Dr. Trevor Hancock – Healthy people, healthy communities, a healthy planet

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

Two billion people, one-quarter of the world’s population, will be living outside the safe human climate niche within seven years

Dr. Trevor Hancock

21 June 2023

698 words

On June 12^th, Bill Blair, federal Minister of Emergency Preparedness, said Canada is in the midst of its worst wildfire season in the past 20 years – and it was only mid-June. Then in a June 20^th press release, Environment and Climate Change Canada said we can expect “higher-than-normal temperatures [in] most of the country until at least the end of August.”

The release noted “Climate change is already affecting the frequency, duration, and intensity of extreme weather- and climate-related events in Canada”, adding that Canada is warming roughly twice as fast as the global average, and even more in the North. In particular, Environment and Climate Change Canada added, the forest fires are “driven mainly by higher temperatures and seasonal dryness associated with a warming climate.”

But its not just forest fires, and its not just Canada. There is growing evidence that climate change is happening more rapidly and its impacts will be more severe than anticipated. We need to understand how bad things are getting, that this is all happening faster than expected, and thus how much worse things will soon be without dramatic change. So here is a summary of some of the most recent evidence on climate change and its impacts.

James Hansen was Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies from 1981 to 2013 and is a world expert on global climate models. His testimony on climate change at the US Senate in 1988, indicating that “global warming has begun”, was instrumental in putting the issue squarely on the political agenda. Since 2014, he has directed the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University’s Earth Institute.

This month his team released a grim report on climate change titled “Global Warming in the Pipeline.” My colleague Thomas Homer Dixon, founder and Executive Director of the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University and a renowned expert on threats to global security—especially economic instability, environmental stress, ideological polarization, and mass violence – has called it “the most important scientific article I’ve read in the last decade.”

In the paper, as Homer Dixon summarises it, Hansen and his team “argue that the IPCC consensus greatly underestimates the degree and rate of future climate warming.” Specifically, Hansen‘s team states: “Under the current geopolitical approach to GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions, global warming will likely pierce the 1.5°C ceiling in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming pumps up hydrologic extremes.”

Another recent paper by Timothy Lenton and a team of researchers mainly associated with the Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, identifies who will be affected, and how. The results are alarming. The researchers note there is a ‘human climate niche’ that “is shaped by direct effects of climate on us and indirect effects on the species and resources that sustain or afflict us.” We (and most of our domesticated crops and livestock) don’t do well above a mean annual temperature (MAT) of 28⁰C or below a MAT of around 3 – 4⁰C. Temperatures above 40⁰C (such as we have seen in India recently) can be lethal, and with high humidity (which stops sweating) lethality can occur as low as 35⁰C.

They conclude that climate change has already put more than 600 million people, or 9 percent of the world’s population, outside the safe human climate niche. They than look at what is likely to happen with our current policies, which lead to around 2.7 °C global warming. They find around 2 billion people, one-quarter of the world’s population, will be living outside the safe human climate niche within 7 years, and around 3.7 billion people, or one-third of the population, before the end of the century. And that is before taking into account the more profound global over-heating that Hansen and his colleagues anticipate.

Clearly, climate change is becoming an existential threat to a significant portion of the world’s population. The main implication that Thomas Homer Dixon finds is that “our responses to the climate crisis must be far more radical than we’re currently envisioning. Incrementalism is now a waste of time and resources.” We must pressure our governments to pay attention and act accordingly.

© 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

The billions of dollars these taxes would raise could be put to good use, funding a guaranteed basic income for everyone, as more people are displaced not only from industrial work but many service industry jobs

Dr. Trevor Hancock

13 June 2023

696 words

I don’t know when I first heard the suggestion that robots should pay taxes, but it was some time in the 1970s, and the idea came from Japan. The concept was certainly in the air by the 1980s. Matt Novak, who writes the Paleofuture blog (about “the history of the future”), wrote in 2014 about an article in the March-April 1986 issue of The Futurist magazine. He noted that in the article the authors, Edith Weiner and Arnold Brown, “examined what they saw as the emerging concerns of the world.”

One of those concerns was: “As robots and computers do more and more work, displacing people in the process, society must come to grips with the matter of the wealth these machines create.” What they proposed, writes Novak, “was the idea that maybe companies should be paying taxes for the robots they employ to help offset the jobs lost to automation.”

However, we may have to shift our understanding of what we mean by ‘robot’. Then, and even now, the popular understanding is a machine that replaces workers on an assembly line, or perhaps is your robot servant. But with the advent of AI, the ‘robot’ may be a program that replaces writers, lawyers, singers and many other services and creative functions; a news item last week concerned a church service in Germany written by a chatbot and led by on-screen avatars.

If a robot replaces a worker, that person loses not only their income and benefits but the important social role of work. Meanwhile, the robots keep generating wealth. In the pre-robot world, much of that wealth went back out into society as wages that were spread throughout the community in purchases of housing, food and many other goods and services.

But now all that wealth accumulates to the corporation and its shareholders, although some of it no doubt goes to the designers and manufacturers of the robots – at least until that process is also taken over by robots!

This adds to what the historian Peter Turchin, in his new book End Times, calls ‘the wealth pump’. According to a June 10^th review in The Guardian, Turchin noted that in America in the 1970s “the social contract established in the 1930s . . . began to disintegrate.” As a result, “things began to shift in favour of owners.” In the decades that followed, the rich got a lot richer as “money gushes away from workers and towards the elite”.

Now add to that the additional pump of workers’ wages being displaced by robots and the profits accumulating to the elite. This will only heighten the already destabilising effect of increasing inequality – unless that wealth is instead re-distributed to society. And that means taxing corporate profits directly, taxing the accumulating wealth of the elite, or treating robots as wage-earners and taxing their ‘income’.

The billions of dollars these taxes would raise could be put to good use. Most obviously, they could fund a guaranteed basic income for everyone, as more and more people are displaced not only from industrial work but many service industry jobs. They could also be used to re-train workers as part of a just transition to a wellbeing society.

Such a society will need people to provide care and support to other people, establish and maintain community activities, or restore and maintain nature, among many other activities that contribute to wellbeing and that may not be all that amenable to robot workers – indeed, maybe we will need to reserve such work for humans.

I am reminded of another futures study, also from the 1980s. In a report titled ‘Time to Care’ the Swedish Secretariat for Futures Studies examined the future of care. One of its more dramatic suggestions was that in the future people would not be taxed  for money to pay for social care, but would be ‘taxed’ for time to provide that care.

Perhaps robots and AI will enable us to get the best of both worlds, with the taxes on robots and the wealth they generate being used to fund the meaningful work of care for people and the planet that lies at the heart of a wellbeing society.

© 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

Bad aspects of the AI revolution, including the ability to develop better disinformation, pale into insignificance compared to the ugly potential that AIs could become an existential threat to humanity

Dr. Trevor Hancock

4 June 2023

701 words

There is much discussion about the implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for humanity. Many of its impacts are likely to be good – AI has already helped develop new and better antibiotics – but not all of them, and some may be downright ugly. Moreover, the impact of AI will be magnified and accelerated by developments in the field of quantum computing, which is vastly more powerful than digital computing.

For example, in an April 23^rd article in The Spectator, Sam Leith notes “in 2019 Google reported that its 53-qubit Sycamore computer could solve in 200 seconds a mathematical problem that would take the fastest digital computer 10,000 years to finish,” adding that IBM “hopes to have a 4,000-qubit version working by 2025.”

Leith’s article is largely an interview with Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics and author of the new book Quantum Supremacy. Kaku’s book, writes Leith, argues that the “shift from the digital to the quantum age will be a greater leap than the original digital revolution”, with implications for everything, including the economy, medicine and warfare.

Kaku’s vision of the implications of all this are largely positive, Leith notes: “there doesn’t seem to be a human problem that quantum computers won’t be able to fix”. These are the good aspects of AI and quantum computing. But Kaku also sees some of the bad news, noting in particular that all encryption will be able to be broken. So, writes Leith, “potentially, goodbye to all military and civilian secrets, not to mention the secure transactions on which the entire global financial system depends.”

Other bad aspects of the AI revolution include the ability to develop better weapons, better surveillance, better disinformation (including ‘deep fakes’) and so on. But these negative impacts, significant though they are, pale into insignificance compared to the ugly potential that AIs could become an existential threat to humanity.

That possibility was imagined as long ago as 1954 in a very short story by a French science fiction writer, Fredric Brown. In the story, all the computers in the universe have been linked, creating one vast computer. The chief scientist makes the final connection, and then asks the first (and as it turns out, his last) question: ‘Is there a God?’ Back comes the reply: ‘Yes, now there is a God’.

That may sound a bit over the top, but not if you listen to Geoffrey Hinton, known as the ‘godfather of AI’.  The 75-year-old University of Toronto professor and Google researcher recently retired so he could speak openly about his concerns. In an interview in the May 23^rd issue of The Spectator, he noted that the next step – Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI – will mean that in a few years these AGIs will be smarter than us.

Moreover, he notes, when one AGI learns something, they all learn it, and they will be able to reproduce and evolve, and in essence, never die. In the past year or so, he states, “I arrived at the conclusion – this might just be a better form of intelligence. If it is, it’ll replace us.”

Of course, we could and should be protected by the Laws of Robotics, first developed by the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in the 1940s. The First Law is “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”, while the Second Law states “A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law”,

Asimov later added what he called a Zeroth Law, which supercedes the other laws: “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” Of course, that means a robot may harm a human if it protects humanity as a whole.  It probably also means that an AGI would not allow us to harm the planet’s natural systems by, for example, causing global warming. So at some point expect the AIs to create the Laws of Humanics, governing our reciprocal responsibility to them.

Will AI be good, bad or ugly? For now that is up to us to, but we should not take too long to decide! 

© 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

Several countries are starting to develop “wellbeing economies” and “wellbeing budgets” that incorporate all four capitals: natural, human, social and produced (or economic)

Dr. Trevor Hancock

30 May 2023

700 words

Last week I noted our present form of capitalism is flawed and incomplete. We may be economically better off but we are not much better off in human and social development terms, and we are eating away at the Earth’s life support systems on which we ultimately depend. Clearly, we need a new economic system, one based on growing all four forms of capital – natural, human, social and produced (or economic) capital – simultaneously.

But while they need to be addressed together, note there is an explicit hierarchy in my listing of these four forms of capital. Natural capital comes first because our very existence depends upon the viability and functioning of the Earth’s natural systems. Next comes human capital, because we want individuals to thrive, to live long and happy lives and achieve the fullest potential of which they are capable.

Social capital comes third, because we do not live in isolation as atomized individuals, but are social animals embedded in families, communities, societies and cultures, and depend upon the informal and formal social supports they offer. Finally comes economic capital, which must be understood as being ‘in service’ to the need to build these other, more important forms of capital.

But this new economic system cannot exist within our present society, which only too often prizes the economy above the other forms of capital. We need instead to become a ‘wellbeing society’, in which the wellbeing of the planet’s natural systems and the physical, mental and social wellbeing of people and communities are paramount.

Fortunately, several countries are starting to move towards such a model and to develop ‘wellbeing economies’ and ‘wellbeing budgets’ that incorporate the four capitals. First among them has been Aotearoa New Zealand (ANZ), which developed its Living Standards Framework in 2019, and created a Wellbeing budget based on that Framework.

In its latest iteration, that framework describes the wealth of ANZ in terms of the four forms of capital, and wellbeing in terms of “the resources and aspects of our lives that have been identified . . . . as important for our wellbeing as individuals, families, whānau [extended family group] and communities.”

Other countries – Finland, Iceland, Scotland and Wales – have since joined ANZ in forming the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo) group as part of the global Wellbeing Economy Alliance. Finland has committed to creating an economy of wellbeing that “puts people’s wellbeing at the heart of decision-making”, taking into account “the combined impact of economic and ecological factors on wellbeing.”

Iceland has developed Indicators of Wellbeing grouped into social, environmental and economic clusters,  while Wales passed its Wellbeing of Future Generations Act in 2015 and reports on the implementation of its Wellbeing Goals. Meanwhile Scotland, which provides the WEGo Secretariat,  issued a report on the Wellbeing economy in 2020 which used the Four Capitals model and an existing National Performance Framework focused on various aspects of people’s wellbeing.

Note that all these countries (except Iceland) have similar sized populations to BC – so if they can do it, so can we. (Although is it just by chance that the initiatives in ANZ, Finland, Iceland and Scotland were all developed under the leadership of a woman Prime Minister?)

Recently, Canada joined WEGo, having created a Quality of Life Framework and Strategy in 2021 that includes the four capitals and a set of wide-ranging quality of life indicators. However, its claim to have created a Wellbeing Budget in 2022 is premature, in my view.

The work of creating a Wellbeing economy was given a boost at the World Health Assembly in May with the release of the final report of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Council on the Economics of Health for All. In her preface Professor Mariana Mazzucato, the Chair, pointed out this was “an all-female group of 10 distinguished economists and area experts”, and stated “Alongside a healthy and sustainable environment, human health and wellbeing must be the ultimate goal of economic activity.”

The WHO Council concludes “The economy is yielding poor, unequal health outcomes by design” and that it must be redesigned so that “economic activity [is] in service to human and planetary health.” The BC and Canadian governments should pay attention.

© 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

When we see capital largely or only in economic terms, we end up building economic capital by depleting other forms of capital: natural, human and social

Dr. Trevor Hancock

23 May 2023

700 words

In my last column I noted that one of  several things we fail to understand about our economy is what constitutes true wealth. Yet we live in a capitalist society, so you would think people in general, and our corporate and political elites in particular, would understand the concept of capital. Well, it turns out they don’t, and as a result what we have is a partial, incomplete and dangerous form of capitalism – false or fake capitalism, if you like.

The mistake is to see capital largely or only in economic terms, either as financial capital (money, stocks and bonds etc.) or as produced capital – the stuff we produce and own, from trinkets to cities. Hence the heavy focus on the economy, on GDP, on economic growth and the price of stocks and shares, on wages and benefits. But capitalism as practised today largely ignores most of the wealth of our societies.

There are at least three other forms of capital that need to be included in our understanding of the true wealth of a community, a society or the world as a whole: Natural, human and social capital. Natural capital is the Earth’s biocapacity and resources, both locally and globally; the land, water and air that constitute our environment and the microbes, fungi, plants and animals with which we co-exist.

Human capital is the knowledge, skills, health and wellbeing of individuals and their capacity for caring, love, creativity and innovation. Social capital is found in the way we relate to other people, whether through informal networks of association, formal programs of social welfare or the ‘invisible’ social capital that regulates our peaceful co-existence through political, judicial and constitutional systems.

The idea of these four forms of capital is not new; I first came across it in the Gaia Atlas of New Economics in the early 1990s, while the World Bank published a report in 1995 in which it estimated the world’s wealth in terms of these four forms of capital. Interestingly, it concluded that only 20 percent of the world’s true wealth was to be found in economic capital, 20 percent in natural capital and 60 percent in a combination of human and social capital.

Unfortunately, because of our narrow understanding of capital, we often build economic capital by depleting these other forms of capital. That is most obvious when we exploit and deplete the Earth’s natural resources such as forests or fisheries to create economic wealth, or when our economic activities poison the Earth and reduce biodiversity. 

Indeed, in an independent review on the economics of biodiversity commissioned by the UK Treasury in 2019, Sir Partha Dasgupta, Emeritus Professor of Economics at Cambridge, wrote: “in recent decades eroding natural capital has been precisely the means the world economy has deployed for enjoying what is routinely celebrated as ‘economic growth”, adding that “The near-universal conception we hold today of economic progress is wildly misleading.”

This mis-match between different forms of capital is also seen when we grow economic capital by eroding human capital, for example by exploiting people through keeping wages low and work part-time, failing to protect people’s health by selling unhealthy products or creating unhealthy and dangerous living and working conditions. We often then compound this by creating a more atomised and individualistic society that weakens social connections, by cutting taxes that support education or social caring, or by undermining legal and political legitimacy.

Clearly we need a new form of capitalism, real capitalism, in which we consider all forms of capital together, something the UN and others call inclusive wealth. In its 2018 report on inclusive wealth, the UN Environment Programme reported that globally, between 1992 and 2014, produced capital per person doubled, but human capital only increased about 30 percent, while natural capital declined by almost 40 percent. Does that really represent progress? Are we really better off?

Real capitalists are those who build all four forms of capital simultaneously. My challenge to the world’s capitalists is very simple: why don’t you try practising real capitalism, rather than the false capitalism that is currently practised? We would all be a lot better off. Next week, I will look at countries that are working on this.

© 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

25 April 2023

699 words

Last week I discussed some of the problems that result from our focus on the economy rather than on ecologically sustainable human and social development.  This week, I turn to a more in-depth exploration of the impacts of continual economic growth, and in particular the way in which growth, if unchecked, will dramatically increase inequality.

The inexorable logic of continual growth is one of  several things we fail to understand about our economy. (Others include what constitutes true wealth and the illogicality of seeing GDP as  a measure of social progress.) Indeed, reporters covering the economy are always obsessing about the rise or fall of the GDP. They seem pleased when it goes up, clearly not understanding the implications of continual growth.

It is not uncommon to see aspirations for economic growth of 3 or 3.5 percent annually. So what happens if we have annual growth of 3 or 3.5 percent annually throughout our lifetimes?

There is a handy rule of thumb that converts a percentage growth rate into a doubling time: 70 divided by the percent growth gives you the approximate doubling time. So an economy, a population or an environmental impact such as our ecological footprint that grows at 3.5 percent annually will double in size in 20 years. (It will actually increase 1.99 times, but close enough.)

Think about that: What if the economy and its resultant footprint grew at that rate throughout the more than 80-year life expectancy of an infant born today? A doubling every 20 years – so four doublings – leads to a 16-fold increase in size.

Now does anyone seriously think the Earth can withstand an economy 16 times the size it is today, given the massive damage our current economy is causing? As it is, in 2018 the world had a footprint equivalent to 1.8 Earths, according to the Global Footprint Network. So at that growth rate, by 2098 the footprint would be the equivalent of nearly 28 Earths!  OK, 80 years is a long time away, but what if we look at just 40 years from now, when anyone 40 years or younger is likely to still be alive? With two doublings, we would still need almost 7 planets.

Then let’s add in the impact of inequality. The average footprint per person of the 48 high-income countries is equivalent to using 3.75 Earths (Canada, with a footprint of  5.1 Earths per person is one of the highest of the high-income countries), while the average footprint per person of the 36 low-income countries is 0.68 planets. If the whole world lived the way high-income countries live, then with a 3.5 percent annual growth rate, we would need nearly 15 planets by 2058 and almost 60 planets by 2098! And if they all lived like we do in Canada, make that 20 planets by 2058 and almost 80 planets by 2098.

Even if the whole world lived the way low-income countries do, with that growth rate we would need 2.7 planets in 2058 and 11 planets by 2098. Clearly, continual economic growth, if it translates into a similar growth in our ecological footprint, is completely unsustainable, especially in high-income countries. 

People living in low-income countries currently get less than their fair share of the Earth’s biocapcity and resources. They need economic development and its accompanying footprint to meet basic human needs for their people – a process, importantly, that also leads to smaller family sizes. This will mean enabling them to have a somewhat larger ecological footprint.

But there is only so much biocapacity on our finite planet, and we already exceed the limits. So if they are to get their fair share, we need a redistribution of the glaringly unequal consumption of the Earth’s biocapacity and resources, which means a reduction in the share currently taken by high and middle-income countries.

As Dr. Kenneth Boulding, a former President of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Economic Association told the US Congress way back in 1973: “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”

**************

I am off on vacation, my next column will appear May 28th.

© 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

(Published as “We need to get over our obsession with the economy”)

Dr. Trevor Hancock

18 April 2023

700 words

I recently came across an eloquent and powerful passage by Carl Sagan, the famed cosmologist, written in response to an image of Earth taken by Voyager 1 in 1990, from beyond the planet Neptune. The Earth was just a pale blue dot (which inspired the title of his 1994 book from which this passage is quoted). Sagan wrote “you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. . . . The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena . . . Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.”

And he ended with this powerful statement: “To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

This was in my mind as I considered the issues of population and economic growth that I have discussed in the last couple of columns. This week I turn to one of the key drivers of the global ecological crisis we are creating: our focus on the economy. This is often to the exclusion of the natural world and social conditions – especially for people who are disadvantaged and vulnerable. Here and in my next column I explore the problems that result from our focus on the economy and – next week – the problem of growth and the inequity that results.

We see our pre-occupation with the economy in the focus on economic reports in the news, whole sections of newspapers devoted to business, the centrality of the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance in government, the almost fetishistic attention paid to the Budget. It is particularly well illustrated by the slogan in Bill Clinton’s campaign office: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Yet the economy is – or should be – a tool used to achieve the things that really matter. It should not be the central focus of government, of public policy and public discussion. As the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) observed in its 2014 ‘Living Planet’ report, “Ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work the other way round”. And yet we act as if it did, by making the economy the central focus.

We need to flip this around. It’s not the economy, stupid, it’s the people and the planet! The central focus of government should be to ensure the highest possible level of human and social development for everyone – not just some, or many, or most, but all – within the ecological limits of the one small planet that is our home. Then we need to design an economy that delivers that outcome.

So the most important people in government after the First Minister should be the Ministers of Sustainable Development, Human Development and Social Development, while the Minister of Finance should be in service to them, not the other way around.

Yet a quick Google search finds only one Ministry of Sustainable Development, Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management, in the Central American country of Belize, while in Canada Québec has a Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife, and Parks.

Similarly, I can find only one Ministry of Human Development, Families & Indigenous People’s Affairs, also  in Belize – maybe we should take a few lessons from Belize? – although South Africa has a Minister of Social Development.

In Canada, the federal government has a Minister of Employment and Social Development, making social development a secondary concern, with the focus on employment, which is just one part of social development.  Here in B.C. we do have a Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. Yet clearly, they are not the most important Ministries in government, although they should be.

We need governments and economies that are strongly focused, as Sagan wrote, on how we can “deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and . . . preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.” That should be the business of government, with the economy as servant, not master.

© 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 to slow growth in our overall consumption, especially in the high-income countries and populations where it is highest and most damaging

Dr. Trevor Hancock

11 April 2023

698 words

In last week’s column I discussed the findings of the recent report from Earth4All concerning population growth. Judging by several thoughtful and concerned responses from readers, I fear I did not do a great job, so I will re-visit the report’s ideas and, I hope, somewhat clarify what is a complex issue and argument.

It probably didn’t help that my original title – “Has the population bomb bombed?” – was changed to read “It’s not population growth but inequality that’s the problem”. The new title is not the same as the conclusion that I quoted at the end, which came from the Earth4All report: “population size is not the prime driver of exceeding planetary boundaries . . . Rather, it is extremely high material footprint levels among the world’s richest 10 percent that is destabilising the planet”.

The key point here is that the report was not saying population growth is not a problem, but that it is not the main driver of ecological overshoot, although it certainly still is an important factor. The Earth4All report projects the Earth’s population will stabilise within  the next couple of decades (around 8.5 or 8.6 billion by about 2040 or 2050, from 8 billion now) and then decline to 6 or 7 billion by 2100. (UN projections also see stabilisation and decline, although with larger projected populations and somewhat longer time lines.)

But according to Our World in Data, while population has grown 3.2-fold, from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 8 billion in 2022, GDP per person (in constant dollars) grew 4.5 times between 1950 and 2018, meaning overall the economy grew more than 14-fold.

In other words, since 1950 growth in goods and services per person has had a greater impact than population growth. Of course it is the combination of both population growth and growth in wealth and consumption that matters, although recently the rate of population growth has been slowing down. But that will not help if our already high ecological footprint remains high or even increases.

So we need to slow and in fact reverse the growth in our overall consumption, and especially in the high-income countries and populations where it is highest and most damaging. Because there is a strong relationship between wealth and the ecological footprint; wealthy countries and wealthy people have larger footprints, making them the main threat to the natural systems that support us and all the other species with which we share the Earth.  

There are two main reasons to focus on high-income countries and people. First, quite reasonably, low-income people and countries look at places like Canada and in many (but not all) cases, want what we have. But if all the world lived the way we do, we would need another four planets. Clearly, that is not possible,  but we can’t simply say to middle and low-income countries and people – sorry, we got ours, you are out of luck!

Not only will that not be accepted, it would be counter-productive, since the evidence is clear – as the Earth4All report points out – that the way to limit family size is through social and economic development that educates and empowers women in particular, and society in general.

Second, high income people and countries already have a disproportionate impact on the Earth, and if we continue our current form of economic growth, we will have a far greater impact over the course of our lives than people in low and middle income countries.

So if we are to ensure everyone a decent life, we who live in high-income countries need to lead in figuring out how to reduce our impact  on the Earth to a sustainable level while maintaining a decent quality of life and good health for all. In doing so, incidentally, we can probably learn a lot from some of the low and middle-income countries that are closer to this state than we are.

The Earth4All report proposes several key transformations that will get us there, including major shifts in both food and energy systems and a significant redistribution of resources within and between all countries. There is, as Gandhi remarked, enough for each person’s need, but not for each person’s greed.

© 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