What does it mean that “environmentalists have lost, big time”?

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Environmentalists are in the business of human survival and wellbeing, so if they’ve lost, humanity has lost.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

22 March 2026

702 words

In an interview in the Times Colonist (21 March 2026) marking his approaching 90th birthday, David Suzuki said “we’ve lost, environmentalists have lost, big time”. But what does it mean that environmentalists have lost? Who is we? What have we lost? And if we have lost, who has won, and what does winning mean?

First, let’s be clear what business environmentalists are in. We – and I count myself an environmentalist – are in the business of protecting and restoring nature, both for the protection of nature itself as something with inherent worth and for the protection of both human and non-human life on Earth. That is to say, environmentalists are both bio- or eco-centric and – for the most part – anthropocentric.

In being bio- or eco-centric, we are saying that nature is of value in its own right. As far as we know, we are the only planet in the universe that has life, which makes it precious beyond measure. (I agree there could be life elsewhere, but we have yet to find it, and it’s probably too far away, in other solar systems or other galaxies, for us to have meaningful interaction with it.)

That also means that the myriad of other species with whom we share this one small planet have inherent worth (although as a public health physician I might draw the line at the smallpox, Ebola, Covid and other deadly viruses). That is why we seek to protect ecosystems and different species from harm.

Now admittedly, there are some, known as deep ecologists, at the edges of eco-centric philosophy and ecology, who might argue that the Earth would be better off without humans, or with a much smaller and less technologically powerful population of humans.

But while I can sort of understand that viewpoint – well, here we are! And as a physician, I am of course interested in the wellbeing of people, of humanity as a whole. So I guess you could call me eco-anthropocentric.

What brings these viewpoints together is that humanity springs from nature, is part of and entirely embedded within nature, and completely dependent upon nature for our very survival, never mind our health and wellbeing. Every breath we take, every drop we drink, every mouthful we eat comes from nature; all the materials and fuels we use and depend upon come from nature.

Nature removes, decontaminates and recycles many of our wastes, protects us from UV solar radiation and, for the past 12,000 years, has provided a generally benign, warm and stable climate that has enabled the development of agriculture and civilisations around the world.

In a very profound sense, then, environmentalists are in the business of human survival and wellbeing, in balance with nature.  We should all be environmentalists!

So if we say environmentalists have lost, we are really saying humanity has lost. Now we haven’t quite lost yet, but we are in serious danger of undermining the most fundamental systems that are essential for life on Earth – all life, not just humanity. As I have repeatedly stressed in this column, we have crossed planetary boundaries for seven of nine key Earth systems, just one of which is global over-heating.

Now I don’t think we need worry about the planet, it’s been around 4.5 billion years. Nor do we need to worry about saving life on Earth; although we are creating a sixth great extinction, life has survived five previous extinction events. I am not even sure we need to worry about humanity; we are a tough, resilient and highly adaptable species, able to survive in some form almost anywhere.

But society – well, that is much more vulnerable. In 2014 the Worldwide Fund for Nature observed that “ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work any other way round.” So when ecosystems decline or collapse so too do the societies that depend upon them and the economic systems they have created.

Then who exactly can be said to be the winners here? The wealthy corporations and people who are inflicting damage on nature and trying to defeat environmentalists? And what exactly have they ‘won’? Short-term gain for long-term devastation? Think their grandchildren will be thanking them?

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

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

Why become an UNESCO Urban Biosphere Region?

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Movement toward designating Greater Victoria a UNESCO urban biosphere region is a sign of hope in challenging times

Dr. Trevor Hancock

6 January 2026

698 words

Largely lost in the flurry of pre-Christmas distraction was a December 10th announcement from the Greater Victoria NatureHood (GVNH) that the Capital Regional District (CRD) Board had approved a staff recommendation to prepare nomination documents designating Greater Victoria an UNESCO Urban Biosphere Region.  This followed several years of work led by Martin Segger, an architectural historian and coordinator of the UNESCO Victoria World Heritage Project, together with the GVNH.

There are a several things here that need unpacking. First, what is the Greater Victoria NatureHood? And for that matter, what is a naturehood? Also, what is UNESCO, what is an Urban Biosphere Region and why does any of this matter? 

The concept of a ‘naturehood’ was developed by Nature Canada in 2012; it is “any place you go to connect with the earth’s natural wonders”, including “any green space in your neighbourhood . . .  an overlooked urban forest, a community garden, the park at the end of your street, or your backyard.”

The main point of a Naturehood initiative is to connect people of all ages – but especially children and youth – with nature so they are more inclined to protect and restore it. Here in Victoria, the Lieutenant Governor officially designated the grounds of Government House a NatureHood site in July 2017 and from this has grown the Greater Victoria NatureHood as a collaborative effort by a number of not-for-profit, public and private organizations.

That Vice-Regal interest was continued when, in August 2024, Government House hosted a Forum that unanimously endorsed a proposal to ask the CRD to prepare the supporting documents required to nominate the Victoria Region as an UNESCO Urban Biosphere Region. 

UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and its purpose is to strengthen ties between people, building peace through the promotion of education, science, culture, and communication. One of its major programs is a World Network of Biosphere Reserves – 784 of them to date, in 124 countries, with 19 in Canada, 3 of which are in B.C.: Clayoquot Sound, Howe Sound and Mt. Arrowsmith.

These Biosphere Reserves are “sites of excellence that foster harmony between people and nature for sustainable development through participatory dialogue; knowledge sharing; poverty reduction and human well-being improvements; respect for cultural values and society’s ability to cope with change.” What’s not to like?

A small number of these are Urban Biospheres, a subcategory defined as a biosphere “where the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments are shaped by urban influences and pressures, and are set up and managed to mitigate these pressures for improved urban and regional sustainability.” Several other Canadian municipalities – Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal – are pursuing the idea.

So why does this matter? Because, in a nutshell, I see it as an important vehicle for bringing together people and organisations from all sectors – public, private, NGO, community and faith sectors and local First Nations – to address the greatest challenge of our age: How do we make peace with nature?

And what better place to do so than here? A November CRD staff report notes we live in a region that comprises over 300 watersheds, includes three federal Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and nine Key Biodiversity Areas. The natural environment “is constantly voted as the best thing about living in the region by the Victoria Foundation’s annual Vital Signs survey”; indeed, there are as many as “400 habitat conservation groups working in Greater Victoria.” Furthermore, the report adds, biodiversity is an important driver of the regional economy through tourism, outdoor recreation, and educational institutions, bringing millions of dollars and over 60,000 jobs to the local economy. 

Also, given the long history of Indigenous peoples as stewards of these lands and waters before colonization, and given that one criterion for designation is “Significant Indigenous representation in biosphere governance and management”, this initiative is an opportunity to further deepen Reconciliation locally.

The next phase of proposal development involves extensive community engagement which hopefully will spark a region-wide conversation about what it means to live well and sustainably within the limits of this one small planet, within the local bioregion that is our home. It is a welcome sign of hope in challenging times.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

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