The deeper challenges underlying our political unease

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Most governments go along with the agendas of powerful corporations and obscenely wealthy individuals, at the expense of people and the planet.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

27 October 2026

700 words

Surveying the political scene after the recent provincial election, it seems to me there is a lot of discontent and unease out there. We saw the NDP ejected in favour of a relatively unknown, inexperienced and potentially fragmenting alternative, the newly minted Conservative Party. I am not so sure this was a vote for the Conservatives so much as it was a vote against the NDP.

But as Fair Vote Canada points out, this was not what BC voted for. The Conservatives got less than half the vote (48 percent), but 69 percent of the seats. Meanwhile the NDP, with 38 percent of the vote, got only 29 percent of the seats and – even more unfairly – the Greens got just 2 percent of the seats despite winning 11 percent of the vote. There is something rotten in the state of the B.C electoral system!

What we have just seen, in my view, is not so much people voting for something as voting against the governing power. I think this reflects a sense of unease, not yet well enough defined or articulated except by the Greens, that at a quite deep level things are not working well, that we are in trouble; people know it, they know the government is not fixing it and they want a change – any change as long as it’s not the status quo.

What underlies this unease, I think, are a pair of larger problems. Almost 50 years ago, I wrote about what I found to be the two core principles of public health – ecological sanity and social justice. They have been the guiding principles of my work ever since. But sadly, the pursuit of ‘business as usual’, ramped up even more by neoliberalism, has left the world more ecologically insane and socially unjust than it was even then.

Last month Earth4All, an initiative of the Club of Rome in collaboration with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the BI Norwegian Business School, released the results of a survey conducted by Ipsos across 17 of the G20 nations, including Canada.

In their report – titled ‘Rebuild Trust: Rigged economies, fractured societies and the case for change’ – they state:

“People across the G20 want their economies transformed, but they no longer trust their governments to achieve this change. Seven in ten say there is too much inequality (70 percent), that the system is rigged to benefit the rich and powerful (65 percent) and that the economy needs major change (69 percent).

Yet only 31 percent believe their government will make decisions that benefit people 20 or 30 years from now.”

Two years ago, they did a similar survey but focused on the global environment. They found 6 out of 10 people are very or extremely worried about the state of nature today, with 7 out of 10 believing Earth is close to climate and nature tipping points. Seven out of 10 also agreed that approving or permitting actions which cause serious damage to nature and the climate should be a criminal offence.

People aren’t stupid. They experience the obscene inequalities in wealth and power all over the world – why else do you think they are rioting in Europe? They also know we are losing the fight against climate change and are crossing other ecological boundaries and heading in the wrong direction.

They sense that the system is not working, and that more of the same will make things worse, not better. And yet they can see that for the most part governments are either actively or passively going along with the agendas of powerful corporations and obscenely wealthy individuals, sacrificing people and the planet for profits and power.

We need bold and visionary leadership to address these challenges, leadership that will squarely face the ecological insanity and social injustice of the 21st century, recognise its roots in a mistaken economic development paradigm – and the stark implications of this for future generations – and articulate a hopeful and transformative vision for a more sustainable, just and healthy future. I doubt we will get that from the Conservatives, any more than we did from the NDP.

© 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

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

The problem is income inadequacy, not affordability

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

The bottom half of the population has seen its share of national income dropping, while the top one per cent’s share has grown dramatically.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

22 September 2025

702 words

Food Banks Canada just released its annual report on poverty in Canada. Key findings are that one in ten Canadians are living in poverty, over 40 percent are paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing (which is the Statistics Canada definition of unaffordable housing), and 40 percent are feeling worse off compared to last year.

Of course the core business of food banks is hunger and food insecurity. The latter is defined by Statistics Canada as being unable to or uncertain of the ability to acquire or consume an adequate diet or sufficient food in socially acceptable ways. A May 2025 report from Statistics Canada stated that in 2023 one in four people in Canada – and almost half of people in one-parent families – reported they were living in food insecure households.

That was a roughly 15 percent increase over 2022, and the third annual increase in a row. Moreover, most of that increase was among those -19 out of 25 percent – who experienced moderate to severe food insecurity. This situation has led a number of cities in Ontario to declare food insecurity emergencies. The CEO of Toronto’s Daily Bread Food Bank noted in a CBC interview that “we need to feed more than one in 10 Torontonians.”

This is happening, we should remind ourselves, in one of the richest countries in the world.

Often, this situation is presented as an issue of affordability; food, housing and other basic needs are just too expensive. But while that is true, there is another way to look at it, as Valerie Tarasuk – a prominent Canadian food researcher at the University of Toronto – notes in that same CBC interview: “I think we have a fundamental problem with income that needs to be addressed.”

That fundamental problem with income is not new. In its 2022 report the World Inequality Lab noted: “Income and wealth inequalities have been on the rise nearly everywhere since the 1980s, following a series of deregulation and liberalization programs which took different forms in different countries.”

What they mean, of course, is the adoption by Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the USA of neoliberal economic policies that were then adopted more widely. That is true of Canada too, as the Lab’s report on Canadamakes clear: “Income inequality in Canada increased significantly from 1982 until the mid-2000s.”

Between the Second World War and the mid-1980s the bottom half of the Canadian population had around 20 – 22 percent of Canada’s pre-tax income, while the top ten percent had a bit under 30 percent and the top one percent had between 6 and 7 percent. By 2005 that was dramatically different: The bottom half of the population received just 17 percent of pre-tax income, the top ten percent had reached 38 percent and the top one percent got 14 percent.

In other words, the bottom half of the population – half, note – saw their share of national income decline nearly one fifth, while the top one percent more than doubled their share. Since then, the report notes, “income inequality has decreased slightly although it remains far above the levels observed in the early 1980s.”

This inequality was worsened because while pretty much everyone paid between 40 and 44 percent of their income in taxes overall in 2022, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reported last year, the 90-95th percentile paid only 37 percent and the 95-99th percentile paid just 34 percent – less than the lowest ten percent, who paid 35 percent. Shockingly the top one percent paid a mere 24 percent of their income in total taxes.

The 2022 World Inequality Report made a vitally important point about this situation. Noting there are significant differences in the extent of the growth of inequality between different countries they concluded “inequality is not inevitable, it is a political choice.”

So it is up to us. Do we want to perpetuate the poverty, hunger and unaffordable housing situation for low-income Candians? Or do we want to go back to the decades after the Second World War when the rich paid their share and the bottom half took a larger share of the income?

© 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