National food security? Not without natural security

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

The federal National Food Security Strategy lacks important discussion on how our current agri-food system harms the environment.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

28 June 2026

701 words

The Carney government recently released its National Food Security Strategy (NFSS). Unfortunately, the strategy only serves to show that the government doesn’t really understand food security, particularly when it comes to the environment and health, neither of which figure much in the strategy. I will discuss the neglect of the environment in this column and the neglect of health in a future column.

It should be glaringly obvious that ultimately food security depends upon having a healthy environment, and that producing food in environmentally harmful ways undermines food security. Yet not only does the word ‘environment’ only appear ten times in the 27-page strategy, eight of those times are not actually about the natural environment but about the technology of ‘controlled environment agriculture’, meaning greenhouses.

Nowhere in the NFSS is there a discussion of the way in which our current agri-food system harms the environment. Yet the October 2025 second report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on a healthy, sustainable and just food system (The Lancet is one of the world’s leading medical journals) noted that when it comes to the transgression of planetary boundaries for many of the nine Earth systems that are vital for life on Earth: “food is the single largest cause of planetary boundary transgressions, driving the transgression of five of the six breached boundaries.” (Since then we have crossed a seventh boundary, ocean acidification, to which agriculture also contributes).

Specifically, the Commission reported, agriculture accounts for 85 – 90 percent of total pesticide use and 73 percent of total antimicrobial use, while it contributes around half to three-quarters of flows of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface waters, which cause algal blooms and dead zones. Agriculture is also responsible for two-thirds of all freshwater use, while “Unsustainable land conversion, particularly deforestation, remains a major driver of biodiversity loss and climate change.” In addition, agriculture contributes 30 percent of all human-generated CO2 emissions that cause global heating, and a quarter of the CO2 emissions that contribute to ocean acidification.

Good luck finding much of that in the NFSS. Pesticides are only referred to in terms of making it easier to use them, while anti-microbials are not mentioned at all. Nitrogen is mentioned once in passing, phosphorus not at all, and fertilizers only in terms of problems with supply and improving availability. The word water, bizarrely, does not appear once in the report, nor does biodiversity or ocean acidification or – even more bizarrely – greenhouses gases or carbon/ CO2 emissions.

Yet these environmental effects, to which Canada is a significant contributor (the NFSS notes Canada is “the world’s ninth largest exporter of agri-food products”) have a large and growing impact on food security. Climate change alone is a major concern, as a recent joint Food and Agriculture Organization/ World Meteorological Organization report notes. The combination of rising temperatures and heatwaves, drought and water scarcity “represent a systemic risk to global food security and to the livelihoods of more than 1.23 billion people who rely on agriculture.”

Yet the NFSS only mentions climate change four times, and only in the context of it being one of “the global issues beyond Canada’s ability to directly control” that are impacting our agri-food system and increasing costs. No suggestion here that Canada bears any responsibility for climate change or that it could do something about it by reducing the agri-food system’s greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps that is because the Carney government’s policies are moving Canada away from our climate change targets and are increasing our fossil fuel extraction and exports.

Add to that the impacts on food supply and food quality of ocean acidification, algal blooms and dead zones due to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, as well as widespread use of pesticides and antibiotics and food chain contamination with plastic nano-particles and it is clear that our current agri-food system creates environmental insecurity.

In a largely overlooked October 2025 speech, David McGuinty, the Minister of Defence, explained that “Our security and our prosperity are fully dependent on a healthy and functioning environment” before concluding that “Our national and natural security are inextricably linked.” That certainly applies to our food security, but the new national Food Security Strategy disastrously fails to make that connection.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Why is Mark Carney undermining our environment?

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

​ Dr. Trevor Hancock

22 June 2026

700 words

I have noted several times recently in these columns that Mark Carney’s Mandate letter to his Cabinet a year ago does not identify the environment as one of the government’s seven priorities; indeed, the word ‘environment’ is not even mentioned. Now we can begin to see the consequences of this very deliberate omission.

Let’s start with climate change, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has recognised for some years as “the single biggest health threat facing humanity.” More recently, in May of this year, the Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health, convened by the  European Regional Director for the WHO, called climate change “a catastrophic threat to human health, security and social stability” and called on the WHO “to formally declare climate change as a public health emergency of international concern.”

That puts climate change in the same threat category as Covid, Ebola and other infectious disease outbreaks that WHO has declared a public health emergency. In fact, I would argue that it is a greater threat than any of these; as Carney himself said back in 2019, in his role as the UN special envoy for climate action, climate change is “the world’s greatest existential threat.”

So you would think he would act on that belief. But what has Carney actually done? A CBC News item on June 16th listed the following: “Eliminating the consumer carbon tax. Reversing the implementation of the oil and gas emissions cap.  Scrapping the electric vehicle sales mandate. Doubling down on fossil fuel subsidies for LNG and enhanced oil recovery. Charting plans to turn Canada into one of the largest suppliers of LNG in the world. Backing the construction of a potential bitumen pipeline to the West Coast.”

Small wonder that in November 2025 Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project that tracks government climate action, “downgraded Canada’s overall rating to ‘Highly Insufficient’, primarily due to weakened policy ambition, slow implementation, and a widening gap between current emissions levels and Canada’s 2030 target” – and that was seven months ago!

Then in February the Canadian Climate Institute reported that Canada “is not on track to meet any of its climate goals, including its 2035 target and net zero emissions by 2050”. You can almost hear Steven Guilbeault, the former Environment and Climate Change Minister who quit Carney’s Cabinet, in his recent interview on CBC Radio’s The Current  (June 17th), wondering ‘Who is this man, and what have they done with Mark Carney?’

If it were only climate change, that would be enough to condemn Carney as a hypocrite. But it gets worse. The government just rushed through changes to Canada’s pesticide laws in an omnibus budget Bill that was only reviewed by the Finance Committees of the Commons and the Senate, not by Parliament’s health or environment Committees.

In a June 18th statement, a large number of major environmental and health organisations condemned the move because these “amendments grant cabinet broad authority to overrule the Health Minister and permit the use of any pesticide found to have unacceptable environmental risks.” As the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment noted, these amendments mean “Canada’s pesticide law will be based on financial considerations rather than health and the environment”, adding: “Science doesn’t disappear when it’s inconvenient; evidence of harm must outweigh short-term economic considerations.”

Then there are the Carney government’s moves to weaken key environmental standards under the Species at Risk Act and Impact Assessment Act. A June 3rd article in The Conversation by three leaders of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution raises concerns that “the reforms proposed in ‘Getting Major Projects Built’” – a recently released federal government discussion paper – “could threaten natural environments, species-at-risk and human health for generations.”

So back to the question in my headline: Why is Mark Carney undermining our environment? I don’t know, but it seems to me he is acting just as you would expect if you elect a mainstream economist and central banker as Prime Minister. When push comes to shove, the economy matters and the environment loses. Yet as I noted in a recent column, when the environment loses, we all lose. That is a lesson Mark Carney seems not to have learned.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

What part of ‘climate emergency’ do the feds not get?

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Published in The Hill Times, 12 June 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney needs to wake up to the climate emergency, and accept Canada’s obligation to reduce fossil fuel use and tackle global warming. 

Dr. Trevor Hancock

1 June 2026

700 words

On June 18th 2019 – almost exactly seven years ago – The House of Commons voted 186 to 63 in support of a motion put forward by Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna to declare a national climate emergency. Since 2019, the climate emergency has only worsened.

Globally, our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to increase. The International Energy Agency reported in its 2026 energy review that total energy-related CO2 emissions reached a new high in 2025. Unsurprisingly, this was matched by a “record atmospheric CO2 concentrations of about 427 parts-per-million (ppm) . . . around 50% above pre-industrial levels.”

Also unsurprisingly, global temperatures remain troublingly high. The World Meteorological Organization recently reported that “2025 was one of the three warmest years on record” (following the top two years of 2023 and 2024) and that “the past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record”, while “ocean heating continues unabated.”

A  commentary in One Earth in February 2026 by several leading Earth scientists states: “Earth’s climate is now departing from the stable conditions that supported human civilization for millennia” and asks “Are we now at risk of crossing planetary tipping points and triggering a hothouse Earth trajectory?”

In April the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Meteorological Organization reported that higher temperatures are pushing food systems to the brink. This results from a combination of stressed livestock, falling yields of crops, including staples such as maize and wheat, and ocean heatwaves killing fish. Moreover, high temperatures make it hard for farmers to work safely outdoors in many hot regions.

Then in May, the Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health, convened by the  European Regional Director of the World Health Organization (WHO), called climate change “a catastrophic threat to human health, security and social stability” and called on the WHO “to formally declare climate change as a public health emergency of international concern.”

Let’s be clear, declaring climate change as a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) puts it on the same threat level as Covid, Ebola and other infectious disease outbreaks that are so far the only basis on which WHO has declared a PHEIC. In fact, I would argue that it is a greater threat than any of these, because of its potential to undermine the security and stability of civilisation as a whole.

And what is Canada’s response to this climate emergency? You can almost hear the Carney government saying ‘climate emergency? What climate emergency?’ Much to the dismay of those fighting for climate action, who expected better of Mark Carney, the government has been undermining Canada’s increasingly dismal record on climate action.

Back in November 2025 the independent Climate Action Tracker’s latest report, “downgraded Canada’s overall rating to ‘Highly Insufficient,’ primarily due to weakened policy ambition, slow implementation, and a widening gap between current emissions levels and Canada’s 2030 target.”

And that was before Mr. Carney cosied up to Alberta, supporting expanded fossil fuel production and exports and lowering the industrial carbon price. Said former Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault in a recent interview with CTV: “By the end of the year analysis will show that Canada has one of the worst track records. I think we’ll go back to the back of the pack.”

Instead of his harmful effort to make Canada a conventional energy superpower, Mr. Carney should follow the recommendations of the Pan-European Commission, which called on heads of government to “to bring climate change to the agenda of national security councils or equivalent bodies, engaging all relevant ministries.”

He should also pay heed to the second recommendation to heads of government from the Commission: “to establish, within their ministries or cabinets, a sustainable mechanism with a specific mandate to support action on climate change and health.”

The government needs to walk its own talk. On May 21st, Canada was the co-sponsor of a UN resolution, adopted in a 141 – 8 vote, affirming the International Court of Justice’s July 2025 advice that states are obligated to reduce fossil fuel use and tackle global warming.

So wake up to the climate emergency, Mr. Carney, and accept Canada’s obligation to reduce fossil fuel use and tackle global warming.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Food for thought – and for the planet and our health

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

The modern industrial agri-food system not only fails to ensure food for all, it also delivers a diet that makes us sick and kills us early.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

25 May 2026

700 words

Food is a fundamental need: No food, no life. But in addition to having something to eat, food also must be nutritious and safe – it should not make us sick – and it has to be available to everyone.

Unfortunately, the modern industrial agri-food system not only fails to ensure food for all, it also delivers a diet that makes us sick and kills us early. Moreover, it produces food in ways that are enormously harmful to the planet. All this is documented in the October 2025 report of the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable and just food systems.

The Commission was established in 2018 by The Lancet, one of the world’s leading medical journals, and EAT, a Norwegian science-based global platform for food system transformation. The Commission showed that our agri-food system is deeply implicated as a major contributor to the transgression of planetary boundaries for many of the nine Earth systems that are vital for life on Earth.

Their report states: “food is the single largest cause of planetary boundary transgressions, driving the transgression of five of the six breached boundaries.” (Since October 2025 it has been determined we have crossed a seventh boundary, ocean acidification, to which agriculture also contributes).

In terms of toxins, agriculture accounts for 85 – 90 percent of total pesticide use and 73 percent of total antimicrobial use, while it contributes around half to three-quarters of flows of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface waters, which cause algal blooms and dead zones. Agriculture is also responsible for two-thirds of all freshwater use, while “Unsustainable land conversion, particularly deforestation, remains a major driver of biodiversity loss and climate change.” In addition, agriculture contributes 30 percent of all human-generated CO2 emissions that cause global heating, and a quarter of the CO2 emissions that contribute to ocean acidification.

In addition to being a massive contributor to unsustainable ecological changes, our agri-food system is already suffering the consequences of those changes. Climate change alone is a major concern, as a recent joint Food and Agriculture Organization/ World Meteorological Organization report notes. The combination of rising temperatures and heatwaves, drought and water scarcity “represent a systemic risk to global food security and to the livelihoods of more than 1.23 billion people who rely on agriculture.”

Add to that the impacts on food supply and food quality of ocean acidification, algal blooms and dead zones due to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, as well as widespread use of pesticides and antibiotics and food chain contamination with plastic nano-particles and it is clear that our current agri-food system is ecologically unsustainable.

Not only that, but this unsustainable system does not produce a healthy diet. On the contrary: “More than half of the world’s population struggles to access healthy diets, leading to devastating consequences for public health”, the Commission states.

But the good news is that a shift to a ‘Planetary Health Diet’ (PHD), as proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission, can not only markedly improve the health of the population but can dramatically benefit the environment.

Derived solely on the basis of the evidence as to what constitutes a healthy diet, the PHD is “rich in plants: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes comprise a large proportion of foods consumed, with only moderate or small amounts of fish, dairy, and meat recommended.” Such a diet, the Commission estimated, would avoid “an estimated 15 million deaths per year among adults (27% of total deaths) . . . globally” – and that is probably an underestimate.

Not included are the additional deaths and diseases caused by agriculture’s contribution to air pollution (about 650,000 deaths annually), climate change, use of pesticides, nitrogen pollution of water, antimicrobial resistance and pandemic risk.

Importantly, the Commission notes, producing such a diet through sustainable and ecological intensification of the food system reduces “agricultural land area, water

consumption, and nitrogen use, and substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions”; pesticide and antibiotic use would also be markedly reduced.

It is time the federal and provincial Ministries of Agriculture and Food insist that our national and provincial agri-food systems focus on the Planetary Health Diet, on what is good for people and the planet, not just on profit and corporate power.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Why are our political leaders such fossil fools?

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Don’t they read the science? Or do they simply choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit their short-term, market-oriented agenda?

Dr. Trevor Hancock

27 April 2026

701 words

I understand why the fossil fuel industry pursues growth in the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels. It’s all about making money and damn the consequences. But how can any responsible political leader at this point push for more fossil fuel extraction and use.

Don’t they read the science? Or do they read the science but don’t understand it? Or don’t believe it? Or do they simply choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit their short-term, market-oriented agenda?

On the assumption that they don’t read the science, and for the benefit of readers who may not be right up to speed, here is what the latest science tells us.

First, our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to increase. The International Energy Agency reported that total energy-related CO2 emissions reached a new high in 2025. Unsurprisingly, this was matched by a “record atmospheric CO2 concentrations of about 427 parts-per-million (ppm) . . . around 50% above pre-industrial levels.”

Troublingly, “emissions rose more strongly in advanced economies than in emerging market and developing economies for the first time in nearly 30 years.” Moreover, natural gas was the largest contributor to the increase in these emissions in 2025. A commentary in One Earth by several leading Earth scientists notes emissions of two other potent greenhouse gases continue to increase, adding that “Looking ahead, the outlook for emissions remains deeply concerning.”

Second, as a direct result, global temperatures remain troublingly high. The World Meteorological Organization recently reported that “2025 was one of the three warmest years on record” (following the top two years of 2023 and 2024) and that “the past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record”, while “ocean heating continues unabated.”

The implications are profound. The One Earth commentary states “Earth’s climate is now departing from the stable conditions that supported human civilization for millennia” and asks “Are we now at risk of crossing planetary tipping points and triggering a hothouse Earth trajectory?” While recognising that “Science doesn’t have a precise answer”, their answer is “we may be approaching a perilous threshold, with rapidly dwindling opportunities to prevent dangerous and unmanageable climate outcomes”

They note that of sixteen important climate tipping elements “Tipping may already be underway or could occur soon for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, boreal permafrost, mountain glaciers, and parts of the Amazon rainforest.” Moreover, there is a real danger that one tipping point can trigger another, resulting in a cascade of climate tipping events. This “could raise global temperatures, accelerate sea-level rise, release vast stores of carbon, and destabilize ecosystems.”

One of those planetary tipping points is the likelihood that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which we know as the Gulf Stream, might shut down. Were that to happen, not only would it result in a much colder Europe that would threaten continued agriculture, it would “shift tropical rain belts and dry parts of the Amazon.”

Another important impact is on global food supplies. In April the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Meteorological Organization reported that higher temperatures are pushing food systems to the brink. This results from a combination of stressed livestock, falling yields of crops, including staples such as maize and wheat, and ocean heatwaves killing fish. Moreover, high temperatures make it hard for farmers to work safely outdoors in many hot regions.

Given the growing likelihood of some or all of these events, which would have dire consequences for today’s children and youth, a prudent approach would be to apply the precautionary principle. This principle, which is really just a wordy version of the common sense view that it is better to err on the side of caution, is that lack of scientific certainty must not be used as a reason to ignore or postpone preventive or remedial action when there are other good reasons to do so.

But our political leaders are showing anything but common sense and precaution as they pursue greater extraction, use and export of fossil fuels. Their policies are making Canada into not so much a conventional energy superpower as a conventional energy super-idiot. Its time they woke up to the threats created by their foolish and dangerous policies.  

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Ottawa needs to wake up to the planetary health crisis

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

·      Published as “When it comes to sustainability, Ottawa ignores an inconvenient truth”

The federal government’s draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy somehow fails to mention planetary boundaries or our ecological footprint, or to recognize ecological limits.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

13 April 2026

699 words

Last week I began an analysis of the federal government’s draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, which somehow manages to ignore planet Earth, fails to mention planetary boundaries or our ecological footprint or to recognise ecological limits and the need to invest in restoring our ecosystems and natural capital as a matter of national security.

So the question is – are these omissions a case of ignorance – have the federal scientists and others involved in developing this strategy never heard of planetary boundaries and ecological footprints? That seems pretty unlikely. How about their political masters – have they never heard of any of this?  That also seems pretty unlikely, they only have to follow the news, and presumably they do that, so they can’t be entirely ignorant.

It’s much more likely that this is a case of ‘ignore-ance’, the political and corporate act of knowing but ignoring what Al Gore many years ago called an inconvenient truth. When the  government’s priority is to grow the economy, “build an enormous amount of new infrastructure at speeds not seen in generations” and be a conventional energy superpower that exports fossil fuels, concern for the environment is an inconvenient truth that might get in the way.

That ‘ignore-ance’ is on full display in Prime Minister Carney’s Mandate letter to his Cabinet last May. Not only is the environment not one of the government’s seven priorities, the words ‘environment’ and ‘planet’ are not even mentioned, although the mandate letter says the Cabinet “must meet a series of unprecedented challenges”.  In what possible way can an ecological footprint equivalent to using five planets worth of biocapacity and the ongoing transgression of seven of nine planetary boundaries not be considered an unprecedented challenge?

The harsh truth is that we are exceeding the Earth’s limits, transgressing the boundaries of multiple Earth systems, and that this poses an existential risk to our society, our communities, our families, future generations and many of the millions of species with whom we share the Earth.

So a real sustainable development strategy would begin there, with a commitment to move swiftly towards a ‘One Planet’ Canada that operates within planetary boundaries. That would mean spelling out:

  • The extent to which Canada currently operates beyond planetary boundaries and takes more than its fair share of the Earth’s biocapacity and resources.
  • The environmental, social, health and economic implications of this in Canada and globally.
  • The transformation needed in our way of life and our economy in order to become a ‘One Planet’ Canada that not only does not transgress planetary boundaries but restores the damage we have done to the natural systems, in Canada and globally, that underpin our societies and our wellbeing.
  • The environmental, social, health and economic benefits and costs of doing so.

The strategy would also need to lay out broad initiatives needed to get us there, as well as specific sectoral policies consistent with creating a ‘One Planet’ Canada. The broad initiatives might include:

  • An ongoing process of nation-wide, community-based conversations about the situation we face and the future we want for our descendants, a process I have previously described as a People’s Commission on Wellbeing (24 August 2025).
  • A Parliamentary Standing Committee on a ‘One Planet’ Canada to hear and make public the evidence on the challenges we face and the progress we are making on an ongoing basis, and a Cabinet Committee on a ‘One Planet’ Canada to guide us there.
  • Follow the lead of Wales in passing a Wellbeing of Future Generations Act that establishes “a legally-binding common purpose – the seven well-being goals – for national government, local government, local health boards and other specified public bodies” and a Future Generations Commissioner ““to act as a guardian for the interests of future generations “(see my 18 August 2024 column).

Specific sectoral policies would need to be prioritised based on the contribution of the sector to planetary boundary transgressions, but would include at least the energy, agriculture, fisheries and food, built environment and transportation and the chemicals and extractive industries sectors.

Moreover, as a federation, all of these initiatives would need to be replicated at a provincial level and supported and implemented locally. Our descendants will thank us.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Hello Ottawa, please recognise we live on planet Earth

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

  • Published as “Draft Sustainable Development Strategy misses the mark”

In the entire 74-page, 22,000-word document, the word “Earth” does not appear once and the word “planet” appears just a single time.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

6 April 2026

706 words

Thirty-nine years ago, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway and Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development, presented their report to the United Nations. The Commission’s report, Our Common Future, widely referred to as the Brundtland Report, proposed the concept of sustainable development, which it defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The Commission’s title and mandate was clearly and explicitly to link environment and development and the Commissioners shared “a common concern for the planet and the interlocked ecological and economic threats with which its people, institutions, and governments now grapple”; remember, this was four decades ago.

So you would think that the federal government, in advancing its draft Sustainable Development Strategy, would provide a clear analysis of the state of the planet today and the challenges of sustainable development in the 21st century. And you would be completely wrong.

If you want a sense of just how out of touch this draft strategy is, consider this: In the entire 74-page, 22,000-word document, the word ‘Earth’ does not appear once – not once! – and the word ‘planet’ appears just once, and that only in a reference to the purpose of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Hello Ottawa! – it’s the 21st century out here, we live on planet Earth, sustainability is all about living within the limits of the Earth.

Oh, and you won’t find the word ‘limit’ used in reference to natural systems, only in reference to limited access and/or opportunity for people, and a brief reference to limiting global warming. This despite the fact that The Limits to Growth was published by the Club of Rome 54 years ago, warning of ecological and social decline or collapse by the mid-21st century – just 24 years or one generation away – and that the Brundtland Report identified “the idea of limitations” as one of two key concepts, adding  later that “ultimate limits there are”.

You also might have thought that one quarter of the way through the 21st century, and almost 20 years after the concept was first launched, there would be some reference to planetary boundaries. Earth system scientists have identified “nine Earth system processes essential for maintaining global stability, resilience and life-support functions” and have identified boundaries for each, “thresholds that keep life on Earth within a safe operating zone”, boundaries which we should not transgress.

As of 2025, we have crossed seven of those nine boundaries, one of which is climate change – and for all seven, the trend is worsening. But search the Strategy and you will find no reference whatsoever to planetary boundaries. Yes, climate change is a focus of attention, as is biodiversity loss, as too is pollution. But the latter is restricted to broad and conventional references to air, water and waste pollution; there is no reference to ‘novel entities’ such as nano-particles of plastic or food-chain contaminants. And don’t look for a reference to other key Earth systems of concern; ozone layer depletion, biogeochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus and ocean acidification are not mentioned at all.

How about the ecological footprint, which measures “the ecological resource use and resource capacity of nations over time”? Globally, we are now using the equivalent of 1.7 planet’s worth of biocapacity every year; in Canada, we use around 5 planet’s worth. In other words, if everyone lives the way we live, we would need four more planets, but there is no Planet B, never mind Planets C, D and E. Again, you would think the Strategy would say something about this: Guess again – not a single mention.

Then there is national security – or rather, there isn’t!

In a notable speech in October 2025, Defence Minister David McGuinty explicitly linked Canada’s national security to what he called our ‘natural security’: “Investing in and restoring our ecosystems and natural capital is strategic preparedness”, while the government’s own report, ‘Disruptions on the Horizon 2024’, identified biodiversity loss and ecosystems collapse as the second most likely and second most impactful of 35disruptions for which Canada may need to prepare.

More on this, and on what the strategy should say, next week.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

What does it mean that “environmentalists have lost, big time”?

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Environmentalists are in the business of human survival and wellbeing, so if they’ve lost, humanity has lost.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

22 March 2026

702 words

In an interview in the Times Colonist (21 March 2026) marking his approaching 90th birthday, David Suzuki said “we’ve lost, environmentalists have lost, big time”. But what does it mean that environmentalists have lost? Who is we? What have we lost? And if we have lost, who has won, and what does winning mean?

First, let’s be clear what business environmentalists are in. We – and I count myself an environmentalist – are in the business of protecting and restoring nature, both for the protection of nature itself as something with inherent worth and for the protection of both human and non-human life on Earth. That is to say, environmentalists are both bio- or eco-centric and – for the most part – anthropocentric.

In being bio- or eco-centric, we are saying that nature is of value in its own right. As far as we know, we are the only planet in the universe that has life, which makes it precious beyond measure. (I agree there could be life elsewhere, but we have yet to find it, and it’s probably too far away, in other solar systems or other galaxies, for us to have meaningful interaction with it.)

That also means that the myriad of other species with whom we share this one small planet have inherent worth (although as a public health physician I might draw the line at the smallpox, Ebola, Covid and other deadly viruses). That is why we seek to protect ecosystems and different species from harm.

Now admittedly, there are some, known as deep ecologists, at the edges of eco-centric philosophy and ecology, who might argue that the Earth would be better off without humans, or with a much smaller and less technologically powerful population of humans.

But while I can sort of understand that viewpoint – well, here we are! And as a physician, I am of course interested in the wellbeing of people, of humanity as a whole. So I guess you could call me eco-anthropocentric.

What brings these viewpoints together is that humanity springs from nature, is part of and entirely embedded within nature, and completely dependent upon nature for our very survival, never mind our health and wellbeing. Every breath we take, every drop we drink, every mouthful we eat comes from nature; all the materials and fuels we use and depend upon come from nature.

Nature removes, decontaminates and recycles many of our wastes, protects us from UV solar radiation and, for the past 12,000 years, has provided a generally benign, warm and stable climate that has enabled the development of agriculture and civilisations around the world.

In a very profound sense, then, environmentalists are in the business of human survival and wellbeing, in balance with nature.  We should all be environmentalists!

So if we say environmentalists have lost, we are really saying humanity has lost. Now we haven’t quite lost yet, but we are in serious danger of undermining the most fundamental systems that are essential for life on Earth – all life, not just humanity. As I have repeatedly stressed in this column, we have crossed planetary boundaries for seven of nine key Earth systems, just one of which is global over-heating.

Now I don’t think we need worry about the planet, it’s been around 4.5 billion years. Nor do we need to worry about saving life on Earth; although we are creating a sixth great extinction, life has survived five previous extinction events. I am not even sure we need to worry about humanity; we are a tough, resilient and highly adaptable species, able to survive in some form almost anywhere.

But society – well, that is much more vulnerable. In 2014 the Worldwide Fund for Nature observed that “ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work any other way round.” So when ecosystems decline or collapse so too do the societies that depend upon them and the economic systems they have created.

Then who exactly can be said to be the winners here? The wealthy corporations and people who are inflicting damage on nature and trying to defeat environmentalists? And what exactly have they ‘won’? Short-term gain for long-term devastation? Think their grandchildren will be thanking them?

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

It’s not just the ecosystem, our economy is socially unfit too

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

A recent intergovernmental report found that in 2023, public and private expenditures of US$7.3 trillion had direct negative impacts on nature

Dr. Trevor Hancock

2 March 2026

699 words

Last week I discussed a couple of recent global-level reports that identify serious problems with our current economic system. In particular, the UN Environment Programme, in its 2026 report “Global Environmental Outlook 7”, found that human-created climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation and desertification, and pollution and waste are undermining human wellbeing and “already costing trillions of dollars each year.”

The report recommended investing in the transformation of our societies and economies, because doing so will avoid or reduce these costs and will have huge economic benefits. Another report, this one in early February from the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) – the biodiversity equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – focuses on the relationship between business and biodiversity.

Prepared by a panel of public and private sector experts from 35 countries, the report found that in 2023, public and private expenditures of US$7.3 trillion, 2/3 of them from the private sector, had direct negative impacts on nature. These expenditures included “environmentally harmful public subsidies and private investment in high-impact sectors.”

Troublingly, that means governments are spending around US$2.4 trillion every year on environmentally harmful subsidies. Meanwhile, less than one-tenth of that amount from public and private sectors combined was “directed toward activities that contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.” Looks to me like the definition of insanity.

But it’s not just about the way our current economic and societal systems harms the planet. Suddenly it seems to be dawning on people – at least, some people – that our economy is socially unfit too.

Writing in Time Magazine on January 27th, Professor Olivier de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty, stated our economic system “is fundamentally unfit for purpose”. It “only ever serve[s] a tiny minority”, he wrote, adding “it will always do so at the expense of the planet and the vast majority of people who live on it.”

The authors of the 2026 World Inequality Report (WIR) write: “Inequality has long been a defining feature of the global economy, but by 2025, it has reached levels that demand urgent attention.” Indeed, frankly, the level of inequality has reached obscene levels. This is highlighted by a finding in the report that “fewer than 60,000 multi-millionaires, control today three times more wealth than half of humanity combined” – that is, more than the poorest 4 billion people!

More broadly the report notes, those 4 billion people – half the world’s population – have only 8 percent of the world’s income and only 2 percent of its wealth. The authors of the WIR make the point that “Reducing inequality is not only about fairness but also essential for the resilience of economies, the stability of democracies, and the viability of our planet.”

So in what conceivable way is this level of inequality fair, just and appropriate? Why aren’t those 60,000 people rushing to share their wealth – and if they won’t, why aren’t we taxing it and redistributing it? How many millions or billions does anyone actually need anyway? As in previous reports the authors make the vital point that “These divides are not inevitable. They are the outcome of political and institutional choices.”

In a forthcoming report to the UN Human Rights Council, Professor de Schutter will be presenting an action agenda to reduce extreme poverty that outlines some of the choices we need to take. His proposals fall under five pillars, with adaptive governance and participatory decision-making underpinning them all.

The first pillar is focused on “how economic systems can be reimagined to prioritise sustainability and wellbeing over consumerism and GDP growth.” It includes ideas about progressive taxation, subsidy realignment, tax enforcement and embedding social purpose in corporate activity. And there is much, much more.

The fact we are making bad political and institutional choices is not only true for inequality and poverty but for the public and private sector policies that lead us to spend vast sums of money on causing environmental harm and piddling amounts on protection and restoration. It’s time we changed the political choices we are making if we want to ensure the wellbeing of people and the planet for this and future generations.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Yes, there is a problem with our economic system – it’s unfit for purpose

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

The geopolitical state of the world is a minor inconvenience compared to the rupture we are creating in the ecological condition of the world.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

23 February 2026

701 words

In a recent article in the Hill Times, for which the prime audience is the federal government and Parliament, I noted that while Mr. Carney was right to identify a rupture in the world in his recent Davos speech, he focused on the wrong rupture. The rupture he focused on – the geo-political state of the world – is a minor inconvenience compared to the drastic impact of the rupture we are creating in the ecological condition of the world.

I have noted repeatedly in these columns that we have transgressed seven of the nine planetary boundaries identified by leading Earth scientists – and the trend for those seven is in the wrong direction and in many cases is accelerating. I have also noted that these changes are driven by a set of values that are not aligned with the realities of the finite planet on which we live, and that in turn drive an economic system that is not fit for purpose in the 21st century.

For example, when Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, says that a 3.3 percent global growth forecast is “beautiful but not enough“, this is clearly someone who does not understand what 3.3 per cent growth means. The doubling time is a bit over 21 years, so in a typical Canadian lifespan of about 80 years the global economy would grow more than 13 times.

How does anyone in their right mind, never mind a senior global economics leader, think the planet could sustain such growth when it’s already failing under present conditions.

But several reports from the UN, UN-related organisations and others in the first couple of months of 2026 have begun spelling out how unfit our economic system is. We should not be surprised that this chorus of voices is arising from the United Nations and its agencies. After all, their task is not to protect the economic and other interests of any particular nation, but to stand back and view the big global picture and protect the interests of humanity as a whole, which includes protecting the Earth on which we utterly depend.

First, in January, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) published its seventh Global Environmental Outlook (GEO 7). Climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation and desertification, and pollution and waste, the report warned, are undermining human wellbeing and “already costing trillions of dollars each year” – yes, trillions!

Climate change alone is estimated to have cost US$2 trillion over the decade from 2014 – 2023, and we know it’s only just beginning! Add to that the US$10 to $44 trillion cost annually attributable to the degradation of ecosystems and “the economic losses, exceeding US$8.1 trillion per year, associated with environmental pollution”. Moreover, the UNEP report states, “the damages from the global environmental crises will become increasingly severe over the coming decades”.

And yet, disturbingly, a group of researchers from the University of Exeter and the Carbon Tracker Initiative noted in early February that “Economic damages from climate change have long been underestimated and inconsistently represented in policy and financial decision-making.” In other words, governments, banks and other financial decision-makers are not properly taking into account the accelerating economic impacts of climate change and the potential for sudden and dramatic changes as we hit tipping points.

Until governments and investors take this into account, the report warns, “financial institutions will continue to chronically under-price climate risks, and pension funds and taxpayers will remain dangerously exposed.” And remember, this is only for climate change, never mind all the other ecological changes underway

The broad conclusion of the UNEP report is that these crises “are primarily caused by unsustainable systems of production and consumption”, so the UNEP recommends investing in the transformation of our societies and economies.

An investment now of less than US$10 trillion per year will begin to yield annual benefits by around 2050, UNEP estimates. These overall benefits are expected to “increase to approximately US$20 trillion per year by 2070, and over US$100 trillion per year by 2100, accounting for more than 25 per cent of projected global GDP in 2100.”

Other recent reports add weight to these arguments. They will be the focus of my next column.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the                                            University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy