Concerns that Baltimore incident was a cyberattack

Less than a day after a huge cargo vessel crashed into the Francis Scott Bridge in Baltimore, severing a major artery and putting one of America's most important ports out of action, some have suggested the incident was the result of a deliberate cyber attack. Six people, who were working on the bridge at the time of the incident, have been declared missing presumed dead. Two others were rescued, one of them in serious condition and who is being treated in hospital.

But focus has now shifted to recovery and determining the cause of the crash.

Authorities have dismissed the notion of the incident being a terrorist attack, though the investigation only began late in the day on Tuesday 26th March, hours after the vessel had struck the bridge bringing the entire structure into the water.

Power issues

Video from a web streaming camera showed that prior to the impact, the cargo vessel appeared to lose and regain power several times. Thick smoke was also seen to issue from a funnel just moments before the ship hit the bridge.  

Twenty two crew, all said to be Indian nationals, according to WION, were on board at the time, though it is not known how many would have been active at the time given it was making sail soon after midnight.

Cyberattack theories

While it is of course possible that the crash was merely a catastrophic accident, it could have also been a deliberate cyber attack.

Mitags, a website focused on maritime risk management raises a number of key risks concerning cargo vessels. One particular aspect, key to this incident, concerns "Propulsion, Machinery & Power Control Systems" which could be vulnerable to cyber attacks. "Since electronic programs control the physical actions of the ship, they can fall victim to a cyber attack and threaten ship control," the website claims.

"Cybersecurity has never been more critical to the marine sector. We depend on electronics for everything from vessel navigation to maintenance, and their proper function is essential to protect crew and vessel safety."

"As maritime technology advances, electronic OT — Operational Technology — systems that physically control the ship are being integrated with IT — Information Technology — systems. As vessels update their systems to more advanced, electronically controlled components, they'll need to increase their vigilance because IT systems can be attacked and controlled by outside parties."

This does not prove that the Baltimore incident was a cyber attack. But it does at least suggest it as a possibility.

Online conspiracies

Journalist Laura Logan is adamant that the crash was a direct result of a cyberattack. "I don't believe in coincidences," she says, while pointing to the facts that - deliberate or not - the incident has severed a major route for hazardous materials, eg petroleum, chemicals etc., and will cause major disruption for months. The I-695, that was cut when the bridge collapsed, is an auxiliary route of the I-95, a conduit running some 3,096 km along the eastern seaboard.

The closure, which could run into many months, if not years, will seriously affect the estimated 35,000 vehicles that traversed the bridge every day. Commercial vehicles carrying materials that are prohibited in the tunnel crossings, including recreation vehicles carrying propane, will now have to plan on using the I-695 (Baltimore Beltway) between Essex and Glen Burnie. This will add significant driving time [CBS]. There will also be significant disruption to shipping as other ports are forced to take up the slack.

There are around six cargo vessels that are stuck in the Baltimore harbour, as well as a number of navy ships and dozens of smaller vessels. But the knock on effect of the tragedy that occurred on the 26th March could be disruptive and costly.

Such issues were raised by Logan in a discussion with Steve Bannon on America's Voice  a right-wing to far-right streaming, cable and satellite television channel [Wikipedia].

Logan is seen as controversial for her backing a number of conspiracy theories, and Bannon too has been much criticised for his right wing political leaning. Well known conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has also speculated the ship was struck by a cyber attack.

And such theories have flooded the Internet concerning the collision [Newsweek].

While the White House has dismissed such theories, a cyberattack should not be immediately dismissed even if it is mostly being promoted by well known conspiracy theorists.

Past cyber attacks

Cyber attacks against shipping have occurred before. In fact the US military were last month reported to have launched a cyber attack on an Iranian ship according to NBC [YouTube].

The report claims an Iranian military ship that had been collecting intelligence on cargo vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, was targeted.

And according to Cydome, an Israeli startup which develops maritime cybersecurity solutions, cyber attacks have been targeted at a number of ships over the last few months [Cydome].

In fact according to Cydome maritime cyber attacks are on the rise with one said to occur every three days on average.

Previous reports have also highlighted the risk. While most cyber attacks have tended to be ransomware demands some are far more worrisome.

Ships at sea are susceptible to cyberattacks. Modern navigation relies on positioning systems, which has led to fears of jamming or altering location coordinates. An activity called spoofing refers to sending false data to navigation systems. In 2013, a test verified the possibility of spoofing a cruise ship's navigation system [Psiaki M. L. and Humphreys T. E. (2016) Protecting 'PS From Spoofers Is Critical to the Future of Navigation]. Two alleged but unconfirmed incidents, both involving a large number of vessels, have occurred; in 2016 near South Korea, and in June 2017 in the Black Sea.

In two other incidents, serious hacker involvement is suspected. In 2010, an oil rig on a voyage from Korea to South America suffered a delay of 19 days due to a system shutdown off the coast of Africa [Kaspersky Lab (2015) Maritime industry is easy meat for cyber criminals / Reuters].

And in February 2017, a German containership reportedly lost control of its navigation systems for 10 hours while sailing from Cyprus to Djibouti [KIISKI - PDF].

Spoofing & hacking

A spoofer's ability to overtake aeroplanes or ships to induce a crash might be something akin to a James Bond plot - see for example Tomorrow New Dies - but it is fast becoming a reality [Spectrum].

The Baltimore incident comes within days of reports that the Chinese have launched a series of serious hacking attacks against both the US and UK, something China denies [Guardian / BBC]..

But the coincidence of timing may not be lost on some.

Investigation

It has been reported that the 'black box' has been recovered from the Singaporean registered Dali cargo vessel.

It may be that the official explanation will be something mundane as a technical fault. But this will not likely silence the theories circulating online [Daily Mail].

Whatever the cause, it will take some time to clear the channel. The salvage might take several weeks. But as for replacing the bridge, that could take years. The original bridge took five years to construct in the early 1970s.

Accident or attack, the effects of the incident will last for some time to come.


tvnewswatch, London, UK

Royal family in turmoil amidst rumours & conspiracy theories

If reports seen across the pond are to be believed, the house of Windsor could be at an end. There are growing concerns not only for King Charles III, but also his wife Queen Camilla and his daughter in law Catherine, the Princess of Wales. Information concerning the Royals is difficult to substantiate, nut the secrecy surrounding the family and recent bizarre press releases from the palace have only helped fuel rumours and conspiracy theories.

The ailing King

In recent weeks, US tabloids, amongst a number of other international media outlets, have reported that the King's health is far more serious than has been reported to the British public. British newspapers have thus far only reported the official line that the monarch is suffering from prostate problems and a 'form of cancer'.

However, the National Enquirer is amongst a number of publications that have reported that the King has pancreatic cancer and less than six months to live.

Whilst first reported in the Enquirer, the story has been picked up by a number of other publications, though the news has been largely hidden from the British public.

Internet searches in the UK fail to bring forth links to such sites but if using a VPN - which circumvents country restrictions - the same searches result in dozens of links leading to the concerning reports about the British monarch [BoingBoing / Magzter / The News pk / BTimes].

The National Enquirer's report could be easily dismissed given its history as being a sensationalist supermarket tabloid magazine. But it has often been right about its claims though it has also had to settle various lawsuits [Wikipedia].

Even if one dismisses the headlines concerning the type of cancer and the seriousness of the King's condition there are little reported nuggets of truth within the National Enquirer's reporting. The publication states that Dr Michael Dixon, known for his strong beliefs in homoeopathy and faith healing, is overseeing Charles' treatment [Guardian].

The National Enquirer's sensationalist report came just 20 days after it was announced King Charles had been diagnosed with "a form of cancer" which had prompted many news stations to flip to saturation coverage of the news for several hours despite few facts being known.

That announcement on the 5th of February came at the same time that Kate Middleton had also been admitted to hospital for unspecified 'abdominal surgery'.

Secrecy fuels conspiracies

The secrecy, vagueness and the warning off of press photographers by Kensington Palace as they camped outside the hospital where she was being treated, has only fuelled speculation, rumours and conspiracy theories.

As a high profile royal, Kate Middleton's admission to hospital was bound to draw much media attention. As such dozens of press photographers gathered daily outside the clinic where she was being treated. But, in what was seen by many members of the press as unwarranted control, representatives from Kensington Palace demanded to see press passes and later issued a warning to the major agencies that they would be dropped from future royal rotas should they not leave. This despite the media gathering being situated in a public space.

"Sadly, despite us sharing the wishes of the Prince and Princess that they'd like privacy at this time, yesterday we saw a significant number of photographers stationed outside the hospital. I have spoken directly to the respective photography agencies and picture editors of those present and reminded them if they continue to be there they will not be accredited by Kensington Palace for the foreseeable future. I'll allow those of you who did have photographers down there yesterday, to pick that up with your picture editors. However, in the knowledge my plea will fall of deaf ears and in the spirit of openness I always employ – and again, not for reporting but for guidance only, the Wales children will not be visiting The London Clinic this weekend, so I strongly discourage anyone from stationing themselves there." the full statement said.

As a result many agency photographers were withdrawn leaving only freelancers and the so-called paparazzi.

Where's Kate?

That was in the third week of January and until March there had been no sighting of the future Queen. Then a photograph emerged purporting to be Kate Middleton sitting in the passenger seat of an Audi being driven from Windsor alongside her mother. The picture, distributed by the photo agency Backgrid was extremely grainy which appeared to have been added in post-production given the emergence of a clear picture just hours later.

The picture only fuelled further speculation. The woman seemed to be of fuller face than Kate and the clear frame appeared not to show Kate's distinctive mole above her right lip. The fact that she was wearing larger dark shades created speculation amongst some that the person was in fact her sister Pippa.

The picture however was hidden from the eyes of the British public with only a few news outlets even reporting on the claim that the Princess of Wales was seen in public for the first time since her operation. Indeed the picture was only used in foreign publications, most notably the American tabloids [TMZ / HarpersBizaar / TimesNowNews /  LTN].

Mother's Day fiasco

Moving on just a week and the waters were further muddied after Kensington Palace released a picture of Kate and the three children on Mother's Day. Several major agencies that were distributing the photograph soon withdrew the picture and issued a kill notice saying that the picture had been digitally manipulated [BBC].

There was no immediate statement forthcoming from Kensington Palace, resulting in conspiracies and rumours becoming even more out of control. What, if anything were they, 'the firm', trying to hide? Then around twelve hours after the picture was killed by PA, AFP, Reuters and Getty, a statement was released via Twitter. "Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother's Day. C" However, occasionally experimenting with editing does not explain the strange anomalies that appear in the photograph particularly with the hands of the children such as contorted hands and a missing thumb as well as inexplicable blurring or smearing of certain parts of the photograph.

The photograph released on Mother's Day in the UK was clearly manipulated with sometimes inexplicable photoshop techniques. There have been more questions than answers concerning the release of the photograph fueling a plethora of conspiracy theories. While some are clearly outlandish and easily dismissed others are less easily explained. One theory swirling on social media platforms suggested that the picture was a composite including the pasting of Kate's head from a 2016 cover of Vogue which bears a striking similarity to that in the controversial Mother's Day picture [Daily Mail].

Following the publication of the photograph, press photographers captured what was reported to be Kate leaving the Windsor estate, sitting in the back of a vehicle with Prince William as he headed for a Commonwealth service at Westminster Abbey. Yet given her face is turned away from the camera there are many who are still unconvinced it was even her. There was also no clue as to where she was supposedly headed with no statement forthcoming from Kensington Palace.

Grim US reports

US tabloids have already painted a dark picture, suggesting everything from a possible cancer diagnosis to eating disorders and even suggesting domestic violence within the family.

Of course, these reports are based solely on unofficial leaks and rumours. But Kensington Palace is doing nothing to allay these reports. Moreover, their secretive and clumsy media management has only fuelled the fire.

Further confusion has been sown after Kate Middleton's name was removed from an event on 8th June 8, soon after the British army announced she would attend.

Discounting the controversial Mother's Day picture and the two paparazzi pictures, Kate Middleton hasn't been seen in public since Christmas 2023, and Kensington Palace had not released any photos or videos of her until Sunday 10th March.

Firestorm

Her absence has caused a social-media firestorm as royal watchers questioned her whereabouts and condition online. However, the palace said she was doing well as recently as 29th February.

Outside of social media, the mainstream media, especially in the US, are having a field day with the issue surrounding Kate Middleton's whereabouts.

The Daily Show makes light of the recent photoshopped picture and Kate's taking responsibility for the mistakes [Twitter / YouTube]. Meanwhile Stephen Colbert also made fun of the situation and joked about a rumoured affair between Prince William and Sarah Rose Cholmondeley, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley [Twitter] something that has been little reported in the UK [MSN].

If the stories in the US tabloids are to be believed, the Royal family is all but finished. According to the National Enquirer and The Globe, Camilla faces a possible double mastectomy due to cancer, Kate has a whole number of health issues and may even divorce the future King. And William's coronation may well be sooner than expected with plans reportedly being made for a state funeral for the current monarch, King Charles III.

Sources 'familiar with the situation' say that major picture agencies are already making plans for a state funeral later this year, tvnewswatch was learned.

More bad news ahead

Meanwhile, there may be further bad news in the coming months for the Royal family. There are several royals that are well into their 80s and 90s. As such it is only a matter of time before the likes of the Duke of Gloucester, 79, Princess Alexandra, 87, the first cousin of the late Queen, her brothers Prince Michael of Kent, 81, and the Duke of Kent, 88, as well as the Duchess of Kent, 91, pass on.

The furore concerning Prince Andrew has yet to be laid to rest [Sky News] although he has been more visible in recent months with suggestions he has been repositioning himself within the royal family [Daily Mail].  

Tragedy has already struck in recent weeks with Pippa Middleton's ex-boyfriend, Thomas Kingston being found dead at his parent's home in Cotswolds Village in England, on 25th February. Kingston, 45, was apparently found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, though Internet conspiracy theories abound suggesting foul play.

A private funeral was held, away from the glare of cameras, with only a select few in attendance, amongst them the Prince of Wales, the Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra alongside Lady Gabriella and Mr Kingston's family [BBC / Sky News].

Whatever the truth is concerning the King's health, that of Queen Camilla, Kate's health and whereabouts as well as the state of the relationship between her and the future King, Prince William, the public are certainly questioning the honesty and future of the Royal Family.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Hard cheese for the UK dairy industry

In the lead up to the EU referendum, those who promoted Brexit promised that Britain would see to opening up new markets and new opportunities beyond the EU.

However, nearly nine years after that fateful vote and two years after Britain officially left the block after delays in negotiating a deal with the EU, Britain has failed to make any meaningful free trade agreements with any country outside the bloc and those it has managed to secure pale into insignificance compared to what was offered through being an EU member state.

A particular case in point is the trade deal made with Australia which, even according to former environment secretary George Eustace, has left worse off. Eustice, who helped secure the first post-Brexit deal negotiated from scratch, told a Commons debate that it was "not actually a very good deal for the UK" [Guardian / BBC].

The deal was even mocked on Australian breakfast television.

The deal removes tariffs on £4.3bn of exports, making it cheaper to sell iconic products like cars, Scotch whisky and ceramics into Australia, according to the UK government which called the agreement  'historic'. However, the deal was only forecast to raise Britain's GDP by 0.08% by 2035 [Guardian].   

In the northern hemisphere Britain has failed to make any inroads in terms of making deals. Despite a 'special relationship' with the US, a free trade deal seems as elusive as ever.

The same is true of Canada, a commonwealth country with Britain expected to reestablish stronger ties.

But despite nearly two years of negotiations everything fell flat in January leaving Britain worse off than had it remained part of the EU.

Canada had been pushing for the UK to relax a ban on hormone-treated beef, which its producers say in effect shuts them out of the British market [BBC].

However, the same meat products remain banned in the EU despite having a trade agreement with Canada known as CETA or Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

Britain previously traded under these rules but having left the EU had to negotiate its own agreement.

Under CETA there exists a tariff rate quota of 16,000,000 kilograms for EU cheeses with the likes of France, Italy and the Netherlands benefitting substantially. But after the 1st January 2024 Britain fell out of this arrangement and with no separate deal in place it could prove disastrous for the UK dairy industry.

From the 1st January 2024, for UK cheese to be eligible for export under Canada's WTO quota, UK exporters need to ensure the Canadian importer they are partnering with has access to an import licence for the 'non-EU sources reserve'.  

If UK exporters do not have this, any cheese products they export to Canada will be subject to the full tariffs which amount to 245% [UK Gov].

This could mean tougher trading terms for the UK with a partner that accounted for 1.4% of its total trade in the 12 months to June 2023.

The UK exported over two million kilograms of cheese to Canada in 2022. And a massive slice of that are Coombe Castle products. "Essentially, we're going to fall off the edge of a cliff at the end of this year," Darren Larvin, the managing director of Coombe Castle International, was quoted as saying by CBC last December.

Prior to January 2024 a 320 gram pack of Coombe Castle cheese cost Ca$12.99 [around £7.60]. With a 245% mark up this would push the price up to some Ca$31.82 [£18.65].

Goods trade between the two countries was worth £19.2bn in 2020, according to the UK government, with UK imports from Canada worth £7.3bn and UK exports to Canada worth £11.8bn.

And while overall UK cheese exports to Canada are relatively small, it is nonetheless significant. British cheese exports to Canada were worth £18.7m - or 2.4% of total cheese exports - in 2022, according to the Food and Drink Federation (FDF). That translates to Canada importing a little more than two million kilograms of cheese from the UK (its fifth largest supplier), international trade data indicates [BBC].

For some firms the loss of this market could be devastating with some being forced to reduce production and staff. The longer the situation continues the more difficult it will be to reestablish trade links.

Boris Johnson had sold Brexit with priceless opportunities such as being able to sell "more affordable high-quality cheese to Canada" [Daily Mail]. But instead the lies and failed promises have left a sour taste and left many cheese makers cheesed off [Guardian].

But it's no joke for the estimated 7,845 people employed in the British butter & cheese industry. A 2.5% loss in trade with Canada could potentially result in job losses. And while it might be a simplification to say the industry could see a similar cut in jobs, this could translate into around 200 job losses. For firms such as Coombe Castle, which send around a third of its products to Canada, it's an existential crisis.

Overall Britain's cheese exports have shrunk in the last year, decreasing by £-4.11M (-5.65%) from £72.7M to £68.6M [OEC]. The collapse of a potential trade deal with Canada will do nothing to boost confidence.

And it's not just cheese either. The breakdown in talks mean British car firms could also face higher tariffs. It will also mean Britain will miss out on opportunities to secure better terms for digital trade, which makes up four-fifths of the UK's services exports to Canada.

"This was supposed to be done quite quickly because it was just an upgrade of an existing deal," says William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce. "But in the end, it has taken two years to achieve nothing." [Telegraph]

Once again, Britain has found that Brexit was not quite the land of open opportunities, unicorns and sunny uplands that was sold to the British public.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Brexit likely to hit Britain hard in coming days

The pain of Brexit has been a long burn with various transitions coming into effect over time. Should the consequential rules have come into effect the moment the UK left the EU, many people would have realised that Brexit was a mistake. However, the average UK citizen has not seen the direct effects because many of the consequences of becoming a third country have only been implemented over time.

Passport checks & queues

Already one has seen the effects of increased passport checks at borders. As a third country British citizens can only stay in the EU for up to 90 days in any 180-day period. Thus all UK passports need to be checked and stamped at entry and exit points. This has resulted in delays at airports and ports. The port of Dover has been particularly badly hit, especially at busy times, with massive queues and delays being experienced by holiday makers. But freight has been even more hard hit with parts of the A20 into Dover becoming an almost daily lorry park with queues sometimes exceeding 20 km.

Some customs checks have already been implemented meaning checks on lorries travelling to and from the EU. But this week sees the introduction of new government policy on the control of EU produce entering the UK, with firms fearing delays, rising costs and the ability of border posts to cope [BBC]. 

Red tape

UK food and farm exports to the EU have required extra red tape, checks and delays for two years, but their competitors on the continent have enjoyed unfettered access to the UK. As of Wednesday, four years on from Brexit day, new rules come into effect meaning  changes for food and plant product imports from the European Union.

In short it means extra, costly paperwork. This will mean further checks on both sides of the channel. This will likely mean further delays in shipping goods between the EU and UK. This in turn may lead to some exporters giving up on the UK as it becomes unviable. For larger exporters, costs may be swallowed up, but for smaller exporters the increased costs and delays may result in them giving up on the UK altogether.

Post-Brexit requirements mean that nurseries now have to secure phytosanitary certificates – health checks – before plants can be shipped, costing tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds each year and sometimes adding a week to delivery times.  In April, many animal and plant products coming from mainland Europe will also have to undergo physical checks at newly installed UK border posts.

From Wednesday, all imported plant and animal products will be categorised as low, medium or high risk. Those seen as medium and high, which includes meat and dairy products, as well as most plants, will now require checks from plant health inspectors or vets before they can be transported.

While the new rules bring a level playing field to both those exporting to the EU and those exporting from the EU into the UK, the change will hit UK consumers hard.

Until now the main effect on exporting requirements has little affected most Britons.

While there have been delays and disruptions to supply chains resulting in some shortages seen in supermarkets, the biggest effect of post-Brexit rules thus far has only affected UK exporters.

The main physical manifestation has been the long queues of lorries seen on the A20 near Dover. But the delays and extra paperwork has also resulted in many smaller UK firms giving up on the EU market.

Cost to business

There are countless tales of firms either going bust or downsizing due to EU exports becoming more difficult or too costly. In August last year the Guardian reported that at least 100 firms had gone to the wall because of post-Brexit red-tape [Guardian].

In May last year it was reported that UK fruit exports to the EU had dropped by more than half since Brexit [Guardian].  

While the pandemic certainly had some effect, it seems clear that Brexit was a compounding factor. Indeed figures published in June showed that Britain was lagging behind all G7 countries [Guardian].

As a third country Britain's fishing industry was immediately hit by Brexit following the transition. The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) came into force in January 2021 and overnight hit mussel farmers and those exporting bivalve molluscs. Most bivalve molluscs, such as mussels and oysters, that have not been purified before export are essentially banned from the EU. This has impacted UK exports which were exempt when the UK was part of the EU.

However, the EU bans the import of live bivalve molluscs from third countries. One of the biggest markets for UK producers of mussels and oysters was France. But the ban resulted in making the farming of these molluscs unsustainable.

Britain represents only a small percentage of the mollusc market for UK producers. Thus, with much of their market essentially closed off, many of these firms have gone out of business [TheFishSite / Guardian]. 

Moules mariniére has been off the menu for Britons for some time now as live mussels have become as rare as hens teeth in supermarkets across the country. There are a few that stock pre packed products, but as anyone who has prepared the dish from scratch, they pale compared to a freshly cooked dish.

Uncertain future

UK producers have already said that the new rules that come into effect this week are impossible to plan for [Guardian].

And with further changes and checks expected to come into force in October, Britain could see some very dark times ahead.

While overall inflation has dropped to around 4%, food inflation remains high at 8% according to the ONS.

Further disruptions to the supply of food from Europe is only likely to impact prices.

Food industry bodies in Europe and the UK are already warning of impending supply chain disruption as Britain introduces new border bureaucracy on EU food and drink and imports for the first time since Brexit according to the Financial Times.

The introduction of complex paperwork to certify all EU products of plant and animal origin entering the UK from 31st January risks fouling up the supply of a number of products, including pork and sugared liquid eggs used in cake and sauces.

But it's not just a few specific food items. The new checks apply to a wide range of imports. In the last week the Independent reported that specialist meats such as Parma hams and Spanish chorizo sausages could begin disappearing from the shelves of UK supermarkets and delicatessens.

Shortages possible  

The Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from the EU by a fifth, some experts have suggested with the requirement for importers to give 24 hours' notice of deliveries described as 'unfeasible' by suppliers [Guardian].

Currently, suppliers in the EU do not need to notify the UK government before delivering meat and dairy products, meaning deliveries can arrive in the UK within hours of being dispatched from their farms or processing plants in the EU.

However, under new border rules coming into effect in April, the government requires importers to notify the UK authorities at least a day before they arrive at a border post, which businesses fear will add huge delays to deliveries of perishable goods.

For large businesses the extra red tape may be only a small part of the whole procedure. The costs involved may also be swallowed or spread across their business model as a whole. But for smaller EU exporters these extra costs could prove detrimental.

Rising costs and inflation

The extra costs will, of course, be passed on to UK buyers, supermarkets and ultimately consumers. Thus, the outcome will manifest itself with disrupted supply chains which in turn could well result in shortages on the shelves. In turn the price of goods from the EU could increase.

The costs of extra paperwork has already been estimated to result in a 0.2% increase in inflation over the next two years. The figure might sound small, but in a country where there is already a cost of living crisis with food inflation already the highest in Europe.

The overall price of food and non-alcoholic beverages rose around 26% between December 2022 and December 2023. In the 10 years prior to this, overall food and non-alcoholic beverage prices rose by 9%. Prices in restaurants and cafes rose by 7.7% in the year to December 2023, down from 8.2% in November [ONS]. 

In comparison, the cost of food in the European Union increased 5.87% in December of 2023 over the same month in the previous year. Food Inflation in the European Union averaged 3.63% from 1997 until 2023, reaching an all time high of 19.19% in March of 2023 and a record low of -1.20 percent in June of 2014 [Trading Economics]. 

It would be fair to say that Europe as a whole has experienced higher food prices. But Britain has been harder hit, arguably due to rules imposed by Brexit.

Annual inflation in the EU has been declining whilst food inflation remains high, hitting low-income families across Europe.

Inflation in the euro area has slowed down since its peak of 10.6% (11.5% in the EU) in October 2022 to 2.9% (3.6% in the EU) in October 2023.

However, food inflation remains stubbornly high as consumers continue to grapple with a cost of living crisis [Euronews].

But Britain has seen far greater inflation with few signs of recovery.

Opaque reporting

Unfortunately, there are few media outlets reporting any of this, bar a few reports in the FT, Guardian, Independent and BBC. BBC Newsnight, which has seen its audience drop significantly, did highlight the impending problems just two days before the second anniversary of Britain leaving with a 'deal' [Twitter]. But the warnings are still falling on deaf ears as the country heads towards a general election.

The Tories are still maintaining that there are benefits to having left the EU and proclaiming there are more opportunities to come. The Labour party meanwhile either refuse to discuss the topic or say they will 'make Brexit work'. Even the Liberal Democrats which famously released its 2019 manifesto with the slogan 'Bollocks to Brexit' has gone very quiet on the subject.

Without a doubt, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine has affected the UK economy, but it is Brexit that is the elephant in the room.

Collision course

Like a starship on a trajectory towards the sun someone must eventually make the decision to turn the ship around. The Tory's blind faith of remaining on course will only result in the starship burning up altogether. Labour's belief of simply altering course ever so slightly might just send the starship deeper into space never to be seen again.

Damage has already been done to starship Britain, but by returning to Earth the damage could be repaired.

False promises

Proponents of Brexit claimed that Britain could make deals with countries beyond the EU and forge new free trade deals. Yet all of the deals made thus far have been roll-on deals whilst negotiations to establish new free trade deals have all but broken down.

A much hoped for US free trade deal has been rejected out of hand by both the previous Trump administration and and the current Biden administration. And in the last week negotiations with Canada broke down but like many such stories was little reported [CNN / Guardian / BBC]. 

There was a slight glimmer of light some seven years after that fateful 2016 vote as the DUP in Northern Ireland eventually accepted a post-Brexit deal and agreed to return to Stormont to reestablish power sharing, with Sinn Féin set to nominate its inaugural first minister after Westminster legislated to end checks on goods moving within the UK and imposition of EU law [Guardian].

But while this is a significant shift in Northern Ireland which will surely bring some stability, the new checks to come to the rest of the UK concerning EU imports will bring more instability to an already ailing economy.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Qatar, the elephant in the room in war between Israel & Hamas

Qatar, in recent days, has been praised for helping broker a temporary ceasefire between Hamas and Israel which saw the release of dozens of hostages held by the terror group and over 100 Palestinians held by Israel.

While Qatar's position as a mediator cannot be disputed, the irony is that without Qatar's help Hamas might not even exist in the first place.

More than $1.8 billion has been supplied to Hamas, designated a terrorist organisation by a number of governments around the globe including the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed Qatar is a key financial backer and ally of the Palestinian militant organisation.

Hamas has controlled the Gaza Strip since 2007, repeatedly attacking Israel. Hamas was founded in the 1980s and has been opposed to the late Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since its inception. Unlike the PLO, Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Its emblem depicts the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and the outline of the territory of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank as a single Palestinian state.

In this regard, and especially since the 7th October terror attacks on Israel, Hamas is seen as an existential threat by Israel.

In 2006, Hamas won the absolute majority in Gaza's general elections. In 2007, it solidified its hold on the coastal enclave through a violent coup. Since then, the West Bank has been controlled by the moderate Fatah party under Mahmoud Abbas, while Gaza has remained under Hamas' control.

But it has cemented its control only through vast sums of money flowing from its allies, the biggest of which is Qatar.

Qatar, which has been pouring money into the region since at least 2009, has insisted the money is not to help Hamas but rather the Palestinian people as a whole. However, given Hamas controls everything from the health ministry to its own military machine, this is a naive statement at best.

Qatar's hosting of a number of Hamas leaders on its own territory also seems to show where the gulf state's allegiance lies.

Moreover, following the Hamas surprise attack on southern Israel on 7th October 2023, and the outbreak of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Qatar's hosting of the Hamas political office in Doha has come under greater scrutiny.

Speaking to the media in Doha alongside Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman al-Thani [pictured], US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, "there can be no more business as usual with Hamas."

But this call has largely fallen on deaf ears within the Qatari regime which continues to criticise Israel for what it calls a disproportionate military response to those attacks.

Putting aside Israel's response to the October terror attacks, and the large number of civilians that have been killed, Qatar too, has much to answer for.

So too have countries that have allowed Qatar to build its wealth within their territories.

If Qatar is responsible for funding a terror group, so too surely are nations complicit if they allow Qatar to raise funds on foreign soil.

Yet there appears to a blind eye turned when it comes to Qatar's business interests.

Much of this foreign investment is managed through the Qatar Investment Authority set up by Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani a member of the ruling Al Thani Qatari royal family. It is now headed by his son Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

Amongst its main holdings, the QIA have a number of key assets including Harrods as well as significant shares in a number of financial institutions and other companies.

The $1.8 billion reportedly given to Hamas is relatively insignificant compared to the billions invested in and made by the QIA as a whole. But nonetheless no-one has called out the financial links between Qatar and a designated terror group.

It is not only Hamas that Qatar is funding. Qatar has also been accused of indirectly funding other terrorist organisations of allowing terror financiers to operate from within Qatar.

Yet al Thani is welcomed by world leaders without a flinch of concern. Earlier this year the Qatar leader was greeted by the UK PM Rishi Sunak in Downing Street, yet there was no mention of financial ties to Hamas or the funding of terrorism. Indeed it was more focused on further financial deals with Qatar buying more UK assets [No.10]. And even this last week al Thani shook hands with Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Dubai at the beginning of COP28 where the main topic of discussion was rising global temperatures [Times of Israel].

India and China have been criticised for not doing enough to temper global climate change which has also been labelled an existential crisis.

But state sponsorship of terror groups is also a global threat. As such  al Thani and others like him need also to be called out for their complicity and funding of terror groups.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Stolen treasure - The Legacy of the British Empire

In the last week the subject of whether the Elgin marbles should be returned to Greece has once again entered the public discussion after the UK PM Rishi Sunak snubbed his Greek counterpart and cancelled a scheduled meeting [Guardian].

Greek claims

In many respects Greece has a valid claim on demanding the return of the Parthenon marbles, and Rishi Sunak's reaction could be regarded as petulant or petty. But where does one draw the line concerning what should be returned to their countries of origin?

What is property?

There has been much philosophical discussion concerning property and ownership throughout history. Proudhon famously suggested that "Property is theft" in his 1840 thesis La propriété, c'est le vol!   Of course it depends on one's position concerning the definition of what property is, as Marx asserted in his critique of Proudhon's thesis.

There are some who would assert that 'possession is nine tenths of the law' . It could be regarded as an oversimplified statement, but the principle is based on the tenet that the possession or property belongs to the person or body holding it unless evidence can be shown to prove otherwise.

So how does the evidence hold up concerning many treasures and artefacts sitting in private collections, museums or in the hands of the British state?

Theft, plunder and spoils of war

Since antiquity nations have taken their plunder after invasions or seizure of foreign lands. Such spoils of war were considered acceptable by many nations until relatively recently. But one might hope that in this age of modernity, nations could become more grown up and begin a process of repatriating the plunder secured through colonialism or war.

Some nations have indeed begun this process of repatriation. Japan, for example, has returned vast swathes of cultural items to South Korea that were plundered during its colonial occupation from 1910 to 1945.

But Britain stands out as being one country unwilling to revisit its colonialist past, make reparations and repatriate stolen items.

Britain's plunder

The Parthenon Marbles are known as the Elgin Marbles since it was Lord Elgin that had secured them from the Ottoman Empire, of which Greece was a part at the time. Greece has since become an independent state, and as such feels it has a legitimate right to call for their return.

The Greek government and supporters of the marbles' return to Greece have argued that they were obtained illegally or unethically, that they are of exceptional cultural importance to Greece, and that their cultural value would be best appreciated in a unified public display with the other major Parthenon antiquities in the Acropolis Museum. The UK government and British Museum have argued that they were obtained legally, that their return would set a precedent which could undermine the collections of the major museums of world culture, and that the British Museum's collection allows them to be better viewed in the context of other major ancient cultures and thus complements the perspective provided by the Acropolis Museum.

Supporters of the British position are partly correct that the Elgin Marbles return could set a precedent. But is it morally acceptable for Britain to hold on to its nefarious gains?

Narendra Modi of India has, for example, demanded the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond that has found its way into the crown jewels, specifically the state crown.

Nigeria has long called for the repatriation of the Benin bronzes that sit in the British Museum. And Egypt has demanded the return of artefacts plundered since the 18th century including the Rosetta Stone which also sits in the British Museum as well as other looted antiquities including a statue of Ramesses II.

In fact the British Museum is a building overflowing with stolen items or acquired by unethical methods. It would be true to say that the museum would be somewhat sparse should such items be returned. But should not a national museum represent its own culture rather than displaying stolen loot from around the globe?

Representing one's own culture

Museums in China, South Korea and even across parts of Europe are not so much filled with plundered treasures as historical artefacts from their own respective cultures.

British history might not be as culturally rich as some nations. But it has to be asked how Britain might feel should the position be reversed. What if Stonehenge sat in a foreign museum or prominent statues had been taken and now sat in a building half way round the globe.  

How would the British government feel about the Victoria memorial residing somewhere in China, and the palace nearby lay in ruins after being raised by invading Chinese troops? There would undoubtedly be ongoing consternation and anger as well as a demand for its return.

Yet the exact opposite is true. Initially constructed in 1707 the Old Summer Palace, or Yuanmingyuan, was destroyed by Anglo-French expeditionary forces and treasures, including the famous bronze zodiac heads, were looted partly under instruction of James Bruce, the 8th Earl of Elgin and son of the 7th Earl of Elgin who took the Elgin marbles.

While the looting and sacking of the Old Summer Palace was in retribution and a warning to the Qing Empire not to use kidnapping as a political tactic against Britain, it has to also be questioned why British and other foreign forces were even in China. This was a time when many European countries were colonising various parts of the world, enslaving indigenous people and plundering their lands of treasures. With regards China the British also brought chaos by supplying opium and creating a huge drug addiction problem in China, especially in the south near Canton, now Guangdong.

While China has recovered many of the bronze zodiac heads, including two returned from Britain, five remain unaccounted for. Speculation continues as to where the missing antiquities are.

Nearly a quarter of a century into the new millennium Britain in particular is in the sights of many countries demanding the return of their stolen treasure.

Maybe the British Museum might look a little sparse with only stone age, Saxon, Viking, Roman and later historical finds on display. But at least it would be a 'British' museum rather than it being a museum of stolen treasure.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Sky's "Unhinged" Botting criticised for anti-Israeli bias

Anna Botting, Sky News correspondent, has brought sharp criticism following her interview with Mark Regev, Senior Advisor to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, in the wake of an explosion at the Al-Ahli Baptist hospital in Gaza.

During the interview, Botting inferred that Israel was directly responsible and that Israel had gone too far in its response to the terror attacks on the 7th October 2023.

While there were comments on social media in support of Botting, there was a groundswell of criticism too.

"This is by the far the worst, most biased interview by a professed journalist I've ever seen," one Reddit user wrote, "Using Hamas as her news source, she acts as their mouthpiece in an interview of Mark Regev not designed to elicit facts but to demonize Israel. Kudos to Regev for keeping his cool and highlighting her obscene bias, double standards, and failure to comprehend Israel's right to self defense.

"The look in [the] eyes of the journalist is scary, like she is deranged" a comment said on YouTube where Sky News posted the full video.

"I appreciate that her job is to challenge the narrative and the interviewer, but she took it too far and lost her impartiality," another said, "It is not for her to agree or disagree with the interviewee (on camera and in public, she can agree with whomever she likes in private), but her job is to the ask difficult questions on our behalf that need to be asked when people are being killed."

Many described her as "unhinged", "angy" and "biased", having clearly made up her mind before facts had been established. "I bet she won't be that emotional and screech at any Hamas spokesman about the atrocities they committed," one Twitter user said. Others described her as a Hamas apologist [Twitter].

While it is true to say that many of the Israeli airstrikes in the week of bombardments have resulted in civilian casualties, it has to be said that such instances are 'collateral damage' and not intentional on Israel's part. Hamas on the other hand have been indiscriminate in launching terror attacks against Israel.

In the hours that followed it seemed clear that the tragedy at the hospital was not as a result of an Israeli airstrike. Still photographs showing the damage were not consistent with an Israeli missile with no visible crater on the ground and only minimal damage to the hospital itself.

Video evidence seemed to back up Israeli claims that the blast occurred after a missile fired from Gaza failed and fell short landing in the parking lot of the hospital and created a fireball. Israeli intelligence released an audio tape said to be of a telephone call between two Hamas operatives which appeared to indicate this was indeed the case and that the missile was one fired by Islamic Jihad from a nearby cemetery.

None of this was known shortly after the explosion had occurred. However, Botting clearly jumped the gun and went with the line issued by Palestinian sources that it was an Israeli airstrike. Moreover she, along with many other media outlets accepted the casualty count without question.

It is clear there were casualties at the hospital as a result of the explosion. But the numbers come from Palestinian authorities, that is Hamas, which has everything to gain by inflating those figures. The Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, has said 471 were killed, but it is difficult to verify the veracity of these numbers, though the figure is well below the 800 that the ministry claimed might die as a result of the 'strike'.

The following day Botting was still referring to the blast at the hospital as an "attack" and another Sky report referred to the incident as a "strike" which precipitated anger in Bierut and the West Bank.

Sky News was not the only channel jumping to conclusions. Al Jazeera and TRT as well as many Arabic news stations were all describing the incident as an Israeli strike soon after the explosion. This has all helped to fuel the fire in a region which has strong anti-Israeli sentiments. Not all outlets jumped to conclusions. The BBC, CNN and Fox News were all cautious in their language, describing the incident as a 'blast' or 'explosion' and clearly citing claims of it being an Israeli strike as being a claim made by Hamas.

On the streets off nearby Jordan crowds gathered Wednesday chanting "All of Jordan is with Hamas". And there has been unrest across the West Bank and in Lebanon.

"I can see Anna [Botting] getting some compulsory time off very soon..." one Twitter user wrote. Whether this happens will all depend on if she makes any more missteps.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Questions over Israeli response to Hamas attack

When Hamas launched its attack into Israel it wasn't just Israelis and Jews that became the target of their onslaught. Some six days on it has become clear that many other nationalities were killed, kidnapped or suffered injury. Victims included Chinese, Thai, British and American citizens, details of which are only just emerging. The attacks have been widely condemned with many saying Israel has a "right to defend itself". But Israel's response to the attacks has been criticised as one of retribution and revenge. With pictures emerging from Gaza showing the destruction from days of aerial bombardment Israel risks losing support and feeding propaganda which will act as a recruiting sergeant for extremists.

Hamas targets

While the vast majority of victims in the Hamas attack were Israeli or Jewish, other nationalities also became victims.

Three Chinese were killed in the Hamas terror attack according to the foreign affairs spokesperson Wang Wenbin who spoke in a press briefing on Thursday. "We can confirm that three Chinese nationals were killed in the clashes," he said "Two are missing and several are injured." [Newsweek]

Meanwhile 12 Thai workers were killed and 11 kidnapped with a further 13 injured according to the Thai foreign ministry [BBC]. A video posted on social media also appears to show Hamas terrorists beheading one of the Thai workers with a garden hoe while shouting 'Alah Akbar' [God is great]. The video has been disputed by some on social media and the veracity of it cannot be established.

Children are amongst 17 Britons killed in the assault carried out by Hamas on Saturday 7th October [BBC]. It is not known how many British citizens have been taken hostage although one 26-year-old has been reported as missing after the attack at the Re'im kibbutz.

Some 27 Americans have been reported killed with around 14 unaccounted for [Guardian / The Hill].

At least 1,200 were killed in the assault, around 300 reportedly IDF soldiers. Some 200 are believed held hostage by Hamas, their fate unknown. The youngest is said to be 9-months-old while the oldest is reported to be an 85-year-old grandmother. A further 3,400 were injured in the assault [Wikipedia].

Defence or revenge?

It is clear, for anyone with eyes, that the Hamas attack was indiscriminate. And while accounts of the debauchery and bestial nature of the attacks on women, children and babies have been disputed, the fact is Hamas clearly targeted civilians and killed them in cold blood.

However, Israel has lost the moral ground in many respects by initiating a large-scale air assault on the Gaza region.

It is well known that Hamas fighters embed themselves in civilian areas and as such any air assault would undoubtedly result in civilian casualties. Taking out water and electricity supplies, as well as preventing humanitarian supplies from entering the region, also leaves Israel open to criticism.

Netanyahu has said Israel's objective is to weed out and destroy Hamas once and for all. But by killing civilians and babies in large scale airstrikes may only give Hamas and similar groups fuel for their anti-Israeli propaganda.

Of course, Israel could not have sat down and done nothing. But perhaps a better solution would have been a ground offensive, backed up with air support. There would undoubtedly be IDF casualties in such an assault but Israel would have maintained the moral high ground in such a venture especially if run in tandem with placing displaced citizens in a safe area behind enemy lines as they moved south and provided them with humanitarian supplies. Following a full sweep of the territory, which would have likely taken many weeks, Israel could then have initiated either a peacekeeping operation giving way to UN peacekeepers overtime. A gradual withdrawal could then be made as the situation became stable. This would not happen overnight and would require establishment of moderate political leaders in the region who would be acceptable to, not only Israel, but also the population in the Gaza strip itself.

The current reality on the ground seems to be heading in a far different direction. Israel's military has called on civilians to leave Gaza city and head south in what has been widely perceived as a signal that a ground offensive is imminent. Hamas meanwhile have reportedly ordered citizens to remain in their homes. Even if free to leave, many would not have the means to escape. Few people would have vehicles and a journey on foot would be arduous even though the strip is only some 40 km long.

There is much speculation as to how intensive the ground assault will be. Some commentators say it will be fraught. Ben Wedeman, CNN's international correspondent, suggested it could be a "bloodbath".

Israel cannot sit back and do nothing, especially given the nature of the attack launched by Hamas on unarmed civilians. But its military response also needs to be measured and targeted or it may only serve to fuel the fire and feed Islamist propaganda.

As Mahatma Gandhi is often attributed as saying, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Hamas barbarism "worst since the Holocaust”

Netanyahu has called the atrocities left in the wake of the attack into Israeli territory on Saturday 7th October as being "the worst since the Holocaust".

The statement might sound exaggerated. But as details emerge it is clear that the Hamas assault was horrific beyond imagination.

In one incident, Hamas terrorists stormed into a music festival where people had gathered to have fun over the weekend. In the early hours of Saturday morning the peace was shattered at the Supernova music festival as Hamas gunmen fired indiscriminately. Survivors described the carnage that ensued.

One attendee at the festival said the first sign that something was wrong was when a siren went off at around dawn, warning of rockets. "Suddenly out of nowhere they [the terrorists] come inside with gunfire, opening fire in every direction," Ortel told Israel's Channel 12. 

"Fifty terrorists arrived in vans, dressed in military uniforms," she said, "They fired bursts, and we reached a point where everyone stopped their vehicles and started running. I went into a tree, a bush like this, and they just started spraying people. I saw masses of wounded people thrown around."

Parents received panicked phone calls from sons and daughters telling of the horror they were experiencing. For many it was the last they would hear from their children.

As the IDF arrived they found a slaughterhouse of more than 260 bodies strewn across the desert.

Further details emerged in the coming hours that some of the festival goers had suffered worse at the hans of the terrorists with reports that some women had been raped, murdered and then had their partially naked bodies paraded back through Gaza surrounded by jubilant crowds [Daily Mail]. 

Some of the reports cannot be entirely verified. However it is clear that Hamas terrorists were indiscriminate in their killing and brutalising of the innocent revellers [BBC].

Some were also taken into Gaza alive to be used as bargaining chips or as human shields.

Further atrocities were discovered at a Kibbutz in Kfar Aza where Hamas terrorists killed occupants including children and babies with reports from the IDF saying a number had been decapitated.

"It's hard to even explain exactly just the mass casualties that happened right here," visibly distraught i24 News correspondent Nicole Zedek said during a broadcast from Kibbutz Kfar Aza near Sderot about a quarter-mile from the Gaza Strip [Twitter].

"Babies with their heads cut off, that's what [the soldiers] said. Gunned down. Families gunned down, completely gunned down in their beds," Zedek said of the "sheer horror."

"This is nothing that anyone would have even imagined," she added. [i24 / CNN / NYPost / BBC].

Many have dismissed the veracity of the reports saying that the claims had not been confirmed by the Israeli authorities and were based only on a single i24 TV news report. However in the hours to come IDF and government officials later confirmed that children and babies had indeed been beheaded in the attack.

More than 150 are believed to have been taken hostage by Hamas, the youngest only 9 months old and the oldest believed to be an 85 year old grandmother. Amongst them are American citizens [AJC].

A day later and Israel began their onslaught against Gaza while tackling a few remaining pockets of terrorists still fighting on Israeli soil.

In the days that followed Gaza was bombarded with hundreds of missile strikes. The strikes have of course displaced thousands, left hundreds dead and destroyed a large number of buildings.

Israel has defended its course of action saying it is attempting to specifically target Hamas but that the terror group deliberately embed themselves amongst civilians.

Civilians have undoubtedly died in these strikes. Amongst them 11 UN aid relief workers, it was reported Tuesday.

It is the destruction in Gaza that Hamas and its protagonists are capitalising on, using the images to label Israel the aggressor and fueling the rhetoric.

But even before Israel had even launched its major counter offensive there were scenes of people celebrating the Hamas assault. As Sydney Opera House was lit up in the colours of the Israeli flag in solidarity, many pro-Palestinians gathered nearby chanting "Gas the Jews" [Reuters]. 

It wasn't the only example of anti-Semitism observed following the Hamas terror attack. Similar scenes were seen in Toronto, Canada [CBC]. In one demonstration a woman was seen screaming at Jews "Khaybar, Khaybar", a chant referring to the 7th century slaughter of over 100 Jews who refused to convert to Islam and often used as a Hamas war cry [Twitter / Wikipedia].

In London hundreds of pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered outside the Israeli embassy on Monday lighting flares and shouting "Free Palestine" and "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" a slogan commonly featured in pro-Palestinian campaigns and chanted at demonstrations.

It is expected that the IDF will soon move into Gaza on foot with tanks and artillery. The buildup of military hardware over three days seems to indicate it is imminent. The intention, from government statements, appears to be with an objective of illuminating Hamas in its entirety. This would require an entire sweep of the territory from the border to the sea.

It is unclear what the plan is. But what is clear is that the conflict has only just begun with risks of escalation all too real with Hezbollah already launching attacks from the north.
Israel's resolve nonetheless is crystal clear. Mark Regev, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Kingdom, told Sky News that "this war will finish on our terms."

tvnewswatch, London, UK

More pylons needed to get to ‘net zero’

How long before the NIMBYs and Just Stop Oil eco zealots suddenly focus on the rollout of electricity pylons? Well, to some extent the pushback has already started with the Environment Secretary, Therese Coffey, organising a petition against power cables being routed through Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex.

Yet the irony is that the electricity pylon rollout is needed if the UK wants to increase its reliance on so-called renewable energy and expand the use of electric vehicles.

JSO and other environmental groups have been pressuring the UK government and consumers to move to greener forms of energy and transport. But many have failed to address issues concerning how this transition might be achieved.

As discussed in a previous post, EVs while certainly less polluting in terms of direct emissions are not entirely green. Mining for Lithium, Cobalt and other minerals required for EV batteries is far from green. And it's debatable whether widespread EV use will significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.

Nonetheless, there is a definite push for motorists to shift to EVs with bans on diesel and petrol vehicles being manufactured after 2030.

Should such bans come into force it will mean only older, already manufactured internal combustion engine vehicles remaining on the road. While some such vehicles can last over twenty or thirty years, by 2050 there could conceivably be no traditional vehicles on the road apart from those kept by enthusiasts, collectors and museums.

With even hybrid manufacturing being stopped in 2035, the only way to stay on the road in some 15 years time will be to purchase an EV.


Putting aside issues concerning range anxiety and pollution related to their manufacture, and recycling old lithium batteries, the main problem that needs to be addressed is charging them.

There are around 40.7 million licensed vehicles in the UK, of which cars make up the majority. In the United Kingdom, there were 33.2 million cars (81.5%), 4.63 million LGVs (11.4%), 0.54 million HGVs (1.3 %), 1.36 million motorcycles (3.3%), 0.15 million buses & coaches (0.4%) and 0.84 million other vehicles (2%) licensed at the end of September 2022 [RAC].

The bans coming into force in 2030 onwards primarily affects cars with no concrete proposals yet put forward concerning vans, lorries, buses, coaches and agricultural vehicles.

At the moment there is also no suggestion that classic cars powered by traditional petrol or diesel engines will be forced off the road. There are more than half a million "historic" vehicles — those over 40 years old — on British roads and it is unlikely that will change. It is expected that in the twenty years or so following the petrol and diesel car ban, old-style fuels will become less sought after, more expensive and harder to come by as a niche product for enthusiasts.

While petrol forecourts won't disappear any time soon, it is clear that the EV charging infrastructure will need to be increased. And with an increase in chargers, be they at service station forecourts, car parks or simply on the street or at private addresses, comes a need to increase capacity to support them [Driving]. 

The Sunday Telegraph recently reported that hundreds of kilometres of overhead cables and pylons were set to be fast-tracked to support such infrastructure and the Daily Express has also reported on the plan which it dubs a 'pylon hell'. 

The National Grid says the expansion is essential to achieving the government's goal of decarbonising domestic electricity production by 2035, and becoming a net-zero economy by 2050.

Coal has been phased out and while gas remains a key player, wind power is set to be Britain's energy source of choice going forward. In fact wind power met over a quarter of the UK's annual electricity demand of some 26.8% for the first time in 2022.

But with demands of electricity increasing multifold the need to build more pylons and distribution networks will also increase.

For some pylons have a certain aesthetic. For others they are a blot on the landscape. But short of placing the cables underground, which is both costly and impractical, pylons are the best way of distributing electricity.

The problem is that many opponents to such plans want the benefits but not the infrastructure that is needed.

It is reminiscent of the campaigns against mobile phone masts as telecommunications companies rolled out their networks in the 1990s. Some 40 years on mobile networks in the UK are some of the worst in the world in terms of coverage partly due to NIMBy campaigns that claimed the aerials were an eyesore or that they posed a threat to health.

Similar claims are of course made concerning electricity pylons with there being some anecdotal evidence at least to the electromagnetic fields causing problems for some individuals.

Such protests are fine should you be proposing doing away with all technology, electricity, fossil fuels etc., and returning to a life when people ploughed fields with cattle and reaped harvests with scythes, travelled by foot or horse, and communicated only by letter sent by a weekly stagecoach. But those opposing pylons or mobile phone masts more often than not still want electricity to watch Netflix, charge their EV and post pictures on social media accounts using 5G on their latest smartphone.

JSO and others all too often ignore the inconvenient details laid bare when one digs further into the alternatives proposed by their thinking.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Southend on Sea an epitome of Brexit Britain

Sarfend on Sea, as those speaking in an estuary dialect might say it, draws in huge crowds on a sunny weekend.

Quite what the attraction is, is hard to establish.

Of course it is the only real stretch of beach to the east of London. Jaywick and Clacton, further north along the Essex coast, are too far away for Londoners.
And Kent beaches too, such as Margate or Whitstable, are also out of reach.

And so it's Southend on Sea which is very much a Hobson's choice when it comes to a day by the coast.

Beaches on the southern coast of England are much nicer, but again, not so good for a day trip.

But there is really very little to inspire at this estuary 'resort'. The beaches are stoney and the tide always seems to be out, thus a swim is very often out of the question.

But who would want to swim here anyway. Recent media reports have singled out Southend on Sea as being one of many beaches around the country to be affected by sewage outflows.

Indeed it's not so much Southend on Mud, as it is often colloquially referred to, than Southend on Sewage.

But maybe one just came to relax on the beach, tuck into some fish 'n' chips, and enjoy an ice cream.

Well, be prepared to take out a mortgage, as Southend is certainly not cheap.

Getting there will cost a pretty penny, be it by train or car. Train fares from the outskirts of London are around £10 for adults and a little less for kids, so a family of four could be looking at at least £30 or more before stepping onto the promenade.

Driving is a little cheaper in terms of fuel but parking could set you back more than £16 for the day.

So you're finally parked or out of the station and heading to the beach. It's not long before there are demands for food. Fish and chips sell for around a tenner at most outlets, but could cost considerably more. This day out is already getting a little expensive. One could easily be sixty quid down by now and the tide is still out.

"I want an ice cream mummy," your child demands. Before long you've spent another twenty pounds to satisfy their desires and before long a few more pounds are shed to quench their thirst with cans of fizzy pop.

Despite being a stoney beach sand still manages to get everywhere. But finally the sea is in and of course the kids want to swim.

That means someone having to keep guard. Hey, this is Southend. While not downtown Harlem or the Bronx, it's probably not a good idea to leave your handbag stuffed with wallet, mobile phone and keys just sitting on your towel while you all head into the water. Coming back to an empty towel would certainly make an already expensive day an absolute disaster.

But surely there's some redeeming qualities. Well, none that I've encountered.

Having visited primarily to get weather pictures for national papers I have encountered mostly stupidity and rudeness.

Soon after arriving on a recent assignment it all started off pleasantly enough. "Morning," said a passing traffic enforcement officer, happy perhaps that he'd just slapped out two parking fines at only 9 am.

A black jogger ran by on the promenade and proclaimed, "Yo". Why? This wasn't rural France where it's not uncommon for every passerby to greet you with 'bonjour'.

It is in fact the weird magnetic attraction resulting in being festooned with cameras.

Should I have been walking along without such kit it is unlikely the jogger would have said anything at all.

It's not long before you attract the drunks. "Don't tell me, you're 'omeless," a man says as I pass near to the Queen Victoria statue. Clearly already inebriated as he clasped his can of lager, he continued with his vain request that I take a picture of him . "Take a picture of me an' me sister mate." I politely decline and continue.

Then there's the curious and inane. "Are you waiting for anyone famous to turn up my love?" says one woman walking her dog, whilst another young teenage girl asks, "Taken lots of pictures?"

"That's a big one you've got there!" a traffic enforcement officer says pointing at the long lens. Indeed, that's probably the most oft repeated comment. "Wow, can you see the moon with that?" "What are you photographing, Mars?"

And so perhaps it wasn't unusual for several people to make such comments on this occasion. "That's a big one. How far can you see with that?" exclaimed a shirtless lad with wings tattooed across his back. "Can you see the curvature of the Earth?" Puzzled, but willing to oblige his insatiable curiosity, I snapped a picture of the horizon and showed him. "Ah see," he said, apparently vindicated, "No curve. It's flat. Flat Earth!"

Oh my god! They really are out there. Anti-Vaxxers, COVID deniers and flat-earthers. The world truly has gone mad. But at least he was friendly enough, unlike some people one occasionally encounters on the seafront. Snapping a general view of the crowded beach some months back I was harassed by a shirtless black guy holding a packet of chocolate biscuits who threatened to throw them at me should I continue to take pictures, despite not actually taking any pictures of him.

Southend is a draw for all sorts and reflects both ends of the evolutionary spectrum as well as the best and worst of fashion and health.

There are shirtless lager louts, often tattooed from head to foot. The smell of skunk, the slang term for overly powerful marijuana, hangs heavy in the air and youths sit on the promenade puffing away without a care, seemingly oblivious of the police patrols seen walking the length of the beach. But perhaps it should be the fashion police on patrol. It seems apparent that people either don't possess a mirror or are completely oblivious of both body image and dress sense.

Of course, one doesn't expect daytrippers to the beach to turn up in an Armani suit. But it is clear the Brits have no fashion sense at all. Perhaps the worst examples are overweight women wearing skintight leggings, leaving very little to the imagination, revealing strong panty lines and camel-toes! Oh please. Do these people have no shame? And then there are the men in their 40s and 50s proudly sporting beer bellies like large medicine balls hanging over their cheap Primark shorts. OK, some people find losing weight difficult. But why not wear something more flattering rather than clothes that show every ripple of fat and bulge.

If anyone was in any doubt as to how unhealthy the British population is, a trip to Southend will quickly establish the facts. Mobility scooters are everywhere. Obese and overweight men and women fill the beaches and stagger along the promenades. And people can be seen munching on fish and chips, candy floss and downing ice creams everywhere one looks.

There are a few fit people but they are mostly youngsters or teenagers. And even they seem to have little or no fashion sense, wearing clashing colours and often ill fitting garments.

This certainly isn't the place to go if you suffer from cacomorphobia. Give me France, Spain or Portugal anytime. Southend is like hell on Earth and an epitome of Brexit Britain.

tvnewswatch. London, UK

ULEZ type schemes may only increase pollution

The London Mayor is set to expand the so-called Ultra Low Emission Zone in August 2023 claiming it will make the air cleaner for all Londoners.

But the evidence does not stack up in favour of his claims and the proposed £12.50 daily charge will further impoverish already hard hit families in the outlying London boroughs.

Weighing up costs

There are some 2.6 million vehicles registered in London and while all-electric vehicle ownership has risen most of London's drivers are belching out toxic fumes.

In an ideal world we would all like to flip over to emission free vehicles. But it can't, for a number of reasons, come about overnight. There are also many uncomfortable truths concerning so-called green vehicles.

About 15% of vehicles driving in outer London boroughs would currently be liable for the charge; an estimated 160,000 cars and around 42,000 vans entering the zone daily, according to TfL.

While it is difficult to establish statistically speaking, most people who own such vehicles are likely to be in a position where replacing them would be financially difficult or impossible.

After all, who wouldn't want a nice new electric car or hybrid with all the perks of potentially cheaper running costs, free parking in certain areas, cheaper car tax and a 100% discount to drive into the London Congestion Charge zone?

But with the cost of a new hybrid or electric car running into several thousand pounds, it is unaffordable for most people.

Looking at the new electric car market to start with, a Citreon Ami will set you back £8,000. However, it is only a two seater vehicle with a 47 mile range and has a maximum speed of 28 mph, though with the Mayor's increased number of 20 mph zones this wouldn't pose much of an issue!

But for a family car such a vehicle would be pointless and of course it would pose a danger on A-roads given its low speed. And of course motorways would be a no go zone.

The Citroen Ami is perhaps a bad example, though it indicates the cost of a new electric car.

A true electric car with reasonable range and speed is more likely to cost some £20,000+

For someone who bought their second hand vehicle some years back, but which has suddenly become non-compliant, £20,000 is clearly unaffordable.

Well maintained vehicles, even older petrol and diesel ones, can last many years. Some last longer than others of course. But a 2003 Jeep is likely to still be on the road now, some 20 years after being made, and could still be able to run for many more years. Replacement for another vehicle is not necessarily green given much of the carbon footprint of a car is its manufacture. And while of course it might be polluting, the number of such vehicles are so small as to have only a minimal effect on the overall pollution levels, especially in outer London.

It must also be noted that people in such vehicles may only drive a few miles per day, perhaps to drive to work nearby or drop kids off at school.

A weekly tank of fuel might cost in the region of £60 for some families travelling only short distances in their local neighbourhood. But adding a daily £12.50 charge and that weekly running cost more than doubles. And that's on top of car tax, MoT, insurance and general maintenance and servicing.

The Mayor's argument to such people is to take public transport. For working families travelling on public transport it can be practical if it's in a set location. But for those that have to travel from one site to another, often within short periods of time, and sometimes with equipment, public transport is impractical.

An office worker with a laptop is one thing. But a press photographer on a bus with multiple cameras, a tripod, laptop and stepladder, or a window cleaner with buckets and ladders, builders with wheelbarrows and hods, surely not. And then there's often low paid workers such as carers who may have to make many house calls often in areas not easily served by public transport.

And let's not forget that weekly shop. For many it's a task anyway, even with a car. But imagine humping that trolley load home on the bus. Of course there's always home delivery, if you're in the catchment area and don't mind paying the extra delivery fees

It may not be that all 160,000 individuals will suddenly jump on the buses and trains. But if they did, the already overcrowded, overstretched public transport system would not be able to cope. Home delivery, similarly, would also become stretched.

There are other impractical, ill thought through, aspects too. Many people in the periphery of London travel away from the capital for work. For those with a non-compliant vehicle it might mean having to pay £12.50 simply for driving a mile to the Essex border from Havering, or from Dartford into Kent.

Moreover public transport often does not cover places where people need to get to, and certainly not within a timely fashion.

And what of those who work at night? Central London might be well served by night buses and subway trains, but in the suburbs there are few such connections if any. Given the overlap of shifts from one day to another a nurse travelling into hospital will have to pay two charges. There would be no other choice since many would not be able to travel home by public transport at 4 a.m. for example.

A random selection of places driven to recently were compared to directions by public transport. In all cases the public transport option was significantly slower. In some examples it was as much as 2 hours compared to a 30 minute drive.

Of course there's a cost factor too. With diesel and petrol both at record highs driving is not cheap per se. But train fares, especially outside of London can be extortionate.

Most people not on a fixed income, the self-employed and those who work periodically are even less likely to be able to buy a new vehicle, even the impractical Citroen Ami. Getting finance or credit would also be difficult if that person's wages were low or sporadic.

So what of the second hand market. Even here there are issues, especially when it comes to buying a ULEZ compliant vehicle.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, vehicle parts, especially electronic components, have become difficult to obtain and the new vehicle manufacturing industry has been considerably affected. This in turn has put pressure on the second hand market, in turn increasing prices due to supply and demand issues.

This has not alleviated even as the pandemic wanes. And with increased demand for ULEZ compliant vehicles the situation is only likely to worsen.

Thus a ULEZ compliant vehicle may cost around £10,000, still out of reach of those on low wages and owning a non-compliant vehicle.

Even if one did buy such a vehicle, who's to say the goalposts aren't moved a few years down the line?

There's also the worry of reliability.

Buying second hand is always a concern and putting aside the worry about further changes to the rules, buying another vehicle when one already has a working and reliable one makes little sense. If the newly purchased vehicle suddenly becomes less reliable one would be even more disadvantaged.

One could buy a second hand electric car. A Nissan Leaf might cost around £5,000 with 66,000 miles on the clock.

But while it's 'green' there are still issues with all electric vehicles. Charging is one. But range is also another.

Range Anxiety

So let's discuss range issues. Many EVs provide a reasonable range of around 100 km. This is fine for popping about town and for the average commute to work. But there are many journeys where this is impractical. On many occasions in the last year I have had jobs which exceed 100 km. Time is an issue too where it would not be practical to top up the charge en-route. Upon arrival at my destination there was no charge point either. This would of course leave me stranded.

There are also those situations where one might find yourself stuck in traffic for hours on end such as a long motorway queue due to an accident or as seen recently due to Just Stop Oil protests.

Without the motor running one would not use fuel or drain the battery. But many such hold ups have not been static, they have forced motorists to take long detours in stop start traffic. In an EV this can quickly run the power down especially if one is also using heating, lights and other electrical devices.

In the winter that drain is all the more significant. One might get an average range of 86.75 miles (139.92 km) when driving the Nissan LEAF in an average ambient temperature of 21°C. In an average temperature of -7°C, the range drops to 67.02 miles (108 km) without using cabin heating and to 53.29 miles (85.96km) with the heating switched on.

Being stranded on the M11 in a snow drift, as happened to thousands of hapless motorists a few years back, might be a rare occurrence. Most of the people caught up in that incident were able to keep warm by periodically running their engines. Electric vehicles would ultimately become completely stranded in such a scenario.

While it is never much fun to have to walk to a filling station to grab a jerry can of fuel if you should run out, there is no such option with an EV.

Roadside assistance firms such as the RAC and the AA often help stranded motorists in bringing them enough fuel to get them to a service station in such eventualities. For a power depleted EV it means relaying the vehicle to the nearest charge point. EVs cannot be towed,  because there is no proper neutral gear. Thus such vehicles need to be taken onto a flatbed and relayed. This creates further issues for roadside rescue companies.

In my diesel truck I have a range of at least 500 km on a full tank and with a full 20 litre jerry can that could facilitate my being able to drive to Lyon in France without stopping for fuel.

Of course few would think of pushing the boundaries to such extremes and running 'on empty'. But anyone who has travelled across Spain in particular will know that filling stations are few and far between.

"It's Ok," you say as you pass a fuel stop with a quarter of a tank of fuel, "I'll fill up at the next one." Only to find oneself on a desert road with nothing in sight for more than 100 km. Admittedly this only happened to me once, and fortunately I came across a service station as I was almost literally running on fumes with the vehicle claiming I had less than a 14 km range left. But can you imagine the range anxiety building if one was driving an EV in such circumstances?

Power is another issue. EVs may be great around town. But for towing and transporting heavy loads they don't do so well. Hence those hitting the continent with their caravan or fully loaded vehicle for a camping tour of Europe tend to head out with their 4x4 or station wagon.

And that's another aspect too. All terrain EVs are not really a thing quite yet. Few EVs yet have the torque to deal with off-road driving.

While this is perhaps a niche requirement, it is an important one for those that need their vehicle to be all things.

There is also the driveability factor. For those who have always driven a manual rather than an automatic vehicle there is a potential issue of swapping over to an EV since they are all essentially automatic. No engine braking here.

Pollution & Carbon Footprints

There is another often overlooked factor concerning vehicle ownership, that of the carbon footprint of a car's manufacture.

Several governments around the world have proposed a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the coming years.

On the face of it this is laudable. But the problem with such an initiative, is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car's operating life; what comes out of the exhaust pipe.

Electric cars, of course, have zero exhaust emissions, which is a welcome development, particularly in respect of the air quality in city centres.

But looking at the bigger picture, which includes the car's manufacture, the situation is very different.

In advance of the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021, Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one.

The problem lies primarily with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles. They are absurdly heavy, many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they only last about 10 years. It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile's fight against the climate crisis.

It has been estimated that only after some 100,000 km will an EV even begin to become 'carbon neutral', and even then the offsetting is only marginal.

Moreover, many people tend to sell off vehicles when they reach such mileage.

Herein lies another problem since the battery depreciation at this point in an EV's life may significantly devalue the worth of the vehicle.

If the range of a second hand EV topping 60,000 miles, or some 100,000 km, is severely affected, it would make little sense to buy it. Such scenarios will only increase the carbon footprint of a vehicle's manufacture since vehicles would be replaced with new ones more often.

A well maintained traditional petrol or diesel vehicle can often last in excess of twenty years on the road and clock up more than 140,000 miles or 225,000 km. Of course it will require regular maintenance, oil changes, tyres and perhaps a bit of welding on the way given the effect of salt, spread liberally on the roads every winter, on the vehicle's body.

But some of these issues affect EVs too, except the oil changes.

There is the advantage of reducing local pollution with EVs but there is no overall reduction of CO2.

What's more, the energy requirements to charge EVs is simply not available should everyone switch. Just one of several inconvenient facts concerning EV use.

The electric grid would need to essentially be doubled. And in turn electricity generation would also need to be increased.

That would mean increasing all of the current methods of electricity generation, be they coal, oil, gas, nuclear or 'green' renewable alternatives.

There is another issue concerning EVs and Hybrids compared with conventional vehicles, that of mining rare earths.

The use of minerals including lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which are crucial for modern EV batteries, requires using fossil fuels to mine those materials and heat them to high temperatures. As a result, building the 80 kWh lithium-ion battery found in a Tesla Model 3 creates between 2.5 and 16 metric tons of CO2 depending upon the methods used.

This intensive battery manufacturing means that building a new EV can produce around 80% more emissions than building a comparable gas-powered car.

Of course proponents of EVs will argue that since EVs don't pollute, they are greener. However EVs still need electricity, which for the most part is fossil fuel based.

As such it takes some time before an EVs becomes 'carbon neutral'. Researchers have found that, on average, gasoline cars emit more than 350 grams of CO2 per mile driven over their lifetimes. The hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, meanwhile, score at around 260 grams per mile of carbon dioxide, while the fully battery-electric vehicle created just 200 grams. But this is not taking into account the carbon footprint connected with manufacture. [Electric Cars: Inconvenient Facts, Part One / Electric Cars: Inconvenient Facts, Part 2 / Climate Mit]

CO2 not the only issue

For Hybrids there is another issue, that of so-called VOCs or Volatile Organic Compounds. Most people are aware of the impacts of CO2 upon the environment, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates. While these all certainly have an impact upon health, great strides have been made to reduce them over the years.

Emissions of NOx from road vehicles have fallen considerably in the United States since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. Since then, increasingly stringent standards have resulted in NOx emissions from road vehicles to fall more than 80% relative to 2002 levels. The same is true elsewhere, since cars manufactured for other markets have followed similar standards.

The same is true of particulate emissions. In the period 1990 to 2017 UK government statistics showed particulate emissions dropping from 35,000 tonnes to 19,000 tonnes for PM10 and from 30,000 tonnes to 13,000 tonnes for PM2.5 emissions. While not zero, it is nonetheless significant.

But what is rarely measured are VOCs. VOC emissions in the US have reduced by 48%, relative to 1990 levels. There have been drops in the UK too.

But they have not been completely removed. VOCs are emitted as gases from petrol and diesel vehicles, and at certain levels, some cause cancer as well as damage organs or cause breathing problems. They can also be responsible for ground-level smog. Concern of course. But as some investigations have shown levels can be higher from hybrid vehicles [Sepsolve / This is Money].

A test of six hybrids, two diesels and one petrol model found the partially-electrified cars produced more volatile organic compounds - or VOCs - than the entirely fossil-fueled vehicles.

Currently, hybrids are the most popular form of electrified cars in the UK, with more than 207,000 new vehicles entering British roads in 2021, both conventional and plug-in hybrid, accounting for almost one in six vehicle registrations.

Many such owners rarely take advantage of the electric component, often due to the need of installing a home charger. Some have clearly upgraded to avoid ever growing restrictions on older cars such as ULEZ.

But while these owners avoid the charges that might come with their new hybrid, the impact on the environment might in fact be worse.

Some popular models have also been found to pump out more CO2 than advertised [Transport Environment].

Upsum

So what's the summary in all this. All electric vehicles are certainly cleaner for the local environment. But it is impossible for everyone to switch to an EV. Not only because of the resources needed to build them, but also due to the infrastructure required to charge them.

Hybrids may offer an apparent stop-gap and certainly reduce the so-called range anxiety. They'll certainly help avoid charges for Low Emission Zones. But in terms of emissions they may in fact make air pollution worse.

In terms of their overall carbon footprint, current petrol and diesel vehicles ironically remain the best option. The carbon footprint, taking into account their manufacture and number of years or miles on road is still less than an EV. That said, local pollution remains, though as has been seen emissions have reduced over the years and may improve as time goes on.

Several studies have been conducted with regards to the carbon footprint of traditional vehicles versus EVs. One such study indicated that a Jeep Wrangler had one of the best carbon footprints. This was primarily due to overall build quality meaning that owners would keep them a very long time, often in excess of 250,000 miles or 400,000 km. That's around 10 times the circumference of the earth! [StudyFinds]

Current Consumer Reports estimate the average EV battery pack's lifespan to be at around 200,000 miles, though this is essentially a guess since EVs have not been around long enough to establish how long they truly last.

Recycling and scrapping

There's also the issue as to how to deal with the Lithium Ion batteries at the end of their useful life. At present it is generally agreed only 5% of EV batteries are being recycled.

Much of the issue is one to do with cost. EV batteries are larger and heavier than those in regular cars and are made up of several hundred individual lithium-ion cells, all of which need dismantling. They also contain hazardous materials, and have an inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly. There are certainly valuable metals and other materials in the batteries, such as cobalt, nickel, lithium, manganese, aluminium and copper. But it is costly and difficult to reclaim these materials. For example, much of the substance of a battery is reduced during the recycling process to what is called black mass - a mixture of lithium, manganese, cobalt and nickel - which needs further, energy-intensive processing to recover the materials in a usable form.

Manually dismantling fuel cells allows for more of these materials to be efficiently recovered, but brings problems of its own [BBC].

There is also a labour and health and safety cost factor. In some markets, such as China, health and safety regulation and environmental regulation is much more lax, and working conditions wouldn't be accepted in a Western context.

China in fact is already displaying apparent flagrant breaches in environmental concerns when it comes to EVs with thousands of 'unwanted' electric vehicles simply left to rot in huge parking lots or fields across the country. Much has resulted from schemes set up by unscrupulous individuals setting up vehicle hire schemes which have fallen flat and resulted in huge numbers of unwanted EVs which have resulted in the creation of EV graveyards [Brand new cars sit unclaimed on barren hills for years, No Place to Place Ⅱ—Graveyards of shared cars, China is Throwing Away Fields of Electric Cars - Letting them Rot!].

The EV revolution might bring about cleaner cities for the likes of London's Mayor Khan. But pity those living near Peru's lithium mines suffering from polluted waterways and increased air pollution from the huge 40 tonne trucks at the local quarry [Guardian]. Or the enslaved children helping to dig up cobalt in the DRC [Wilson Center / FT]. Or those in the Far East who will no doubt become the dumping ground for depleted EV batteries in the coming years as has been seen with the huge amount of plastic waste sent in the past two decades. In fact it's already begun [SCMP].

No real answer

So is the answer Hydrogen cars? Well no, at least not in the short term. The biggest drawback is an infrastructural issue. But even overcoming that, the other hurdle is the manufacture of hydrogen. The most common way to produce hydrogen is to separate it from methane gas using extremely high heat and pressure. This process is called steam-methane reformation (SMR), and it is heavily polluting. Burning of hydrogen itself is clean, and while in theory production could be made cleaner in the future, it's a long way off yet.

EVs do have a place, but no-one should be kidding themselves they're better for the planet. The same is true of Hybrids.

Koyaanisqatsi - "a state of life that calls for another way of living"

The focus for reducing pollution should in fact be manufacturing and shipping. Globalisation has created a far more wasteful use of energy; shipping products, goods and food around the planet that could be manufactured or grown locally.

Why should the UK, for example, be importing wines all the way from Australia, South Africa, California and Chile, when it's far more environmentally friendly to buy from Europe? This is just one example of many. But instead of reducing carbon footprints when it comes to trade, many countries are only exacerbating the problem. Indeed much of the premise of Brexit - to trade with the rest of the world, rather than its nearest neighbours - only increases the carbon footprint for many things.

Aside from dubious animal husbandry practices, importing meat from halfway around the planet such as Australia, New Zealand or the US will do nothing to reduce global emissions, only increase them.

There has been a shift over many years of farming industry out to the Far East in order to exploit cheap labour forces and poor environmental standards in order to satisfy Western demands for cheap products. But it has come with many costs. While moving industry and factories away from the UK and Europe might have reduced air pollution here, it has only shifted it elsewhere. Indeed sometimes that pollution has become worse as the industry shifts to countries with lower environmental standards.

The West gets cheaper electronics, clothes and consumables, but the planet becomes more polluted. In addition the West now finds itself with less and less industry and with it growing unemployment and diminishing skill sets.

Consumerism too should also be overhauled to cut down people's desire, want or 'need' to constantly buy or replace things. Making things that last rather than selling items with built in obsolescence would significantly reduce human's carbon footprint. However this doesn't fit in with the current capitalist model and the economic fixation on 'growth'.

So there are many impacts upon the environment.

Cars may have an impact on the environment, but it is only one small factor in the way humans affect the environment they live in. And arguably the EV revolution may make things worse.

Recycling, using less, and buying less would be one way to start. Junking a perfectly good, but old vehicle, is not necessarily an answer, even if it does avoid ULEZ charges.

Of course cars haven't always been with us, but do we really want to go back to the horse and cart with the majority of people employed ploughing fields and threshing crops? Maybe that's the agenda of Just Stop Oil, but it is not a practical one on a planet with 8 billion people.

tvnewswatch, London, UK