Based on my Norwich Science Festival talk (2021) – the message still stands, even if the world has moved on from the COVID-era framing.
In 2021, I spoke at Norwich Science Festival about something that can feel overwhelming: the scale of the environmental problems we’re living through – and the scale of the response we actually need. If you’d rather watch than read, the talk is on YouTube (my section starts at 29:30). YouTube
I also got to speak alongside one of my idols, Jonathon Porritt, which I loved!
Back then, it already felt like we were stuck in “business as usual” while the stakes kept rising. In late 2025, the uncomfortable truth is: the gap between what’s needed and what’s happening is still huge.
UNEP’s latest Emissions Gap Report (2025) puts the world at about 2.8°C of warming this century under current policies – and even if countries fully deliver on current national pledges, projections are still around 2.3–2.5°C. UNEP – UN Environment Programme
That’s not a minor overshoot. That’s a fundamentally different, riskier world.
And climate is only one part of a much bigger puzzle. Waste, pollution, biodiversity loss, resource depletion – they’re all symptoms of the same underlying issue: an extractive, linear economic model that treats nature as infinite and “away” as a place that exists.
Why “personal responsibility” isn’t the full story
One of the most effective distractions of the last few decades has been shifting the burden from systems to individuals. Yes, our choices matter – but it’s hard to out-recycle a supply chain designed for disposal.
Even the language we use can be shaped by corporate PR. The idea of measuring your personal “carbon footprint” was heavily popularised through oil-industry-linked campaigning, nudging attention toward individual behaviour instead of the producers and policies driving emissions. WBUR
Meanwhile, emissions are intensely concentrated. InfluenceMap’s Carbon Majors analysis links over half of global fossil-fuel and cement CO₂ emissions (2023) to just 36 companies. InfluenceMap
That doesn’t mean individuals are powerless – it means system design matters.
A global problem needs global cooperation
At COP26, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley said something that’s only become more true since: “national solutions to global problems do not work.” UNFCCC
And with COP30 now behind us (Belém, November 2025), we’ve seen again how hard it is to convert urgency into delivery – even when agreements move forward on adaptation and just transition mechanisms. House of Commons Library
The impacts don’t respect borders. Displacement is a clear example: the World Bank projected up to 216 million people could be forced to move within their own countries by 2050 across six regions, driven by climate impacts. World Bank
You’ll also see much higher “worst case” global displacement numbers quoted (for example, up to 1.2 billion), but it’s important to be careful: “climate refugee” isn’t a formal legal category in the way “refugee” is under international law, and projections vary a lot based on definitions and scenarios. European Parliament
The waste problem is a climate problem (and an everything problem)
Because my work centres on waste, I always come back to a simple observation: the sheer volume is staggering.
For context, the UK generated 191.2 million tonnes of total waste in 2020, with England responsible for 162.8 million tonnes. GOV.UK
And in England, business waste alone has been estimated at 37.2 million tonnes (commercial + industrial) in a recent government waste plan. GOV.UK
Waste isn’t just an eyesore. It’s lost materials, lost energy, lost value – and often, outsourced harm.
So what can we do? The “big solutions” agenda
Here’s the core of what I argued in the talk – updated for where we are now.
1) Education that tells the truth
We cannot keep teaching young people a fantasy version of the future. We need education that prepares people to navigate reality: trade-offs, complexity, and rapid change – while still giving them agency.
2) Investment at the scale of the problem
Fixing this will cost serious money. But delay is not cheaper – it’s just deferred costs with interest, paid in disasters, ill health, and instability.
3) Disrupt industries (yes, it’s messy)
Some industries and business models are structurally incompatible with a liveable future. That doesn’t mean abandoning people – it means planning a just transition that protects livelihoods while changing what the economy rewards.
4) Move from a linear economy to a circular one
The linear model is simple: take → make → waste. It assumes infinite resources and infinite capacity to absorb pollution.
A circular economy is different: it’s designed so materials don’t become waste, products and materials stay in use, and nature is regenerated. Ellen MacArthur Foundation
That means designing out waste upstream, scaling reuse and repair, and building systems where “end of life” is the exception – not the default.
And no, circularity doesn’t have to mean “sacrifice.” Done well, it can lower costs, reduce risk, and create new value – because waste is often just value in the wrong place.
If you’re reading this as a business leader
Start here:
- Measure what matters: waste streams, contamination, carbon, and hotspots across events/operations/supply chains.
- Prioritise prevention over recycling: design out what shouldn’t exist.
- Build reuse into the system: incentives, infrastructure, supplier requirements, and data to prove performance.
That’s exactly the direction we work on at Rubbish Ideas: helping organisations move from disposable defaults to circular systems – and using data to keep it honest.
Closing thought
We don’t need a slightly greener version of the same system. We need a different operating system – one that works within planetary limits and rewards long-term outcomes over short-term extraction.
It’s going to be disruptive. But the alternative isn’t stability. It’s breakdown.