Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura Elin Pigott, Senior Lecturer in Neurosciences and Neurorehabilitation, Course Leader in the College of Health and Life Sciences, London South Bank University

Beauty standards have always evolved, but in today’s social media age, they shift at lightning speed. From “clean girl” minimalism to the “quiet luxury” aesthetic, each new ideal promises perfection few can reach – fuelling comparison and self-doubt.

It isn’t just social media trends that fuel these feelings of inadequacy. Our brain also plays a role.

Neuroscience shows us the brain is hardwired to respond to beauty. Seeing an attractive face activates the brain’s reward and social circuits – releasing the feel-good hormone dopamine. This hormone is also released when we happen to live up to a specific beauty standard, making this feel biologically gratifying.

Read more:
Social media rewires young minds – here’s how

But this wiring also makes us vulnerable. Over time, the brain adapts to these ideals, treating them as the new normal. Our brains’ natural ability to change (plasticity), once an evolutionary advantage, is now exploited by a digital world that continually reshapes how we see ourselves.

Understanding this science offers hope, however. If our perceptions can be trained, they can also be retrained – allowing us to reclaim control over what beauty means.

Beauty baseline

Although we’re born with some preference for symmetrical or aesthetic features — cues the brain associates with health and genetic fitness — our sense of beauty is highly plastic. Neuroscience shows that what we find attractive is shaped by what we repeatedly see and learn to value.

This adaptability comes from the brain’s reward and learning systems, particularly the two areas known as the nucleus accumbens and orbitofrontal cortex, which constantly update their “templates” for what counts as rewarding or desirable.

Over time, repeated exposure to certain beauty ideals – such as pore-less skin or “heroin chic” bodies – can shift our perception of what’s normal or attractive. Psychologists call this the mere exposure effect: the more we see something, the more likely we are to like it.

For instance, in one study, people were found to rate faces as being more attractive after seeing them multiple times. Their brain activity confirmed this adaptation. With repetition, areas involved in reward and facial recognition became more active – and the brain’s electrical signals for attention and emotion grew stronger.

In other words, the brain was literally learning to find those faces more rewarding. This process helps explain how society can so quickly adjust to new beauty standards.

This flexibility means our “beauty baseline” – the internal benchmark for attractiveness – can easily shift in unhealthy directions. When our social media feeds are filled with idealised, edited images, our reward systems start favouring those cues.

A neuroimaging study found that people exposed to digitally enhanced faces subsequently showed weaker reward responses to real ones – and they felt less satisfied with their own appearance. This shift in the brain’s valuation system means beauty becomes less about reality and more about repetition.

Social media amplifies this effect. Algorithms feed us more of what captures our attention, creating a feedback loop of homogeneous beauty. This can increase body dissatisfaction and appearance anxiety, especially among teenage girls. Frequent use of beauty filters were also associated with growing appearance concerns and a skewed sense of what’s real.

Internalising such narrow beauty ideals can have serious mental health consequences – such as body dissatisfaction, anxiety, depression and disordered eating. This dissatisfaction can escalate into chronic stress, low self-esteem or social withdrawal.

Repeated comparison to idealised images may contribute to clinical conditions such as body dysmorphic disorder and anorexia nervosa. Appearance pressures can also drive chronic dieting, steroid use or compulsive grooming.

Perhaps most damaging is the shift from appearance being simply a part of our identity to now being strongly associated with our self-worth as a result of social media pressures. Constantly monitoring how you look has been strongly linked to anxiety and motivation for daily activities.

For many, the pressure to match unrealistic ideals becomes a daily mental health battle with a significant social toll, leading to social withdrawal and even affecting academic performance and professional confidence.

Building resilience

Understanding the neuroscience behind beauty perception can be empowering. By recognising how our brains respond to beauty and how they can be conditioned by our environment, we can take control to improve our self-image.

They key is that our brains are malleable. If repeated exposure to idealised images can train us to crave them, diverse and realistic images can re-train those same circuits in healthier directions. Curating our social media feeds to include different body types, ages and skin tones broadens what our brains recognise as beautiful, helping counteract the narrow ideals reinforced by algorithms.

It’s also important to recognise that seeing filtered images activates dopamine-rich reward centres. So it isn’t that these images are proof of superior beauty, but rather that they reinforce a neural reflex.

Building resilience also means shifting our reward focus. The same brain systems that respond to looks also light up for achievements, connection, creativity and kindness. Simple actions such as unfollowing toxic accounts, taking breaks from social media and practising positive self-talk have been shown to protect wellbeing and re-calibrate our reward systems.

Modern culture, driven by media and social platforms, has proven adept at manipulating our neural systems for profit and popularity. By exploiting our brains’ responsiveness to reward and social cues, these forces enforce narrow beauty ideals that can sink deeply into our psyche.

The science makes it clear: our brains respond to what they’re fed. Armed with this knowledge, we can become aware of the manipulation and choose to reclaim control over our own perceptions of beauty.

Laura Elin Pigott 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. How your brain keeps falling for the latest beauty fads – and what you can do about it – https://theconversation.com/how-your-brain-keeps-falling-for-the-latest-beauty-fads-and-what-you-can-do-about-it-267274

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sophie Heywood, Associate Professor in the Department of Language and Cultures, University of Reading

The buzz around the newly announced Children’s Booker has focused on its potential to “tell kids they matter”, as they get their own version of this prestigious literary prize. With children actually included in the judging process, the prize has the power to bring thousands more young people “into the wonderful world of reading,” in the words of children’s laureate Frank Cottrell-Boyce.

As Cottrell-Boyce noted in an article for The Guardian, since its inception the Booker has expanded the audience of writers who might have been overlooked. And, as he notes, it has more importantly broadened the horizons of readers – especially since the launch of the International Booker in 2005. The Children’s Booker will do much the same as it will explicitly include translated fiction.

The decision to include translated works represents a big step towards recognising the contribution that translation makes to children’s literature. Who could deny the importance of Swedish heroine Pippi Longstocking or the French fairy tale Cinderella? Or the role of Japanese manga in encouraging young people to read?

Welcoming translations gives the prize the potential to show that books from different cultures and written in languages other than English are a valuable part of the British children’s literary firmament. We hope that books in translation will regularly feature on the shortlist in the Children’s Booker prize in 2027 and beyond.

To celebrate this decision, we asked experts from Outside In World and World Kid Lit to help us put together a list of outstanding children’s books published in English translation since 2020. These are organisations, which have long campaigned to raise the profile of children’s books from across the globe.

Here is our top five list of translated literature for the Children’s Booker from the last five years.

1. Kiki’s Delivery Service (Puffin, 2020).

This Japanese classic by Eiko Kadano (first published in 1985) inspired the irresistible Studio Ghibli anime film of the same name.

English readers couldn’t enjoy the original stories until 2020, when it was published by Puffin in a brilliant, bewitching and often very funny translation by Emily Balistrieri.

Ghibli fans will find much to love in these adventures of a young witch setting out into the world with her cat, Jiji.

Recommended by Ruth Ahmedzai Kemp of World Kid Lit

2. The Táin: the Great Irish Battle Epic, written and translated from Irish by Alan Titley (Little Island 2023).

This historical adventure, beautifully illustrated by Eoin Coveney, is an action-packed retelling of Ireland’s most important myth, the story of the hero Cúchulainn and the Warrior Queen Maeve.

Nominated for the Yoto Carnegie Medal for Writing in 2024, this exciting tale is an example of how translations offer young English readers access to the other great literary languages of Great Britain and Ireland.

Recommended by Ruth Ahmedzai Kemp of World Kid Lit

3. Sword of Fire by Federico Ivanier, translated from the Spanish by Claire Storey (Puffin, 2025).

This lively fantasy adventure from Uruguay follows the journey of young heroine Martina Valiente as she battles the forces of Darkness in the fantastical world of Novrogod.

The first title from Latin America to be included in Puffin’s prestigious modern classics list, this work is a great introduction to the world of acclaimed Uruguayan children’s author Federico Ivanier.

Recommended by Emma Page of the Centre for Book Cultures and Publishing

Na Willa and the House in the Alley by Reda Gaudiamo, translated by poets Ikhda Ayuning Maharsi Degoul and Kate Wakeling, and illustrated by Cecillia Hidaya. (Emma Press, 2023)

This collection of mini-stories is based on Gaudiamo’s memories of her childhood in Indonesia, and centres on the feisty and inquisitive heroine Na Willa.

The book gives a real insight into the everyday things of Na Willa’s life, and its eye for fun details interests even reluctant readers, as this review detailing a nine-year old’s amused response to the story about eating milkfish eyes suggests.

Recommended by Deborah Halford of Outside in World

Akissi: Even More Tales of Mischief by Marguerite Abouet, translated by Marie Bédrune and Judith Taboy (Flying Eye, 2020).

The brightly-coloured mayhem of the Akissi series is a strong favourite on my university course in children’s books, and anyone with young readers at home will know how popular gross-out, laugh-out-loud graphic novels are with eight to 12-year-olds.

Marguerite Abouet’s stories are inspired by her own childhood in the Ivory Coast. Accompanied by Mathieu Sapin’s frenetic drawings, they offer a joyful, messy, real vision of African life.

As one student put it: “I loved this book – it reminded me of my family’s stories of life in Mauritius.”

Recommended by Sophie Heywood of the Centre for Book Cultures and Publishing

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.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Children’s Booker prize will include works of translation – here are five expert recommendations to get your kids excited – https://theconversation.com/the-childrens-booker-prize-will-include-works-of-translation-here-are-five-expert-recommendations-to-get-your-kids-excited-268694

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Singer, Professor of Refugee Law, School of Advanced Study, University of London

A convicted sex offender has been deported from Britain to Ethiopia after being accidentally released from prison. Following a national manhunt, home secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed that Hadush Kebatu – an asylum seeker who came to the UK without authorisation on a small boat – would be returned to his home country.

Kebatu was convicted in September of sexual offences against a woman and 14-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Mahmood announced she had “pulled every lever” to ensure his deportation. But shouldn’t it be easy for the government to deport someone who has committed a crime such as this?

Under UK law, the home secretary has a duty to pursue removal of foreign national offenders (FNOs). This includes “automatic” deportation of any foreign nationals who are sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment. They also have discretion to deport a foreign national (whether or not they have committed an offence) if they believe it “is conducive to the public good”.

But for several reasons, the UK has struggled to do this. In 2006, it was revealed that some 1,013 foreign national prisoners had been released without the Home Office considering deportation. This was a scandal that led to the resignation of then home secretary Charles Clarke.

Currently, the UK deports approximately 5,000 FNOs per year. There are currently 10,700 FNOs held in UK prisons, around 12% of the total prison population.

FNOs are considered for deportation on completion of their sentence or, increasingly (given the pressure on space in prisons), before they have served their full sentence. This may be under early release schemes or prisoner transfer arrangements with their home country.

In practice, deportations are often complicated by procedural issues. Removal can be prevented by lack of travel documents, and the Home Office may have to seek an emergency travel document from an individual’s embassy before they can be removed – a process which can be frustrated if the offender or their embassy refuses to cooperate or are slow in doing so.

Deportation arrangements

To address these issues, the UK now has 110 prisoner transfer agreements with other countries – most recently, Albania and the Philippines. Through these arrangements, offenders can partially serve their sentence in the UK, and then be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence in their home country.

There are two other schemes under which FNOs may be deported before serving their full sentences: early removal, and facilitated return schemes. Under these schemes, they do not serve the rest of their sentence in their home country.

Recent changes to the early removal scheme mean FNOs have to serve only 30% of their sentence (rather than 50%) before removal. The home secretary has indicated plans to reduce this to 0%, so offenders can be targeted for deportation as soon as they are sentenced.

The facilitated return scheme encourages voluntary removal. It “sweetens the deal” by providing the offender up to £1,500 to help them resettle in their home country, if they agree to withdraw any outstanding appeals or applications to stay in the UK.

There has been some criticism of the fact that Kebatu was given £500 after threatening to disrupt his deportation. Although his was a forced return, not part of voluntary removal, the Home Office argued this is still a smaller payment than would have been required to detain him and put him on a different flight.

In many cases, lack of coordination and administrative errors in the Home Office are the root cause of failed removals. Complications around booking flights, arranging escorts and other practicalities have all been found to prevent deportations.

Human rights concerns

Offenders may also appeal their deportations by arguing that removal would breach their right to private and family life, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

This is sometimes misreported as offering FNOs very broad protection against removal. For example, the wrongly reported case of an Albanian who resisted removal on the basis his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets, or Theresa May’s assertion that a foreign offender was able to stay in the UK because he had a pet cat. These attention-grabbing headlines often misrepresent the content of decisions and mischaracterise the role of human rights.

Read more:
How the UK could reform the European convention on human rights

In fact, the UK has a very strict interpretation of article 8, and decision-makers must balance the right against aims such as controlling immigration and public safety.

UK rules state that the public interest in removing foreign offenders will almost always outweigh any article 8 rights, except in the most exceptional cases. This may be, for example, if the person has lived in the UK for almost their whole life and would have real difficulty integrating in the country they would be removed to, or if removal would be “unduly harsh” on their (UK citizen) child or long-term partner. FNOs sentenced to four or more years in prison must show “very compelling circumstances over and above” these exceptions.

Foreign nationals may also argue that their life will be at risk, that they will suffer inhuman or degrading treatment, unlawful detention, or an unfair trial on return to their home country.

In practice, this means the UK government cannot deport someone if there is a high risk they would face irreparable harm including persecution, torture, ill-treatment or other serious human rights violations. In some cases, this has been relied on to prevent deportation where there was a risk of abduction and torture at the hands of police, or to face trial where evidence obtained by torture would be used.

However, this is only applicable where there is real risk of very serious harm and will not apply in all, or even most, cases. British courts have ruled it is possible to return people even to countries in conflict, if there is a safe place in the country they could move to.

The most recent data shows that between 2008 and 2021, 11% of FNO appeals against deportation succeeded on human rights grounds. This is 3%-4% of the approximately 60,000 FNOs removed from the UK during this period.

Despite the exceptional nature of these human rights protections, the challenges they are perceived to pose to a state’s ability to control its borders mean they attract a disproportionate amount of political attention. In May this year, nine European states took the unprecedented step of issuing a letter to the European Court of Human Rights, calling for greater state powers in removing foreign criminals.

The UK justice secretary has followed suit, stating that the UK will pursue reform of the European convention.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Sarah Singer 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. Why is it so difficult for the UK to deport foreign criminals? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-difficult-for-the-uk-to-deport-foreign-criminals-268625

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joel Gray, Associate Dean, Sheffield Hallam University

There can be no doubt that any conversation about British girlbands of the last 30 years would be dominated by Spice Girls.

In whichever corner of the globe you are, they were the defacto pop force of the late 1990s – and their impact has been long-lasting. From Adele to Beyonce Knowles-Carter, many contemporary world-class artists cite them as an inspiration.

However, new BBC documentary series Girlbands Forever focuses on many other girlbands who have emerged in British pop music from the early ’90s (Eternal) to the present day (Little Mix). It takes a broadly chronological overview, charting their development, releases and eventual splits in almost forensic detail.

As both a girlband fan and researcher, I was, though, disappointed that it offers little discussion of the impact these artists have had on their fans. Also absent from discussion is the link to queer audiences – something many girlband members have made specific reference to themselves.

One celebratory theme that is strong throughout this three-episode series is diversity and sisterhood. Eternal, All Saints, Atomic Kitten, Sugababes and Little Mix were all made up of racially diverse singers. And as each girlband passed the baton to the next generation, both media and society seemed more and more at ease with this concept.

Other topics of discussion include changes in the media (from newspapers to gossip magazines to reality television to social media) and society more broadly (rave culture, “Cool Britannia” and changing governments). This grounds the girlband discussions in a wider context.

Particular attention is paid to Little Mix as the girlband who won TV talent show The X Factor in 2011 – yet no mention is made that Girls Aloud did it nearly ten years earlier, when they won Popstars The Rivals in 2002.

Indeed, the fact Girls Aloud are not mentioned at all in the series is a glaring omission. While Little Mix faced abuse from anonymous social media trolls and the Spice Girls were constantly targeted by ’90s tabloid newspapers, Girls Aloud were the defining girlband of the celebrity gossip magazine era in the mid-2000s. Experts such as author Michael Cragg have written about the band’s impact on pop culture, and fans are likely to be disappointed by their omission.

The absence of a band which produced superstar (and later X Factor judge) Cheryl Cole highlights another area which a future series could go into: the solo career struggles and successes of these girlband members. Cole had two solo no.1 albums, and joins Spice Girl Geri Halliwell as one the most successful British female artists of all time.

The success of girlbands has always nurtured rich careers in the entertainment industries for its individual members. Both Jade Thirlwall and Perrie Edwards of Little Mix had top-five albums in the same month recently. Spice Girl Mel B is an international TV icon, judging talent shows on multiple continents; Atomic Kitten Natasha Hamilton has established her own record label; and Eternal’s Louise Redknapp had a top-10 album in 2025.

Spice Girl Melanie C and the All Saints’ offshoot Appleton (composed of sisters Natalie and Nicole Appleton) have been seen in the studio this year, with projects rumoured for 2026.

There are also plentiful non-music projects to mention. Many girlband members go on to support charities and philanthropic causes. Halliwell recently received an honorary doctorate from my university, Sheffield Hallam, for her work advancing rights for women and children on projects with the United Nations and Royal Commonwealth Society for Literacy. And Mel B has received awards for raising awareness of domestic abuse.

But for every number-one record and charity ambassadorship role, there is a member who may have not had the same luck. All Saints star Melanie Blatt, for example, has taken on a “chef residency” at a London pub which, while no bad thing, feels rather different to filming television shows in LA, or the solo efforts of her Girls Aloud and Spice Girls peers.

In contrast to the documentary’s omissions, I am glad it spotlights the brilliance of Atomic Kitten stalwarts Jenny Frost and Natasha Hamilton, who were quintessential noughties pop stars and gay icons.

In lieu of much Spice Girls and Girls Aloud discussion, their energy and charisma brings a welcome feeling of personal nostalgia – and a reminder of why the world needs fantastic popstars. Their cheeky charm, which first won me over 25 years ago, still makes me smile today.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Joel Gray 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. Girlbands Forever: BBC documentary charts the highs and lows of British girl groups – with one glaring ommission – https://theconversation.com/girlbands-forever-bbc-documentary-charts-the-highs-and-lows-of-british-girl-groups-with-one-glaring-ommission-268677

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Heffron, PhD Candidate in Geography, Lancaster University

Sean Matthews, the Reform UK leader of Lincolnshire County Council, has said he’ll “lie down in front of bulldozers” to stop Britain’s largest solar farm being built in the county. He’s taking sides in a new rural culture war that pits green energy against the countryside’s traditional image of food and farming.

Reform’s opposition to renewables isn’t surprising. Fossil fuel interests have provided around 92% of the party’s funding according to research by DeSmog (when contacted by DeSmog, Reform did not comment on that finding). But solar farms have become a way for the party to mask these interests by presenting itself as a defender of farms, fields and “common sense” against what Matthews called the “nonsense” of net zero.

Meanwhile, the protest group Farmers to Action has urged supporters to “keep the land growing, not glowing”. Its leader, Justin Rogers, has called climate change “one of the biggest scams that has ever been told”, and the group now operates in lockstep with the Together Declaration, a rightwing campaign group with an explicit anti-net zero agenda.

Yet a recent protest organised by these groups in Liverpool, at the Labour Party conference, suggests there is limited enthusiasm in the farming community for these culture wars. While most of the speakers were farmers, very few working farmers showed up. (One of us, Tom, who has been to around 15 of these protests, was there in person and estimates about 50 out of around 300 people present were farmers.)

Those mobilising the culture wars are trying to turn localised rural resentments against solar panels into a wedge issue, and in the process win over rural voters to Reform as the party of anti-net zero. If Reform wins the election, it will seek to impede necessary renewable energy projects.

However, this conflicts with the majority of farmer sentiment, which shows they are concerned by climate change. So, while Reform UK is positioning itself as anti-climate, is the party, despite the rhetoric, actually anti-farmer?

‘You can’t eat electricity’

Research by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) found 80% of UK farmers are “concerned about the impact of climate change on their ability to make a living”, while 87% have experienced reduced productivity due to heatwaves, floods or other climate change-induced extreme weather.

For farmers, productivity isn’t just about profit – it’s a central pillar of what sociologists have called the “good farmer” identity. This is the idea that being a successful food producer is central to how many farmers see themselves and their role.

Since the second world war, agricultural innovations have largely been aimed at producing more food, as a way to improve domestic food security.

Now, in essence, they are being asked to shift their identity to embrace energy production along with food production. But planting fields with solar panels clashes with the productivity aspect of what it means to be a good farmer. The truism that “you can’t eat electricity”, as Farmers to Action put it, is trying to speak to this sentiment.

The accusation is that taking land out of production threatens food security. In fact, only around 0.5% of UK farmland needs to be converted to solar to achieve the government’s target figure.

At the same time, as the research by ECIU has found, the very productivity of farming is being threatened by climate change. This presents an apparent tension.

Without urgent climate action, British farms will continue to bear the costs and consequences. Environmentalists and climate activists might wish to take advantage of this tension between what farmers need and what Reform is offering. While Nigel Farage, Richard Tice and co shake their fists at the Sun, farmers suffer in the heat.

Corporate profits or community interest?

Many objections to large solar farms are driven by a sense of fairness. For example, a tenant farming family in Yorkshire is about to lose 110 acres of their best arable land – half their farm – to solar panels, without any compensation. This will have a devastating impact on their business – where they have lived and farmed for many decades.

For the landowner, the switch will probably be very lucrative, with energy companies reportedly offering rents as high as £1,000 per acre per year, on long-term contracts.

In this scenario, the landowner wins and the tenant loses, which goes against the principle of a just transition, the idea that those affected by the shift to net zero should not lose out. This is despite the prime minister, Keir Starmer, making a pre-election pledge that tenant farmers would be protected.

Effective green policy must ensure that green transitions benefit those doing the work or opposition will grow. Perhaps if the profits were recouped by local communities, not far-off corporations and large absentee landowners, nimbyism wouldn’t fester so easily.

There are fairer ways to deploy renewables, via initiatives which involve and benefit local communities. An example of this is Cwm Arian Renewable Energy, near to where one of us, Alex, lives. It has used the income from wind energy to support the local community in various ways, such as offering good employment, putting on community events and teaching land skills.

Read more:
Family farmers say their way of life is an impossible dream when ‘the bread of life is worth less than rusty metal’

Farmers, like the rest of society, are paying the price of high energy costs. Recent research has shown that wind energy alone has reduced British energy costs by at least £104 billion. Making clear that renewable energy developments can help with lowering energy bills could go some way to overcoming opposition.

Ultimately, farmers still want to farm and produce food. At the same time, agriculture must fit into broader green transitions. The challenge is to take on board the voices and concerns of farmers and see them as part of the transition – not treat them as obstacles to it. If not, there are plentiful voices on the right who are eager to offer them an alternative.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Tom Carter-Brookes receives funding from Leverhulme Trust.

Tom Carter-Brookes is a member of the Green Party.

Alex Heffron 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. ‘You can’t eat electricity’: how rural solar farms became Britain’s latest culture war – https://theconversation.com/you-cant-eat-electricity-how-rural-solar-farms-became-britains-latest-culture-war-268128