The Third Half: Xenogenesis (or… a Slightly Unsettling Episode of Us)

There’s a version of the present where everything is smarter. Your fridge orders your food. Your watch tells you you’re stressed (which, ironically, makes you more stressed). Your car suggests routes you didn’t plan to take, but it’s “optimised”, so you go along with it. And somewhere in the background, an algorithm is quietly deciding what version of you turns up each day.

That’s not the future. That’s… Tuesday. And it’s either reality… or a slightly underwritten episode of Black Mirror.

Xenogenesis sounds like something out of science fiction—and to be fair, it is. The idea that something entirely new can emerge. Not improved. Not upgraded. Not “now with AI”.

Different.

Like:

• a species evolving that doesn’t quite behave like anything before it

• a system that rewrites the rules rather than playing the game better

• a version of reality that feels slightly… off

That’s not iteration. That’s mutation.

Now here’s the problem. Most of what we call “innovation” today wouldn’t make it past the first five minutes of a decent sci-fi episode. It’s too safe.

If Charlie Brooker pitched:

“What if we made email… but faster?”

He’d be politely shown the door.

Because real sci-fi—real xenogenesis—asks more uncomfortable questions:

• What if technology didn’t just support us, but subtly replaced parts of us?

• What if convenience became control?

• What if progress solved problems we didn’t actually have… and created ones we didn’t see coming?

And that’s where it gets interesting for People, Planet, Progress (PPP).

Because xenogenesis doesn’t just create shiny new things—it creates new consequences.

People

We build tools to make life easier. Then we find ourselves:

• outsourcing decisions

• curating versions of ourselves

• measuring our worth through metrics we didn’t invent

At what point does “augmentation” quietly become replacement?

Planet

We talk about greener tech. Smarter systems. Efficient everything. But xenogenesis asks a harsher question:

What if the entire model is wrong?

• Not “less consumption”

• But “different consumption”

• Not “offset emissions”

• But “rethink why we produce so much in the first place”

That’s not optimisation. That’s a different species of thinking.

Progress

We love the word. Feels positive. Forward. Inevitable. But not all progress is… well… progress. Some of it is just momentum with better branding.

True xenogenesis forces a pause:

Are we actually moving forward… or just moving faster?

If this all feels slightly uncomfortable, that’s the point. The best episodes of Black Mirror don’t show you a distant dystopia. They show you something that feels about five minutes away from being real. That’s why it lingers. Because deep down, you recognise it.

And here’s the twist. Xenogenesis isn’t just happening to us. We’re part of it.

Every time we:

• adopt something new without questioning it

• trade a bit of control for convenience

• accept “this is just how things are now”

We’re nudging the system into something different. Not always better. Not always worse. Just… different.

The Third Half lives somewhere in that space. Between:

• optimism and scepticism

• progress and pause

• building and questioning

It’s not anti-tech. Not anti-progress. But it is quietly asking:

What are we becoming in the process?

Because xenogenesis doesn’t arrive with a launch event. It creeps in. One behaviour at a time. One system at a time. One “this makes life easier” at a time.

Until one day you look around and think:

“This isn’t quite what I expected…”

Which, if we’re honest, is exactly how most great sci-fi starts. And occasionally… how reality does too.

Subscribe now

https://www.oldglasgowpubs.co.uk/mitre.html

I stood on Brunswick Street today and didn’t recognise it.

Not in a dramatic way. Not in a “this is unrecognisable Glasgow” rant.

Just… a quiet, slightly uncomfortable feeling that I knew exactly where I was—

and none of it felt like mine anymore.

There’s a mural now.

A woman staring straight out at you, bold colours, perfect lines, every detail deliberate. She’s brilliant, by the way. Properly brilliant.

But she’s finished.

Complete. Designed. Signed off.

And just along from her, there’s that building—half stripped, half exposed, like someone’s peeled the skin back and walked away mid-job. Bricks, beams, scars. No story told, just layers left hanging.

And then in between it all—glass, light, neatness. The Social Hub Glasgow sitting there like it belongs in any city, not this one in particular.

Three versions of a place.

All at once.

And me, standing there, thinking about a pint.

I never went to The Mitre Bar for the Mitre.

That’s the truth of it.

I went because I’d finished work at Lennard’s, and that’s just where you ended up.

No decision. No message. No “shall we”.

Just muscle memory.

Cross the road after shutting and locking the shop, into the door, wave through the fag smoke, pint in hand before you’d even fully arrived.

“One pint.”

That lie we all told ourselves.

What I remember isn’t the place.

It’s the feeling.

The noise. Not loud—just constant. Like you’d stepped into something already in motion and didn’t need to catch up.

Old boys with papers, properly reading them, folding them like it mattered. Football results getting debated like someone could still change the outcome if they argued hard enough.

Faces I didn’t know the names of, but would have noticed instantly if they weren’t there.

No one asking what you did.

No one caring, really.

You were just… in it.

Standing there now, I realised something I hadn’t before.

It wasn’t the pub.

It was the pause.

That pint wasn’t about drinking. It was about the gap between who you were at work and who you were when you got home.

A small, unspoken reset.

And you didn’t have to work for it.

It was built into the street.

Now?

Everything looks better.

It does.

The colour, the art, the ambition of it. You can see the intent everywhere—someone’s thought about this, designed it, made it good.

But it doesn’t catch you.

You don’t drift into anything.

You pass through.

People around me had bags, headphones, somewhere else already in mind. Even when they stopped, it felt temporary. Like they were pausing between things, not part of something.

That building—the half-demolished one—is the only thing that felt honest.

Because it’s not finished.

It’s not trying to be anything.

It just is.

And for a second, it reminded me of what the street used to feel like.

Unpolished. Unplanned. Slightly rough, but real.

I’m not saying it was better.

I’m really not.

It could be small. Repetitive. You could feel stuck in it if you weren’t careful.

But it had something we don’t build in anymore.

Effortless belonging.

You didn’t choose it.

You just turned up often enough, and it happened.

I looked at the mural again before I left.

Bright. Confident. Certain.

And I thought—

we’re very good now at creating places that look like they mean something.

I’m just not sure we’re as good at creating places where people feel something without trying.

I walked away without the pint.

Not because I didn’t want one.

But because the pint I was thinking about isn’t there anymore.

And maybe that’s the bit you don’t notice disappearing—

until you go back looking for it.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

There’s a familiar tone to headlines like this. A sense of urgency. A hint of decline. A political promise to “stop UK tech from drifting abroad,” as though innovation is a physical object quietly floating out of Dover on the tide.

It’s a compelling story. It’s also, in many ways, the wrong one.

The Idea of “Drift”

“Drift” suggests passivity.

As if companies wake up one morning, glance out the window, and realise they’ve accidentally relocated to California.

That’s not how this works.

Tech doesn’t drift. It decides. It calculates. It optimises.

When businesses expand internationally, it’s rarely an act of escape. It’s an act of scale. Access to markets. Talent density. Regulatory clarity. Customer proximity. Capital.

So when we talk about “stopping drift,” what we’re really talking about is whether the UK remains a compelling place to choose.

That’s a very different question.

The Reality: The UK Is Still a Tech Powerhouse

Let’s be honest about the starting point.

The UK:

   •   Has one of the strongest venture ecosystems outside the US

   •   Leads Europe in fintech innovation

   •   Houses globally significant AI research hubs

   •   Produces world-class universities and talent

London alone is still one of the most important tech cities on the planet.

This isn’t a country watching its tech industry quietly disappear. It’s a country competing in a global market where mobility is the default.

And that’s the nuance often missing from the narrative.

The Real Pressure Points

If there is a risk, it’s not “drift.” It’s friction.

Friction shows up in more subtle, structural ways:

   •   Scaling barriers: It’s easier to start a company in the UK than it is to scale one globally from here

   •   Capital gaps: Later-stage funding still tends to pull companies toward US markets

   •   Regulatory ambiguity: Particularly in fast-moving areas like AI

   •   Talent competition: Not shortage—but competition with global hubs willing to pay more

None of these are new. None of them are solved by slogans.

The Political Instinct: Control vs Enablement

The instinct to “stop” something is political shorthand. It signals strength. It suggests intervention.

But tech ecosystems don’t respond well to control.

They respond to:

   •   Confidence

   •   Consistency

   •   Long-term thinking

You don’t stop companies from leaving.

You make them want to stay.

And more importantly, you make them want to build from here.

A Bigger Lens: People · Planet · Progress

This is where the conversation gets more interesting—and more aligned with where the world is heading.

The UK has a genuine opportunity not just to retain tech, but to lead differently.

   •   People: Building inclusive, skills-driven growth beyond London

   •   Planet: Positioning as a leader in sustainable and circular technology models

   •   Progress: Supporting innovation that isn’t just fast—but meaningful

There’s a version of the UK tech story that isn’t about competing with Silicon Valley on its terms—but redefining the terms entirely.

The Quiet Truth

Most UK tech companies aren’t trying to leave.

They’re trying to grow.

And growth, by definition, is international.

The real challenge isn’t preventing that.

It’s ensuring that when they grow, they remain anchored—commercially, culturally, and strategically—to the UK.

That’s not about stopping drift.

It’s about creating gravity.

Final Thought

We should be wary of narratives that frame movement as loss.

Because in a global, digital economy, movement is inevitable.

The question isn’t whether UK tech will spread its wings.

It’s whether the UK remains the place it wants to come home to.

And that’s a far more interesting challenge than trying to hold the tide back.

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/rachel-reeves-uk-tech-investment-ai-quantum-growth-plan/

It’s an extraordinary track when you listen to it now.

Written in 1979, it imagines a leader rising to power on a wave of moral certainty — promising purity, order and the will of “the people”. The satire is brutal. The system slowly bends around personality. Dissent becomes suspicious. Loyalty becomes a test.

Before long, the whole thing has slid into something darker.

The brilliance of the song is that it was never really about one politician or one party. It’s about the seduction of certainty. The moment when leaders begin to believe they alone embody the nation.

That’s when institutions start to warp.

Listening again in 2026, it feels strangely contemporary. Not because history repeats itself neatly, but because politics is drifting further into spectacle. Loyalty tests. Culture wars. Outrage cycles. The slow erosion of trust in institutions that were meant to outlast any one leader.

You can almost hear the guitar riff playing under the news cycle.

What punk understood — perhaps better than politics — is that democracies rarely collapse with tanks in the street. They usually erode in smaller ways: crowds cheering louder, opponents becoming enemies, and power slowly concentrating around personalities.

The villain in California Über Alles isn’t just the leader.

It’s the cheering crowd.

Maybe that’s why the song still lands today.

Not as a partisan anthem.

More as a warning.

Sometimes the most accurate political commentary doesn’t come from think tanks or television panels.

Sometimes it comes from a furious three-minute punk song written nearly half a century ago.

Subscribe now

Share

Yesterday afternoon at 15:33, I took a photograph.

It’s not much of a photograph. A narrow cobbled lane in Glasgow called Union Place, running behind the buildings beside Glasgow Central Station. Sandstone walls on either side. Pipes running down the stone. Graffiti. A slightly forgotten urban service street.

But it caught my eye.

I’d just walked down Union Street, heading for the 15:55 train to Birmingham on my way home. It had been one of those weeks back in Scotland that combine the ordinary and the important: a few days of work, a bit of time helping my ageing parents around the house, cups of tea that stretch into conversations.

The sort of week that reminds you how time quietly moves on.

There were the small family moments too. Watching Scotland rugby union team win on television with my old man (against the mighty France!!) — the sort of shared sporting joy that feels bigger than the match itself. And, inevitably, the other side of Scottish sporting life: another defeat for Airdrieonians, which by now most of us take with philosophical resignation.

Football highs and lows. Family conversations. The normal rhythm of a week back home.

And then the walk to the station.

Glasgow does something to you when you walk through it. Even if you’ve done it a thousand times, you find yourself looking up. The city’s Victorian architecture is extraordinary — sandstone buildings built in an era when Glasgow was one of the richest cities on earth.

Domes. Columns. Carved lintels. Solid walls that feel as though they were designed to stand for centuries.

I remember looking up and thinking how remarkable it is that so much of it still survives.

Then I turned down Union Place for a moment and took that photograph.

At 15:33.

About twelve minutes later, according to the reports, a fire started around the corner on Union Street.

By early evening, flames had torn through one of the very buildings I had just been admiring — a mid-Victorian block beside the station. The fire spread quickly through the structure before parts of the building collapsed.

Today, the station is closed. Businesses are gone. A piece of Glasgow’s streetscape has changed overnight.

And that unremarkable photograph on my phone suddenly feels oddly significant.

Because it captures something we almost never notice: the quiet moment before something changes.

Cities are full of those moments. We walk through them every day without realising. Streets feel permanent. Buildings feel permanent. We assume they will simply be there tomorrow.

Yesterday, for twelve minutes, they were.

Thankfully, it seems no one was seriously hurt. Firefighters did extraordinary work in what must have been incredibly difficult conditions in a dense city centre.

The city will recover. It always does.

Glasgow has reinvented itself many times across the centuries — through industry, decline, culture and renewal. Its buildings tell that story in stone.

But the photograph lingers with me.

Perhaps because it reminds us that the things we think matter in a week — a rugby result, a football defeat, the everyday chatter of life — can suddenly feel very small.

What matters more are the moments we rarely think to measure.

A walk through a city you love.

Looking up at buildings that have stood longer than any of us.

And the quiet, unnoticed twelve minutes before history changes the view.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/mar/09/glasgow-central-station-closed-fire

Subscribe now

There’s a quiet but important debate bubbling away in The Guardian last weekend.

Not about banning AI.

Not about stopping data centres.

Not about killing growth.

About disclosure.

Campaigners are calling for the UK government to require data centre developers to demonstrate that new projects will not increase net greenhouse gas emissions — and to be clearer about how their energy use is accounted for.

That might sound procedural.

It isn’t.

It’s fundamental.

The Myth of the Weightless Cloud

We still talk about “the cloud” as if it floats somewhere above consequence.

It doesn’t.

A hyperscale data centre is concrete, steel, transformers, substations and transmission lines. It draws power at levels that compete with towns. AI workloads only intensify that demand.

If these facilities are going to be designated as “strategic national infrastructure”, then the word strategic has to mean something.

Strategic infrastructure should come with system-level transparency.

What does it consume?

What generation capacity supports it?

Does it add new renewables — or reallocate existing ones?

What is the net impact on national emissions?

Those are not activist questions.

They are planning questions.

The Real Issue: Additionality

The debate hinted at in the article centres on a technical but crucial concept: additionality.

It’s one thing to purchase renewable energy certificates and claim green credentials.

It’s another to fund or contract genuinely new renewable generation that would not otherwise exist.

Those are very different outcomes for the grid.

If a data centre claims to be “100% renewable” but simply diverts existing green supply from elsewhere in the system, national emissions don’t magically fall. The accounting may look neat; the physics doesn’t change.

That’s why disclosure matters.

Not to shame.

To clarify.

This Isn’t Anti-Tech

I’ve spent my career around enterprise estates — mainframe, hybrid, cloud. I know how efficient well-run infrastructure can be. I also know how quickly digital expansion can outrun governance.

Technology is not the enemy.

Opacity is.

If developers can demonstrate:

   •   Clear carbon baselines

   •   Transparent modelling assumptions

   •   Evidence of additional renewable capacity

   •   Grid impact mitigation

…then they strengthen their social licence to operate.

If they can’t, suspicion grows.

And suspicion is bad for investment.

Markets Like Clarity

We are entering an era where AI infrastructure is positioned as an economic engine. Capital is flowing. Governments are competing for growth zones.

Fine.

But serious capital markets don’t fear disclosure.

They price it.

Transparent emissions modelling, grid impact reporting and renewable commitments are not barriers to growth — they are signals of maturity.

If the UK wants to lead in AI infrastructure, it should also lead in transparent energy accounting.

Otherwise we risk building scale first and explaining it later.

That rarely ends well.

A Simple Principle

If you’re going to consume power at the scale of a small city, publish the numbers.

Show the maths.

Demonstrate the additional renewables.

Explain the system impact.

Not because tech is bad.

Because progress that hides its footprint isn’t progress — it’s deferred accountability.

And deferred accountability tends to arrive, eventually, with interest.

The Third Half

People · Planet · Progress

Subscribe now

I’m no data centre engineer.

I’m not a hardware architect.

I did recently complete a diploma in business sustainability — which probably makes me a slightly dangerous amateur.

But there’s a question that increasingly gnaws at my ageing leg.

Not:

“Should we refresh?”

But:

When does the total lifecycle delta justify the embodied carbon and capital reset?

Because that feels like the grown-up sustainability question.

The Comfortable Narrative

We’ve absorbed a simple storyline:

Old = inefficient

Legacy = waste

Evergreen = responsible

Stay current.

Stay supported.

Stay modern.

It sounds virtuous.

But infrastructure doesn’t respond to slogans.

The Mainframe Reality

Let’s talk about mainframe.

Not as mythology. Not as nostalgia.

Just as engineering.

Many large estates — especially modern enterprise mainframes — are:

   •   Highly utilised

   •   Densely engineered

   •   Extremely resilient

   •   Secure by design

   •   Efficient per transaction

They run the boring, critical stuff:

Payments.

Pensions.

Insurance claims.

Tax systems.

They don’t trend.

They just work.

If you’re running:

   •   An efficiently governed estate

   •   With limited MIPS growth

   •   With some workloads gradually peeling off to cloud

   •   And no regulatory or security cliff looming

Then what exactly are you solving by refreshing every three years instead of five?

The Carbon Question Nobody Enjoys

New hardware is not carbon neutral.

There’s embodied carbon in:

   •   Raw materials

   •   Manufacturing

   •   Supply chains

   •   Logistics

   •   Decommissioning

Yes — newer generations improve performance per watt.

Yes — consolidation improves density.

Yes — encryption and security capabilities advance.

But the question is not whether improvement exists.

The question is whether the improvement is material enough to justify:

   •   The embodied carbon

   •   The capital reset

   •   The operational risk of change

If the estate is stable and efficient, shortening the refresh cycle may simply bring forward emissions rather than reduce them.

Neatness is not sustainability.

The Subscription Layer We Don’t Talk About

There’s another factor creeping into this conversation.

Across enterprise software, support models increasingly favour:

   •   Staying on current versions

   •   Shorter support windows

   •   Subscription-based licensing

   •   Commercial incentives aligned to “latest release”

That isn’t sinister. It’s just the direction of travel in software economics.

But it does subtly influence refresh decisions.

If software support, pricing models, or licensing terms increasingly nudge organisations toward earlier upgrades, then the refresh cycle can become commercially driven rather than sustainability driven.

Which raises a fair question:

Are we refreshing because the infrastructure delta is material — or because the commercial model makes delay uncomfortable?

That distinction matters.

Cloud Makes It Even More Interesting

If applications are moving to cloud:

   •   MIPS growth may flatten

   •   Capacity pressure may reduce

   •   Consolidation opportunities may increase

Refreshing too early risks designing for yesterday’s demand.

A refresh aligned to a five-year horizon — after consolidation, after cloud migration stabilises — may actually reduce total lifecycle impact.

But that requires discipline.

And a bit of courage.

This Isn’t Anti-Mainframe. Quite the Opposite.

For clarity: I think modern mainframe technology is brilliant engineering.

I spent 15 years at IBM, mostly as an account manager and services deal lead. I wasn’t building processors — but I saw from near and far how seriously these systems are designed.

They are not museum pieces.

They are industrial-grade infrastructure.

This isn’t a swipe at vendors.

It’s a plea for better questions.

The Grown-Up Question

Instead of asking:

“What’s our standard refresh cycle?”

Maybe we should be asking:

“At what point does the lifecycle delta justify the embodied carbon and capital reset?”

If the efficiency leap is structural — refresh.

If the security uplift is transformative — refresh.

If consolidation materially reduces footprint — refresh.

But if the delta is marginal?

Sweat the asset.

Run it well.

Govern it tightly.

That might be the greener move.

A Slightly Dangerous Amateur’s View

As someone with:

   •   35 years in enterprise services

   •   A diploma in business sustainability

   •   And just enough knowledge to be mildly troublesome

I’ve seen organisations spend fortunes modernising things that weren’t actually broken.

Sustainability is not about chasing “new”.

It’s about measuring impact honestly.

And sometimes the most responsible decision isn’t the one that looks freshest in the board pack.

It’s the one that quietly asks:

Are we refreshing because it truly reduces lifecycle impact —

or because it feels safer to keep up?

At the weekend, The Guardian published an interactive feature examining whether Europe is, quite literally, under water — and whether political and public responses are keeping pace with the physical reality.

Strip away the rhetoric, the culture wars, the fatigue around climate headlines, and a set of facts remains.

Whatever we may think about global warming, some trends are measurable, observable and increasingly expensive.

1. Europe is warming faster than the global average

According to the World Meteorological Organization and the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, Europe is the fastest-warming continent. Temperatures have risen at roughly twice the global average over recent decades.

This is not a projection. It is recorded data.

Warmer air holds more moisture. Warmer seas expand. Both factors increase flood risk.

2. Flooding events are becoming more frequent and more intense

The Guardian’s analysis highlights the rise in severe flooding across parts of Germany, Italy, Spain and central Europe in recent years. Insured losses from extreme weather events have climbed sharply over the past decade.

Again, this is not about belief systems. Insurance claims are hard numbers. Reinsurance markets price risk dispassionately.

When flood events that were once considered “one-in-100-year” events begin occurring far more regularly, that has implications for infrastructure planning, mortgage markets and sovereign budgets.

3. Sea levels are rising — and coastal exposure is increasing

Global mean sea levels have risen by over 20 cm since 1900, with the rate accelerating in recent decades. Parts of Europe — particularly low-lying coastal zones in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the UK — face heightened exposure.

At the same time, more people are living and investing in coastal regions. That compounds vulnerability.

4. Adaptation spending lags behind projected need

The EU has climate adaptation frameworks. Individual countries have flood defence strategies. But the Guardian investigation suggests a gap between policy ambition and practical readiness.

Infrastructure upgrades, drainage systems, river basin management and urban planning all require long-term investment. Yet political cycles tend to be short. Budget pressures are real. Competing priorities are immediate.

The physics of climate systems, however, are indifferent to election timetables.

5. The economic signal is getting louder

Extreme weather is no longer an abstract environmental issue. It is a balance sheet issue.

   •   Higher insurance premiums

   •   Reduced insurability in certain zones

   •   Infrastructure repair costs

   •   Agricultural volatility

   •   Supply chain disruption

These effects ripple outward — into food prices, housing markets, public finance and corporate risk models.

Whether one frames climate change as a crisis, a transition risk, or a structural macroeconomic shift, capital markets are already factoring it in.

The uncomfortable middle ground

Public discourse often polarises into two camps: existential alarm or outright dismissal.

But there is a quieter, more practical space in between:

   •   Temperatures are rising.

   •   Flood risks are increasing.

   •   Sea levels are climbing.

   •   Economic exposure is growing.

Those points are supported by observational data.

The debate that follows is not about whether water levels are measurable. It is about pace, proportionality and policy response.

And perhaps that is where Europe now finds itself — not drowning in denial, but wrestling with how quickly to swim.

Facts do not end arguments. But they do anchor them.

Whatever our politics, the tide charts are not ideological.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/21/under-water-in-denial-is-europe-drowning-out-the-climate-crisis

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

What a privilege.

Tea pickers on steep green hills that make your calves hurt just looking at them.

Tuk-tuk drivers who operate on instinct and divine intervention.

Safari guides who can spot a leopard before you’ve even found your binoculars.

And the young team at our camp — calm, polite, curious about where you’re from.

You meet a huge mix of people here.

And here’s the thing.

They just seem… alright.

Not fake-hotel-smile alright.

Not “five star TripAdvisor review” alright.

Just steady. Content. Grounded.

One young lad at the camp said something that properly made me pause.

“Sir, I’ll never be able to travel the world. But I’m blessed. In this job, the world travels to me.”

That’s not a line from a self-help book.

That’s just how he sees it.

He might never leave Sri Lanka.

But he’s heard about Glasgow rain, New York noise, Tokyo speed, London prices (that got a laugh).

He gathers stories the way some of us collect air miles.

We move. They listen.

We fly halfway round the world to “experience culture”.

He stays put — and hears about the world from people who can’t wait to get back home.

There’s something quietly brilliant about that.

We often measure success by how far we’ve gone.

He measures it by how much he’s heard.

And maybe that’s just as rich.

The Third Half bit

The first half of travel is the photos.

The second half is the food.

The third half is the bit where something small shifts in your head.

Not in a dramatic, life-changing way.

Just a gentle nudge.

You realise that opportunity looks different depending on where you’re standing.

And contentment isn’t always tied to movement.

Depth can matter more than distance.

I’m very aware that being here is a privilege.

But every now and then someone says something so simple it rebalances you slightly.

“The world travels to me.”

I’ll remember that longer than any safari sighting.

And maybe the real point isn’t how far we travel —

But how open we are when we meet.

And if I’m honest, as someone who has spent 35 years boarding planes for meetings, chasing deals, chasing growth…

There’s something slightly amusing about realising that this young lad might be travelling just as far as I ever have.

He just doesn’t need a passport.

If you listen to certain corners of the market, ESG is either over, politicised, or quietly being diluted.

It isn’t.

What’s actually happening across the UK, EU and internationally is more complex: recalibration, divergence and a shift from ambition-led rhetoric to rules-based implementation.

Europe: Expanding the Rulebook

The EU remains the most assertive regulator in the room.

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) significantly expands the number of companies required to report on sustainability matters — including many non-EU businesses with substantial EU operations. Reporting must now follow the detailed European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), bringing far greater prescriptiveness and audit expectations.

Alongside this, the EU Taxonomy Regulation continues to define what counts as environmentally sustainable economic activity, influencing capital flows and investment labelling. The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) is also tightening expectations around how asset managers classify and market funds.

In short: more companies, more data, more scrutiny.

However, there is growing acknowledgement within Europe itself that implementation is heavy. Discussions around simplification, proportionality for SMEs and phased enforcement show that even the EU recognises the operational burden.

This is not retreat — but it is refinement.

United Kingdom: Alignment Without Overload

The UK is charting a slightly different course.

The government has committed to adopting UK Sustainability Disclosure Standards (UK SDS), building on the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) framework — particularly IFRS S1 (general sustainability disclosures) and IFRS S2 (climate).

The Financial Conduct Authority is progressing Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) and investment product labelling rules to tackle greenwashing. At the same time, policymakers have signalled a desire to avoid unnecessary duplication and to remain internationally competitive post-Brexit.

The UK tone is pragmatic: maintain credibility with global investors, align with international standards, but avoid layering regulation on top of regulation.

Whether that balance holds remains to be seen.

Internationally: Political and Practical Divergence

Beyond Europe, the picture is mixed.

The United States has seen both progress and pushback. The SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rules represent a significant step toward mandatory reporting — yet legal and political resistance has slowed momentum and created uncertainty.

Elsewhere, countries are aligning with ISSB standards to create baseline global comparability. That in itself is a major structural shift: for the first time, sustainability reporting is converging around something that looks like a global financial reporting architecture.

At the same time, ESG as a label has become politically charged in certain markets. Some institutions are softening the acronym while quietly continuing the substance — focusing on risk, resilience, and long-term value creation rather than the brand of ESG itself.

So What?

The direction of travel is not backwards.

Climate risk remains financially material. Supply chain resilience remains fragile. Governance failures still destroy value. Social licence still matters.

What has changed is the phase we are in.

We are moving from aspiration to accountability. From voluntary commitments to structured disclosure. From narrative sustainability reports to auditable data.

The easy branding era of ESG is ending. The operational era is beginning.

The real choice for organisations is no longer whether to engage with ESG.

It is whether they treat it as compliance theatre — producing ever thicker reports — or as disciplined capital allocation and risk management.

Fragmentation may be uncomfortable. But maturity often is.

And perhaps that is where People, Planet and Progress finally move from slogan to system.

Subscribe for more reflections on People, Planet and Progress — where sustainability meets commercial reality.

#ESG #Sustainability #SustainableFinance #CorporateGovernance #PeoplePlanetProgress

Subscribe now

I was listening to the Good News Podcast when I heard a story about… sticks.

Actual sticks.

There’s a community called Stick Nation where people post photos of sticks they’ve found. That’s the whole thing. No membership tier. No merch drop. No premium “artisan branch” subscription.

Just:

“Look at this stick.”

And thousands of people replying, essentially:

“That is a very good stick.”

In 2026, that feels borderline revolutionary.

Why This Is Weirdly Important

At first glance, it’s daft. Grown adults admiring fallen branches like they’re rare antiques on Bargain Hunt.

But scratch the bark and there’s something going on.

1. It’s analogue in a digital world

We live in a culture of optimisation. Everything must scale. Everything must convert. Even your morning walk is apparently a chance to biohack yourself while listening to a podcast about monetising your personality.

Stick Nation says:

Go outside.

Find something interesting.

That’ll do.

No funnel. No framework. No founder’s manifesto.

Just wood.

That’s quietly rebellious.

2. It reconnects us with being ten

Every one of us has picked up a stick and instantly upgraded it.

Sword.

Wizard staff.

Cricket bat.

Walking stick for no medical reason whatsoever.

Stick Nation isn’t about “the good old days.” It’s about remembering that imagination used to be free — and sufficient.

Turns out, that still works.

3. It’s radically inclusive

You don’t need credentials.

You don’t need followers.

You don’t even need a particularly impressive stick.

Entry fee: £0.00 and access to a tree.

In a world increasingly stratified by status and subscription, that’s oddly refreshing.

4. It’s joy without agenda

There’s no ESG white paper attached.

No “Five Leadership Lessons from a Stick.”

No panel event.

Just shared noticing.

And perhaps that’s why it works.

Because most online communities are built around outrage, ideology or aspiration. This one is built around appreciation.

That’s different.

The Third Half of It

The Third Half is about People. Planet. Progress.

Stick Nation accidentally ticks all three.

People – connection through something harmless and human.

Planet – appreciation of nature without monetising it.

Progress – proof that community doesn’t need to be angry to grow.

It’s not technological progress. It’s cultural progress.

The reminder that not everything meaningful has to be serious.

What This Really Says

I don’t think this is about sticks.

It’s about:

   •   Screen fatigue

   •   Algorithm exhaustion

   •   Wanting to touch something real

   •   Wanting to belong to something that isn’t furious

You can’t doom-scroll a stick.

You just hold it. Maybe admire the curve. Possibly rate it out of ten.

And move on with your day slightly lighter.

In business we’re told everything must scale to matter.

Stick Nation suggests something simpler.

Sometimes what scales is shared joy.

And sometimes the most radical act in a noisy world is to say:

“Look at this.”

Not everything has to be profound.

Sometimes it’s just a very good stick.

Quisquous.

A Scottish word meaning hard to deal with, difficult to read, of dubious or perplexing character.

It felt instantly familiar.

We live in an age that prizes certainty. Confident voices. Strong opinions. Clean narratives. Everyone sounds sure — on LinkedIn, in leadership, in tech, in politics — even when the ground is clearly shifting beneath them.

Look a little closer and most things feel… quisquous.

Careers don’t run straight anymore. Institutions don’t command automatic trust. Technology promises clarity and delivers complexity. Leaders perform confidence while privately admitting they’re guessing.

That doesn’t mean things are broken. It means the map was oversold.

What I like about quisquous is its generosity. It doesn’t rush to judgement. It doesn’t accuse. It simply acknowledges that some people, systems and situations aren’t immediately legible. They take time. Context. Conversation.

Very Third Half.

Because the Third Half is where certainty loosens its grip. Where neat stories unravel. Where people admit things are complicated — and that success and doubt often sit side by side.

Leadership could use more of this. Less performative certainty. More thoughtful pause. More comfort with saying, “I don’t fully know yet.”

If parts of your life feel hard to read right now — career, direction, identity — that’s not failure. It’s being human in a complex moment.

You’re not broken.

You’re living in quisquous times.

And sometimes the most honest thing you can say is:

“I’m not sure yet — but I’m paying attention.”

That’s where the real conversation starts.

Subscribe now

I walked through Glasgow Central Station with no intention beyond a coffee and a train south. The place was doing what stations do best: echoing footsteps, half-heard reunions, the soft panic of missed connections.

And then there it was. Arms raised. Timbered. Unapologetically human.

‘The Beacon of Hope’ doesn’t shout. It doesn’t glow. It just stands—made from Scottish Sitka spruce, shaped by hands that understand grain and patience, left deliberately imperfect. You can see the layers, the joins, the marks of work. It feels less like a monument and more like a promise that’s been kept quietly.

Behind it, almost unnoticed, a TO LET sign hangs where cafés and bars once lived. A small, unglamorous reminder that not everything bounces back neatly. That some doors stay shut a wee bit too long. That recovery isn’t a straight line.

On the plinth, a poem by Sean Lionadh:

‘The streets will be full again

The music good again

The gentle will rule again…’

Not a manifesto. Not a rant. Just a reminder.

Someone had left a small heart at its feet. Not grand. Not performative. Just a token saying I was here, and this mattered. That, somehow, felt like the whole point.

This sculpture—by Stuart Padwick—was a legacy gift to the city during COP26. Sustainability carved into wood. Mental health support written plainly beside it. Hope, without the marketing gloss.

Last night was a charity gig in Edinburgh — one of those rooms where the music does the talking and the cause matters more than the billing. Angelfish was the and (If you know, you know).

This morning, I’m Southbound. Carrying that sound, that stillness, and the sense that things can be broken and better at the same time.

We spend a lot of time in The Third Half talking about systems, structures, failures, rebuilds. Big ideas. Heavy stuff.

But sometimes the work is smaller and braver:

Standing still.

Looking up.

Holding hope and loss in the same frame.

The streets WILL be full again.

The music WILL be good again.

And if we’re paying attention, the lover might just remember how to be human.

That feels like a decent way to head into the weekend.

If you’re passing through Central, pause. If you’re struggling, the sign beside it tells you where to turn.

Subscribe now

We live in an extraordinary age of choice.

You can now buy avocado smash on sourdough, topped with micro-greens, drizzled with something cold-pressed, ethically sourced, and emotionally reassuring — all before 9am, and often at a railway station.

There are breakfast bowls. Protein pots. Overnight oats. Activated seeds. Juices with numbers instead of names. Coffee that arrives with tasting notes and a short origin story.

And yet.

The egg sandwich still explodes on the first bite.

Not sometimes.

Not occasionally.

Every time.

Egg escapes out the back. Filling migrates. Gravity takes over. Your shirt becomes collateral damage. A napkin is deployed too late to matter.

I have a beard and a moustache. Depending on the month — and how recently they’ve been trimmed — I may discover remnants hours later.

This is not a new problem. The egg sandwich has been around for decades. Possibly centuries. It has four ingredients and a single job: be eaten without incident.

We have not cracked it.

What we have done is add layers.

More bread options. Brioche. Ciabatta. Sourdough with aspirations. Chilli jam. Aioli. Micro-greens again, because apparently they’re mandatory now.

But the core problem remains untouched.

Because this isn’t innovation. It’s decoration.

We’re very good at making things look new. We’re less good at making them work better. We add features instead of fixing fundamentals. We prioritise novelty over usefulness. We optimise for the menu description, not the moment of truth — the bite.

The egg sandwich doesn’t need disruption.

It needs containment.

And this is where it stops being about lunch.

Because you see the same thing everywhere else. Products launched with fanfare that collapse under light, everyday use. Software that looks incredible in a demo but needs a training course to survive its first week. Strategies that sparkle on slides and disintegrate on contact with reality.

Plenty of excitement. Very little improvement.

We call it innovation because it’s easier than admitting we haven’t solved the obvious.

The real test is brutally simple:

Can a normal human use this, in the real world, without making a mess?

If the answer is no, it doesn’t matter how clever it is. Or how beautifully it’s presented. Or how many ingredients it contains.

The egg sandwich has failed this test for years. Not because it’s hard. But because no one is incentivised to fix the boring bit.

There’s more money in micro-greens.

So yes, celebrate choice. Enjoy the avocado. Marvel at the sourdough.

But don’t confuse more with better.

Progress isn’t adding things.

It’s fixing what’s obviously broken.

Start with the egg sandwich.

Then tell me about your innovation.

Disclaimer: I bloody love an egg sandwich….

We talk endlessly in business about firefighting.

The urgent issue.

The all-hands call.

The late-night messages and emergency decks.

Firefighting is celebrated. It’s heroic. It’s visible.

It’s also exhausting — and usually a sign that something failed earlier.

What we rarely talk about is what comes after.

Because beneath all the language about resilience and recovery sits a quieter fear:

If the fire happens… is everything lost?

I was reminded of this reading a short piece on Interesting Facts about the California “fire poppy” — a plant that appears only after wildfires. According to the article, its seeds can lie dormant in the soil for decades, waiting not for rain or sunlight, but for smoke. Only once a fire has burned through — clearing dominant growth and changing the chemistry of the ground — do the flowers bloom.

(Source: InterestingFacts.com – Fire poppy flower only grows in California after fires)

The plant is real: Papaver californicum.

Fire, for it, is not destruction. It’s the signal.

Business failure works in much the same way.

Most organisational “fires” don’t create weaknesses. They reveal them. Brittle operating models. Assumptions that went unchallenged. Systems propped up by habit rather than design. Cultures optimised for appearances instead of resilience.

When something finally breaks, the instinct is to contain the damage and move on quickly. Rebuild. Rebrand. Rewrite the story.

But fires also do something else: they clear space.

After a serious failure, organisations often have fewer illusions and sharper priorities. Long-protected sacred cows suddenly look optional. Conversations that were impossible before become unavoidable — and therefore possible.

Not everything survives a fire.

But not everything should.

The uncomfortable truth is this: failure doesn’t guarantee renewal. But it creates the conditions for it. Whether anything grows afterwards depends on what seeds were already in the ground.

So the question isn’t only how we prevent the next fire.

It’s what we’re prepared to grow once the smoke clears

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

If you’ve experienced a professional or organisational “fire,” I’d love to hear what came after. What did it expose? What did it make possible? Share your reflections — or pass this on to someone who’s currently in the smoke.

#Leadership #BusinessFailure #Resilience

#TechnicalDebt #CrisisLeadership #GrowthAfterFailure #TheThirdHalf

Supporting Airdrieonians and the Denver Broncos isn’t a season-long emotional arc.

Sometimes it’s a single, intense 24-hour stretch that leaves you wired, tired, and wondering why you do this to yourself.

Saturday was one of those days.

Airdrie: penalties by proxy

Airdrie’s Scottish cup 4th round tie (the entrance to the exciting end of the tournament) versus Arbroath, was heading somewhere I didn’t want to miss — just as I had to get in the car.

By the time it went to penalties, I was driving home, which meant the match was relayed second-hand by my wife, repeatedly refreshing her phone and narrating each kick like an air-traffic controller. Miss. Score. Save. Repeat.

It’s a very particular kind of tension — not watching, but knowing exactly what’s happening seconds after it happens. When Airdrie finally got over the line, the relief arrived before the joy. Penalties always do that.

Not a giant-killing. Just a hard-earned win over a side slightly above us in the league. But it mattered. Cup football always does.

Denver: winning late, again

Fast-forward to the evening, and I’m back where most of my Denver support lives — the sofa.

This season, Denver have developed a habit that’s both thrilling and exhausting: winning late. Close games. Fourth-quarter swings. One-score finishes. It’s become their identity.

And once again, against Buffalo, they did it the hard way. Trailed. Scrapped. Stayed alive. Then dragged the game into overtime and found a way to win.

By the time the Broncos sealed it — at around 01:00 GMT — I was fully invested, fully awake, and fully aware that this wasn’t just another game.

Bo Nix: excitement, then the gut-punch

A huge part of why this Denver team has been watchable — genuinely exciting — is Bo Nix.

He’s not a rookie, but he feels new in the way he plays: composed, brave, mobile, and increasingly comfortable late in games. He’s been central to those comebacks all season. You trust him. That’s rare as a Broncos fan.

Which is why the moment landed so hard.

Late in overtime, on a routine run, Nix goes down. Not theatrically. Not immediately obvious. Just… wrong. He stayed on long enough to set up the winning field goal, but the damage was done: a broken ankle, season over.

Denver win their first playoff game in years - get to the AFC Championsip game (think Super Bowl semi -final) - and lose the player who made believing feel reasonable again. (To be fair, they have a great defence too, but….)

The noise around the other quarterback

Throughout all of this, the commentary kept circling Josh Allen — MVP conversations, arm strength, star power — even as turnovers and pressure told a different story on the night.

That’s not a dig at Allen. It’s just the NFL machine doing what it always does: chasing the familiar narrative, even when the game in front of it is more complicated.

Denver didn’t win because Buffalo failed a script. They won because they’ve learned how to hang around and strike late.

Where the day leaves you

So that was yesterday:

   •   Airdrie surviving penalties via live text updates

   •   Denver winning in overtime just after midnight

   •   Elation, relief, then a sharp dose of reality

   •   And eventually, silence on the sofa at 01:00 GMT

No trophies. No certainty. Just the quiet satisfaction of knowing both teams found a way — and the lingering frustration that nothing ever comes clean.

That’s supporting Airdrie and Denver.

And yes — I’d do it all again today…. (If I ever get out of bed)

Carbon markets are often talked about as if everyone already understands them.

Most people don’t. And that’s fine.

A quick bit of context: a carbon market is simply a way of putting a price on carbon emissions, so reducing them becomes a financial decision as well as a moral one. Some are mandated by governments, others are voluntary — all are trying, in different ways, to change behaviour at scale.

Of course, cynics will say carbon markets encourage greenwashing. Historically, they haven’t always been wrong. Loose rules, poor verification and cheap offsets have allowed some organisations to buy reassurance rather than make change. That scepticism still hangs over the whole space.

This is where this excellent piece by Yingyan Lu is particularly helpful. It doesn’t ignore that history. Instead, it explains why the direction of travel matters.

The argument is straightforward.

Carbon markets are slowly moving from ambition to accountability. Governments are tightening the rules. Companies are being asked to evidence their claims. Carbon is starting to show up in real commercial decisions, not just sustainability language.

Voluntary markets are part of that shift. Low-quality, easy answers are being challenged, while credibility, trust and integrity are becoming harder to avoid. In that sense, carbon markets don’t eliminate the risk of greenwashing — but they do start to reduce the space for it.

Technology plays a supporting role rather than stealing the spotlight. Measurement improves. Verification gets tougher. The system becomes harder to game. Not glamorous, but necessary.

What stands out most is the tone. This isn’t a victory lap or a manifesto. It’s a thoughtful look at a system that’s still imperfect, but evolving in a direction that might actually hold.

For anyone trying to understand whether carbon markets can move beyond theory and into something more meaningful, this is a clear and grounded read.

Read the full article here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/carbon-markets-2026-policy-innovation-ai-redefine-game-lu--g2y6e?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&utm_campaign=share_via

At The Third Half, curiosity beats certainty — and pieces like this help move the conversation forward.

Murmuration

A murmuration is a continuous low sound of murmuring. Not shouting. Not arguing. Just… noise. Persistent, indistinct, slightly irritated noise. In other words, the natural soundtrack of modern working life.

It’s the background hum of:

– meetings where nobody disagrees out loud but everyone disagrees internally

– post-meeting meetings

– people saying “I’m just thinking out loud” while doing exactly that

– the quiet sigh after someone says “we’ll take that offline”

A murmuration isn’t action. It isn’t decision. It’s the noise we make while avoiding both. You don’t hear it in the room — you feel it. A low corporate weather system of concern, caution, and carefully managed nodding.

The irony?

Most murmurations disappear the moment someone asks a clear question.

Happy Friday from The Third Half.

The Museum of Failure is coming to the UK, which is frankly a relief.

For years we’ve been dragging this stuff around in our collective emotional loft — right next to the fondue set, the unused bread maker, and that once-bold national idea we absolutely swear would have worked if only everyone else had behaved properly.

At last, somewhere to put it all.

The Guardian suggests exhibits will include the Sinclair C5, the Titanic and Brexit. Which feels less like an exhibition and more like a gentle intervention. A kind of cultural sit-down where someone says: “Look… we need to talk.”

Failure isn’t our problem.

It’s our delivery.

Other countries fail with drama. Explosions. Congressional hearings.

We fail quietly, with clipboards.

We announce things with calm authority, accompanied by a tasteful logo and a vague sense that “the details will follow”. The details do not follow. Instead, a review follows. Then a second review, explaining why the first review couldn’t possibly have anticipated reality.

Take the Millennium Dome. Conceived as a triumphant statement of modern Britain. Delivered as a large tent full of mild confusion and sponsored disappointment. It later found its true calling by being rebranded as the O2 — which is the most British failure recovery arc imaginable: “Yes, it was a disaster… but have you tried seeing a gig there?”

Then there’s HS2 — a rail project so ambitious it managed to fail several times before completion. A masterclass in spending eye-watering sums to achieve the rare feat of upsetting everyone equally, while still insisting it’s about “the future”.

Or Concorde. Beautiful. Elegant. Loud. Financially catastrophic. A plane that proved Britain could travel faster than sound, just not faster than common sense or basic economics. We keep it anyway. Because it looks brilliant in museums — which may be the real design brief all along.

The Sinclair C5: optimism with pedals

The Sinclair C5 remains my personal favourite. A futuristic electric vehicle launched into a country that:

   •   rains sideways

   •   fears cyclists

   •   and regards novelty with suspicion

It wasn’t just ahead of its time. It was ahead of weather, culture, and basic self-preservation. Sitting six inches off the road, visible only to squirrels and municipal cones, it remains the purest expression of British innovation: bold idea, heroic confidence, minimal survivability.

And then… Brexit

Including Brexit in a Museum of Failure while it is still being actively argued about is either astonishing bravery or peak British passive aggression.

Is it a failure?

A success?

A “work in progress”?

The answer, of course, depends entirely on who you ask, what day it is, and whether they are currently being interviewed. It may be the world’s first Schrödinger’s Policy: simultaneously triumph and catastrophe until observed.

Future museum captions will need rotating panels.

Self-deprecation as a national operating system

The curator suggests Britain is the spiritual home of this exhibition because we understand failure.

That’s true — but not because we learn from it quickly.

We understand it because we live with it.

We normalise it.

We joke about it.

We lower expectations and call it realism.

Failure becomes less something to fix, and more something to narrate. Preferably with dry humour and a sense that “it could have been worse”. Which is why this museum feels so on-brand: not an alarm bell, but a knowing shrug.

People. Planet. Progress. And the exit sign

From a TTH lens, this is classic People, Planet, Progress — just viewed through slightly steamed-up glasses.

   •   People bear the cost while being told it’s all terribly complicated.

   •   Planet is promised salvation via innovation, then quietly sidelined when the spreadsheet flinches.

   •   Progress is declared, paused, re-announced, and eventually shelved pending review.

Failure isn’t the problem.

Our comfort with repeating it might be.

Still, I’ll go.

I’ll laugh.

I’ll mutter “we really are good at this”.

And I’ll leave wondering whether the real exhibit isn’t the failures themselves — but our extraordinary talent for turning them into heritage before the paint’s even dry.

Question for you:

Is this healthy reflection… or just Britain polishing the brass plaque while the same mistakes queue patiently outside for their turn?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/dec/25/titanic-sinclair-c5-brexit-museum-of-failure-coming-uk?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

It’s a simple thank you to everyone who gave their time, energy and trust in our first few months, and a quiet marker of what we’re trying to build here.

The voice you hear towards the end is Happy Ashiya Ishaku, who works behind the scenes from Abuja and makes so much of this possible, with music by two of our brilliant guests, My Girl The River and Serious Child.

No highlights. No hot takes.

Just a big thank you.

Wishing you a calm end to the year and a brilliant festive season. Tune back in in the New Year - lot's more to come.

People · Planet · Progress.