News

Global behaviour will only change so that mankind can live in harmony with nature if policy-makers and society at large take a positive approach: “Change comes not from despair but from community and engagement,” in the words of one speaker at the 2026 City Environment Debate.

But the scale of the challenge was outlined by the same speaker a short time earlier, describing the potentially disastrous consequences – including winter temperatures of minus 20 degs in London and the transformation of the Amazon into savannah, with enormous consequences for rainfall in South and perhaps North America – if behaviour does not change and global temperatures continue to rise.

The City Environment Debate is organized by the Worshipful Company of Water Conservators, and this year’s headline speakers included Tom Butterworth, nature lead for Arup in the UK, Signe Norberg, director of policy and public affairs at the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professionals (ISEP), and Professor Susan Michie, director of the Centre for Behaviour Change at University College London. The debate was held under the Chatham House Rule.

The opening presentations highlighted the significant impact we have had on the natural world since the industrial revolution, and especially in the last 50 years, and described scenarios for future impacts and their implications for global society; discussed the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, their current fitness for purpose, and what to hope for or expect from a review of the goals in four years’ time; and techniques for modelling and directing behaviour change.

Those attending heard that changing behaviour is a complex business – but that its very complexity means a great many levers are available. Change is necessary both at the level of whole societies and at the level of the individual: “You cannot have system change without individual change,” in the words of Greta Thunberg.

Speakers and audience went on to discuss a wide range of issues. How can we bring people along with changes they may find uncomfortable? How do we make environmental change fair, and not just something the rich benefit from? And how do we give a voice to future generations, who will be affected by what we do now but cannot by definition be consulted?

One suggestion was that company boards should appoint a “voice of nature”, so that future generations are represented at the heart of the decision-making process. Wales’s legislation mandating public bodies to consider economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being by adopting sustainable policies is one possible model.

There are particular challenges in changing the behaviour of businesses, which are often wedded to the bottom line and short-term thinking. No business – even a purely digital one – is entirely insulated from nature and all have an impact on the environment. Couching arguments for change in terms of risk management and resilience, concepts already familiar to business decision-makers, can achieve cut-through.

Campaigners were told to get out of their “echo chamber” and engage with those who might disagree with them. As one speaker remarked, it helps to frame the conversation in terms of protecting nature: “Everyone agrees that protecting nature is desirable, it unites all political parties, they all see the local environment as important.”

There was discussion of the role that schools can play – not least because children come home to talk about what they have learnt with their families – and whether the UN’s sustainable development goals might ever be a subject for chats down the pub.

And there was criticism of a lack of leadership from government. As one speaker observed, the fact that during this summer’s drought government chose to say nothing about saving water was remarkable: “Where is the political will to bring about change?”

The debate’s organizer, Allan Barton of the Water Conservators, commented: “Achieving global change towards living in harmony with nature is incredibly complex. The way forward is to form a group to discuss the points raised in the debate, and identify particular ways to change the behaviours of people, corporates and politicians.”

Living with nature: Tom Butterworth, Arup

Global behaviour change: Professor Susan Michie, UCL

UNSDG: Signe Norberg, ISEP

Chair: Ben Smith, Arup