Eco-anxiety is rational, business-as-usual is insane

We must avoid the temptation to label eco-anxiety a mental-health problem. It is, in fact, a perfectly rational and normal response to the situation we face

Dr. Trevor Hancock

15 April 2025

701 words

From Mother Nature’s perspective, the results of next week’s election are largely irrelevant – and that should worry us. The two main contenders, as well as the NDP, are just proposing slightly different variants of business as usual.

Their focus is on more economic growth, more resource extraction and consumption and – although not formally part of their platforms – more resultant pollution. All they really differ about is how the spoils will be divided between the public and private sectors.

In fact, the environment, including climate change, has pretty much fallen off the public and political agenda. CBC News recently reported “In 2021, 24 per cent named the environment as their most important issue. But in this campaign, the environment is eighth on the list, at about five per cent.”

This has enabled governments in Ottawa and BC to back off from carbon pricing, having failed to vigorously defend it in the face of a powerful fossil fuel lobby. So we have lost an effective tool to reduce fossil fuel consumption, at the expense of the wellbeing of future generations and a myriad of other species. The fossil fuel robber barons must be rubbing their hands in glee.

But even though it may not be not top of mind in terms of current electoral concerns, there is a great deal of ‘eco-anxiety’ out there.  A recent survey of 1000 young people (aged 16–25) across Canada found “78 percent reported that climate change impacts their overall mental health.” But we must avoid the temptation to label eco-anxiety a mental health problem. It is in fact a perfectly rational and normal response to the situation we face.

Consider for a moment that we have now crossed six of nine planetary boundaries, of which climate change is but one, and are approaching a seventh. We just had the first year where the average global temperature was more than 1.50C above the pre-industrial level, and it’s only going to get worse. Moreover, Canada is warming at twice and the Canadian North at three times the global average, the federal government has warned.

On top of that, the loss of biodiversity accelerates, as does the level of pollution. The latest Living Planet Index report, with data to 2020, shows that the population counts for almost 35,000 monitored populations covering 5,495 vertebrate species (mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians) around the world had declined 73 percent since 1970. Meanwhile the IUCN’s Red List reports that “More than 47,000 species are threatened with extinction. That is 28 percent of all assessed species.”

When it comes to pollution, it’s important to note that six of the nine planetary boundaries that have been established involve some form of pollution – and we have crossed three of them: Climate change (greenhouse gas emissions), nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from agricultural and other wastes that pollute our lands and waters (in particular creating marine and freshwater dead zones), and novel entities.

The latter are new substances such as synthetic chemicals, pesticides and plastic nano-particles, “not previously known to the Earth system” that are produced in numbers that exceed our ability to properly assess their impacts. In addition, we are approaching a fourth boundary, ocean acidification, that results from carbon dioxide and other acidifying emissions.

So does it make sense to be worried about the state of the environment? Absolutely it does. Does it make sense to largely ignore this issue, to fail to treat it as an absolutely vital priority, as an existential concern? It does not.

It is not eco-anxiety that is the problem, it is the failure to feel eco-anxiety and to respond appropriately. Albert Einstein once said “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Those among our business and political elite that continue to promote and pursue economic growth as a solution, with all its attendant problems, who continue to advocate for and implement policies and practices that push us further beyond planetary boundaries, are acting irrationally.

I would go further. It has been said that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In the face of the global ecological crises we face, business as usual is insane.

© Trevor Hancock, 2025

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

With cruelty reigning to the south, Canada needs to keep flame of kindness burning

Who can forget Elon Musk’s disgusting celebration of the destruction of U.S. AID. How can anyone other than a psychopath celebrate the destruction of the lives and health of millions of people?

Dr. Trevor Hancock

25 March 2025

699 words

Back in the late-1980s the first President Bush expressed a wish for a kinder, gentler nation. A joke going round at the time, I recall, was that he had found it, it was called Canada, and now he was going to buy it.

Fast forward almost 40 years and we have a President whose whole approach seems based in nastiness and cruelty, the very opposite of kindness and gentleness. Indeed, I am struck by how often in the past couple of weeks I have heard the word cruel used in describing Trump, Musk and the US government as a whole.

We see that cruelty in Trump’s childish name-calling and belittling of people, his attack on the federal work force, his crushing of policies and entire agencies intended to protect and lift up the weak and disadvantaged. 

Who can forget Elon Musk’s disgusting celebration of the destruction of the US Agency for International Development, the largest single aid program in the world? We fed it into the wood-chipper, he exulted – chainsaw in hand. How can anyone other than a psychopath celebrate the destruction of the lives and health of millions of people that will result from such cruelty.

We also see it in Trump’s bullying not just of President Zelensky but of the entire nation of Ukraine, or his contempt for entire peoples and nations, be they Palestinians or Lesotho or Canada. We see it in his heartless and racist attitude towards immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers. He has not yet got around to proposing a final solution, but I won’t be surprised if he does.

That cruelty extends beyond humanity to the planet as a whole. We see it in his rejection of the reality of human induced climate change and his commitment to expanding fossil fuel use, as well as in the wholesale abolition of environmental protections and the slashing of environmental science staff. Indeed George Monbiot, a renowned environmental writer, wrote in the Guardian recently that Trump, Musk and their followers are waging war against life on Earth.

As James Parker wrote recently in The Atlantic, it seems as if “kindness has become countercultural”. So perhaps Trump sees Canada as a threat because we are proof, right on his border, that it is possible to be kinder, gentler, more caring, more committed to the rule of law. 

If so, he intends to eliminate that threat by taking us over, crushing our economy, our independence, our sovereignty, our culture, our very existence.  And if that sounds like Putin’s attitude towards Ukraine – well, bingo, two peas in a pod! 

Now I am not suggesting we are a beacon of rectitude, there is plenty of cruelty and nastiness here in Canada. But the big difference is that as a nation, kindness, caring and gentleness towards others is still an underlying, if at times somewhat threatened, motivating force. 

We see it in our social programs, which are a social contract expressing solidarity and caring for each other. We see it in the mosaic of multi-culturalism that doesn’t just recognise but celebrates diversity. We see it in our proud, if now somewhat tattered but still extant commitment to peace-keeping – and the same could be said of our commitment to protecting the environment. We see it in our slow groping towards truth-telling in the history of our relationship with Indigenous people and our moves towards recognition and reconciliation.

Kindness, gentleness and consideration towards others has also been the underlying rationale for a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, which Trump and his fellow-travellers contemptuously dismiss as ‘woke’.

Now I am not going to defend every aspect of ‘wokeness’, there are times I too find it silly, irritating, performative and exasperating. But what I see at its heart is an attempt to recognise, protect and promote the inherent worth, dignity and rights of individuals, and that is a good thing.

Given we have a cruel tyrant to our south, maybe our most important job right now as Canadians  is to keep alive the flame of kindness, gentleness and caring, of compassion towards others, no matter whom or where they are, of respecting and protecting our environment. That must be Canada’s response to Trump.

© Trevor Hancock, 2025

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

From centre of shopping to Centre for Dialogue: A new role for the Bay?

The soon-to-be-vacated Hudson’s Bay store in downtown Victoria could become a civic forum where people could gather to discuss, debate and engage

Trevor Hancock and Gene Miller

23 March 2025

701 words

With the presumed closing soon of the Hudson’s Bay store at Government and Fort, it seems we are about to lose a key anchor of the Bay Centre. We will be left with a large empty space on a prime corner at the heart of downtown.

But in every crisis lies an opportunity, and we see one in this closure. As readers of our columns will know, an important part of what binds the two of us together is an interest in the need for engaging people in co-designing our shared future.

For Trevor, this is embodied in the idea of Conversations for a One Planet Region (COPR). In the past COPR organised an ongoing series of monthly conversations on various aspects of the concept of a One Planet region – that is, a region with an ecological footprint around 75 – 80 percent smaller than our current footprint.

For Gene, this is embodied in his thoughts about a Centre for Co-design of the Future, which he discussed in a recent Sunday Islander column. One of the Centre’s purposes would be to conceive and disseminate fresh models of mutually beneficial “partnerships” between official municipal interests and citizens promoting community-driven initiatives. He reasons this makes particular sense in tough financial and social times, like our own.

Together we are committed to finding a way to engage people across the Greater Victoria Region in conversations about the future, about creating the sort of place, the sort of community we want this region to be, about governance for wellbeing for this and future generations. 

These are much more significant discussions than those underway right now about the possible amalgamation of Victoria and Saanich. They need to take account of a number of “long emergencies”—trends and their eventualities that receive little attention in the busy short term and then, at some point, show up with enormous force. “Why,” we wonder, “didn’t we do a better job of planning for this?”

So instead of discussing amalgamation of just a couple of municipalities, what if we were to take a big breath and a big step back and have conversations about how a region like ours should be managed in the 21st  century? What if our aim, separate from matters of political jurisdiction, was to ensure everyone, including future generations, has a good quality of life while we restore our environment and live within planetary boundaries? What should the structure and process of “wellbeing governance” be for the region as a whole if this was our goal? Shouldn’t we be talking about this?

This is where the soon-to-be-vacated Bay comes in. The Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University (SFU) in Vancouver opened in 2000 with a mandate to foster shared understanding and positive action through dialogue and engagement. It has sparked interest in and supported participatory and deliberative democracy that “has the potential to renew democracy in the 21st Century” – exactly what we want to happen here in this region.

So why not re-purpose the former Hudson’s Bay as a Centre for Dialogue. It could be the hub for Conversations, a Centre for the Co-design of the Future, a base for the Victoria Forum (a joint initiative of the Senate of Canada and UVic) and others. The ground floor in particular, with access to Government and Fort, would be a great venue for a sort of civic forum or agora where people could come together to discuss, debate and engage in making this a region where everyone can enjoy a good quality of life while respecting nature and living within the Earth’s limits.

Who would fund it? We don’t know, but there is wealth in this city looking for a significant cause or project, and sponsorship of this proposal would create a great legacy, perhaps a gift through the Victoria Foundation. Or maybe LaSalle Investment Management, the owners of the Bay Centre, could earn a large charitable tax credit by leasing all or part of it to the region for $1 a year. We are sure there are many good ideas and potential contributors out there. We are just planting the seed to attract interest.

Who wants to help us grow the Victoria Centre for Dialogue?

© Trevor Hancock, 2025

© Gene Miller, 2025

thancock@uvic.ca

genekmiller@gmail.com

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

Gene Miller is the founder of Open Space, founding publisher of Monday Magazine, originator of the Gaining Ground urban sustainability conferences and founder/developer of ASH houseplexes