There has been a lot of attention on the energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The world has added impressive amounts of solar and wind power. But if you look at what is actually happening the picture is not very rosy. In an article in The Tyee, journalist Andrew Nikiforuk writes that rather than a transition we are simply seeing an addition of energy in a world that demands more and more every day. It paints a bleak picture of our struggle to wean ourselves from fossil fuels before they destroy our climate. So much for decarbonization. Coal production reached a record high in 2023. So did carbon dioxide emissions. Coal, oil and gas still produce more than 80 per cent of global commercial energy. The explosive demands of computers running artificial intelligence, the growth of data centres, electric vehicles and heat pumps all add demand for electricity. The article goes on to say that our of increasing demand means we will not achieve net-zero carbon by 2050 and, “…only a radical reduction in energy and material consumption might make a difference.” The question is will humans voluntarily cut back their energy demands or wait for an ecological collapse to force change.

As we pack away the holiday gifts it’s a good time to think about how much we consume and whether that is sustainable in the long term. Nearly 40 years ago the World Commission on Environment and Development [Brundtland Commission] warned we were consuming more than the planet could supply over the long term. “Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet’s ecological means…” the world experts wrote. It went to say: “Living standards that go beyond the basic minimum are sustainable only if consumption standards everywhere have regard for long-term sustainability.” My late mother put it more succinctly. When asked if she wanted more of something she would reply: “sufficient for my needs.”

When I started writing about sustainable development in 1987 there was a burst of optimism. A number of politicians, polluting companies and environmental organizations saw a breakthrough in thinking about we could continue modern economies without destroying the environment. It turns out many people were overly optimistic. Nearly four decades later after publication of Our Common Future, the Brundtland report, the transition to a sustainable economy and sustainable lifestyles seems beyond our capabilities. We have made tremendous progress, stopping the destruction of the ozone layer, curbing acid rain and banning several dangerous chemicals. Virtually every nation has agreed that we need to reverse climate change and stop the destruction of the natural world that supports life on Earth. Renewable energy is starting to supplant fossil fuels. Electric cars are becoming mainstream. Recycling is the norm in many parts of the world. It’s good but not sufficient. We’re burning more fossil fuels than ever to keep up with the tremendous demand for electricity and transportation. We’re cutting and burning more forests both for timber and to create farmland and pastures to feed the world’s growing population. The world’s natural areas are shrinking driving species to extinction.

A recent article in The Guardian newspaper asks if we are heading toward the collapse of modern civilization. It quotes Danilo Brozović, Associate Professor in Business Administration at the University of Skövde, Sweden, as saying some pessimists believe we could be heading toward extinction of humans. He says others are less dramatic but still see: “…the end of life as we know it today. There will be less globalization and a lower standard of life, affecting public health very negatively.” A more academic article by Brozović on societal collapse appears in the journal Science Direct.

What lies in the future? In the Guardian story Brozović says “At the end of the day, we have to radically transform society, and we have to do it fast.” That means overhauling politics, policies and institutions, safeguarding food production and the natural world that supports life on Earth. The problem is that many people like things the way they are and refuse to make the sometimes difficult even painful changes needed to stabilize our environment and assure our future.

For many years the impacts of pollution and destruction of the environment were dismissed by many as the cost of doing business. They held that the benefits to people outweighed the losses. But that argument is getting weaker all the time. In late November the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan decided that wealthy nations would pay the poor $300 billion per year in support by 2035, up from a current target of $100 billion. It’s only a down payment. A group of leading economists has estimated that poorer countries need to about US$1 trillion year in outside funding in addition to spending about the same amount from their own resources to make a transition to clean energy to cope with extreme weather.

Another conference on land degradation was given an estimate by the United Nations that the world needs to invest at least $2.6 trillion by the end of the decade to restore the world’s degraded land and hold back its expanding deserts. This is at a time of more frequent and severe droughts because of climate change and in a world with a growing population and need for food. A UN-backed study says around 15 million square kilometres of land – an area larger than Antarctica – was already degraded, and was growing by about 1 million square kilometres a year.

After decades of study and preparation Canada has found a place to bury highly radioactive used fuel from the country’s nuclear reactors. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has picked Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Township of Ignace as the host communities for the future site for Canada’s deep geological repository for spent fuel. The site is on the Canadian Shield between the two small communities. It is about 250 km northwest of Thunder Bay, ON and as much as 1,600 km from nuclear power plants in Southern Ontario. The repository is a huge mine in reverse. Instead of taking stuff out of the ground people will put it about 500 metres below the surface where it is supposed to remain untouched for eternity. According to the NWMO the site is not expected to start operations before 2040. Nuclear fuel is what runs Canada’s nuclear power plants, which produce about 16 per cent of the country’s electricity. Almost all are in Ontario. Over time the radioactive material decays and must be replaced. So far there are 3.3 million used nuclear fuel bundles, each about the size of a firelog. It amounts to about 80,000 tonnes with more every year. The radioactive bundles are now stored at the nuclear power plants but Canada, like other nations with nuclear reactors, has been looking for a permanent disposal site far from people and the risk of accidents. There is a global consensus that deep underground storage is the best solution and a number of countries are in the process of creating their own sites.

The polluter pays principle is a fundamental part of environmental law. If someone causes damage they should pay a fine and/or be responsible for the cleanup. The latest UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan, was a test of the willingness of rich nations to pay for the damage caused by greenhouse gases they have been pouring into the sky for years. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere causing climate disruption. Wildfires, droughts and floods made worse by global warming are already costing many lives and billions of dollars a year in damage to people’s homes and livelihoods. Emissions continue to rise and the damage will worsen. As always at these climate meetings there was plenty of hope and acrimony. A group of leading economists has estimated that poorer countries need to about US$1 trillion year in outside funding in addition to spending about the same amount from their own resources to make a transition to clean energy to cope with extreme weather. After hard negotiations that stretched the conference into overtime the consensus was that wealthy nations would pay the poor $300 billion per year in support by 2035, up from a current target of $100 billion. They also pledged to work to increase flow of money to developing countries, from public and private sources, to $1.3 trillion a year by 2035. Some developing nations were bitterly disappointed in the deal reached. Ani Dasgupta, President and CEO of the World Resources Institute, summed it up this way: “The $300 billion goal is not enough, but is an important downpayment toward a safer, more equitable future. The agreement recognizes how critical it is for vulnerable countries to have better access to finance that does not burden them with unsustainable debt. And it opens the door for a broader set of countries to contribute.”

In some parts of the world if people want to trap a large animal, they will dig a deep pit and camouflage it with branches. When the unfortunate creature walks onto the branches they give way and it falls into the hole to await its fate at the hands of humans. Modern society has dug its own trap and most of us have fallen in. I call it the technology trap. We have developed energy systems based on fossil fuels. We have food and forestry systems based on those same fuels plus the constant expansion into what was wilderness, destroying existing ecosystems and eliminating wilderness and wild creatures. We rely on fossil fuels to power much of modern technology whether it’s our cars, heating and cooling or electricity generation. We count on getting more food for a growing global population. We cut more forests both to clear crop and grazing land and for wood to build homes for the growing population. The modern industrial world depends on doing things that undermine its very future. The burning of so much coal, oil and natural gas is changing our atmosphere creating more violent and unstable weather that is killing people and destroying homes and businesses. The conversion of natural areas to farms reduces the ecosystem services that nature provides gratis. The world has started to build new power systems based on clean electricity but it will take years for them to replace fossil fuels. The animal that falls in the pit has neither the knowledge nor equipment to get back out on their own. Will humans be smart enough get out of the trap we have built before it’s too late.

When I was a kid there was a comic book character called Plastic Man. He could do all sorts of contortions, including flattening his body to slip under a door like a piece of paper. Then, it was far fetched to think of people made of plastic. Now, not so much. Over the past two decades we have learned that plastic that escapes or is discarded into the environment crumbles into small particles much as rocks erode down into grains of sand, but much faster. These bits of plastic, called microplastics, keep eroding down into nanoplastic particles too small to see without a microscope. The particles are formed by the breakdown of the plastics that surround us, including packages and synthetic clothes such as fleece. These tiny bits of plastic are found throughout the environment and the creatures in it. We ingest them in the food we eat, water we drink and air we breathe. An article in sciencealert.com said they have been detected in our lungs, livers, kidneys, brains, hearts, blood and reproductive organs. Scientists are trying to get clearer idea of the health impacts of the plastics and the chemicals they can carry with them. An article in prominent medical journal The Lancet earlier this year said potential health effects include “…oxidative stress, inflammation, immune dysfunction, altered biochemical and energy metabolism, impaired cell proliferation, disrupted microbial metabolic pathways, abnormal organ development, and carcinogenicity.” We have reshaped our world and now it is reshaping us. We may not like the result.

When I started writing about sustainable development in 1987 there was optimism about our ability to stop environmental decline. The world had just reached a historic agreement to get rid of chemicals that were destroying the ozone layer. Controls were being put on pollution that caused acid rain. Toxic chemicals were being controlled, even banned. The World Commission on Environment and Development, commonly known as the Brundtland Commission published its historic report, Our Common Future, calling for development that did not keep destroying the environment. Governments and many businesses leapt on sustainability with little or no idea of what it meant or how they were going to achieve it.

A generation later I sat in a parking lot beside a busy highway and watched huge diesel trucks roll by. It was clear how far we are from sustainability. We have made some very important first steps. Renewable energy is gradually supplanting fossil fuels. Electric cars are now more common on our streets. Recycling is normal. In reality these are baby steps on the road to sustainability. Inertia is a huge barrier. We are in a self-centred era when many people value their individual right to consume and pollute above the need to preserve the common good of a clean and productive environment for everyone’s benefit.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the too-slow transition away from fossil fuels. Car makers trying to in two directions at once. They are building more battery electric vehicles but these are often expensive and many people are concerned about their range and the lack of charging stations. A number of care makers, particularly the North American companies, are producing more big, heavy fuel-hungry pickup trucks. One is advertised as having 540 horsepower.

We need social sustainability if we are going to be able to achieve environmental sustainability. But when governments raise fuel prices to encourage conservation or try to limit the use of hazardous pesticides there are often protests. People locked into driving or spraying chemicals because of past practices are going to need help making a transition. It will be expensive for governments.

Immigration is another hot button issue with strong ties to climate change. It is ironic that rich countries that caused most of the problem through decades of greenhouse gas pollution are on the receiving end of mass migration driven by the effects of climate change, such as drought and ensuing lack of employment and food. The unfortunate result is the rise of more right-wing, anti-immigrant political parties in countries grappling with waves of people coming from the south.

At a time when governments need to take action at a global level we face growing chaos and barriers to unity. The COVID crisis weakened economies. There is increasing economic competition from formerly poor nations. There is a major war in Ukraine and a number of other conflicts. And there is the growth of companies that are now richer powerful than many nations.

In an essay in a Global Transition Initiative forum John Bunzl, founder of the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation, writes that we are in “a struggle between all humanity and a destructive system which has a life of its own.” He writes: “this system is a vicious cycle: no government can move first or act alone to solve global problems because doing so would make its national economy uncompetitive, risking unemployment, capital flight, and economic decline. Whether we are talking about climate, nuclear weapons, AI, tax avoidance, wealth inequality, or other global problems, this destructive system remains in control. It is not that governments don’t want to solve global problems, but that they can’t.”

The Brundtland Report called for lifestyles that are, “within the planet’s ecological means.” After the report came out I asked commission member Maurice Strong if humans can make that kind of shift quickly enough. His reply: “It is going to be a race between our sense of survival and our more indulgent drives.” 

It is time for governments to come clean on the scope and huge cost and social dislocation of a transition away from a fossil fuel economy and from the pillaging of natural resources. People need to know what a hard road we face and we need leadership to move us faster down a path to sustainability.

Three stories in one paper in one day tell a grim story of how our abuse of the environment is coming back to haunt us. A front-page story in The Globe and Mail said smoke from hundreds of forest fires in Western Canada was making the air so unhealthy that people were warned to avoid outdoor activities. In some Saskatchewan cities wildfire smoke drove the air pollution level to 10+, the highest point on the scale. On August 16 there were more than 900 fires burning across the country. Climate warming has made forests tinder dry. Last month a wildfire destroyed about one-third of the historic town of Jasper and is still burning in the park.

In the business section of the paper two stories facing each other tell an important story of how climate change is changing how we behave and how we will have to try to deal with growing crises. At a time of housing shortages and sky-high housing prices climate catastrophes are making things even worse. Hundreds of homes have been destroyed and thousands more damaged by fires and floods across Canada and in many other countries in recent years. Many people had no insurance or what they had did not cover all their costs. Insurance costs are going up as companies try to have enough money to pay for increasing damages. Some areas are being designated as flood zones where it will be very risky to rebuild.

Yet a third story shows a different piece of the climate disruption picture. Wildfires and heat waves in many countries are making conditions so uncomfortable that some tourists are avoiding warmer regions. Recently a giant wildfire burned close to Athens as Greece recorded its hottest ever June and July. The travel industry is now referring to “coolcations” with more people heading to northern Europe, Canada and Alaska.

When I bought my first car many years ago one of the first additions was a can of bug remover. I remember the front of the car covered with dead insects after a drive. Sometimes the windshield washer had trouble clearing the bugs. Now, I can drive long distances with maybe one or two bug splashes.

And so, with a nod to the 1960s anti-war song, Where have all the flowers gone?

Where have all the insects gone? Long time passing.

Where have all the insects gone? Long time ago.

Where have all the insects gone? Killed by insecticides every one.

When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

Alberta premier Danielle Smith was moved to tears by the wildfire destruction of about one-third of the historic town of Jasper. But tears are not enough. All the tears in the world will not put out 100-metre-high walls of flame. The question is will this destruction move her to action to stop the climate change that is fueling more and more devastating wildfires. Ms. Smith is the premier of a province with one of world’s greatest reserves of heavy oil and natural gas. She has been a cheerleader for more fossil fuel development in her province even as world experts call for drastic cuts in burning these fuels. The more we burn the hotter the world gets and the worse the droughts, wildfires and floods. People are dying from the heat and losing their homes and businesses to fires and flooding. Ms. Smith is not the only politician supporting more fossil fuel extraction, but her province has the biggest production sites in the country. Political leaders in Canada and many other countries have been promoting or supporting fossil fuel development for years because of the high-paying jobs. As the fires get worse politicians will have to decide if throwing more oil on the flames is a good bet.

Are we smart enough to invent a better and safer future? Negotiations for a global treaty on plastic pollution throws the question in our face. The world is awash in plastic waste. Worse than the disgusting sight of plastic waste strewn across the landscape and wrapped around dying animals is the tiny bits of plastic in our air, water food and our bodies.

The United Nations Environment Programme says that every year we produce about 400 million tonnes of plastic waste and only 10 per cent has been recycled. Every day the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks full of plastic are dumped into the world’s oceans, rivers and lakes. We are increasingly breathing, eating and drinking tiny plastic particles formed when larger pieces of waste get ground down in the environment. This week people from around the world are meeting in Ottawa trying to hammer out a global treaty to control plastic pollution. Some are pushing for bans while the plastics industry is trying to stave off controls as it plans to increase production.

It’s unlikely we can or should ban all plastics because many play key roles in the way we live. But it’s obvious that we have to stop the throwaway culture that is threatening our environment and our health. Many countries have brought in bans or controls on single use plastic items such as shopping bags. We could also limit the number of types of plastic to make it easier to recycle them.

Compared to controlling greenhouse gases, controlling plastics is much easier. Doing it will be a test of our ability to control pollution and move to more sustainable development.

When I was growing up, having a steak was a big deal. It was usually a fairly thin piece of meat, often overcooked, a bit tough and shared at the table. As I grew older, I continued to enjoy various meats but the news about their environmental impacts is enough to give one indigestion. I recently saw another article which reminded me that the more meat I consumed the more I was contributing to greenhouse gases. The figures for beef are shocking. According to a United Nations web page more than 70 kilograms of greenhouse gases are released to produce a kilogram of beef. For lamb it is near 40 kg. of greenhouse gases, for pork, 12.3 and for poultry 9.9 kg. Fish comes in at 13.6. Cheese, another of my favourite foods, also comes in high at 23.9 because it comes from cows. Plant-based foods have a much smaller greenhouse gas footprint but not all are guilt free. Large areas of tropical forests are being cleared to plant soy or palm trees to produce oil.

Where do the climate impacts come from? They include methane from the digestive process of ruminant animals such as cattle and sheep, nitrous oxide from fertilizers, carbon dioxide from cutting and burning forests for the expansion of farmland, and the removal of CO2 absorbing mangroves to make room for shrimp farming. More emissions come from manure management, rice cultivation, burning of crop residues and the use of fuel in food production. An estimate in Nature magazine said agriculture may be responsible for approximately 15 per cent of current warming levels.

What can we do? Quite a few companies are producing meat substitutes made from vegetables with varying degrees of success. Some companies are growing real meat in laboratories but it is still expensive to produce. An increasing number of people are becoming vegetarians and many more are limiting meat in their diet, myself included. It’s the fastest way to reduce the environmental impact of food production.

And, Happy Earth Day everyone.

Source: United Nations

It’s hard to believe it was 40 years ago I flew to the United Nations headquarters in New York to interview, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, head of the new World Commission on Environment and Development. In 1983 a number of countries, including Canada called for a commission on the future of the environment. Wisely, the United Nations turned that into something broader, looking at the kind of development that was destroying the environment while providing things people needed and wanted. Dr. Brundtland, a no-nonsense get things done person, pulled together a panel of experts from around the world and in 1987 released a report, Our Common Future, which popularized the term “sustainable development,” now usually referred to as sustainability. It brought a global wave of support but it’s sobering to look at where we are today on the curve of sustainability. Most people are aware of the growing environmental crises and many are changing their behaviour. Governments have enacted many new laws to curb pollution and protect species. Nations of the world have agreed on sustainability goals. But is far from enough. The climate change crisis keeps getting worse because we still don’t have enough affordable and available sources of green energy. Tropical forests are still cut and burned to create agricultural lands. The seas are still being over-fished. There is still poverty, hunger and war. It’s worth celebrating the achievement of getting us on the path to sustainability but the real celebrations will have to wait until we bring our consumption and pollution within nature’s capacity to deal with it on a permanent basis.

As winter grinds to an end we’re approaching another season, that of weddings. They’re one of the most important events in people’s lives. They are often big and expensive. In recent years Canadian weddings were estimated to cost between $20,000 and $30,000. Young couples sweat the cost and the invitation list. How many think about the environmental impact? A European jewellery company has put up a website called The Guide to Sustainable, Zero-Waste, Ethical Weddings. It looks at the impact of a typical wedding using British information but the impacts will be very similar anywhere. There are large amounts of unrecyclable plastic, food waste and exotic flowers flown from far away. The average wedding has a big carbon footprint. What to do? The website provides lots of tips. Some, such as eco-friendly products, rented outfits and ethically sourced diamonds, should be obvious but maybe young couples don’t always think of the environmental impact of their big day. It’s a useful source of information for those who want to reduce their ecological footprint.

There’s a disturbing message in the World Happiness Report 2024. Young people (aged 15-24) in a number of countries are now less happy than older people who are approaching end of life. It probably should not be surprising. The world is full of conflicts. Climate change and environmental decline are wrecking the future for the young. Fewer young people can afford to own a home. [When my wife and I bought our first house many years ago we could afford a nice place in a good Toronto neighbourhood. With current house prices and middle-income salaries, we’d have no hope of buying a similar home today.] Social media have given young people unprecedented ways of connecting but also of being bullied and targeted for extortion.

The latest happiness report, using data from the Gallup World Poll, was prepared by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, an international panel of social scientists. Scores are based on individuals’ own assessments of their lives. The survey looked at six key issues: GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, freedom to make life choices, generosity, and freedom from corruption.

Once again, the Nordic countries top the list for happy people. Wealthy countries did not fare that well. Canada came in at 15^th and for the young ranked 58^th, falling below peers in much poorer countries. By contrast those over 60 in Canada ranked their happiness much higher, comparable to Nordic countries. Why do the Nordics keep ranking high in happiness? They have a good life expectancy and a very strong social safety net. I remember a Dane telling me that the government had raised taxes but had strong public support because people knew the money would be used to keep them secure and healthy in difficult times. By contrast strong political lobbies in countries like the United States fight to lower taxes but this leaves the vulnerable exposed to the risk of crushing health costs and lower life expectancies.

The increasing use of computers has been under the gun for its voracious demands for energy to run the machines and power the Internet. When that energy comes from burning fossil fuels it is aggravating climate change. But an organization called datascienceprograms.com that promotes education in data science is encouraging people to use data science to deal with our greatest environmental problems. A web page titled How Data Science Can Help Fight Climate Change says “Data science … uses different methods, such as machine learning (where computers learn from data) and data visualization (turning data into pictures), to analyze the details and understand the most challenging components of climate change.” It goes on to explain how data is used to understand climate and to propose some solutions to our changing climate. It’s an interesting site for people who want to understand how data is and can be used and especially for those seeking careers in the data field.

In the struggle for sustainability everyone is a player but some are more powerful and better organized than others. For example, OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) brings together governments and industries to see that the world keeps burning fossil fuels even as their emissions drive a climate disaster. Other industry groups, often working with governments, are busy trying to cut down or burn the world’s remaining forests or to scoop up what is left of the fish in the seas.

On the other side is a large but scattered series of groups and individuals pushing for limits to excessive resource exploitation and pollution. They are up against governments and billionaires who want to maintain the status quo. What chance do they have?

A thoughtful series of essays called What’s Next for the Global Movement? tries to look at how people and organizations might unite to offer a way of living within the planet’s means. It’s from a group of thinkers called the Great Transition Initiative, a project dating back more than two decades.

As they write, “we’re in a world of trouble” and “It emerges from a political and economic system adept at creating problems but inept at finding solutions.” The problems, such as climate change and a growing gulf between rich and poor, “…require a broad response at the global level that goes against the perceived short-term interests of many.” Governments are limited in what they can do. “No government can move first or act alone to solve global problems because doing so would make its national economy uncompetitive, risking unemployment, capital flight and economic decline.”

So, how do you mobilize against the juggernaut of unsustainable development? Authors call for “a global citizens’ movement centered around people, peace and planet. To get broad support it will need to help people understand the limits to growth and to see practical alternatives. It needs to offer a vision of a life that could be slower, simpler and more satisfying, lived in closer connection with self, family, community and nature.

One author calls for an Ecological Civilization Coalition that will turn unrest and protest into a force for societal transformation. It will require collaboration by thousands of organizations and the mobilization of millions of citizens. They will need to work at the global scale and against a powerful and entrenched economic system that puts wealth generation before ecological stability. Such a coalition will need leadership from people who can take the principles of sustainable development from the World Commission on Environment and Development and the UN Sustainable Development Goals and push for action. This seismic change will need the broad support of citizens around the world. People will have to be willing to limit their desire to consume in return for a more stable, safe and predictable life. Such a transition will not be easy.