Month: July 2023

(Published as “We need to start listening to the ‘doomsayers’”)

The real doomsayers are those who, if we follow what they say, will lead us to our doom, not those issuing prudent warnings of real danger

Dr. Trevor Hancock

17 July 2023

699 words

I ended last week’s column with the admonition from Johan Rockstrom and his colleagues that “Nothing less than a just global transformation . . . is required to ensure human well-being” and Thomas Homer Dixon’s observation, with reference just to climate change, that “our responses . . . must be far more radical than we’re currently envisioning. Incrementalism is now a waste of time and resources.”

Both Rockstrom – Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research – and Homer Dixon – founder of the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University – have been studying the issue of global change for many years and are respected leaders in this field. They and many other leading researchers are growing increasingly concerned that we are approaching, if not already at, multiple tipping points for the climate, biodiversity loss and other key Earth systems. I take their warnings very seriously, as should we all.

People like  Rockstrom and Homer Dixon – and me for that matter – are often labelled ‘doomsayers’, as if that were some sort of negative characteristic. But stop and think for a moment. If someone can see the possibility that speeding through the North Atlantic in the dark means there is a risk the Titanic will hit an iceberg, and recommends a more southerly route and  slower speed, are they a doomsayer, or a prudent and prescient foreteller?

In fact, the real doomsayers are those who, if we follow what they say, will lead us to our doom. We had a splendid example of this just a couple of weeks ago, when Gwyn Morgan popped up on these pages yet again to condemn action to restrict fossil fuels, and to urge that Canada do nothing. Of course, his judgement is suspect – biased and self-interested as it is – because he spent his career building up the fossil fuel industry in Canada and now seems keen to protect his legacy.

But if we follow his advice, and the mix of half-truths, distortions and mis-direction of much of the fossil fuel industry, Canada and the rest of the world will continue to blow through its carbon budget. This will take us further down the path towards a planet with 2 – 2.7 ⁰C of global heating. As it is, we are seeing what a mere 1.2 ⁰C of global heating can do, with climatologists expressing astonishment and concern at the rapidity and scale of temperature changes and their impacts.

Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated “climate change is out of control.” And as I noted last week, Rockstrom and his colleagues reported that we have already passed the safe and just boundary for seven of the eight Earth systems that they were looking at.

So we cannot continue to follow the advice of those who want us to bury our heads in the sand, ignoring our challenges and hoping they will go away, or that somehow technology will save us and allow ‘business as usual’ to carry on. It seems to me that the prudent thing governments need to do is to take seriously the work of these and other Earth system researchers and begin to take the radical steps towards a just global transformation that is needed.

That is particularly the case because, far from being doom-laden, the radical transformation that is called for will not only protect the Earth systems we depend upon for our wellbeing, indeed our very survival, but will actually lead to improved wellbeing and quality of life. It is not a path of sacrifice, but one of enhancement.

That transformation begins by recognising that we only have one planet, that it is the only home of 8 billion people, a myriad of other species and – as far as we currently know – the only life in the galaxy, perhaps in the universe. So we have to learn to live within the physical and ecological constraints of our one planet, and do say in a way that is socially just for the present global population, for future generations and for other species. 

So in the coming weeks, I will explore what such a just transformation looks like and what it will mean.

© Trevor Hancock, 2023

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

Dr. Trevor Hancock

10 July 2023

701 words

Last week I noted  the concept of planetary boundaries has been around for over a decade. A 2009 publication by Johan Rockstrom and his colleagues at the Stockholm Resilience Centre identified a number of key Earth systems fundamental to natural processes and human wellbeing, and “thresholds which, if crossed, could generate unacceptable environmental change” were identified.

Now Rockstrom – currently at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research – has led another team in re-working the planetary boundaries by adding a justice component. In doing so, they are identifying not just a safe operating space for humanity, but a safe and just operating space, one that will minimize “exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change.”

To do so, they looked at eight different earth system domains that are important for human wellbeing: Climate; two measures of the biosphere (the area of largely intact natural ecosystems and the functional integrity of all ecosystems); two measures of water (surface flows and ground water levels); flows of two key nutrients – nitrogen and phosphorus; and atmospheric aerosols (air pollution).

Each of these systems, they noted, “have impacts on policy-relevant timescales; are threatened by human activities; and could affect Earth system stability and future development globally.” For each, they then assessed whether “adhering to the safe ESBs [Earth system boundaries] could protect people from significant harm”, knowing that any such harm “will lead to greater impacts when vulnerable populations are exposed.”

They assessed the ESBs using three justice criteria: Intragenerational justice, which is about justice in today’s world “between countries, communities and individuals”; Intergenerational justice, which is concerned with the “relationships and obligations between generations”; and Interspecies justice, “which aims to protect humans, other species and ecosystems. The latter in particular “could be achieved by maintaining Earth system stability within safe ESBs.”

Their conclusions are sobering: “Seven of the eight globally quantified ESBs have been crossed and at least two local ESBs in much of the world have been crossed, putting human livelihoods for current and future generations at risk” – the one that was not exceeded globally was atmospheric aerosols, which is a regional rather than a global measure. (An accompanying map shows the greatest levels of exceedance are found in a band from Indonesia and Indo-China across India and the Middle East and up into central and eastern Europe.)

The climate ESB is worth further consideration, especially considering that climate, along with biosphere integrity, is considered a core planetary boundary, according to a 2015 updated article on planetary boundaries by the Stockholm Resilience Centre team. This is because “large changes in the climate or in biosphere integrity would likely, on their own, push the Earth system out of the Holocene state” – the relatively stable state experienced by humans in the past 12,000 years.

Referring to what Timothy Lenton’s team found (see last week’s column on the unjust impact of climate change), Rockstrom and his colleagues pointed out that at 1.5 °C warming – the optimistic target established in the Paris Accord – “more than 200 million people, disproportionately those already vulnerable, poor and marginalized . . . could be exposed to unprecedented mean annual temperatures”. In addition, they noted, “more than 500 million could be exposed to long-term sea-level rise.”

This they consider to be unjust, so they recommend the safe and just boundary for climate change be set at or below 1 °C. However, they acknowledge, since we are already at 1.2 °C of warming, and on track for further warming, “this boundary may not be achievable in the foreseeable future”, adding that “adaptations and compensations to reduce sensitivity to harm and vulnerability will be necessary.”

So where does this leave us? Rockstrom and his colleagues are clear: “Nothing less than a just global transformation . . . is required to ensure human well-being. Such transformations must be systemic across energy, food, urban and other sectors, addressing the economic, technological, political and other drivers of Earth system change, and ensure access for the poor through reductions and reallocation of resource use.”

As Thomas Homer Dixon wrote with reference just to climate change, “our responses . . . must be far more radical than we’re currently envisioning. Incrementalism is now a waste of time and resources.”

© Trevor Hancock, 2023

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

We need economic activity that actually regenerates rather than depletes natural systems, while distributing the economic benefits more fairly

Dr. Trevor Hancock

4 July 2023

699 words

More than a decade ago, a group of earth system scientists developed the concept of planetary boundaries. They identified a set of a dozen or so earth systems and proposed thresholds for each system beyond which it was likely that the system’s stability and resilience would be compromised. “These boundaries”, they wrote, “define the safe operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system.”

One of those earth systems, of course, is climate change. Two weeks ago, I referred to the work of a team of researchers led by Timothy Lenton at the University of Exeter in the UK, examining the ‘human climate niche’ – in effect, the ‘safe operating space’ for humans when it comes to temperature. Neither we nor our domestic animals or crops do well beyond a mean annual temperature of 29 ⁰C, known as ‘hot exposure’.

Lenton and his colleagues looked at our current pathway, which sees average global temperatures increased by 2.7 °C by the turn of the century. When combined with expected population growth, they found, the number of people outside the niche rises to about 2 billion people in 2030 and 3.7 billion people – 40 percent of the entire population – by 2090.

But importantly, they also looked at which countries and people would be most affected. With global warming of 2.7 °C by the turn of the century, India would have more than 600 million people experiencing ‘hot exposure’, while Nigeria would be second with more than 300 million exposed. Then come Indonesia (100 million exposed), the Philippines and Pakistan (both with more than 80 million exposed).

Some smaller countries – Burkina Faso, Mali, Aruba, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Benin are the top six – will experience ‘hot exposure’ conditions across almost their entire land areas. Importantly, Lenton’s team note that for the most part those most affected come from poorer nations that have less than average greenhouse gas emissions; the UAE and Bahrain are obvious exceptions.

In other words, the victims of climate change are both less responsible for the problem and less likely to have the resources to cope with it. “Overall”, the researchers write, “our results illustrate the huge potential human cost and the great inequity of climate change.”

However, climate change is but one of a number of Earth systems – the natural systems that provide our life support – that humanity is stressing. And as with climate change, transgression of any planetary boundary can be expected to have inequitable impacts, as the benefits and costs of ecosystem disruption are not evenly distributed.

Wealthy countries and people have ecological footprints far higher than those of middle and low-income countries and people. That has been the case for decades, indeed centuries, meaning that these countries and people are responsible for most of the cumulative damage to the Earth. So both historically and in present times, we bear a collective responsibility to act first and go furthest in reducing our impact on the Earth’s life support systems.

This current and historic inequity is the basis for thinking about not just a safe operating space for humanity, but one that is also just. This is a step presaged by Kate Raworth in her ‘Doughnut Economy’ model, where she referred to a ‘safe and just operating space’ for humanity. This led her to propose that a doughnut economy – one that meets the social needs of everyone on Earth while not transgressing planetary boundaries – would need to be both regenerative and distributive.

That is to say, we would need economic activity that actually regenerates rather than depletes natural systems, while distributing the economic benefits more fairly. In other words, we cannot separate what, more than 40 years ago, I called the two fundamental principles of public health: ecological sanity and social justice.

This of course raises the question – what is a safe and just space, and how does the introduction of a justice perspective shift the planetary boundaries?

Now, in an article published in Nature in late May, a team led by Johan Rockstrom, one of the leading researchers on earth systems and planetary boundaries, has looked at and sought to answer that question. Next week I will review and discuss their work.  

© Trevor Hancock, 2023

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

Was the loss of the Titan really a disaster, or a foreseeable incident brought about by exaggerated pride and self-confidence?

Dr. Trevor Hancock

26 June 2023

702 words

We just witnessed the destruction of the Titan submersible on a dive to view the wreck of the Titanic. It was quickly dubbed a disaster, and rapt media attention was paid to the hunt for the Titan, perhaps in expectation of another ‘edge-of-the-seat’ rescue attempt. But the whole episode raises a number of thorny questions.

The first is: Was the destruction of the Titan with the loss of five lives a disaster? Is there a number that turns an unfortunate incident into a disaster? If so, the recent bus crash in Manitoba that killed 16 seniors was surely a greater disaster than the loss of the Titan. Both of these pale in comparison to another disaster at sea that occurred at the same time as the Titan’s destruction; the loss of hundreds of lives when an over-crowded refugee boat sank off the Greek coast. But much more attention – and certainly way more resources – were devoted to the Titan rescue effort.

My colleague Dr. Charuka Maheswaran alerted me to Barack Obama’s comments on exactly this point. As it happened, the former US President was in Greece last week, speaking at a conference. The Huffington Post reported that he drew attention to the loss of the Titan, but added, tellingly “the fact that that’s got so much more attention than 700 people who sank, that’s an untenable situation.”

In a later interview with CNN, The Huffington Post reported, Obama suggested this differential coverage “reflects a larger problem with inequality”, adding that “it’s indicative of the degree to which people’s life chances have grown so disparate.” And of course, behind the tragedy of the refugee deaths lies an even greater disaster; the combination of poverty, violence and climate change that is forcing millions of people to flee their homes and seek security elsewhere.

The second question is: Was this an unforeseeable and surprising disaster, or merely an accident waiting to happen? Well, it has since been revealed that Stockton Rush, the creator of the Titan, took a pretty cavalier attitude to safety. Standards and regulations, he implied, are for wimps. They get in the way of clever people such as himself who are innovative and entrepreneurial.

Reports since the Titan was lost have revealed that there was a great deal of concern among the professionals in the submersibles business about the approach taken by Mr. Rush – but nobody actually acted on these concerns. I am reminded of a comment from the 1980s by James Tye, the founder of the British Safety Council, reported in a recent Spectator book review: “It is no use putting these accidents down to acts of God. Why does God always pick on badly managed places with sloppy practices?”

The Ancient Greeks called attitudes such as those of Mr. Rush ‘hubris’ – exaggerated pride or self-confidence. As the Merriam-Webster Dictionary notes, the Greeks “considered hubris a dangerous character flaw capable of provoking the wrath of the gods. In classical Greek tragedy, hubris was often a fatal shortcoming that brought about the fall of the tragic hero.”

From that perspective, the loss of the Titan – appropriately, the Greek name for a family of giants that used to rule the Earth until the Olympian gods overthrew them – was poetic justice, and at least the captain went down with his ship. So it would have been ironic, rather than tragic, if it hadn’t also killed four other people.

Which takes us to the unfortunate passengers and my third question: What on Earth were they doing down there?  They have been branded as explorers and scientists, but this is specious, as the site is well documented. They were hardly discovering new places or adding to scientific knowledge – except, ironically, knowledge about the dangers of the innovations that Mr. Rush was creating, dangers that, sadly, they had not been made aware of.

Instead,  Paul Johnston, curator of maritime history at the Smithsonian, in Washington, D.C., nailed it in comments reported in this newspaper on June 23^rd, labelling them ‘risk tourists’:  “people who are going down to look at an underwater graveyard”, adding “it’s a plaything for wealthy people — a checkbox on a bucket list.”  Some bucket, some list, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill.

© Trevor Hancock, 2023

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