This article looks into the recently released letter that Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackrock sent to CEO’s of all the companies they invest in.

This is an annual event, but in recent years Larry Fink has started to really turn up the volume in his calls for climate action. You can find the letter here.

In this year’s edition, climate change and sustainability made it into the second paragraph, which is impressive:

“This is why I write to you each year, seeking to highlight issues that are pivotal to creating durable value – issues such as capital management, long-term strategy, purpose, and climate change. We have long believed that our clients, as shareholders in your company, will benefit if you can create enduring, sustainable value for all of your stakeholders.”

Not much further into the letter, there was another ringing endorsement of climate action:

“No issue ranks higher than climate change on our clients’ lists of priorities. They ask us about it nearly every day.”

In a section titled The Opportunity of the Net Zero Transition Larry Fink has this to say:

“As the transition accelerates, companies with a well-articulated long-term strategy, and a clear plan to address the transition to net zero, will distinguish themselves with their stakeholders – with customers, policymakers, employees and shareholders – by inspiring confidence that they can navigate this global transformation.”

Then in another section titled Why Data and Disclosure Matter he had this to say:

“Given how central the energy transition will be to every company’s growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy – that is, one where global warming is limited to well below 2ºC, consistent with a global aspiration of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. We are asking you to disclose how this plan is incorporated into your long-term strategy and reviewed by your board of directors.”

There is another similar letter that goes out to clients on the same day. You can find that letter here.

In the letter Larry Fink sets out the following actions:

• Publishing a temperature alignment metric for our public equity and bond funds, where sufficient data is available
• Incorporating climate considerations into our capital markets assumptions
• Implementing a “heightened-scrutiny model” in our active portfolios as a framework for managing holdings that pose significant climate risk (including flagging holdings for potential exit)
• Launching investment products with explicit temperature alignment goals, including products aligned to a net zero pathway
• Using stewardship to ensure that the companies our clients are invested in are both mitigating climate risk and considering the opportunities presented by the net zero transition

Taken together these letters constitute a clarion call for climate action from the Chairman and CEO of the world’s largest asset manager.

BlackRock’s size gives it the ability to influence climate action like no other company can. This can include anything from voting against directors that they do not believe are adequately addressing climate change. To ousting directors and dumping shares of the same companies.

Money talks and nobody manages as much of it as Blackock.

What you need to know

This article looked into Larry Fink’s 2021 letter to CEOs.

These normally include a call for climate action, but this year, the volume got turned up significantly.

The letter includes the following key takeaways.

Climate action was earmarked as a clear client priority.

Climate action and sustainability are a precursor to success, not a burden.

Companies that Blackrock invest in need to have a plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

The next time you hear someone talking negatively about climate action and sustainability, show them his letter.

Thank you for reading,

By Barnaby Nash

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below or reach out to me on social media. What do you think needs to be done to make net zero 2050 a reality?

 Let’s stay connected

I can be reached on LinkedIn and on Twitter @FollowBarnaby

This article looks into the principles that would characterise a circular economy.

I recently finished reading A New Dynamic: Effective Business in a Circular Economy by Amory Lovins, et al. I thought the whole book was excellent, but there was one chapter that really stood out. This was a chapter by Walter Stahel called The Business Angle of a Circular Economy.

In this chapter Walter begins by highlighting the principles that characterise a circular economy.

I have anther series on this same subject, which you can find here.

In that series titled Circular Economy Principles I ran through the principles identified by David Cheshire in his book Building Revolutions. On reflection, that series should probably be titled Circular Economy Principles for the Built Environment as David’s book is primarily concerned with that field.

This article and the principles from Walter Stahel concern the economy as a whole and the principles that would have to underpin a fully circular economy.

The principles include the following.

Principle 1

The smaller the loop (activity-wise and geographically) the more profitable and resource efficient it is.

Principle 2

Loops have no beginning and no end; value maintained replaces value added.

Principle 3

The speed of the circular flows is crucial; the efficiency of managing stock in the circular economy increases with a decreasing flow speed.

Principle 4

Continued ownership is cost efficient: reuse, repair and remanufacture without a change of ownership saves double transaction costs.

Principle 5

A circular economy needs functioning markets.

Some of these might seem obvious at first but are important in highlighting what is required to create a circular economy.

What you need to know

This article looked into the principles that would characterise a circular economy.

It is based on the principles outlined by Walter Stahel in A new Dynamic. I thought the book was excellent and it comes highly recommended from me.

The principles are remarkably simple, yet their translation into reality has been slow.

There has been talk of creating a circular economy for some time, but I believe we are now beginning to turn a corner.

Principle 2 stood out to me. At times the circular economy felt too abstract and academic to be turned into a reality. But with the realisation that loops have no beginning or end. Any effort that bends wasteful processes towards circularity is welcome.

I am minded to quote the old Chinese proverb that: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.”

The same holds true for the circular economy. There is a lot of waste that has been allowed to build up over a long period of time. Ideally this would not have been allowed to happen, but it has. The best time to start embedding these circular economy principles would have been some time ago. But the second best time is now.

It doesn’t matter where you start, the important thing is that you do.

Thank you for reading,

By Barnaby Nash

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below or reach out to me on social media. What do you think needs to be done to advance circular economy principles.

Let’s stay connected

I can be reached on LinkedIn and on Twitter @FollowBarnaby

This week is the fourth part of a series that I am doing looking into Net Zero carbon and how this can be achieved by 2050.

There was a report that came out in October 2020 called “Fit for Net-Zero: 55 Tech Quests to Accelerate Europe’s Recovery and Pave the Way to Climate Neutrality.” I thought the report was really good, so over the last couple of weeks I have been picking out my personal highlights from the different sections that made up the report.

Net Zero Carbon – Solutions for Transport

I was surprised to learn that transportation is responsible for over 1,200 MtCO₂ per year, which is 30% of total emissions in the EU.

There were lots of great transport solutions in the report. The first that stood out was the idea of scale up green n-liquid ammonia production and logistics infrastructure for long-distance shipping.

The issue is that ammonia is a promising zero-emissions fuel for shipping, but is still produced mainly from grey hydrogen and remains much more expensive than traditional fuel. The solution the report proposes is to test and deploy at scale production facilities of green ammonia for use as e-fuel for maritime shipping.

There has been a lot of interest in ammonia as a fuel recently. This is driven by the fact that its use does not emit CO₂ due to the lack of a carbon atom in the NH3 molecule. However, to achieve net zero, ammonia production needs to be carbon-neutral, using green hydrogen obtained from electrolysis. Nowadays, ammonia production heavily relies on fossil fuels and is far from carbon-neutral.

This was calculated to be a powerful solution, with the potential to avoid 54.3 MtCO₂e and create 12,000 jobs by 2050.

The next solution that stood out was the idea of developing hydrogen usage for heavy-duty road freight. The issue is that widespread implementation of hydrogen in road transport is limited by poor infrastructure penetration and reliability. The solution the report advocates for, is building a ‘spine’ based on high-utilization freight, which would  lay the foundation for expansion into passenger transport.

These freight hydrogen corridors will consist of large stations ensuring hydrogen refuelling as well as production on site with small electrolyzers and photovoltaic panels.

For this solution to work, the early engagement of relevant stakeholders is essential. These include developers and manufacturers of hydrogen generation and fuel cells products, trucking specialists, as well as shipping, rail freight and renewable energy providers.

Amazingly, currently there are only 120 hydrogen refuelling stations in Europe. So, initiatives such as the one outlined above are necessary in order to jump start the adoption of this technology. This would also be an impactful solution, with the potential to avoid 166.3 MtCO₂e and create 176,000 jobs by 2050.

The next solution that stood out was to electrify short-distance truck transport, including waste collection and urban buss fleets.  

The issue is that over 70% of goods used daily are transported within and between cities via heavy duty trucks that are large CO₂ emitters. The solution proposed is to develop heavy-duty electric vehicles, such as  trucks, busses, waste collection vehicles and to demonstrate the feasibility of reliable deployment to gain scale and reduce costs.

One of the strategies would be to pioneer inspirational technologies, such as Volvo’s FL truck, which has a 16 tonne capacity and a range of 300 km. Cities must also begin to initiate tenders to replace ageing HGV fleets and incentivise vehicle manufacturers to increase supply. This is especially important for urban areas, as this would be a solution that will improve local air quality and address climate change at the same time.

This could have a big impact, with the potential to avoid 23.9 MtCO₂e and create 222,000 jobs by 2050.

The next solution stood out for me as being really important. The idea is to create a 100% circular battery economy in Europe. This is essential, as it is important that the electric vehicle industry that replaces the internal combustion engine industry learns from the lessons of the past to address environmental issues before they become problems.

By recycling EV batteries, this will reduce the environmental impact of the production of new batteries. The solution is to create large scale battery recycling facilities across Europe to ensure reuse of these components and limit environmental impacts.

The project aims to create an additional annual recycling capacity of 3.6 million tons of car batteries in major European regions by 2030, tis compares to a current capacity of  around 46,000 tons.

By recycling EV batteries, this decreases the need for the extraction of valuable raw materials, such as: lithium, cobalt, manganese and nickel. Thus reduces the cost and environmental impact of their extraction for the manufacturing of future batteries and avoids the pollution of landfills.

This solution has the potential to make a big impact, with the possibility of avoiding 57.7 MtCO₂e and creating 300,000 jobs by 2050.

The final solution that stood out to me, highlighted the incredibly important role of technology in solving pressing environmental challenges. The solution involves leveraging shared autonomous vehicles to reduce the number of cars in an increasing number of European cities by 30%.

The aim is to promote the use of shared autonomous mobility in medium and large cities. The solution is to launch pilot projects of shared autonomous vehicles (taxis or minibuses) across ten one-million-inhabitant European cities by 2030.

The pilot projects would have an aim to reduce individual car use by 30% in 2030. A key enabler of this is to ensure the redesign of the urban realm necessary to reach the adequate safety standards for autonomous vehicles, this includes factors such as: local regulation, high-fidelity 3D mapping, optimised infrastructure and traffic rules.

This solution could avoid 4.0 MtCO₂e and create 163,000 jobs by 2050.

What you need to know

This article was the fourth part in a series looking into the top breakthrough technologies from the recently released Fit For Net Zero report. This week was the turn of looking into the solutions for transport.

Transport is a key feature of the race to Net Zero, making up 30% of total emissions in the EU. It is therefore a crucial arena for breakthrough technologies to decarbonise this sector.

The high energy density and portability of fossil fuels made them ideal for transportation. The fuels that look to replace fossil fuels for transportation will need to have these same properties.

It is encouraging that there are a number of emergent technologies that look like they have the potential to scale up and meet this challenge.

Thank you for reading,

By Barnaby Nash

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, or reach out to me on social media. What do you think needs to be done to make Net Zero 2050 a reality?

 Let’s stay connected

I can be reached on LinkedIn and on Twitter @FollowBarnaby

This week is the second part of a series that I am doing looking into net zero carbon and how this can be achieved by 2050.

There was a report that came out in October 2020 called “Fit for Net-Zero: 55 Tech Quests to Accelerate Europe’s Recovery and Pave the Way to Climate Neutrality.” I thought the report was really good, so over the next couple of weeks I will be picking out my personal highlights from the different sections that made up the report.

Net Zero Carbon – Industrial Solutions

Within the EU, industry is responsible for 30% or 1,201 MtCO of greenhouse gas emissions. This is generated by energy use, such as burning fossil fuels to obtain high-grade or low-grade heat or using non-renewable electricity. There are other direct emissions from processes, such as the chemical reaction involved with cement production, which generates CO₂ as a by-product.

Achieving a low carbon industry is of paramount importance if the EU wants to make a successful response to tackling climate change.

The first solution that stood out was to reduce the need for concrete thanks to better design and alternative concrete for equivalent usages. Cement production accounts for around 2% of global CO₂ emissions. Low-carbon alternatives exist but thus far have not broken out and penetrated major markets yet.

The solution proposed is to boost the use of biobased concrete, starting with 10,000 tons in 2030. The impact of this would be to avoid 5.9 MtCO₂e by 2050 and create 126,000 jobs by the same time period.

The next solution to stand out was another cement solution. This was to replace the use of concrete with carbon sink materials in new buildings. The construction of new buildings can be a carbon intensive process, with high carbon materials and high energy needs for transportation and operation of plant and equipment.

The solution is to upscale alternative comprehensive construction materials and approaches, using electric equipment, geothermal energy and green areas. The aim is to build 500 buildings in each European country by 2025 using low GHG-intensity materials and construction methods, with construction materials split between wood and low-GHG emitting cement. This solution has the potential to avoid 42.8 MtCO₂e by 250 and create 3,753,000 jobs over the same time period.

Next to stand out was another cement focussed solution, highlighting the importance of decarbonising this industry. This is to reduce the share of portland clinker in cement and develop new alternative clinkers.

As already mentioned, cement production accounts for 2% of EU CO₂ emissions, and processes (excluding energy emissions) from clinker production alone are responsible for 66% of those emissions.

This solution involves replacing clinker with substitutes (less clinker per unit of cement), which can reduce emissions by 18%. There are also alternative clinkers (to replace the classic Portland clinker) which can achieve a 17% cut in CO₂ emissions. This solution could have a big impact, by helping to avoid 6.8 MtCO₂e and create 78,000 jobs by 2030.

Next up was another cement focussed solution. This involves industrializing the use of carbon capture and usage to deliver ultra-low carbon cement production.

The calcination phase in the cement industry is responsible for 66% of cement emissions. This solution involves capturing unavoidable process emissions and reusing the CO₂ in industries such as concrete or petrochemicals.

The aim is to scale up and industrialize carbon capture at cement kilns and CO₂ usage in the cement and concrete industry to capture 14% of cement production emissions by 2030 and 56% by 2050. This could also have big impact, by helping to avoid 4.9 MtCO₂e and create 16,000 jobs in 2030.

The next solution which stood out related to refrigerants. This involves reducing the GHG impact of refrigerants.

The issue is that to achieve the phase-out of EU HFC (hexafluorocarbons) by 2030 requires further support, especially in the development of alternative refrigerants. To solve this problem requires a program to support industries to use new low-GHG refrigerants.

If acted upon, this could have a significant impact, in helping to avoid 87.1 MtCO₂e by 2050 and create 53,000 jobs by 2050.

What you need to know

This article was the second part in a series looking into the top breakthrough technologies from the recently released Fit For Net Zero report. This week was the turn of looking into the industrial solutions.

As we can see, the cement industry is a real hotspot of carbon emissions. But it is positive to see a lot of solutions coming to the forefront to help to reduce the carbon intensity of this sector.

Then refrigeration is also a significant hotspot of carbon emissions and more work is required to reduce the carbon intensity of this activity.

Thank you for reading,

By Barnaby Nash

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, or reach out to me on social media. What do you think needs to be done to make net zero 2050 a reality?

 Let’s stay connected

I can be reached on LinkedIn and on Twitter @FollowBarnaby

This week is the first part of a series that I will be doing looking into net zero carbon and how this can be achieved by 2050.

There was a report that came out in October 2020 called “Fit for Net-Zero: 55 Tech Quests to Accelerate Europe’s Recovery and Pave the Way to Climate Neutrality.” I thought the report was excellent, so over the next couple of weeks I will pick out my personal highlights from the report.

Net Zero Carbon – Energy Solutions

There is no pathway to net zero carbon by 2050 that does not involve significant decarbonisation of the energy sector.

The report’s energy section opens with an ominous statistic on performance in Europe:

“In 2017, fossil fuels still accounted for 73% of Europe’s energy consumption, with renewables at just 14% (despite their rapid recent growth), followed by nuclear at 13%.”

This shows just how much work there is to be done to transform the energy sector.

The first energy technology that was highlighted was giga-scale manufacturing capacities of new generation solar modules. This involves building gigafactories based on perovskite and III-V multi-junction high efficiency cells by 2030.

In layman’s terms, the efficiency of crystalline silicon cells is reaching its technical limits. There is also the problem that in the last 15 years, China has produced most of the world’s solar PV. So this would present an opportunity for bringing new jobs to Europe.

This was ranked as a very powerful solution, as it is estimated that by 2030 37.9 MtCO₂e could be avoided and by 2050 253.2 MtCO₂e could be avoided.

The next solution was another solar power innovation, this involves generating 30% more electricity per m2 with bifacial solar panels. This would help to solve a pressing problem, in that current PV efficiency reaches its limits and its deployment can be hampered by land use constraints.

This solution would make a big difference as bifacial solar plants harvest light reflected from the ground via the Albedo effect to increase efficiency by 9% and generate up to 40% more power when combined with tracking systems.

Despite what from the outside seems like a simple solution, it is estimated that by 2030 18.9 MtCO₂e could be avoided and by 2050 162.5 MtCO₂e could be avoided.

The next solution was more large-scale floating offshore wind. Projects developed to support this goal could unlock 80% of Europe’s offshore wind potential through a rapid scale-up of new generation floating wind structures.

This would help to solve a significant problem that the nearshore shallow seas are already saturated with industrial activities, while 80% of Europe’s offshore wind resource potential is located in water more than 60 m deep, which is too deep for conventional offshore wind installations.

The solution is for large scale floating wind turbine projects to drive down costs on offshore wind farms. This would have a big impact in helping to avoid 48.6 MtCO₂e by 2030 and 331.1 MtCO₂e by 2050. Amazingly, it is also anticipated that it could support 1,278,000 total jobs by 2050.

The next solution which stood out to me was 24/7  availability of electricity from combined solar generation, storage and grid. The idea is to build a trans-Mediterranean grid and electricity daytime baseload with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP).

This helps to solve the problem that solar plants provide only intermittent power, which is not solved with Li-ion battery storage that only provide one to four hours of storage. The solution proposed is for Large scale CSP in EU and North Africa with AC-DC grid, with 15-18 hours storage to provide base production (90-100% load factor) at €50/ MWh in 2030.

This ambitious solution showed that 30 MtCO₂e could be avoided by 2030 and 66.4 MtCO₂e could be avoided by 2050.

What you need to know  

This article was the first part in a series looking into the top breakthrough technologies from the recently released Fit For Net Zero report. This week was the turn of looking into the energy solutions.

Energy is a key enabler of a net zero carbon future, as it is very hard to have net zero carbon transportation or buildings without it.

On the negatiove side, a lot of time has been wasted, and there is still much to do to decarbonise this sector.

On the positive side, there is an alignment of breakthrough technologies, commercial interests and government support, that should allow this sector to make significant strides in decarbonisation between now and the key 2030 and 2050 milestones.

Thank you for reading,

By Barnaby Nash

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, or reach out to me on social media. What do you think needs to be done to make net zero 2050 a reality?

 Let’s stay connected

I can be reached on LinkedIn and on Twitter @FollowBarnaby

This article looks into circular economy principles. This is the final part in a three-part series looking into this topic.

It is based on the work of David Cheshire and his book Building Revolutions.

In part one, which you can find here, we looked into the principle of designing out waste. In part two, which you can find here, we looked into the principle of building to last and adapt. Both are crucial to delivering the circular economy within the built environment.

Principle 3: Obey the technical or biological cycle

This principle is about selecting building components that flow in either a technical or biological cycle. This will vary depending on their expected lifespan, what they are being used for and what is available.

Materials that are part of the technical cycle are durable and are suitable for reuse, remanufacture and disassembly.

Materials that are part of the biological cycle are less durable but are simpler to return to the biosphere at the end of their useful life.

The key is to select materials with the right lifecycle for the intended purpose.

Designing for disassembly is something that would make a really big difference for advancing the circular economy within the built environment. However, it is still something that there is a lot of room for improvement on. In Building Revolutions, David Cheshire had the following to say:

“It is conceivable, though rarely done, to have a strategy for reclaiming components and materials at end-of-life, and to enable disassembly of the building.”

It is understandable why this is not seen as a priority. As when you are constructing a new building, the primary focus is on how it will perform for its primary function and the costs of doing so. But for achieving circularity in the built environment it is important that more emphasis is put on design for disassembly.

In a survey of demolition contractors, they point out that techniques such as having mechanical and reversible not chemical connections, ease of access to connections, independent a separable building elements and not using resins, adhesives or coatings on the elements can go a long way to making the deconstruction of the building simpler.

There are two really good examples in Building Revolutions. One is of the F87 Efficiency House Plus in Berlin by Werner Sobek, which is pictured below.

This project took the technical and biological materials cycle philosophy to the limit, meticulously selecting the correct material for its intended end use.

For materials that are recyclable at the end of their life, this included: cellulose insulation, recycled rubber as protective matting, wooden bearers for the structure of the roof and upper floors, hemp insulation and cork board.

At the end of the construction period, a manual was prepared that detailed the various materials that were used and the potential for reclamation or recycling.

Another example was project XX in Delft, which is pictured below.

The aim was to design an office building with a 20-year lifetime, on the basis that such buildings often undergo a major refurbishment roughly around this time.

The following criteria were used to select materials; they should be simple to reclaim as uncontaminated raw materials. They should be reusable without any alteration. They should be fully seperable and recyclable.

Interestingly on this project, they used ventilation ducts made of cardboard, which I have never seen or heard of before, with sand fill used on the first floor for sound insulation. It has proven to be very popular with occupants, showing that the focus on sustainability and circular principles enhanced value.

What you need to know

This article looked into circular economy principles.

This week we looked into biological and technical cycles and why it is important to select the correct material for a specific purpose.

No building is designed to last forever, so it is sensible to design buildings so that they can be demolished easily, and the parts sent for recycling and recovery to the greatest extent possible.

We looked at two highly successful, sustainable buildings which prove if circular economy principles are acted upon, that the result is a building that is highly desirable and sustainable at the same time.

Thank you for reading,

By Barnaby Nash

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, or reach out to me on social media. What do you think needs to be done to make the circular economy a reality in the built environment?

 Let’s stay connected

I can be reached on LinkedIn and on Twitter @FollowBarnaby

This article looks into circular economy principles. This is the second part in a three-part series looking into this topic.

It is based on the work of David Cheshire and his book Building Revolutions.

In part one, which you can find here, we looked at how the principle of designing out waste is fundamental to achieving a circular economy within the built environment.

Principle 2: Build to Last & Adapt

The second principle is about creating structures that are built to last and that are adaptable. This should be no surprise, as if we go back to the original meaning of sustainability, it is about the capacity to endure or continue.

The adaptability part is probably what is less common, as it is probably not something that a significant amount of attention is paid to when the structure is being designed and built. This will have to change if progress is to be made on the circular economy within the built environment.

 Something that I found really interesting in the book was the Multispace concept. This is an idea where you construct a building with a set of parameters, so that it would be suitable for retail, leisure or office space, should that be required during the building’s lifetime.

Most of the building uses had pretty similar floor-to-ceiling height requirements, except retail, which had larger requirements. This can be accommodated by putting a higher ceiling on the ground floor, as that is the floor that is most likely to be converted to retail, if required.

In order to build buildings that can be reconfigured during their lifetimes, they need to be designed to be adaptable from the outset. David points towards a layered approach, which can help to make this possible:

“The use of a layered approach allows buildings to be flexed and adapted more readily. In particular, a separation between the primary structure, the facades, the services and the interiors of the building allows the structure to be retained whilst the façade is replaced, or the interiors be changed into new layouts whilst not being dictated by structural walls in awkward location.”

This seems like a sensible approach, that can prevent buildings being demolished well inside their lifecycle because of lack of planned in adaptability.

But although this is an approach which many would assume is intuitive, there are reasons and challenges for why this is not the case, which David alludes to:

“Designing for adaptability or deconstruction is hard to justify and is unlikely to happen unless it is part of a wider story that starts with reducing construction time on site, continues with the ability to retain value by adapting buildings to changing markets and concludes with the attractive idea of providing residual value rather than demolition costs.”

I thought this was nicely put by David. Overall, designing buildings that are built to last and be adaptable, is but one part of an overall strategy, that should look to take advantage of modern methods of construction and put sustainability at the heart of decision making.

What you need to know

This article was part two of my series looking into circular economy principles in the built environment.

Designing buildings that are built to last and that are adaptable is crucial to creating structures that last over time through multiple occupancies and end uses.

Strategies like paying attention to celling heights and using a layered approach should be used so that buildings can be reconfigured throughout their lifetimes, should that be required.

As is often the case it comes down to farsighted leadership which is required to make this happen.

Thank you for reading,

By Barnaby Nash

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, or reach out to me on social media. What do you think needs to be done to make the circular economy a reality in the built environment?

 Let’s stay connected

I can be reached on LinkedIn and on Twitter @FollowBarnaby