What part of ‘global ecological crisis’ do they not get?

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Most countries, especially the largest, the richest and the petro-states (which include Canada), continue to put their own national interests ahead of global concerns.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

25 November 2025

700 words

Another COP, another cop-out! As anyone who pays the slightest attention to the news must know by now, COP30 – the annual global climate change jamboree, this year in Belem, Brazil, ended, yet again, more with a whimper than a bang. The fact that the words ‘fossil fuel’ did not even appear in the final statement exemplifies that failure.

In an interview with The Guardian before COP30, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had said “we have failed to avoid an overshooting above 1.5C in the next few years”. Said Simon Stiehl, the UN’s climate chief, after the final plenary “I’m not saying we’re winning the climate fight”, while Mr. Guterres stated “The gap between where we are and what science demands remains dangerously wide.”

COP30 was particularly embarrassing for Mark Carney and for Canada. Carney had once been the darling of the climate action community, as the UN’s Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance. But the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, which he co-founded in 2021 and co-led, and which was supposed to find $100 trillion – yes trillion – to finance the transition away from fossil fuels, voted to shut down in October.

As for Canada, on November 18th, at COP30, Climate Action International (CAI) awarded us the ‘Fossil of the Day’ dishonour “because the new government of Prime Minister Mark Carney has flushed years of climate policies down the drain, and is completely ‘Missing In Action’ at a COP”. Moreover, added CAI, “in addition to the backsliding on policies tackling Canada’s climate-destroying pollution, his Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin has chosen inaction and silence where leadership was urgently needed.” 

The core problem is this: The world’s leaders – whether elected, inherited, self-appointed or corporate – simply do not get any part of ‘global ecological crisis’, never mind take it seriously.

Let’s start with global. Most countries, especially the largest, the richest and the petro-states (which includes Canada), put their own national interests ahead of global concerns. In the case of Canada, it’s not unusual to hear fossil fuel apologists argue that since we are so small – only 1.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions – nothing we do makes much difference, so why bother.

But only 8 countries – led by China, the USA, India and Russia – emit more than 2 percent of global emissions – although admittedly they emit about 60 percent of total emissions; we are 10th, by the way, on a par with Germany and South Korea. So if the all the other countries in the world took the view that they are too small to matter, we would fail to take action on 40 percent of emissions – not small at all.

Second, let’s think about ecological. It seems governments have trouble even thinking about ‘environment’, never mind ecological. The Carney government is a case in point. His mandate letter to his Cabinet does not identify any aspect of the environment as either a challenge for Canada or a priority for his government; indeed the letter doesn’t even mention the word. As for ecological, forget it. The environment seems to be seen largely as a resource to be exploited, something over which we exert dominion. In reality, as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) wisely put it in 2014: “Ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work any other way round.” In other words, ecosystems exert dominion over humans, a reality that is largely ignored.

Third, we are in crisis. Climate change, bad as it is, is just one of the seven (out of nine) Earth system boundaries we have already crossed. And the crossing of multiple planetary boundaries is just one of a multitude of crises that together constitute the polycrisis.

Back in 2020, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said “Humanity is waging war on nature. This is suicidal.” It seems the memo did not arrive in the minds of those who are supposed to be our leaders. Well, they are leaders, in the same way that the lemming at the front of the pack is a leader, heading over the cliff. We need to stop being lemmings. And they need to recognise we face a global ecological crisis.

© 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

Carney offers 20th century responses to 21st century challenges

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Both people and the planet are largely missing from the Carney budget. Instead, the government seems to be following the old Bill Clinton maxim: ‘It’s the economy, stupid’

Dr. Trevor Hancock

11 November 2025

698 words

It is said that during World War I, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau remarked that generals always prepare to fight the last war. Regrettably, it seems that this also applies to governments trying to manage our society. That seems evident from the Carney budget and his overall agenda, which propose a set of approaches more suited to the 19th and 20th centuries than to the new realities of the 21st century, focusing on infrastructure projects.  

As Ecojustice lawyer Melissa Gorrie and I pointed out in a recent article in the Hill Times “this government’s old-school idea of nation-building is focused on new infrastructure, as if Canada is just a construction company, not a society. But a nation is much more than a collection of infrastructure projects.”  

We went on to suggest that if Mr. Carney really wants a nation-building project he consider the task of making Canada a Wellbeing society. Such a society, according to the World Health Organization’s Geneva Charter for Well-being is one that is “committed to achieving equitable health now and for future generations without breaching ecological limits.”.

That focus on people and planet seems to me to be both a simple and profound statement of what should be the central purpose of government and the broader task of societal governance. As Dr. Theresa Tam noted recently in her final report before stepping down as Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer: “Well-being is gaining momentum globally as a shared policy goal and approach, focused on creating the conditions for current and future generations to thrive on a healthy planet”.

Yet both people and the planet are largely missing from the Carney budget. Instead, the government seems to be following the old Bill Clinton maxim: “It’s the economy, stupid”. I suppose if you hire an economist – a central banker, no less – as your Prime Minister, that’s what you should expect to get. But at this time of multiple crises, it’s not what is needed.

With respect to people, the Maytree Foundation, an organisation “committed to advancing systemic solutions to poverty and strengthening civic communities”, noted in its analysis of the budget: “The missing ingredient in the government’s nation-building recipe is people, especially those who live on low incomes and who continue to struggle with the high cost of living.”

Moreover, their analysis continued, “we had hoped the federal budget would acknowledge the growing crises of poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, and inequality, seeing them not just as social challenges, but as economic liabilities that undermine both productivity and cohesion.” Sadly, that is not the case, leaving Maytree to express the hope that as the government “finds its footing” it will come to realise that “For a true ‘Canada Strong’ approach, the government needs to start seeing social programs as nation-building projects worth investing in.”

As to the planet, at a time when we have crossed seven of nine planetary boundaries, it seems absent from the government’s overall understanding of the 21st century challenges we face. This is exemplified by Mr. Carney’s mandate letter to his Cabinet in May.

In it he identifies “a series of crises” Canada faces without once even mentioning the environment or the planet. He then outlines an agenda for his government that focuses on the economy, while climate change gets a brush-off reference towards the end: “We will fight climate change.”

So here we are, in the week in which COP30 opens in Brazil, amidst record-breaking global temperature increases, increasing and accelerating greenhouse gas emissions and record storms and wildfires, and Canada is backing away from Mr. Carney’s expressed commitment to fight climate change.

In an article in Canada’s National Observer Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood, a senior researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, wrote: “In many respects, this is the most harmful budget from a climate perspective since the Harper era.”

At a time when we face not just ecological but serious social and technological challenges, the last thing we need is a 19th century set of solutions aimed at infrastructure and more growth in extraction and consumption. Our 21st century challenges need 21st century solutions, but Canada’s political establishment – Liberal, Conservative and NDP alike – seems incapable of responding appropriately.

© 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

The inconvenient facts Carney and the Premiers ignore

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Dr. Trevor Hancock

20 October 2025

701 words

Prime Minister Carney wants Canada to be an energy superpower, including in ‘conventional energy’ (read fossil fuels). Far from being the climate action champion we expected him to be, he seems to have swallowed his principles in a rush to get short term gain at the expense of long-term pain.

His “dismal” record was summed up recently by Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law: “In just a few months, Carney’s government has walked back key federal climate policies, including the consumer carbon price, the electric vehicle mandate, and – alarmingly – Canada’s commitment to its 2030 emissions reduction target.”

Add to that other policies that are supportive of the continued expansion of the fossil industry and it is easy to see why Johnston concludes that for Carney’s government “climate action is no longer a priority, even as the climate crisis worsens.”

The Premiers are no better. Danielle Smith is of course in a class of her own; there isn’t a fossil fuel expansion proposal she hasn’t fallen in love with. But in general the provinces provide various forms of support for fossil fuel extraction, transportation, export and clean-up, the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) noted in January. The IISD reported an OECD estimate that in 2023 the provinces and territories provided $4.6 billion in fossil fuel subsidies.

These subsidies are not going away. In a study released in September the IISD reported “The governments of Canada and British Columbia are set to provide more than CAD 3.93 billion in support to the [B.C.] liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry by the end of 2030.” That includes “$2.16 billion by the end of 2030 from the BC government through foregone revenue, reduced electricity rates, and investment in enabling infrastructure.”  

But there are a few inconvenient facts that Mr Carney and the premiers are either unaware of – which seems unlikely – or are choosing to ignore.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) just announced that CO2 levels increased by 3.5 parts per million (ppm) in 2024, reaching an unprecedented high of 424 ppm. This was “the largest one-year increase since modern measurements began in 1957.” Two other key greenhouse gases – methane and nitrous oxide – also reached unprecedented highs in 2024.

Unsurprisingly, The WMO reported that “the global temperature in 2024 was the highest recorded in the observational record dating back to 1850” and that “for the first time, it passed the significant 1.5 °C mark relative to the pre-industrial period.”

Three main factors drove the increase in CO2, the WMO reported: continued fossil fuel emissions, increased emissions from wildfires (themselves linked to higher global temperatures) and reduced land and ocean sinks that usually absorb a lot of the CO2 we emit.

When it comes to emissions, the September 2025 Production Gap Report found “Governments, in aggregate, still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C.”

Those higher temperatures drive the other two factors driving higher CO2 levels. Both are examples of positive feedback loops at work; changes that are self-reinforcing. Higher temperatures bring more wildfires that create more CO2 that leads to higher temperatures. And those higher temperatures also lead to droughts that reduce the ability of forests and grasslands to absorb CO2, while warming of the oceans reduces their ability to absorb CO2.

Chillingly, the WMO reports, “There is a significant concern that terrestrial and ocean CO2 sinks are becoming less effective, which will increase the fraction of [human created] CO2 that stays in the atmosphere, thereby accelerating global warming.”

It now looks as if we are on the cusp of, if not already beyond, the first critical tipping point in climate change, according to the just-released Global Tipping Points Report. The authors have concluded that “warm-water coral reefs are crossing their thermal tipping point and experiencing unprecedented dieback . . . Polar ice sheets are approaching tipping points, committing the world to several metres of irreversible sea-level rise that will affect hundreds of millions.”

In the face of such evidence, ongoing support for expanded fossil fuel extraction and use is at best a moral collapse and at worst, the crime of ecocide.  

© 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

As the cliff edge looms, governments hit the accelerator

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Ensuring the stability of society and the wellbeing of its members means ensuring that the ecosystems that support us are in good shape — and they are not.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

23 June 2025

701 words

Some may consider Prime Minister Mark Carney to be an economic guru but he is either ignorant of or chooses to ignore two fundamental truths in his rush to build the nation by growing the economy.

First, as the World Wide Fund for Nature eloquently put it in 2014, “Ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work the other way around.” Second, as Kenneth Boulding – a former President of both the American Economic Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science – stated way back in 1973: “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”

So ensuring the stability of society and the wellbeing of its members means ensuring that the ecosystems that support us are in good shape – and they are not. A couple of centuries of industrialism, and 80 years of massive and rapid economic growth since the Second World War – referred to as ‘The Great Acceleration’ – have taken their toll, pushing us close to the cliff edge.

Let me be clear what I mean by the cliff edge. Earth scientists have just concluded that we have crossed the seventh of nine planetary boundaries they have identified. The latest is ocean acidification, sometimes called ‘osteoporosis of the sea’ because it thins the shells of calcifying species such as corals, oysters, mussels, clams, and pteropods (tiny sea snails). It has also been called  the ‘evil twin’ of climate change because it too is largely the result of carbon dioxide emissions.

In fact, a study published this month in Global Change Biology finds, based on revised and updated models, that the entire surface ocean crossed that boundary in 2000. As a result there are “significant declines in suitable habitats for important calcifying species”, particularly in the polar regions.

Add to that recent reports on catastrophic declines in insect species, even in protected forest areas, and in the birds, frogs, lizards and other species that eat them. An article in the Guardian in June quotes a prominent US entomologist, David Wagner, who documents insects all over the USA. Speaking of a recent trip to Texas  he said “There just wasn’t any insect life to speak of”, adding “I want to do what I can with my last decade to chronicle the last days for many of these creatures.”

Climate change underlies both ocean acidification and insect declines – and climate change is rapidly worsening. We see the evidence of this in Canada, with the early arrival of wildfires and extreme heat events in June this year. In May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported, global average concentrations of carbon dioxide exceeded 430 ppm for the first time in some 30 million years. A recent article on indicators of global climate change found human-induced warming has been increasing at an unprecedented rate in the past decade, due to “greenhouse gas emissions being at an all-time high” this decade “as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling”.

And yet, Carney and his government ignore all this, egged on by corporate spin-masters who are using Trump’s dangerous actions as cover to push for the reversal of health and environmental protections and respect for the rights of Indigenous people in the name of ‘nation-building’.

The evidence of Carney’s ignorance – or ignore-ance – is clear in the mandate letter he gave to his Cabinet on May 21st. Not only is the environment not one of the seven priorities for the government, there is not a single use of the word ‘environment’ anywhere in this letter, and only a passing reference to climate change right at the end: “We will fight climate change”. Big hairy deal!

Nor is there any reference to wellbeing or quality of life in the Mandate letter, which is quite ironic, given that Carney has established a new Cabinet Committee on quality of life and wellbeing. Yet both are threatened by further harm to the Earth’s natural systems, and by riding roughshod over Indigenous peoples’ rights and health and environmental protections.

The unseemly rush to further exploit nature, and especially to make Canada a conventional energy superpower, merely accelerates us towards the cliff edge.

© 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

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

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

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

We do not inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

  • Published as “We need to take steps to be better ancestors”

At a time when Trump, Putin and many others are doing everything they can to jeopardize the wellbeing of future generations, we need to work to protect them

Dr. Trevor Hancock

18 February 2025

701 words

Last month I began to explore a set of aphorisms that I find helpful in addressing the immense challenges of the 21st century. This month, I turn to an aphorism that became popular in the 1970s – “we do not inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our chldren”.

Often attributed to Duwamish Chief Seattle in the 19th century and seemingly popularised by Wendell Berry in the early 1970s, this is, simply put, the embodiment of the principle of inter-generational rights and justice.

That is, of course, hardly a new idea; as the attribution to Chief Seattle suggests, it is rooted in Indigenous values and beliefs. Many claim it goes back to the ‘Seventh Generation’ way of thinking attributed to the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. Since a generation is roughly 20 – 25 years, seven generations takes us out about 150 years.

A modern wording of this concept forms the fundamental principle of sustainable development put forward in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission: To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

These ideas are now – finally – beginning to find their way into public policy and even in to law. Wales led the way a decade ago, introducing a Wellbeing of Future Generations Act. The Act requires public bodies in Wales – including government ministries, local authorities, local Health Boards and a number of other public authorities – to think about and report on the long-term impact of their decisions.

In addition, the Act established the position of Commissioner for Future Generations. The Commissioner describes his role as “to be the guardian of future generations” and to “provide advice and support to government and public bodies”, as well as to report on progress.

These ideas have also been taken up at the UN, with the Secretary General, Antinio Guterres,  championing the focus on future generations. His 2021 report ‘Our Common Agenda’ highlighted the importance of considering the needs and perspectives of future generations in shaping the future of global governance. Then in 2023 he released a series of Policy Briefs, the first of which was entitled ‘To Think and Act for Future Generations’, and established the UN Futures Lab. It is a global network that helps the UN system use futures thinking and strategic foresight in planning, policymaking, and decision-making.

In September 2024 the UN hosted a Summit of the Future which, among other things, resulted in a Pact for the Future and a Declaration for Future Generations. The Pact committed the international community to “protect the needs and interests of present and future generations.” After the Summit, Mr. Guterres announced he would soon be creating the position of a UN Envoy for Future Generations. 

Meanwhile, on the legal front, Ecojustice noted in an October 2024 press release that the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University reported that 630 new climate lawsuits were filed around the world between July 2020 and December 2022. “Courts around the world”, Ecojustice noted, “are increasingly ruling that climate change poses an existential threat to our most cherished human rights and ordering governments to set and implement science-based reductions targets.”

Indeed, the International Court of Justice just completed hearings on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, while here in Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in October 2024 that Ontario’s actions to weaken its climate targets are subject to challenge under the constitutional rights of Ontario youth and future generations to life, security of the person, and equality. 

At a time when Trump, Putin and many others are doing everything they can to jeopardise the wellbeing of future generations, particularly by prioritising fossil fuel use, there is no more important task than working to protect future generations. We need to demand that both the federal and the B.C. governments pass a Wellbeing of Future Generations Act and appoint a Commissioner for Future Generations.

At a local level, the CRD  and local municipalities should commit to working with young people to help shape the policies they need for a healthy, just and sustainable future. As Jonas Salk once noted, “our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors.”

© 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

There is only one Earth: Deal with it

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Despite the fevered dreams of Elon Musk and others, there is no ‘Planet B,’ which means we need to drastically reduce our ecological footprint

Dr. Trevor Hancock

21 January 2025

694 words

I have spent much of my life working as an educator, whether as a professor teaching graduate students or as an in international consultant working with communities, organisations and governments around the world. Over the years I have come across a number of aphorisms that I turn to again and again to make important points.

An aphorism, the dictionaries tell us, is a short saying that is memorable and embodies a general truth, astute observation or principle. So in my monthly columns I will explore some of those aphorisms that provide important guidance as we address together the many challenges of the 21st century.

Following one of those aphorisms (think globally, act locally), wherever possible I will link the broader dimensions of the issue to local action, with examples from elsewhere as well as examples or implications for action here in the Greater Victoria Region.

The first aphorism is one that really started my journey into population health and ecological activism. In 1972, the first UN Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, and Maurice Strong, the Canadian Secretary-General of the Conference, commissioned Barbara Ward and René Dubos to produce what became the unofficial conference book – ‘Only One Earth’.

That title really says it all. Despite the fevered dreams of Elon Musk and others of his ilk, there is no ‘Planet B’. There is just this one Earth, our only home, which Carl Sagan memorably described as a pale blue dot hanging in the immensity of space. So we had better learn how to deal with that reality, we had better learn how to live within the limits of this one Earth.

And yet that is not how we live today, neither globally nor, especially, in Canada. The Global Footprint Network tells us that globally we have an Ecological Footprint equivalent to 1.7 Earths. In other words, we use the equivalent of 1.7  planet’s worth of bioproductive capacity every year (and note this does not even take into account the loss of biodiversity or the impact of persistent organic pollutants or plastic nano-particles that are are not included in the calculation of the Footprint).

This is clearly unsustainable, as evidenced by the fact that we have already passed the planetary boundary for six of the nine key Earth systems needed to sustain life on Earth.

Canada, as a high-income country, has a far greater Footprint, around five Earths; if every country lived as we do, we would need four more Earths. That is clearly not going to happen, so we need to become what can be called a ‘One Planet’ country, taking only our fair share of the Earth’s bioproductive capacity and resources.

Think of that for a moment: This means we need to reduce our ecological footprint by 80 percent, as rapidly as possible. Now the good news, in a sense, is that our carbon footprint, largely the result of fossil fuel consumption, accounts for more than 60 percent of both the global and the Canadian Footprint. Which means if we can address that issue, we can markedly reduce our Footprint.

That is why it is particularly stupid, at a time when the UN Secretary General has said that our current climate path is “a road to ruin”, that the fossil fuel industry and its supporters in Canada are calling for an expansion of fossil fuel extraction and export (and thus consumption) to counter Trump’s attacks on Canada and on the environment.

The really good news is that there is a growing movement to reduce our Footprint. The Global Footprint Network works with countries, regions and cities to reduce their footprints; if you go to their website you can find case studies under the ‘Our Work’ tab, all of which begin with measuring the Ecological Footprint.

That has also been done right here in Saanich, as part of the One Planet Saanich project initiated by Bioregional, a UK-based non-profit. (Our footprint, using a somewhat different methodology, is about four planets, still way too big.) That work is now being championed in BC by One Earth Living (https://oneplanetbc.com/), which is helping communities deal with the fact that there is only one Earth.

© 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

Ignorance of the laws of nature and physics is no excuse

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

  • Published as  “You can celebrate CO2 and ignore climate change, but it won’t stop the hurricanes”

The United Conservative Party in Alberta is falsely claiming that CO2 is ‘near the lowest level in over 1,000 years’ — an example of both ignorance and ignore-ance

Dr. Trevor Hancock

22 October 2024

698 words

My first reaction to the news that the United Conservative Party (UCP) in Alberta was to vote on a resolution to stop calling carbon dioxide a pollutant and claiming that CO2 was “near the lowest level in over 1,000 years” was that it must be April Fool’s Day. Then I remembered that this was the UCP, where every single day seems to be a fool’s day.

The resolution is just one small example of a wider phenomenon: The ability of politicians and their followers to display a combination of ignorance and ignore-ance. Of the two, ignore-ance is by far the more sinister and dangerous. Ignorance is just lack of knowledge – ‘Oh, I didn’t know that’ – but ignore-ance is the wilful ignoring of something you know.

The ignorance is clear in the assertion that CO2, currently at around 420 parts per million (ppm), is near the lowest level seen in over 1,000 years. Well, the last time it was as high as 420 ppm was 14 million years ago, according to a 7-year long study by more than 80 researchers from 16 nations, published in the prestigious journal Science in December 2023.

Moreover, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the USA notes that over “the past million years or so, atmospheric carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm.” Any way you look at it, no way is CO2 near the lowest level in over 1,000 years.

So take your pick; either the authors of the UCP resolution – and the UCP policy committee that vets resolutions – were ignorant of the evidence, or they were aware of it but chose to ignore it – ignore-ance.

Nor does it end there; the resolution also wants to remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant. Instead, they want it to be recognised as “a foundational nutrient for all life on Earth” – which it is, at the right levels, for plants, which are the base of our food chains.

Manitoba’s Department of Agriculture, for example, notes that photosynthesis in most plants will be maximised at about 1,000 ppm of CO2. Beyond that, however, performance worsens, and 10,000 ppm (1 percent) of CO2 is sufficient to cause damage and eventually death.

The same is true for humans. The US Centers for Disease Control states that the maximum level of CO2 for occupational exposure is 5,000 ppm, that 30 minutes at 50,000 ppm causes signs of intoxication, and that 70,000 – 100,000 ppm (7 – 10 percent) causes immediate unconsciousness and will result in death.

Moreover, the CO2 emitted from fossil fuel combustion is the main driver of global heating. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global heating is very clear and well understood, and was first described by Svante Arrhenius in 1886. As the past few years have made abundantly clear, climate change is already causing significant levels of death, injury and  disease, and that is only going to get a lot worse.

So yes, CO2 is a pollutant, as that word is defined by the Oxford Reference Dictionary: “Any substance, produced and released into the environment as a result of human activities, that has damaging effects on living organisms.” Clearly CO2 is released into the environment by human activity (as well as by natural processes), it is toxic to both plants and animals (at levels well below current atmospheric levels), and it is heating the atmosphere and changing the climate, thus harming people directly and indirectly. So let’s not get too carried away in celebrating CO2!

Still, at least the Alberta government has not (yet) gone to the levels of ignore-ance displayed by the Florida Legislature. In a step not unlike a little child ignoring something horrid in the hope that it will go away, they passed a Bill in May that removed all reference to climate change in state law, which does not seem to have stopped Hurricanes Helene and Milton from wreaking havoc.

In Canada’s Criminal Code, section 19 reads “Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence.” It is time to extend that principle to political and corporate leaders and their followers who ignore the laws of physics and nature.

© 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

Later is too late to restore nature

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Dr. Trevor Hancock

15 October 2024

697 words

Tomorrow – October 21st – sees the opening of COP16 – the 16th UN Biodiversity Conference in Cali, Colombia. It is the first of three UN conferences this Fall that are addressing individually the three components of what the UN calls the ‘triple planetary crisis’ of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.

COP16 will be followed in short succession by the 29th UN Conference on Climate Change, which takes place in Baku, Azerbaijan from November 11th to 21st and then the final round of negotiations on a global plastics treaty – plastic being a key pollutant, although far from the only one – in Busan, South Korea from November 25th to December 1st.

These three issues are also three of the nine components of the Planetary Boundaries model I discussed last week; we have crossed the boundary for all three, and the trend is worsening for all three. Moreover, they don’t operate in isolation, but interact in ways that usually make things worse. Biodiversity loss, for example, is driven by five main factors, according to a landmark 2019 UN report, two of which are climate change and pollution.

While climate change is often seen as the main – and sometimes, the only – threat, biodiversity loss is really fundamental. As Colombian Environment Minister Susana Muhamad, the President for COP16, noted in an interview with John Woodside in Canada’s National Observer: “If nature collapses, communities and people will also collapse. Society will collapse.”

Troublingly, nature is getting closer to collapsing. That same 2019 report found that “around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades.” And just this past week, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) released the latest Living Planet Report, sub-titled ‘A System in Peril’.

The report uses the Living Planet Index, which is based on a count of the population size for almost 35,000 routinely monitored populations representing 5,495 vertebrate species – amphibians, birds, fish, mammals and reptiles. While it is only a portion of overall biodiversity, it is an important one, in part because of its longevity. The Index covers a 50-year period from 1970 – 2020 and has been trending steadily downwards throughout that time.

Thus while the result this year is disturbing, it is hardly surprising: “the average size of monitored wildlife populations has shrunk by 73 percent”, the WWF reports – so nearly three-quarters of those vertebrate populations have gone in just 50 years! “Nature”, the report bluntly states, “is disappearing at an alarming rate.”

But that is the global average; it is much worse in some regions and among some ecosystems. Freshwater vertebrate populations – think fish, reptiles and amphibians – “have suffered the heaviest declines, falling by 85 percent”, while “the fastest declines have been seen in Latin America and the Caribbean – a concerning 95 percent decline – followed by Africa (76 percent).”

By comparison, North America seemingly fares well, with ‘only’ a 39 percent decline, as does Europe and Central Asia (35 percent down). However, the authors caution, that is misleading because “large-scale impacts on nature were already apparent before 1970”, which is when the Index begins.

The authors caution us that population declines of this scale may compromise the resilience of ecosystems, threatening their functioning, which in turn “undermines the benefits that ecosystems provide to people.” And they warn that “a number of tipping points [substantial, often abrupt and potentially irreversible changes] are highly likely if current trends . . . continue, with potentially catastrophic consequences” for both societies and the Earth’s living systems.

As do a number of recent reports, the WWF concludes that to restore resilience, balance and vitality to the natural systems that are our life support systems, we need not just a transition but transformative change, in particular in “our food, energy and finance systems.”

This will not be easy, but the longer we put off the necessary transformations, the steeper the price we will have to pay in health, social and economic terms. Indeed, the WWF believes that “It is no exaggeration to say that what happens in the next five years will determine the future of life on Earth.”

As the slogan for the recent Seniors Climate Action Day put it, ‘Later is too late!’

© 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

Wanted: A government that cares about the wellbeing of the planet and future generations

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

(Published as  “We need a government that cares about the well-being of the planet”)

Somehow we have to get the next provincial government to take a long-term and less-partisan view, for the good of the whole province and for future generations.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

7 October 2024

702 words

Last month Planetary Boundaries Science, an international partnership of Earth scientists based out of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published the first of what will be an annual Planetary Health Check. It makes for grim, if unsurprising, reading.

The Planetary Boundaries framework used in the report “identifies the nine Earth system processes essential for maintaining global stability, resilience and life-support functions.” Unfortunately, while “staying within these boundaries helps ensure that the Earth system remains stable and capable of supporting life and human development”, we are failing to do so; planetary health is declining.

In fact, the report notes, we have crossed six of the nine boundaries and are on the verge of crossing a seventh – ocean acidification. Even more concerning, all seven systems are trending in the wrong direction, “suggesting further transgression in the near future.”

Which is why I have been discussing with some of my colleagues ways in which we can ensure our political leaders pay much more attention to this critical issue.

One approach we are exploring is to persuade the Senate of Canada to take up the issue of declining planetary health and the need for Canada to become a wellbeing society, which must be the societal response to this and other profound challenges, such as growing inequality. 

The Senate could and should have an important role over and above its role as a place of ‘sober second thought’. It seems to me the Senate has two distinct advantages over the House of Commons. First, under the new system put in place by Justin Trudeau it is largely non-partisan, so much less driven by narrow party-political interests. Second, it does not face an election every 4 – 5 years, enabling it to take a long-term view.

So I would be happy to see the Senate become a sort of futures think tank, focused on the long-range needs of Canada as a whole. Two tasks in particular come to mind: First, an enquiry into the long-term implications for Canada (and for the rest of the world) of declining planetary health; second an investigation into the implications of a wellbeing society for Canada, with a particular view to the wellbeing of future generations.

But useful though that would be, it is not enough; ultimately, this needs to be the role of the elected government, even though the government is disadvantaged by its short term and narrow partisan perspective, which makes it difficult to develop holistic long-term policies and programs.

Which brings me to the upcoming B.C. election. Somehow we have to get the next provincial government – which does not have the equivalent of a Senate – to take a long-term and less partisan view, for the good of the whole province and for future generations.

A friend at the Victoria Secular Humanist Association sent me their list of questions to candidates, which do a good job of focusing on the necessary provincial response to declining planetary health. They include asking the parties to:

  • Commit to B.C. citizens that they will combat climate change by maintaining the ‘carbon tax’;
  • Bring an end to all clearcut and old growth logging in B.C. within 60 days of taking office;
  • Significantly expand provincial Ecological Reserves, with migratory corridors for wildlife, to secure their continued survival;
  • Enact a B.C. Endangered Species Act for terrestrial and marine life by the end of 2025; and
  • Honour the Tripartite Agreement between Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations Leadership Council to protect and conserve 30% of British Columbia’s natural ecosystems by year 2030.

As a way of ensuring that action is actually taken, for each of these questions they ask the parties to describe which measurable goals and timelines will be used to achieve successful outcomes. To this I would add a demand that they commit to enacting a Wellbeing of Future Generations Act and creating the position of a Future Generations Commissioner, as the Welsh National Assembly has done.

Any party that does not take seriously declining planetary health and the need for a wellbeing society, and does not answer in the affirmative to all these questions, clearly does not have at heart the long-term interests of current and future generations and does not deserve your vote.

© 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