynicism? We’ll have to tune in to see.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

William Garbett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Saturday Night Live has thrived in the US for 50 years – but a British SNL faces an uphill battle – https://theconversation.com/saturday-night-live-has-thrived-in-the-us-for-50-years-but-a-british-snl-faces-an-uphill-battle-277286

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Moscrop, Primary Care Researcher, University of Oxford

British children are not getting shorter, despite claims to the contrary. In fact, they are getting taller.

But this is not good news. When my colleagues and I analysed national data on child height, we found that the trend is largely explained by rising childhood obesity and widening inequalities.

Claims that British children are becoming shorter than their European peers have circulated widely in recent years. These concerns were often linked to suggestions that poor diet and food insecurity were harming children’s growth. But when we examined the available data, we found that many of these claims relied on incomplete or misinterpreted evidence.

To understand what was really happening, we analysed height data from the child measurement programmes that operate across Britain. These programmes measure the height and weight of children in their first year of state school and again in their final year of primary education. In England alone, around 600,000 children aged four to five are measured each year. Children aged ten to 11 are also measured – another 600,000 pupils annually.

Together, these programmes create an unusually rich dataset. The annual measurement of more than a million children provides one of the most comprehensive sources of child growth data anywhere in the world. Using freedom of information requests and official releases, my colleagues and I obtained all available height data from these programmes.

The pandemic effect

When we analysed the data we found two surprising results.

First, child height increased dramatically during the COVID pandemic. At first we suspected this might be a quirk of the data. School closures disrupted measurement programmes, meaning children were often measured later than usual – and therefore at slightly older ages.

But even after correcting for the children’s ages at measurement, the increase remained. The rise in height during COVID was seen among boys and girls, across levels of deprivation and most ethnic groups and localities.

Average height of 11-year-olds in England

Why did child height increase during COVID? The answer appears to be obesity. Obesity causes hormonal changes that accelerate child growth, meaning that obese children often grow taller faster than their healthy-weight peers.

Lockdowns are already known to have led to a surge in childhood obesity. Our analysis suggests they also led to a surge in child height. Among girls aged 11 in England, average height increased from 146.6cm to 148cm between the 2019–20 and 2020–21 school years, while the proportion of overweight or obese children in this group rose from 35.2% to 40.9%.

The second surprising finding was that even before COVID, average child height in Britain had been gradually increasing. At first this appeared encouraging – particularly because the largest increases were seen among children living in deprived areas.

But again the explanation appears to be obesity.

In England’s most deprived areas, the average height of 11-year-old boys increased by 1.7cm – from 144.4cm to 146.1cm – between 2009–10 and 2023–24. Over the same period, the proportion of children who were overweight or obese increased from 37.7% to 43.3%.

Similar patterns can be seen in Scotland. Childhood obesity rates have increased in deprived areas while declining in more affluent ones, widening the health gap between them.

Height gains linked to childhood obesity do not signal better health. Obese children often enter puberty earlier and stop growing sooner, and they face increased risks of chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease later in life.

The role of inequality

These trends reflect deeper inequalities. While everyone’s access to outdoor spaces was restricted during the COVID lockdowns, poorer families face many other pressures that drive weight gain – and those don’t go away.

Children in deprived areas are more exposed to unhealthy food outlets and have fewer healthy food sources. They often have less access to safe outdoor spaces where they can play and exercise safely, and children’s services have been cut back – most severely in the areas that need them most.

British children may not be shrinking, but their growth is not good news.

Child height can no longer be assumed to signal good health. In Britain today, rising average height among children reflects rising childhood obesity and deepening inequality. If we want children to grow up healthy, we need to address child poverty, inequality and the environments children grow up in.

Andrew Moscrop does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. British children are getting taller – and obesity may be the cause – https://theconversation.com/british-children-are-getting-taller-and-obesity-may-be-the-cause-277917