There have been two significant environmental milestones recently, and perhaps not complementing one and other, the way we would expect.
The prime Minister`s decision to water down the net zero plan which would involve scrapping the date for all new cars to be electric, and also the date for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps has had mixed reactions.
We are assured that the idea has not been totally thrown out, just delayed, and given a more realistic time frame due to the cost which would be borne largely by the consumer.
On the one hand, it does seem a sensible stance to take, as any contributions made by the public to improve the green agenda, must not have a high personal price tag, otherwise it would be difficult to take the public along with the government`s green strategy.
On the other hand, it seems a bit of a U turn, as the car industry had just been given a major boost in car manufacturing in the UK, and were presumably following the production model of net zero targets. Now that plan may have to be looked at again. They will not be the only business investment caught in the cross fire.
In order for heat pumps to provide the benefits of clean energy and lower bills, they must work in a well insulated environment, and there are only a small percentage of homes which are up to that standard. Add provision of insulation alongside heat pumps, and suddenly what was an expensive exercise become a very expensive one.
Both these initiatives are massive, taking in all four nations. The population as a whole is expected to come on board, and if current measures are not met by the new time lines, presumably some sort of fine will be in place, although it is not clear how these measures will be monitored.
Contrast that with the Earthshot award, which is the baby of Prince William.
It is an award which recognizes innovative ways to make changes to the way we live, by improving methods of working with the environment and encouraging sustainability.
Many of the projects are quite small, but very effective. It may be finding ways to clean up waterways which will improve and increase marine life, or finding ways to cut carbon emissions.
It seems a very sensible approach, by involving individuals in relevant communities, where benefits are tangible and results can be recorded.
Added together across the world, these small changes can have a hugely significant impact, and usually at a reasonable cost. They can also be duplicated and rolled out to other countries.
There was an example of an Earthshot prizewinner from India, who invented a mobile piece of technology, which can turn agriwaste into fuel and fertilizer. It can be attached to existing tractors, allowing farmers to benefit, and has been proved to work very successfully, improving air quality, and with massive potential for the whole country.
Previously, the agriwaste from all the settlements would have been taken to a central point, and burned in massive bonfires releasing huge amounts of smoke into the environment.
The project which was highlighted this week during Prince William`s U.S. visit, involved an oyster improvement initiative, which is helping to clean the Hudson River and increase the oyster population.
These two successful projects can be introduced elsewhere as they have been proved to work.
Similarly there are things that we know are detrimental to our environment and health, but nothing has been done about them.
A well documented evidence based example is the huge volume of micro plastic beads, which are common in skin scrubs and toothpaste, which is found in the sea and ingested by marine life which is then eaten by humans.
Added to this are microscopic beads of rubber which are generated by the friction of moving car tyres. These are also found in the sea.
They affect the health and life of fish, and will affect the life of humans. Why can`t they be banned right now?
Apparently, certain pesticides which were banned by the EU and still are, have found their way to the UK where there is now no ban.
Pesticides do what they say, they kill insects, including the good ones which are vital. Plants absorb them, and they leach into the ground and water systems, entering the food chain via crops and grass which is eaten by animals.
Birds and wild life can eat them inadvertently, and die.
It would seem a relatively simple and effective thing to ban them immediately.
It just seems rather ridiculous that such large targets have been chosen, which stir up controversy when the public would prefer smaller more manageable projects to which everyone could support.
Of course we all know that the big polluters are heavy industries in different parts of the world.
They are going to be difficult to convince, but although perhaps a David and Goliath scenario, they can perhaps eventually be worn down, and may come up with a strategy which may surprise us in the future
Meanwhile it is all about the messages that are being sent out.
Mr Sunak may well be genuine in his reasoning for backtracking, but sadly it may have a negative effect on other countries who may shrug their shoulders and think that if the U.K.is disinterested, "why bother"?
It also has to be mentioned that whilst the PM, M.P`s. and members of the Royal Family who encourage us all to be mindful of the green agenda, must start to find other means of communicating and travelling about, or at least take scheduled travel, as flying by private plane is simply not on, and cancels out any sympathy vote.
