When the World Commission on Environment and Development published its landmark report, Our Common Future, nearly 40 years ago it brought the world the concept of sustainable development, now commonly called sustainability. It established three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. At the time, wars were in the past. There was a global stability created by the fact that the two major power blocs in the world, neither NATO nor the then Soviet Union wanted to risk a war with nuclear weapons.

Times have changed. There are bloody conflicts in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan and Myanmar. Russia is seen as a threat not just to Ukraine but to other European nations. China is expanding its military and trying to impose control over international waters of South China Sea. The head of NATO earlier this year called for more defense spending from Europe and Canada. The Canadian budget of November, which included a huge increase in military spending, said: “In an increasingly dangerous and divided world, Canada must be ready to defend our people and values…”

It is a primary duty of a government to protect its citizens. It might be time to broaden the concept of sustainability to include security as an essential element. It would be the fourth pillar.

Two new reports tell us how far we are from stopping the climate change catastrophe. The World Meteorological Organization said the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose by a record amount last year. This will affect climate and weather for centuries. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide – the second and third most important long-lived greenhouse gases related to human activities – have also risen to record levels. As greenhouse gas levels rise so do temperatures and extreme weather which brings one disaster after another around the world.

Another report published in BioScience journal has a stark message. “We are hurtling toward climate chaos. The planet’s vital signs are flashing red. The consequences of human-driven alterations of the climate are no longer future threats but are here now. This unfolding emergency stems from failed foresight, political inaction, unsustainable economic systems, and misinformation. Almost every corner of the biosphere is reeling from intensifying heat, storms, floods, droughts, or fires. The window to prevent the worst outcomes is rapidly closing.”

The State of the Climate report, by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Oregon State University, says 22 of the planet’s 34 key vital signs — such as forest loss, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel subsidies and meat production — are at record levels or trending in the wrong direction. It noted that 2024 was officially the hottest year on record and likely the hottest in the last 125,000 years. The hot weather worsened wildfires around the planet, which added more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and reduced the number of trees to suck carbon dioxide out of the sky. The amount of ice in the Antarctic and Greenland keeps dropping and this is raising sea levels which will cause flooding in coastal cities.

Last year, fossil fuel energy use hit an all-time high, with coal, oil and gas all at peak levels. While solar and wind power consumption also hit record levels, it was more than 30 times lower than fossil fuel consumption. If we are to stop the creating a hotter and more dangerous world we need a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, energy conservation and a reduction in overconsumption by the wealthy.

Finally, a sign of hope on the unfolding climate change disaster. We may be turning the corner on burning fossil fuels which releases gases that are destroying our normal climate. Ember, a global energy think tank based in London, England, said that in the first half of this year solar and to a lesser degree wind energy grew so much that fossil fuel use declined slightly. This is very encouraging news at a time when global demand for energy keeps increasing as more people keep buying more things powered by electricity. The change was led by solar power with a record 31 per cent growth. More than half of that was in China, which is trying to shift from fossil fuels to clean energy. The cost of solar power has fallen so much that many low-income countries see it as a better option that fossil fuels with their expensive generating stations and long-distance transmission lines.

As if we needed more bad news about the rocky road to sustainability. Luke Kemp a Research Associate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge says we are on a path to the “self-termination” of modern industrial society. Kemp, author of Goliath’s Curse: The History and Future of Societal Collapse, has studied the rise and fall of more than 400 societies over 5,000 years. He says that although people are fundamentally egalitarian they are led to societal collapses by enriched, status-obsessed elites. In a story in The Guardian newspaper he describes history as a story of organized crime, with one group creating a monopoly on resources through the use of violence. We live in a global system of capitalism, growth obsessed, and dominated by extractive institutions like the fossil fuel industry, big tech and military-industrial complexes. He sees two outcomes: self-destruction or a fundamental transformation of society. All of us now face a choice: we must move towards genuinely democratic societies and an end to inequality.

Sustainability is such a big issue that it’s intimidating for most of us, especially at a time of trade wars and real wars. We need to zero in on what we can do as individuals. With more than 8 billion people on Earth that can have a big impact. Where to start? A British company has created a Season-by-season guide to sustainability with suggestions about how to reduce your environmental footprint at home. There are lots of useful ideas and you will have the satisfaction of doing something besides worrying about the state of our planet.

The word apocalypse is often used to describe a devastating end to civilization. For about 2000 years people have shuddered at the Biblical concept of Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, disease, war, famine and death, that will bring an end to human progress. Sadly, these threats have not gone away. But our modern industrial society has at least four new threats to our lives and future made worse by the climate change we have created. They are drought, fire, flood and great storms. The recent flash flood in Texas sent a wall of water more than 8 metres high down the Guadalupe River, washing away everything in its path and killing more than 100 people, including children in a summer camp. In January, a series of wildfires in Los Angeles destroyed more than 18,000 homes and structures and killed least least 30 people. This summer thousands of people in western Canada had to flee out of control wildfires. There are severe droughts in a number of parts of the world casing food shortages and hunger. Climate change is shifting global rainfall patterns and causing heatwaves that dry the soil too much for plants to thrive. Scientists say that the warming climate raises the ocean temperature and this creates more destructive tropical storms. The historic horsemen were a warning of disaster. So are the new “horsemen” of climate change. Are they a sign of an impending decline possibly a collapse of modern industrial society? If we don’t curb our use of fossil fuels and other forms of environmental destruction, we are almost certainly heading for poorer times with a lower standard of living.

We can continue in our convenient lifestyle or we can switch to a healthy one. We cannot have both given the way most of us live these days. The things we do and the things we use are poisoning our environment and our bodies. Greenhouse gases from hundreds of millions of exhaust pipes and chimneys are changing our atmosphere and the climate our modern economies and food supply systems were designed for. Already, climate change has unleashed terrible storms, floods, droughts and forest fires. The damage is growing every year. It’s not just dollars but people’s lives upended or ended, period. And, billions of tonnes of plastics, made from oil and natural gas are part of everyday living and a great convenience. However, much of that plastic is discarded into the environment where it fragments over time into trillions of microscopic pieces. These microplastics are in our air, water food and our bodies. We have painted ourselves into a corner with our dependence on oil and its byproducts, such as plastics. We have an escape hatch but it will not be an easy way out. Electric cars are gradually replacing those burning fossil fuels but they are often more expensive and lack the driving range. The cars will improve as does each new technology but it will take years. We will also have to generate a lot more electricity to run the vehicles and it needs to be green power. Plastics are going to be hard to replace because we use them in so many ways. We need smart people to invent substances that will give us the benefits of plastics without the pollution. It’s time for a new industrial revolution.

I recently saw photos from a friend who works in a large overseas city. She was hit with the second flood in as many months and this time the interior of her car was awash. I thought it ironic that the very cars putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere were now being damaged or destroyed by floods or fires worsened by climate change. I had a similar sensation watching the evacuations of thousands of people from northern Canada as they escaped from more than 200 out of control wildfires. They were fleeing in cars, trucks, aircraft and boats, all burning fossil fuels and adding to the climate change that was making forest fires worse. As long as we continue to burn fossil fuels for 80 per cent of our energy demand we will make our climate more dangerous, put our economy at greater risk and choke on hazardous smoke from fires.

When the words sustainable development and sustainability hit the street nearly 40 years ago, they were widely welcomed as guidance away from the cycle of pollute, discover and clean up. Our Common Future, the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development [Brundtland commission] gave us a set of guiding principles. The goal was to reorient development so it would continue to give us the things we need but without destroying the environment. Governments, companies and individuals have been trying for decades to put the ideas into action. We have stronger environmental protections in many parts of the world. A lot of companies are working hard to produce sustainable good and services. Most people are aware of the environmental crises such as climate change and many are trying to lighten their environmental footprint.

But the political and social environments are changing. When the Brundtland report came out the cold war was coming to an end and that was followed by a period of relative peace, at least among the great powers. There was economic prosperity in much of the world. Things have taken a turn for the worse. The world order with its rules and agreements created after the chaos of the Second World War, is cracking. Countries are invading or threatening their neighbours. Forget about the peace dividend at the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. Many nations are rushing to rearm. And war is terrible for the environment and for our health and well-being.

The idea of sustainability risks being a casualty of these bellicose times. Remember the term “guns or butter” from the past century? Government spending looks as if it’s tipping toward guns. This will make it difficult to maintain health care, education, the maintenance of our towns and cities and the social safety net. It risks pushing environmental protection aside and increasing the production of fossil fuels even as they destroy our climate. We can’t ignore military threats and will have to spend more on arms, but will the next generation be able to do this while pushing us to a more sustainable economy and lifestyle?

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.