• Published as  “Loss of nature has huge impact, but doesn’t get attention it deserves”

Aside from the food we eat, water we drink and plant materials we use for fuel, building materials and medicines, other vital ecosystem services include carbon storage, oxygen generation and pollination

Dr. Trevor Hancock

22 October 2024

699 words

There was a lot of attention paid in the recent election campaign to the provincial deficit, by which various politicians and commentators meant the budgetary deficit. But important though that might be, there is another deficit that is much more concerning, and yet largely ignored; our natural capital deficit.

Natural capital was defined at a World Forum on Natural Capital in 2017 as “as the world’s stocks of natural assets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things.” Natural capital, it was explained, is the source of a wide range of ecosystem services that are essential for humanity, including in particular “the food we eat, the water we drink and the plant materials we use for fuel, building materials and medicines.”

Other vital ecosystem services include carbon storage in plants, oxygen generation by  phytoplankton in the oceans, pollination of our crops and of plants in general, and protection against flooding provided by forests. So important though climate change is, the loss of biodiversity and the impairment of ecosystem functions is at least as important.

But because its effects are not “eminently visible . . . immediate . . . measurable and easy to understand”, the World Economic Forum (WEF) noted in June, the loss of nature does not get the level of attention it deserves.

Yet its impacts are vast. In a November 2023 article based on interviews with leading experts around the world, the Guardian reported that if we carry on as we are, these ecological changes “will result in major shocks to food supplies and safe water, the disappearance of unique species and the loss of landscapes central to human culture and leisure by the middle of this century.”

This also has massive economic consequences. The WEF noted in a 2020 report that “$44 trillion of economic value generation – over half the world’s total GDP – is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services.” The World Bank concurs, finding in a 2021 report that “if certain ecosystem services collapse (pollination, carbon sequestration and storage, fisheries and timber provision)” then by 2030 alone “the global economy could lose $US 2.7 trillion.”

In a 2023 article on ‘Earth Overshoot Day’ – August 2^nd that year, the day on which humanity’s ecological footprint exceeds the equivalent of one Earth’s worth of bio-capacity production – Jack Dempsey a Fund Manager at Schroders, a large global investment manager – succinctly summed up what it means to have a global ecological footprint of almost two Earths: “This creates a deficit – the only way we can maintain this deficit is by permanently depleting Earth’s stock of natural capital, i.e. going into debt in financial terms.”

The issue of our natural capital deficit is, in effect, the focus of the 16^th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which convened this past week in Cali, Colombia. The Convention is the international legal instrument for “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources”. As of May it has been ratified by 196 nations, one of which is Canada.

But in reality we are decimating biological diversity and using natural resources unsustainably and  in ways that are inequitable. As the World Bank stated earlier this year, “nature and the associated renewable natural capital is in decline, despite being the most precious asset that many countries have to tackle climate change, end poverty, improve resilience, and ensure sustainability.” 

The solution advocated by the World Bank, WEF and others, is to “bring nature into the center of economic decision-making.” But while that approach has merit – it’s certainly better than just ignoring it, as we have done for a couple of hundred years – it is not a sufficient response.

Because nature is not just an economic asset, to be used wisely. A 2018 report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development distinguished ‘market natural assets’ – the resources we extract and use – from ecosystem services that are vital to life and thus “are, effectively, priceless.” And to this we should add the economically uncountable role that nature plays in human culture, leisure and spirituality.

© Trevor Hancock, 2024

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  “Environmental costs of growing food aren’t reflected in the price we pay”

A 2021 paper prepared for the UN Food Systems Summit estimated that the true cost of food, globally, should be about three times what it is

Dr. Trevor Hancock

1 October 2024

701 words

Carbon pricing, my topic last week, is a form of pollution pricing. But air pollutants from fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions from a variety of sources are not the only forms of pollution we face. And pollution pricing itself is just one aspect of the broader field of full cost accounting.

The concept is very simple; much of what we do has an impact on something – the environment, other people, our communities, other species, future generations. That impact may be beneficial in some way – providing food, water, housing and other basic needs, improving health and safety, creating jobs and so on – but seldom is it wholly beneficial, with no negative impacts.

Those negative impacts have economic as well as environmental, social and health costs. However, little to none of that is included in the costs of the products or services we use, meaning they are considerably under-priced, making this a market failure.

These hidden costs are considered to be ‘externalities’, which the Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines as “a side effect or consequence, esp. of an industrial or commercial activity, which affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost or price.” As the late and noted wellbeing economist Herman Daly pointed out, these costs are classified as external “for no better reason than because we have made no provision for them in our economic models.”

Our failure to fully account for those costs makes our society childish, lazy and selfish. Childish in that we act as if when we close our eyes it is not there, or it will go away. Lazy in that we really can’t be bothered to do the thinking and the work involved in understanding and properly accounting for those costs.

And selfish, in that we want our goods and services on the cheap, and we really don’t care about the harms to people elsewhere, to the natural systems we depend upon, or to future generations. That of course works well for the private sector – it keeps their prices low and their profits high; for governments, because it makes for happier voters today; and for citizens, because it is cheap.

Growing food in today’s world, for example, has massive environmental, health and social costs that is not reflected in the price we pay.

A September 19^th article in the New York Times reported on the hidden environmental costs of food. Based on research by True Price, a Dutch non-profit group, they estimated that the true price of a pound of beef, retailing at Walmart in the USA at $5.34, is actually $27.36. The difference is largely due to the costs of land system change, but also greenhouse gas emissions from cattle and their manure, and water use.

Beef, of course, is consistently identified as the worst offender. The true price for a pound of cheese is only $7.50 compared to a retail price of $3.74; for chicken, $4.03 v $2.20, and for tofu, $2.63 v $2.42. But remember, these are only the hidden environmental costs; we also need to factor in the health costs associated with the sort of food we eat.

We know a large part of the food produced by the agri-food industry – often highly processed, with high levels of salt, fat, ‘empty’ calories and a plethora of additives – as well as the amounts of food, has led to an epidemic of obesity, as well as to heart disease, diabetes and cancer. To the costs of the resulting  premature death, disease and lost productivity we should add the social costs of unsafe, unhealthy and underpaid work in many agri-food sectors.

Altogether, a 2021 paper prepared for the UN Food Systems Summit estimated, the true cost of food, globally, should be about three times what it is, while “sustainable and healthy food is often less affordable to consumers and [less] profitable for businesses than unsustainable and unhealthy food.”

Just as paying the full price for carbon emissions and air pollution can encourage a healthy switch in behaviour, so too paying the full cost for our food will encourage a switch to a low-meat diet with many health and social benefits, and in particular with much less environmental harm. Our descendants will be grateful.

© Trevor Hancock, 2024

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

Encouraging reduced use of fossil fuels by making them more expensive will result in less air pollution, reducing the health impacts of both air pollution and climate change.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

24 September 2024

701 words

Last week I noted the so-called ‘carbon tax’ is actually a form of pollution pricing. It is very clear that pollution causes harm; Oxford Reference defines it as “Contamination or undesirable modification of soil, food, water, clothing, or the atmosphere by a noxious or toxic substance”, adding that “Any form of pollution can have adverse effects on health.”

Moreover, that harm is not exclusive to humans; plants, animals and entire ecosystems are also affected by pollution, and damage to them can indirectly affect us. For example, we all carry a body-burden of persistent organic pollutants, much of which comes to us through our food.

In addition, polluted environments can have a social impact, as when a beach is closed due to contaminated water, or we can’t go outdoors due to air pollution, or food production is reduced by climate change.

All of these impacts have an economic cost. Broadly speaking, direct human costs are measured in the value of lives lost, the cost of treating pollution-related illness and the lost production due to sickness-related work absence.

For example, a 2021 Health Canada report on the health impact attributable to air pollution in Canada – mostly arising from the combustion of fossil fuels – noted that in 2016 there were 15,300 premature deaths, 8,100 emergency room visits, 2.7 million asthma symptom days and 35 million acute respiratory symptom days per year.

The total economic cost of these health impacts in 2016 due to medical costs, reduced workplace productivity, pain and suffering was about $120 billion, or roughly 6 percent of GDP. Note that Health Canada considers this an under-estimate of the full impact of exposure to air pollution in Canada, and that these costs do not include the impacts of air pollution on animals, plants or the wider environment.

Unlike air pollution, which is mainly a local condition with direct effects on health, the health costs of the carbon dioxide emissions (or more broadly, greenhouse gas emissions) that are the target of carbon pricing are experienced world-wide and indirectly. The carbon we emit – and Canada is among the highest per person emitters in the world – has a global impact.

Here in Canada we have seen the health, social and economic costs of heat domes, increased wildfires, atmospheric rivers and hurricanes, all of which are made more likely, more frequent and more severe by global heating. Moreover, as a 2022 report from Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer noted, “The impacts are not just physical, however. Negative mental health impacts, such as worry, grief, anxiety, anger, hopelessness, and fear are linked to climate change.”

Food production, cost and availability will be affected by changes in our agricultural systems due to drought or flooding and changes in the distribution and availability of fish. Communities will face increased inundation from rising sea levels, threatening the safety of their water supply and sewage systems and requiring expensive changes in infrastructure. Meanwhile, communities in the North – where heating is occurring four times more than the global average – will also be affected by the shifting of forests and animals as climate changes. 

But the global impacts are much more severe: Climate change, the World Health Organization states, “is the single biggest health threat facing humanity.” We can expect to see millions of eco-refugees – many of them experiencing malnutrition and starvation – as large areas become unfit for habitation due to heat, desertification, rising sea levels and the like. Meanwhile the increasing frequency and severity of severe weather events will cause large numbers of deaths and injuries and much illness. Infectious diseases, especially those spread by mosquitoes, ticks and other insects will become more widespread as warmer temperatures enlarge the territory wherein those insects can survive and spread.

So carbon pricing is really a health measure. Its stated purpose is to encourage a reduction in the use of fossil fuels by making them more expensive, thus encouraging more efficient use and a switch to alternatives. Not only will this contribute to lower carbon emissions, it will also result in less air pollution, since that mostly arises from fossil fuel combustion. And that in turn reduces the health impacts of both air pollution and climate change, which benefits all of us.

© Trevor Hancock, 2024

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

Either we start paying the full cost of our depredations on the planet’s ecological systems and natural resources, or our children and grandchildren will be paying the price

Dr. Trevor Hancock

17 September 2024

697 words

By proclaiming the carbon tax “is an existential threat to our economy and our way of life” and that it threatens a “nuclear winter” for the economy, Pierre Poilievre has entered the world of full-on craziness and inverted logic.

The reality is exactly the opposite. The ‘carbon tax’ – actually, a form of pollution pricing, as the Supreme Court has confirmed – is not an existential threat to our economy and way of life. On the contrary, it is our economy and way of life that poses an existential threat to large parts of humanity, other species, and global and regional ecosystems.

The pursuit of endless economic growth – a ridiculous concept on a finite planet – to support a way of life that generally makes us greedy for more stuff, undermines the very fundamentals of human existence and wellbeing; the Earth’s natural systems.

Moreover, far from causing a nuclear winter – an absurd and vastly over-reaching analogy anyway – carbon pricing is one way to prevent the ongoing over-heating of the planet, with dire consequences for future generations.

Of course, Poilievre is not alone – although his idiotic ‘axe the tax’ slogan and his desire to label the next election a ‘carbon tax election’ is especially perfidious. Getting rid of carbon pricing has now been cravenly embraced by the federal NDP and numerous provincial premiers, including David Eby here in B.C., prompting B.C. Green Party leader Sonia Furstenau to state “This is a government with no principles and no direction.”

Furthermore, because there is a federal carbon pricing system in place, upheld by the Supreme Court, dropping the tax in B.C will have no effect, since the federal system will kick in, as it does in other provinces.

A helpful explainer in The Narwhal points out “the pool of money the federal government collects through the price on carbon is redistributed to all Canadians” via the Canada Carbon Rebate, while “Money collected through carbon levies for industrial emitters are returned to the provinces and territories and are meant to fund greener technologies.”

In abandoning the NDP’s support for carbon pricing, Zero Carbon columnist Chris Hatch noted last week in Canada’s National Observer, Jagmeet Singh completely ignored the benefits of the rebate to working people; the same applies to David Eby.

Eby’s chief rival, Conservative Party leader John Rustad, is even worse. He appears to remain at heart a climate change denier, downplaying the importance of climate change, suggesting that scientists are still debating whether humans contribute to climate change and denying it’s a crisis. He says, wrongly, that carbon pricing is “an economic disaster and an environmental failure”, that it drives up prices while failing to lower emissions.

However, Canada’s independent Ecofiscal Commission, in an open letter in March signed by 335 leading economists from across Canada, stated “Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches.” Moreover, the evidence shows it “has a negligible impact on overall inflation.”

So what exactly is carbon pricing? Well, it’s a form of pollution pricing, a small step on the way to all of us paying the full cost for the natural resources we use, the environmental harms we cause and the health and social damage currently accruing to future generations.

But the sad reality is that politicians of all stripes have little or no concern for the wellbeing of future generations, or even of today’s young people, for one simple reason: The future doesn’t have a vote. And so we get empty and idiotic slogans masquerading as policy.

So in the spirit of these times, I propose another slogan to counter Poilievre’s foolish ‘axe the tax’ – “Pay the price”. Either we start paying the full price of our depredations on the planet’s ecological systems and natural resources, or our children and grandchildren will be paying the price in societal disruption, decline and possible collapse, with all its attendant misery, illness, injuries and premature deaths.

Paying the full price seems like a bargain to me, and certainly it will seem that way to our descendants, while failing to do so will be seen as a craven abandonment of future generations by our current so-called leaders.

© Trevor Hancock, 2024

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

On Oct. 1, I will be joining hundreds of seniors at the B.C. legislature in Victoria to call for immediate and serious action on climate change

Dr. Trevor Hancock

10 September 2024

702 words

I was born in 1948, when the average annual atmospheric CO2 level was about 311 ppm. When I started writing this column in December 2014, average annual CO2 was 399 ppm; today it is 422 ppm. The impacts of these heightened CO2 levels, as well as increased levels of methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), are already glaringly obvious.

According to NASA, the global temperature is about 1.2°C above the long-term average from 1951 to 1980, but about 1.4°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average. Globally, the World Meteorological Organization has reported, 2023 was the hottest year on record. Copernicus, the European Union’s Earth Observation Programme, reported this week that this summer has been the hottest on record, while the past 13 months have all been ones “in which the global-average surface air temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Canadian Climate Institute notes: “Canada is warming twice as fast as the global average, and Canada’s Arctic is warming nearly four times as fast.” It goes on to note that climate change fuels heatwaves, which make wildfires worse – and that in turn causes increased illness and deaths from heat and smoke pollution.

And it’s only going to get worse. In fact, bizarrely – and unacceptably – the global commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 means that “the official plan for the planet is to keep making climate change worse well into the second half of this century”, as Chris Hatch wrote in his Zero Carbon column in Canada’s National Observer in June.

Yet as a leading climate action organization, 350.org, puts it (while acknowledging Dr. Kimberly Nicholas as the source): “It’s warming. It’s us. We’re sure. It’s bad. We can fix it.” Fixing it means not only stopping the inexorable rise in CO2 levels (and other GHGs) since the 1950s, but reversing it, bringing CO2 levels down to 350 ppm.

The name 350.org is a direct reference to the assertion by James Hansen – one of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists – and his colleagues in a 2008 paper that “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced . . . to at most 350 ppm.”

We passed that benchmark in 1988 and seemed destined to reach a disastrous 2 – 3 degrees of heating by the end of the century – when most of today’s infants will likely still be alive.

Which is why on October 1st – Canada’s National Seniors Day and the International Day of Older Persons – I will be joining hundreds of seniors in Victoria – and hopefully tens of thousands across Canada – to call for immediate and serious action on climate change that reflects both the immediacy and the severity of the challenge we face.

The event is organised by Seniors for Climate – an alliance of six seniors’ climate organizations – Suzuki Elders, Climate Action for Lifelong Learners (CALL), Grandmothers Act to Save the Planet (GASP), Climate Legacy, Seniors for Climate Action Now! (SCAN) and For Our Grandchildren (4RG) – see https://seniorsforclimate.org/.

Their agenda is straightforward, anchored in the theme that we need action on the climate emergency now: “Later is too late.” They want a stringent cap on emissions, followed by a phasing out of fossil fuels; a halt to the financial sector investing in fossil fuels, which accelerates climate breakdown, and a speeding up of the transition to renewable power and clean energy.

The event is a demonstration of the concern seniors have “about climate breakdown and our desire to rebuild a healthy environment for future generations.” It is thus a reflection of the growing concern for intergenerational equity that I have been writing about in recent weeks, a concern that will be highlighted next week at the UN Summit of the Future. The Summit will be adopting a Pact for the Future and a Declaration on Future Generations

The Victoria rally is at 2 PM on October 1^st at the BC Legislature. If you care about our children, grandchildren and generations yet unborn, be there to lend your presence and your voice to this vitally important issue.

© Trevor Hancock, 2024

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  “Environmental resilience requires robust governance at regional level”

While I would not argue for one large regional government, having 13 separate municipal governments for a region of 400,000 people seems excessive

Dr. Trevor Hancock

3 September 2024

701 words

Last week I noted the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), in its ‘Navigating New Horizons’ report, had made the case that “Cities and communities have an essential role in achieving sustainability transitions. They are often places of learning, innovation and creativity, enabling the potential for systemic change at the local level.”

The report goes on to note: “Strong cities and local communities that are supported by robust local leadership and governance are the bedrock of environmental resilience in a complex world.” What that might mean locally?

A good place to begin is with the need for robust local leadership and governance at the regional level. Back in March 2017 I wrote a column titled “Thirteen municipalities, but only one planet” – the title says it all! While I would not argue for one large regional government, having thirteen separate municipal governments for a region of 400,000 people seems excessive. Of course, the suggestion of amalgamating Victoria and Saanich, the two largest municipalities with half the regional population, while leaving all the others alone, makes no sense whatsoever.

Moreover, when a single municipality can disrupt a policy for its own parochial reasons, we lack robust government at the regional level. The most egregious example was when Langford, under its previous regime, set the municipal boundary as the urban containment boundary, thus negating the very idea of urban containment and encouraging urban sprawl.

Multiple police and fire departments and the lack of a regional transportation authority are other examples of a less-than-robust regional government. In the area of transportation, the CRD notes, “The current role of the CRD is limited to planning and policy support”, although the CRD is considering changes to governance that include a possible transportation authority.

So the first step towards a new social contract might be to consider whether the present system of governance in this region is fit for purpose in the 21^st century. Governance, of course, is more than just government, so any such process should look at a broad-based approach that brings together the public, private, labour, non-profit, academic and faith leadership in some form of regional leadership council. It seems to me the Victoria Foundation, in partnership with the CRD and others, would be the natural convenor of such a Council, as they already bring all these sectors together.

Such a Council, which would also need to represent the diversity of the region’s population, could lead the process to engage widely with the community to craft a vision of the region as a place where all people thrive and reach their maximum potential within the ecological boundaries of the planet. Part of that process should be a consideration of what reforms of municipal government and governance – both in structure and in process – are needed to operate effectively in the 21^st century and to pursue that vision.

Some direction on the changes needed in the process of governance may be found in a 2020 report from Nesta, the UK’s independent innovation agency, on new operating models for local government. The project brought together “practitioners and partners from twenty pioneering local authorities” that were working “upstream of service delivery, focusing on creating the economic, social and community conditions that enable citizens to thrive.” Faced with “a decade of austerity-driven budget cuts from central government”, they had to innovate and adapt.

The report notes the common features of these new ways of working, the first of which is “A renewed sense of purposeorientated around thriving communities and places.” This is coupled with a focus on moving upstream, dealing with problems before they become crises and recognizing the complexity and inter-connectedness of issues; a collaborative approach that is systemic and long-term and that sees local government as a platform for the action of citizens and partners; and a willingness to experiment and adapt.

This latter point requires utilizing an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach in building relationships with the community and key partners, recognizing and working to harness the knowledge, skills, experience and capacities of all segments of the community. Indeed, “Many councils have worked to develop a new, informal ‘contract’ with citizens, reframing their mutual responsibilities”, a local expression of the new social contract the UNEP report proposes.

© Trevor Hancock, 2024

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 was local governments that led the charge — well ahead of the federal and provincial governments — on regulating smoking in public places and in taking action on climate change, to name but two examples.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

27 August 2024

702 words

Recently I have been discussing the large-scale changes we need to make in the face of the eight critical shifts identified in the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report ‘Navigating New Horizons’.  Those changes are a focus on intergenerational equity; a new social contract that reinforces shared values about how we relate not only to each other but to nature; and focusing on and measuring wellbeing rather than just the economy.

While this may all seem large-scale and global – as indeed it is, given this is a UN report – the final critical shift identified is towards polycentric and diffused governance. In discussing this, the report identifies a ‘signal of change’ that brings it all back to the local level: Local, network-driven resilience.  “Frustrated by the failures of national governments and enabled by digital technologies”, the report notes, “networks of local communities become the primary driving force behind global actions to increase resilience.”

The report goes on to note: “Cities and communities have an essential role in achieving sustainability transitions. They are often places of learning, innovation and creativity, enabling the potential for systemic change at the local level.”

It is worth remembering that while there is only one federal government, ten provincial and three territorial governments, there are over 5,000 municipalities in Canada, according to Statistics Canada. This means there are many more opportunities for innovation and creativity at the local level, something that I have seen and been part of in my public health career.

It was local governments that led the charge – well ahead of the federal and provincial governments – on regulating smoking in public places and in taking action on climate change, to name but two examples.

Part of the advantage local governments have, to quote the Vinyl Café, is that they may not be big, but they are small. This often means they lack resources and have to do more with less, but that can trigger creative responses. Moreover, local governments, because they are smaller, can be more agile – their bureaucracies are smaller.

In addition, local governments are closer to the citizenry, and both the civic servants and political representatives and their families and friends are likely to be living in the place where their decisions have effect, which may have a beneficial impact on their decision-making.

This is not to say that local governments are always agile, efficient and effective, just that the potential is there. Nonetheless, the UNEP report talks about “promoting agile, adaptive governance, which puts an emphasis on empowering communities and fostering innovation across society, while using long-term targets and visions to guide these dispersed processes.”

So what would that mean locally? Well, a place to begin, I suggest, is to create a shared vision of our shared future. What would the Greater Victoria Region be like if collectively we lived within our planet’s ecological boundaries while ensuring that everyone thrives and achieves the fullest potential they are capable of? If we could jointly craft such a vision – a vision of a ‘One Planet’ wellbeing community – that could inspire decades of work together.

I know this can work, because I have seen it, and indeed have helped make it happen. I recall in particular the vision workshop I facilitated in 1991 for Woolwich Healthy Communities (WHC), a rural community of 23,000 people in the region of Waterloo. Thirty-three years later WHC remains active, inspiring and coordinating a wide variety of activities focused on quality of life and the local environment.

Crafting such a vision will require a joint effort of all sectors of our community – public, private and civil society organisations and citizens from all walks of life. Given the UNEP report’s focus on intergenerational equity, it will be particularly important to ensure young people have a strong voice. After all, it is their future we are talking about.

But creating a shared vision together is just the beginning; it can be a model for “the active participation of individuals and groups in the decision-making processes that affect their lives” that the UNEP report calls for. 

Next week I will look at what a new social contract might mean locally, one that includes nature, and what it means to measure wellbeing locally.

© Trevor Hancock, 2024

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