It’s not just the ecosystem, our economy is socially unfit too

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

A recent intergovernmental report found that in 2023, public and private expenditures of US$7.3 trillion had direct negative impacts on nature

Dr. Trevor Hancock

2 March 2026

699 words

Last week I discussed a couple of recent global-level reports that identify serious problems with our current economic system. In particular, the UN Environment Programme, in its 2026 report “Global Environmental Outlook 7”, found that human-created climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation and desertification, and pollution and waste are undermining human wellbeing and “already costing trillions of dollars each year.”

The report recommended investing in the transformation of our societies and economies, because doing so will avoid or reduce these costs and will have huge economic benefits. Another report, this one in early February from the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) – the biodiversity equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – focuses on the relationship between business and biodiversity.

Prepared by a panel of public and private sector experts from 35 countries, the report found that in 2023, public and private expenditures of US$7.3 trillion, 2/3 of them from the private sector, had direct negative impacts on nature. These expenditures included “environmentally harmful public subsidies and private investment in high-impact sectors.”

Troublingly, that means governments are spending around US$2.4 trillion every year on environmentally harmful subsidies. Meanwhile, less than one-tenth of that amount from public and private sectors combined was “directed toward activities that contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.” Looks to me like the definition of insanity.

But it’s not just about the way our current economic and societal systems harms the planet. Suddenly it seems to be dawning on people – at least, some people – that our economy is socially unfit too.

Writing in Time Magazine on January 27th, Professor Olivier de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty, stated our economic system “is fundamentally unfit for purpose”. It “only ever serve[s] a tiny minority”, he wrote, adding “it will always do so at the expense of the planet and the vast majority of people who live on it.”

The authors of the 2026 World Inequality Report (WIR) write: “Inequality has long been a defining feature of the global economy, but by 2025, it has reached levels that demand urgent attention.” Indeed, frankly, the level of inequality has reached obscene levels. This is highlighted by a finding in the report that “fewer than 60,000 multi-millionaires, control today three times more wealth than half of humanity combined” – that is, more than the poorest 4 billion people!

More broadly the report notes, those 4 billion people – half the world’s population – have only 8 percent of the world’s income and only 2 percent of its wealth. The authors of the WIR make the point that “Reducing inequality is not only about fairness but also essential for the resilience of economies, the stability of democracies, and the viability of our planet.”

So in what conceivable way is this level of inequality fair, just and appropriate? Why aren’t those 60,000 people rushing to share their wealth – and if they won’t, why aren’t we taxing it and redistributing it? How many millions or billions does anyone actually need anyway? As in previous reports the authors make the vital point that “These divides are not inevitable. They are the outcome of political and institutional choices.”

In a forthcoming report to the UN Human Rights Council, Professor de Schutter will be presenting an action agenda to reduce extreme poverty that outlines some of the choices we need to take. His proposals fall under five pillars, with adaptive governance and participatory decision-making underpinning them all.

The first pillar is focused on “how economic systems can be reimagined to prioritise sustainability and wellbeing over consumerism and GDP growth.” It includes ideas about progressive taxation, subsidy realignment, tax enforcement and embedding social purpose in corporate activity. And there is much, much more.

The fact we are making bad political and institutional choices is not only true for inequality and poverty but for the public and private sector policies that lead us to spend vast sums of money on causing environmental harm and piddling amounts on protection and restoration. It’s time we changed the political choices we are making if we want to ensure the wellbeing of people and the planet for this and future generations.

© 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

Yes, there is a problem with our economic system – it’s unfit for purpose

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

The geopolitical state of the world is a minor inconvenience compared to the rupture we are creating in the ecological condition of the world.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

23 February 2026

701 words

In a recent article in the Hill Times, for which the prime audience is the federal government and Parliament, I noted that while Mr. Carney was right to identify a rupture in the world in his recent Davos speech, he focused on the wrong rupture. The rupture he focused on – the geo-political state of the world – is a minor inconvenience compared to the drastic impact of the rupture we are creating in the ecological condition of the world.

I have noted repeatedly in these columns that we have transgressed seven of the nine planetary boundaries identified by leading Earth scientists – and the trend for those seven is in the wrong direction and in many cases is accelerating. I have also noted that these changes are driven by a set of values that are not aligned with the realities of the finite planet on which we live, and that in turn drive an economic system that is not fit for purpose in the 21st century.

For example, when Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, says that a 3.3 percent global growth forecast is “beautiful but not enough“, this is clearly someone who does not understand what 3.3 per cent growth means. The doubling time is a bit over 21 years, so in a typical Canadian lifespan of about 80 years the global economy would grow more than 13 times.

How does anyone in their right mind, never mind a senior global economics leader, think the planet could sustain such growth when it’s already failing under present conditions.

But several reports from the UN, UN-related organisations and others in the first couple of months of 2026 have begun spelling out how unfit our economic system is. We should not be surprised that this chorus of voices is arising from the United Nations and its agencies. After all, their task is not to protect the economic and other interests of any particular nation, but to stand back and view the big global picture and protect the interests of humanity as a whole, which includes protecting the Earth on which we utterly depend.

First, in January, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) published its seventh Global Environmental Outlook (GEO 7). Climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation and desertification, and pollution and waste, the report warned, are undermining human wellbeing and “already costing trillions of dollars each year” – yes, trillions!

Climate change alone is estimated to have cost US$2 trillion over the decade from 2014 – 2023, and we know it’s only just beginning! Add to that the US$10 to $44 trillion cost annually attributable to the degradation of ecosystems and “the economic losses, exceeding US$8.1 trillion per year, associated with environmental pollution”. Moreover, the UNEP report states, “the damages from the global environmental crises will become increasingly severe over the coming decades”.

And yet, disturbingly, a group of researchers from the University of Exeter and the Carbon Tracker Initiative noted in early February that “Economic damages from climate change have long been underestimated and inconsistently represented in policy and financial decision-making.” In other words, governments, banks and other financial decision-makers are not properly taking into account the accelerating economic impacts of climate change and the potential for sudden and dramatic changes as we hit tipping points.

Until governments and investors take this into account, the report warns, “financial institutions will continue to chronically under-price climate risks, and pension funds and taxpayers will remain dangerously exposed.” And remember, this is only for climate change, never mind all the other ecological changes underway

The broad conclusion of the UNEP report is that these crises “are primarily caused by unsustainable systems of production and consumption”, so the UNEP recommends investing in the transformation of our societies and economies.

An investment now of less than US$10 trillion per year will begin to yield annual benefits by around 2050, UNEP estimates. These overall benefits are expected to “increase to approximately US$20 trillion per year by 2070, and over US$100 trillion per year by 2100, accounting for more than 25 per cent of projected global GDP in 2100.”

Other recent reports add weight to these arguments. They will be the focus of my next column.

© 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

The real rupture we face: What Mark Carney’s next speech needs to say

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Published in the Hill Times, 13 Feb 2026

The real rupture we face: what Carney’s next speech needs to say

A recent report from the United Kingdom warns that ‘critical ecosystems are at risk of collapsing,’ and if ‘current rates of biodiversity loss continue, every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse.’

Dr. Trevor Hancock

1 February 2026

696 words

In his much-lauded Davos speech, Mark Carney talked of “a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality”. He was referring to power and geopolitics, and more specifically – although without naming him – to Donald Trump. All well and good, as far as it went – but it did not go far enough.

For while there is much that might be praised in Carney’s speech, and much that might be debated, what is really significant is what he failed to address. Consider that the following words did not appear once in his entire speech: Environment, ecology, ecosystem, climate, biodiversity, pollution, planet, boundary, limit.

And yet we face a much more profound and significant rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and beginning of a harsh reality than anything, short of nuclear war, that Trump may visit upon us.

  • Here is a real rupture in the world order: The accelerating transgression of planetary boundaries for seven of the nine Earth systems considered vital to the stability of our societies, to our wellbeing and indeed to our very existence.
  • Here is the end of a pleasant fiction: That life can go on much as it is, that economic growth can continue for ever in the finite system of the Earth, that everyone, everywhere, can have more stuff.
  • Here is a harsh reality, courtesy of the World Wide Fund for Nature: “Ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work any other way round.”

“The power of the less powerful”, said Carney, “starts with honesty.” Fine, so let’s start with some honesty about what our current economic system is doing to the planet, and what that means for our wellbeing, the wellbeing of future generations and the myriad species with whom we share the Earth.

Mr. Carney might want to read the October 2025 speech by his Minister of Defence, David McGuinty, at the 4th Montreal Climate Security Summit. “Our security and our prosperity are fully dependent on a healthy and functioning environment”, he said. And he very explicitly linked Canada’s national security to what he called our ‘natural security’: “Investing in and restoring our ecosystems and natural capital is strategic preparedness. It is national defence. And it’s natural security.”


He might want to read his own government’s report ‘Disruptions on the Horizon 2024’, which identified biodiversity loss and ecosystems collapse as the second most likely and second most impactful of 35disruptions for which Canada may need to prepare.

He might want to look at the UK Government’s national security assessment of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, released January 20th. Noting that “Nature is a foundation of national security”, the report stated: “Critical ecosystems are at risk of collapsing. If current rates of biodiversity loss continue, every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse”.

Finally, as an economist, he might like to look at the UN Environment Programme’s ‘Global Ecological Outlook’, also released in January 2026. Among its key messages: “The scientific consensus is that following current development pathways will bring catastrophic climate change, devastation to nature and biodiversity, debilitating land degradation and desertification, and lingering deadly pollution – all at a huge cost to people, planet and economies.”

But the report, sub-titled “Why investing in Earth now can lead to a trillion-dollar benefit for all”, has another key message: “investing in a stable climate, healthy nature and land, and a pollution-free planet can deliver trillions of dollars each year in additional global GDP, avoid millions of deaths, and lift hundreds of millions of people out of hunger and poverty in the coming decades.”

Quoting Vaclav Havel, Mr. Carney cautioned we can’t live within a lie. Perhaps the biggest lie is that we can continue on our way pretty much in a ‘business as usual’ mode, with some adjustments. But the facts don’t bear this out, we can’t keep living this lie. So Mr. Carney can add to his growing international stature by delivering another speech, perhaps at the UN this time, about this much greater and more profound rupture we face, and what we need to do about it.

© 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

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