Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonatan Pinkse, Professor of Sustainable Business, Centre for Sustainable Business, King’s College London

We extract more than 100 billion tonnes of raw materials from Earth each year, then throw most of them away. The “circular economy” offers a different approach: instead of the linear “take-make-waste” model, we could reuse, repair and recycle materials. But despite growing enthsiasm for a circular lifestyle, we’re actaully moving backwards – and using more virgin resources than ever.

Over the past decade, the idea of a circular economy gained significant traction, inspiring some to aim for a zero-waste lifestyle. It has become a cornerstone of the broader transition to net zero, as the production of oil-based plastics continues to generate waste and carbon emissions.

The reality paints a far less optimistic picture. According to the latest Circularity Gap report, the use of “secondary” materials like recycled plastic or reclaimed wood is declining, while reliance on virgin resources continues to rise.

This raises the question why – with all the enthusiasm for a circular economy – are we still struggling to make meaningful progress towards it?

In our recent research, my colleagues and I argue that progress is being held back by two distinct narratives. One paints a utopian vision – arguing that, with enough innovation, we can eliminate waste and regenerate ecosystems, all while continuing to grow the economy.

The opposite narrative is less hopeful and fixates on the obstacles – high costs, consumer resistance and the lack of government support. It concludes that meaningful change is simply unrealistic.

Trapped between these extremes of utopia and paralysis, people may often find themselves unable to move forward. Our research explores the roots of this impasse and identifies three reasons people struggle to adopt more circular lifestyles – too much talk, too little support and the hard limits of physics.

Beyond recycling

It’s easier to talk about circularity than to practise it. While consumers may embrace the idea of circularity in principle, they often stop short of making the fundamental changes to their consumption habits that it requires.

Part of the appeal lies in its simplicity as a concept. But achieving it is anything but simple.

For example, to jumpstart recycling in the UK plastics sector, the idea of One Bin to Rule Them All was introduced as a trial project in 2021. The framework outlined a single collection system for all plastic waste. While the vision was bold and appealing in its simplicity, research showed that many industry representatives viewed it as idealistic and disconnected from people’s daily realities.

The initiative struggled to gain traction due to concerns about its feasibility in practice. It would require changing the entire waste collection system and investing in digital tracking for plastic waste. Industry support remained limited, as companies were reluctant to invest beyond trials without clearer guidance from the government on legal requirements.

Building a circular economy requires collective effort. To offer another example, some fashion brands have begun to offer to collect clothes for recycling. It’s a promising initiative, but the support systems are not always in place. Even when items are returned, much of what is collected cannot be recycled because the materials are difficult to identify.

To make recycling effective, product labels would need to be standardised to state clearly the composition of each item. Yet many brands have been slow to embrace full transparency.

And some of the problem comes down to our changing shopping habits, which are also affecting efforts to reduce waste. When the UK introduced a 5p charge for single-use plastic bags in 2015 (later increased to a 10p minimum), their usage steadily declined.

But in England, this progress has recently reversed, with the shift blamed on more people shopping for groceries online or ordering food from delivery apps. In the push for convenience, people seem to have less support for initiatives to reduce plastic waste.

Ultimately, the limits of circularity are grounded in the laws of physics. The concept of a circular economy assumes that materials can be reused indefinitely without any degradation. Terms like “upcycling” may sound promising, but for many products this simply isn’t realistic.

Materials naturally degrade over time. While we might value an upcycled product for its vintage appeal, the underlying materials may be of lower technical quality. In other words, circularity faces a fundamental challenge. It’s possible to slow down material degradation, but it’s not possible to eliminate it.

While circular economy efforts often fall short, there are ways to move forward. The first lesson is simple – less talk, more action. Consumers shouldn’t just opt for recycled or refurbished products when it’s convenient. They should critically examine everything they use in daily life and look for products that are easier to repair, recycle or upgrade. Clearly, lots of people just don’t have this kind of knowledge, so support from government and industry in helping them make better purchases will be essential.

But people also need to be more realistic about what circularity can achieve. Even with the best intentions, items cannot be recycled indefinitely. Still, we can be more ambitious. There’s nothing wrong with starting small, as long as things keep moving in the right direction. Most people can do more than they think. Reusing, repairing and developing habits that gradually reduce waste can have a meaningful impact over time. Circularity isn’t about perfection, it’s about consistent progress.

Jonatan Pinkse 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 hard truth about the circular economy – real change will take more than refillable bottles – https://theconversation.com/the-hard-truth-about-the-circular-economy-real-change-will-take-more-than-refillable-bottles-261810

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amy Wilcockson, Research Assistant, Scottish Literature, University of Glasgow

More than two centuries after her death, Jane Austen is one of the most adapted authors of all time, her life and novels dramatised for film and television from every angle imaginable. Despite the plethora of Pride and Prejudice adaptations, Netflix is making its own version, starring Emma Corrin, Jack Lowden and Olivia Colman.

Sense and Sensibility is being rehashed too, with Daisy Edgar-Jones as Elinor Dashwood. On the small screen, the BBC released the hit documentary Jane Austen: Rise of a Genius alongside an adaptation of Gill Hornby’s novel Miss Austen that centres on Austen’s sister Cassandra (plus a forthcoming sequel). A dramatisation of Janice Hadlow’s novel The Other Bennet Sister which takes up the story of Mary, the dowdy younger sister of Lizzy, has also commenced filming.

Emma got a smart and entertaining do-over in 2020 starring Anya Taylor-Joy as the arrogant but well-meaning matchmaker. And of course Carrie Cracknell’s Persuasion got its Fleabag moment in 2022 starring Dakota Johnson as a wine-swigging heartbroken Anne Elliot whispering acerbic asides to the audience.

This article is part of a series commemorating the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. Despite having published only six books, she is one of the best-known authors in history. These articles explore the legacy and life of this incredible writer.

So far so good, say Austen fans, who rejoice in these continued adaptations as they celebrate the 250th anniversary of her birth this year. Yet it is the same stories being told.

Given the packed cinemas for the 20th anniversary screenings of the 2005 Pride and Prejudice film starring Keira Knightley as Lizzy, plus the enduring appeal of that wet-shirted Mr Darcy moment from the BBC series in 1995, it is clear this novel is Austen’s most enduring work. But do we need another adaptation? Or another “alternative” view of Austen or Lizzy Bennet’s lives?

I’m the first to admit that I’m an Austen fan. Her stories have timeless appeal. They focus on romance and class, alongside larger issues of the Regency period such as power, the role of women and even slavery – although the representation of slavery and empire in Austen’s work is long contested.

So what of the “forgotten”, less-adapted novels: Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park? These are the two of Austen’s novels that bring wider issues into focus. Why are film-makers happy to leave these stories be? Are their narratives less compelling or have we been brainwashed by Mr Darcy and his breeches?

Northanger Abbey was last adapted in 2007 for ITV, starring Felicity Jones as the heroine Catherine Morland. Its previous iteration premiered in 1987 with Katharine Schlesinger in the lead role. There has never been a film version.

Written in 1798-99, Northanger Abbey was not published until six months after Austen’s death in December 1817. It is a gothic pastiche, satirising the melodramatic plots and moody locations of popular novels at the time. It also offers a harsh criticism of the conventions of marriage, wealth and social status faced by young women.

Influenced by her sensational gothic reading material, Catherine Morland initially believes General Tilney, with whom she is staying, is guilty of killing his wife. While not a murderer, General Tilney does treat Catherine callously.

After learning that she is not a wealthy heiress, he declares her unsuitable to marry his son, Henry, turfs her out of Northanger Abbey, and leaves her facing a long journey home alone – a fate perilous to any proper young lady. Snobbishness and gender conventions combine as Austen ridicules class and social ambition.

Published in 1814, Mansfield Park was Austen’s third novel. Long considered to be the odd one out of Austen’s works, it was adapted as a TV series in 1983, with film versions released in 1999 and 2007.

In Mansfield Park, Austen examines bigger issues, including infidelity, gambling and most problematically of all, the fact that Sir Thomas Bertram (the uncle of the heroine Fanny Price) owns a plantation in Antigua.

Bringing up the slavery question

Fanny asks her uncle about the slave trade, but is ignored. By positioning a key character as a plantation owner, many scholars – myself included – argue that Austen was trying to draw attention to this debate in her novel. There is also plenty of circumstantial evidence that Mansfield Park is named for Lord Mansfield, a judge who played an important role in ending slavery in England.

Recent research examining Austen’s family demonstrates that three of her brothers were engaged in anti-slavery activism, her letters share that she was “much in love” with the abolitionist Thomas Clarkson, and some critics posit the view that Austen herself supported abolition. Mansfield Park and Emma both feature discussions on the slave trade.

At the very least, Austen was interested in questions of slavery and race. While it is impossible to definitively decipher her personal views from her literary works, it is clear that important issues such as slavery feature in her novels, albeit subtly.

Perhaps it is this serious and timely subject matter, so unlike the usual Austen narrative, that puts off film-makers. But Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park deserve their time in the limelight.

Rather than iterations of Austen’s afterlives or Lizzy’s family members, powerful and original adaptations of these two novels would invigorate new generations of readers and filmgoers. Who wouldn’t want to watch Greta Gerwig’s Northanger Abbey? It is a serious travesty that a film version has never been released.

Perhaps big studios simply haven’t got around to commissioning a new Northanger Abbey or Mansfield Park. But in doing so, they are neglecting a third of Austen’s published novels.

They represent Austen’s most nuanced works, focusing not just on romance (although both heroines get their happy endings) but on society’s wider issues. Crucially, they demonstrate that their author was not just a writer of fluffy romance, but an informed observer of politics and society and the structures that underpinned them.

Even more radically, film-makers could offer a different perspective by adapting one of her contemporaries’ novels – Austen was not the only female author writing during this period.

Scottish novelist Susan Ferrier admired Austen’s work, yet was a hugely successful author in her own right, outselling Austen in the 1800s. Any of her three novels – Marriage; The Inheritance; and Destiny, would be sure-fire Regency hits. Or Gothic pioneer Ann Radcliffe whose tale The Mysteries of Udolpho, one of the Gothic novels Catherine Morland so enjoys, is ripe for the big screen.

Audiences would perhaps see film versions of her fellow authors’ works as a way to honour Austen’s legacy too, offering viewers something familiar yet different.

Amy Wilcockson 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. Jane Austen: why are adaptations of Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey so rare? – https://theconversation.com/jane-austen-why-are-adaptations-of-mansfield-park-and-northanger-abbey-so-rare-262739

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol

Few viruses are as widespread – and sometimes misunderstood – as the human papillomavirus, or HPV. It’s so common that most of us – up to 80% – will encounter it at some point in our lives, often without even realising it. Understanding HPV matters, given that it is linked to several types of cancer.

Scientists have identified more than 200 types of HPV, making it one of the most diverse viral families known – and a complex one at that. Many strains are low risk, causing either no symptoms or benign warts. HPV types 1, 2 and 4, for instance, are responsible for the common skin wart. Many will have experienced these, including the familiar verruca (plantar wart) picked up at swimming pools.

Some strains, such as HPV 6 and 11, cause genital warts – small growths that appear on the genitals or around the anus. Treatments such as creams, surgical removal or freezing can get rid of the visible warts, but they don’t remove the virus itself. This means the virus can still be passed to sexual partners until the body’s immune system clears it.

Most seriously, certain types of HPV – particularly 16 and 18 – have known links to cancer. They belong to a group of about 14 high-risk strains that can enter human cells and damage their DNA. This damage interferes with the cells’ normal controls on growth and division, which can lead to the development of cancer.

Repeated or persistent infection with these strains increases the risk of developing cancer. So, too, does smoking, which reduces the ability of the immune system to clear the virus.

Because HPV comes in so many forms – from harmless skin warts to strains linked with cancer – it’s easy to see how myths and confusion can take hold. To separate fact from fiction, here are five key points that everyone should know about the virus.

1. HPV is not just associated with cervical cancer

While cervical cancer remains the most recognised HPV-related malignancy, the virus is also linked to cancers of the vulva, vagina, anus, penis, mouth and throat. Emerging evidence suggests some types may also contribute to developing skin cancer.

This broad cancer risk explains why the widely available HPV vaccine is recommended for both sexes. The vaccine’s ability to prevent HPV infection makes population-wide immunisation beneficial, as transmission may occur between heterosexual and homosexual partners alike.

2. You don’t need to have symptoms or genital warts to pass the virus on

HPV can remain on the skin for months before the immune system clears it, allowing transmission through contact even before genital warts appear and after they’ve been treated. This is why condoms should be used for at least three months after visible warts have resolved.

3. HPV transmission can occur from more than just vaginal or anal sex

Oral and throat cancers can develop following HPV infection acquired through oral sex. The incidence of mouth and throat cancer is increasing worldwide, with oral sex now the most significant behavioural risk factor. Using condoms during oral sex can help reduce this risk.

HPV can also spread through the use of sex toys. One study highlighted the ability of transmissible HPV to remain on sex toys and the need to develop proper hygiene practices for cleaning, and avoiding shared use.

4. Condoms are not 100% effective at preventing spread

Condoms can lower the risk of HPV transmission, but they can’t offer full protection, as uncovered skin can still carry the virus.

This is why many sexually active people will come into contact with a strain of the virus at some point in their lives, even when practising safe sex.

5. Even vaccinated women need to have smear tests

Current HPV vaccines target the main high-risk virus types but cannot cover all cancer-causing strains, or treat existing infections. In rarer cases, cervical cancer can also arise without HPV infection. This is why women aged 25 to 64 are still invited for cervical screening every five years, even after vaccination.

Women should also seek urgent medical review for other indicators of cervical cancer. These include pain or bleeding after sex, bleeding between periods or after menopause, and changes in vaginal discharge.

Even though the HPV vaccine is widely available, uptake has dropped in some areas. The COVID pandemic disrupted routine vaccination programmes, while misinformation about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness has shaken trust. In some places, low awareness of HPV’s link to different cancers – and of the need to vaccinate boys as well as girls – has also made public understanding more difficult.

The World Health Organization has set a target of fully vaccinating 90% of girls by age 15 by 2030. At present, only about 48% of girls worldwide are fully vaccinated, so there is more work to be done.

Although HPV is often harmless, the potential consequences of some strains are too significant to ignore. But no one should be fearful of an active sex life. For those eligible for the HPV vaccine, protection is not just for the individual, but also for future sexual partners who could otherwise be exposed. By staying informed and taking preventative measures, we can reduce the effect of this common virus and keep ourselves and others safer.

Dan Baumgardt 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. HPV: what you need to know about the common virus linked to cancer – https://theconversation.com/hpv-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-common-virus-linked-to-cancer-263678

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Holmes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Policing, Bangor University

The UK government is once again looking at the possibility of introducing identity cards, with the prime minister Keir Starmer announcing plans for a new scheme for all UK citizens.

The argument is familiar. With tougher ID systems, illegal immigration would be harder and the UK less appealing. But it also raises a familiar set of questions. How would such a scheme work? And what lessons are there to be learned from the last time the UK had ID cards?

Identity cards were compulsory during the second world war, but the system was scrapped in 1952 after growing unease about police powers and civil liberties.

Fifty years later, Tony Blair’s Labour government proposed new biometric ID cards backed by a national database. Ministers claimed they would help tackle terrorism, illegal immigration and identity theft while giving people secure access to public services.

At the time, terrorism, illegal immigration and identity theft were major concerns. The 9/11 bombers had avoided detection in the US, 23 illegal immigrants had died while cockle picking in Morecambe Bay in 2004 and people were increasingly falling victim to online fraud and identity theft.

In 2006 the Identity Cards Act was introduced. The scheme would introduce cards for citizens with new biometric security features and data stored on a national database. Eventually, whether you wanted a card or not, you could not function in UK society without one.

Some argued it would lead the UK to becoming a surveillance society. Protest groups warned of the risks, while Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes vowed to go to prison rather than accept the card and the power it gave the state.

In the end, the cards were never tested. The scheme collapsed in 2010, undone not by principle but by cost and a change of government.

2025 proposals

Rising public concern over illegal immigration has once again led to calls for solutions.

The UK government’s latest proposals follow a home affairs committee inquiry into digital IDs and electronic visas in June. It examined whether migrants should be required to use them to prove their status when applying for jobs. The argument being that with a tougher ID system, illegal immigrants would be deterred from attempting to enter the country.

The UK is already far more digitally monitored than it was 20 years ago. Biometric passports, digital driving licences and online identity checks are used as a matter of course.

In 2010, when the last ID card scheme was scrapped, public attitudes towards surveillance were generally favourable when used in public spaces. But monitoring in private spaces was not.

In 2025, attitudes towards surveillance vary depending on the type. There is now more concern around the mass surveillance of people’s online activities, for example.

Identity schemes are used in 142 countries around the world, 70 with electronic ID. Biometric technology has improved considerably over the past 20 years. More than 120 countries now use facial recognition in passport systems, while UK police forces have integrated the technology into their work.

The question is not whether cards can verify identity – they can. It’s whether they reduce crime or illegal immigration. That depends on how essential they become to everyday life. If an ID check is required for employment, housing and access to services, people without documents may be pushed into the margins, rather than required to leave the country.

In 2005, writer Arun Kundnani argued that ID cards risked becoming “exclusion cards”, creating a new underclass of people unable to access services legally but still present in the shadow economy. That would give organised crime networks even greater power over undocumented migrants, offering illegal routes into housing and work.

Another unresolved question is cost. The last scheme collapsed under the financial weight of setting up the infrastructure and issuing cards nationwide. With public finances tight, the government could find itself facing the same problem again.

Surveillance

There are also broader questions about trust. Academic Clive Norris, who has studied mass surveillance, has warned that constant monitoring encourages the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted: “If we are gathering data on people all the time on the basis that they may do something wrong, this is promoting a view that as citizens we cannot be trusted.”

Digital identity cards could bring benefits. For those entitled to live and work in the UK, they might make access to services simpler and faster. But the debate is about more than efficiency. It goes to the heart of how much oversight the state should have over everyday life, and whether a costly system would achieve its stated aims.

The last attempt at ID cards was sunk before it could be tested. Two decades on, the UK is more accustomed to digital surveillance and more anxious about immigration. The question is whether that makes this the right time for a second attempt – or whether the country risks repeating old mistakes.

Tim Holmes 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. Blair’s ID cards failed in the 2000s – could Starmer’s version fare better? – https://theconversation.com/blairs-id-cards-failed-in-the-2000s-could-starmers-version-fare-better-264517