By Eric Hellman

This is the fifth in a series of articles on how we can create change more effectively by my associate, Eric Hellman, co-founder of the first Blue Box recycling program and co-author of the Canadian bestselling book, “Leadership from Within.”

In my last two articles, I described how “human nature” shapes our thinking and behaviour. In the next few, I’d like to share some examples of how we try to create change, the unexpected outcomes we get as a result, and some ways we might do it differently.

The Past 50 Years

The people I’ve known who work for environmental and social change began with high-minded ideals and a strong motivation to make the world a better place. They did their best to raise awareness of the problems, provide good information, and encourage others to take action across a wide range of issues, including waste generation, energy conservation, nuclear power and nuclear proliferation, politics, poverty, AIDS, smoking and world peace. I’ll include myself in their number. So what happened?

Sometimes, people heard the message and decided to change; and that has been both encouraging and fulfilling. However, when politicians, civil servants, business leaders or the public didn’t act the way we wanted, we felt frustrated and tried even harder. We began telling people how they should change; and if that wasn’t enough, often used fear or guilt to motivate them. Still no action? Then we applied more pressure. We pushed governments through the media, write-in campaigns, protests or demonstrations. We pressured companies through economic measures such as boycotts or through public shaming. Each time, the more people didn’t do what we thought was right, the more strident and outraged we tended to become.

Why? Because that’s how you create change. Everyone knows that. If the positive doesn’t work, you go negative. You may not want to, and people might not like it, but it’s what you have to do to get others to act. Pressure, anger, force. And that’s what we’ve have done for hundreds of years, in politics, social change, management, parenting and relationships. The question is, how well does this approach really work?

Read the rest of this entry »

Measuring sustainability is notoriously difficult. When we look at environmental, economic and social issues, we face different measuring systems. It’s very hard to add them all up and come up with a single indicator for sustainability. The World Happiness Report is not a sustainability report, but it does give us a feeling for how people feel about their societies. It also correlates very well with separate economic, social and environmental measurements. The report authors state that happiness is higher in countries that do well in moving toward the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

This year, Denmark heads a list of 157 countries for citizen happiness and a sense of well-being. This is not surprising considering the Danes have a strong social safety net, a solid economy and good environmental performance. Next on this list are Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden.

The happiness ranking, the fourth since 2012, was based on responses to a global Gallup poll. People were asked where they felt they stood on a scale ranking from the best to the worst possible life. The report found that differences in social support, incomes and healthy life expectancy are the three most important factors that bring happiness, along with social and work conditions, pollution and values.

The report was prepared by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, an international panel of social scientists that includes economists, psychologists and public health experts convened by the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. It was edited edited by a group of independent experts: John F. Helliwell, of the University of British Columbia, Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist, and Richard Layard, Director of the Well-Being Programme at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

With the death of Jim MacNeill on March 5, Canada has lost the last of its two global sustainability pioneers. Maurice Strong died last November 28. Both MacNeill and Strong were members of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland commission, and Canada was the only nation to have two members.

I remember Jim MacNeill from early 1986 when I was environment reporter for The Globe and Mail and he was secretary-general to the Brundtland commission, and principal authorof its report, Our Common Future. Over the next two years MacNeill spent a lot of time explaining what was then the new concept of sustainable development. After the Brundtland Report was presented to the United Nations, MacNeill, a former senior Canadian civil servant, continued to be a leader in sustainability. He was a founding member of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, based in Winnipeg, and was its chair for five years. The IISD is one of Canada’s contributions to world sustainability.

By Eric Hellman

This is the fourth in a series of articles on how we can create change for sustainability by Eric Hellman, co-founder of the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Blue Box.

Think of yourself on one of your best days, when you feel alive and engaged, and things are just going right. At times like these, we have an inner confidence, enthusiasm and a belief in possibilities. It’s as though we see the world through rich, joyful and powerful eyes. Ideas and outcomes flow easily. We have lots of energy. We willingly share our time, energy and talents with others, and feel richer because of it. And, we also feel more connected to ourselves and to others, nature and the world around us.

Now, for a few moments, think of yourself on your worst day, when life feels like a struggle. Perhaps you experienced a heaviness, fear or desperation, a feeling that nothing you said or did would work, and there was no hope of change. Or maybe it was boiling anger and frustration, when it seemed as if you were losing control and everyone around you was making it worse. In these times, when we most need help or support, we often resist asking for it. Even if others offer it, we may turn it away, believing that no one else understands. We can feel lost, disconnected and alone.

You will have your own words and descriptions for these two kinds of days; I don’t mean to impose my own on you. But the reason I raise them is that they are both personal, and more than that. What I’ve learned is that we all experience these kinds of thoughts and feelings, as part of being human. And this, in turn, touches on the dual nature within us that I referred to in my previous article, and which I will explore more fully below.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Eric Hellman

This is the third in a series of articles on how we can create change for sustainability by Eric Hellman, co-founder of the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Blue Box.

After working in recycling for close to five years, a series of intuitive experiences prompted me to leave the field in the early 1980s and explore new areas. Two questions were uppermost in my mind: Why are there so many problems in the world? How do we get to the roots of them? I also had a sobering realization. Having experienced extensive conflicts among environmentalists, I thought if we are the ones who are supposed to heal the planet, it was not going to happen.

About 12 years later, I was working with the executive director of one of Canada’s main round tables on environment and economy. At the end of a long day, we were talking about the challenges facing the world, and I asked him if he thought what we were doing would be enough. He paused, thoughtfully, and said, “Probably not.” What do you think it will take, I asked. “Probably a change in consciousness,” he replied. His answer surprised me. I had come to the same conclusion myself, but didn’t expect him to say it. And I now had a third question: How will we do that?

For the past several decades, I have been exploring answers to these three questions. My journey has led me from stress management to office services (word processing and staff placement), hazardous materials management, healthy, sustainable communities, leadership and communications, addictions and ghostwriting. I’ve delved deeply into the healing of self and relationships, spirituality, consciousness change and energy healing. I’ve volunteered in politics, hospice care, creating international peace events and helping people with dementia. Yet through it all, my underlying intention has been the same. Finally, in the past two years, insights for how we might practically answer these questions have started to take shape.

Read the rest of this entry »

Canada’s federal environmental watchdog says a number of federal departments do not properly consider the environment in decision making, nor show a commitment to Canada’s Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. In her latest report, Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, had strong criticism of a number of departments. She said the federal cabinet has ordered departments and agencies to do strategic environmental assessment so ministers and the public know the potential impacts. Departments are not doing an adequate job.

Julie Gelfand

Gelfand reported on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, Canadian Heritage, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada performance in 2015. “Overall, we found that none of the entities met the requirements for public reporting on the extent and results of their strategic environmental assessment practices, as set out in the Cabinet directive and its related guidelines. For example, their reporting did not describe how their policy, plan, and program proposals that were subject to a strategic environmental assessment had affected, or were expected to have affected, progress toward Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) goals and targets, as required.”

The result is that “…ministers were not always getting information on the potential important positive or negative environmental effects of the proposals submitted to them.” She also said that public reporting helps to demonstrate to stakeholders and the public that departments and agencies do consider the environmental effects of proposals and that the environmental decision-making process is open and accountable.

The commissioner’s office was created in 1995 to provide objective, independent analysis and recommendations on the federal government’s efforts to protect the environment and foster sustainable development, to monitor departmental; sustainable development strategies of federal departments, and to audit the federal government’s management of environmental and sustainable development issues.

By Eric Hellman

This is the second in a series of articles on how we can create change more effectively by my associate, Eric Hellman, co-founder of the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Blue Box, and co-author of Leadership from Within.

I was deeply fortunate to start my own career doing work I truly loved. Working in garbage and recycling was a perfect opportunity for me to share both my love of nature, and the power we have to make a difference in the world. At the same time, however, my life was also in deep conflict. Married at 19, my young marriage was being torn apart by arguments, anger and fear. What’s more, I was also experiencing conflicts with other environmentalists, business, government and the public. When people didn’t seem to care, or do what I thought was good or right, I could get very judgmental and critical. I was suffering anxiety in many of my relationships.

To deal with this, I first sought counselling for my marriage. This led me into personal counselling, group therapy and personal growth work. All of these had benefits, but none could really quell the fires burning inside me. My conflicts and inner turmoil continued to grow until the early 1980s, when I came across a book called A Course in Miracles. Intuitively, I felt a need to read it. But when I opened it, I discovered spiritual and religious language that I found totally repugnant. So here was another split I had to deal with. As someone deeply opposed to God or religion at the time, this book went against everything I was raised to believe. However, being in so much pain and with no other alternatives in sight, I had to do something. Finally, after a full year of resistance, I gave in and began reading it, and within moments, I felt a peace that was beyond anything I’d ever experienced in counselling. Reading on, I found a description of the human mind and condition that made sense to me, as well as a wisdom and logic I couldn’t refute. Because of this, I went on to study it in depth and use it as a daily practice.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s not every day we get heads of insurance, power generation, food and forestry companies, along with heads of environment groups, a youth leader and a former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations in agreement. In a historic letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, they said Canada must green its economy or be left behind in a changing world. “Before long, the strongest economies will be those that have been rebuilt to run on clean energy, conserve resources, reduce waste, provide vibrant and healthy communities for people to live in, and preserve nature,” they wrote under the title of the Smart Prosperity Initiative. “We believe Canadians want to be masters of our destiny and take the steps needed to build an economy that grows stronger, even as we lighten our environmental impact.” They are ready to offer ideas on greener growth that can create “the next generation of good jobs” and help all parts of the country’s now struggling economy.

By Eric Hellman

This is the first in a series of articles on how we can create change more effectively by my associate, Eric Hellman, co-founder of the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Blue Box, and co-author of Leadership from Within.

Many people have asked over the years, “What made the Blue Box so successful?” Why did it become the model for programs not only across Ontario, but in hundreds of cities, provinces, states and countries around the world, and even a symbol of recycling? As someone who was there at its inception, I’d like to offer some thoughts and experiences on what may have contributed to its success.

In nature, the seed is essential to creating the plant. It contains the DNA that guides its growth and development. I’ve come to believe the same is also true in human-led development: the core ideas, intentions and motivations behind our projects guide the outcomes.

With the Blue Box, its success was more than simply the result of a well-designed curbside collection, catchy marketing slogan or colourful container. For me, it was the outcome of some significant shifts in thinking – in what people really wanted and needed – that started it on the road to what it has become today.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Dec. 12 Paris Agreement on climate change was nothing less than the starting gun for the next industrial revolution. The conference, known as COP 21, set a very ambitious target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow global warming. The target is to keep the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to seek to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The planet’s temperature has already risen by almost 1 degree C since the industrial revolution began 200 years ago. So far, 188 countries have offered climate action plans, but experts calculate these would at best hold the rise to 2.7C.

The agreement reached by 195 countries calls for a carbon neutral world before the end of this century. This means limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally. Scientists believe the world will have to stop emitting greenhouse gases completely in the next half-century in order to achieve this goal. This means switching virtually all electricity generation, heating, cooling, cars, trucks, aircraft and ships to renewable energy. People born today will need to be driving electric cars, heating their homes with renewable energy, such as geothermal or biofuels, and eating a much less meat intensive diet. This is change on an almost unimaginable scale. Fossil fuels will essentially become obsolete, except if cost effective technologies can capture carbon dioxide before it goes into the air. The energy sector needs to be flipped on its head. Now more than 80 per cent of world commercial energy comes from coal, oil and natural gas. We have to reverse that. Given the lag time needed to design and build major energy projects, we need to start a major shift immediately. Fossil fuels will be needed for decades during the transition, but there needs to be a steady phase down and out for almost all uses.

It will take vast amounts of money. The agreement includes a commitment for developed countries to create a $100-billion-a-year fund by 2020 to help developing countries cope with climate change. This includes support both for technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to adapt to the inevitable climate change already triggered by past emissions. At the climate conference, billionaires Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson and other high-profile entrepreneurs launched the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. They pledged to spark a “new economic revolution” based around clean energy after launching a new investment drive for renewables. The group will mainly invest in early-stage clean energy companies across a range of sectors, such as electricity generation and storage, transportation and agriculture. The initiative was announced in conjunction with Mission Innovation, an effort from 21 governments to double the amount of public money going into clean energy innovation. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched an international solar alliance of over 120 countries.

How can values drive the greatest challenge humans face: moving to sustainability? How can we change development to fit within Earth’s natural limits, and still live a good life? This series of articles takes us through the evolution of some major environmental issues in recent history, looks at visions and principles that can guide us in the future, examines barriers to change and gives examples of leadership for sustainability.

Examples of leadership

In the first article I traced the evolution of environment as a major public issue. In the second I showed major sets of goals and principles to achieve sustainability. In the third article I looked at barriers to achieving sustainability. In this article, I’ll look at examples of leadership for sustainability.

Political leaders

I think the best example of a political leader showing broad sustainability values is former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Dr. Brundtland was a medical doctor, with a strong interest in children’s health issues. She had been Norway’s prime minister and environment minister when she was asked by the United Nations in 1983 to form a World Commission on Environment and Development. The title of her commission’s 1987 report Our Common Future shows a highly ethical bent. Its most enduring message is that if development is to be truly sustainable, it needs to meet the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Dr. Brundtland and her 21 fellow commissioners offered a vision of greater equity in world economic growth, along with fairer and more cooperative global dealings. The commission said that poorer countries must have the opportunity to develop economically, meaning they needed more ecological space to use resources and discharge some pollution. This means developed countries need to reduce their environmental impacts not only to make room for developing countries but also to bring down the total impact, which is too great for the long term. The report said the well-being of future generations is a moral issue for today, and we can act in a more moral way by reducing consumption and pollution. The Brundtland report said there is an obligation on the affluent to refrain from wasteful use of resources.

Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland

The Brundtland report issued a challenge to world political leaders, and did change global politics. There have been a series of responses, such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 from the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and the UN Millennium Development Goals. In 2015 world leaders agreed on 17 new sustainable development goals under The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. They include an end to poverty, food security for all, gender equity, sustainable energy, and sustainable consumption and production. In December representatives of 195 nations signed the Paris Agreement on climate change, which committed them to dramatically reduce the discharge of greenhouse gases.

Read the rest of this entry »

With the death of Maurice Strong on November 28, the world has lost one of the great pioneers in sustainability. Strong was unique in his time. A self-made millionaire businessman, he also had a strong social conscience and was a leader in environmental protection. As someone from a poor family, he worked to reduce poverty, and was the founder of the Canadian International Development Agency in the latter 1960s. This was a major step to create Canada’s modern aid policy. Strong stepped onto the world stage in 1972 as head of the UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm, the first major global conference to link environmental quality and human well-being. He was then asked to found the United Nations Environment Programme, the first global environment institution. In the 1980s, he was an important member of the World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission), which produced the 1987 report, Our Common Future. This book popularized the term sustainable development, and launched the worldwide discussions on how to achieve it. Strong went on to organize and lead the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The conference included the Earth Summit, the largest meeting of world leaders in history. Among its numerous outcomes was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the first global agreement seeking to control greenhouse gases.

Strong was also a highly successful businessman, who headed Power Corporation of Canada, Petro-Canada and Ontario Hydro. He brought a business perspective to environmental discussions at a time when most business people avoided talking about the environment. I remember him making business analogies to sell environmental stewardship. Strong was one of those rare people who could move between the world of business and environmental diplomacy. He had access to world leaders, and a talent for bringing together a wide range of opinions to come up with an agreement that all could accept. He is a historic figure. For a short video on his career, click here.

In the sustainability movement we tend to focus on the three pillars: environment, economy and social. The attacks yesterday in France should remind us there is more to a sustainable world. Nearly 30 years ago The Brundtland Report warned that the threat of nuclear war and the arms race made it more difficult to have a sustainable world. Today, nuclear war seems less likely, but we have regional conflicts, and have had terrorist attacks in countries around the world, including France, Britain, Spain, the United States, Canada and a number of countries in Africa and the Middle East. War and terrorism pre-empt attention and resources from efforts to develop economies and build a more sustainable world. We need to treat ongoing wars in the worldl and terrorism as great threats to a sustainable future.

How can values drive the greatest challenge humans face: moving to sustainability? How can we change development to fit within Earth’s natural limits, and still live a good life? This series of articles takes us through the evolution of some major environmental issues in recent history, looks at visions and principles that can guide us in the future, examines some of the barriers to change and gives examples of leadership for sustainability.

Why are we not more sustainable?

In the first article I traced the evolution of environment as a major public issue. In the second I showed major sets of goals and principles to achieve sustainability. In this third article I look at some barriers to achieving sustainability.

Sustainable development was an exciting new concept in the 1980s. How are we doing at making it happen? Our societies are more environmentally literate and aware than ever before, so why are we still sliding deeper into ecological debt? Since the 1987 Brundtland Report, there has been a huge growth in world economic output, with roughly a doubling in Gross World Product. The world is a better place for many people. They live longer, healthier lives, have higher incomes and greater mobility. Many people have been and are being lifted out of poverty by the increased economic development. More people have enough food, safe drinking water and better health care. We have cleaner cars, chemicals that do not destroy the ozone layer, more reforestation, organic food, recycling and alternative energy. Many forms of pollution have been reduced. We have reversed some environmental degradation, and reduced some other impacts.

While these are important steps, they are not nearly enough to achieve a sustainable world. A growing global population and higher average per capita consumption are increasing many environmental pressures. The world is still consuming and polluting faster than nature can produce and safely assimilate. The environment is going through the greatest changes in human history. Greenhouse gases are building to ever more dangerous levels in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels still produce about 82 per cent of the world’s commercial energy. Many forms of agriculture are putting large amounts of chemicals into the environment. Globally, we are losing more forests than are being replanted. Close to 90 per cent of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited or overfished. Many underground water resources are being drained faster than they are replaced by nature. Thousands of chemicals are released into the environment with little or no understanding of their health impacts. Why are we not doing better? Let’s look at some of the barriers to greater change.

Read the rest of this entry »

How can values drive the greatest challenge humans face: moving to sustainability? How can we change development to fit within Earth’s natural limits, and still live a good life? This series of articles takes us through the evolution of some major environmental issues in recent history, looks at visions and principles that can guide us in the future, examines some of the barriers to change and gives examples of leadership for sustainability.

Goals and principles for a sustainable future

In the first article I tracked the emergence of the environment and sustainable development as major public issues. This article looks at goals and principles to guide decision making for sustainability.

The second World Conservation Strategy says, “The purpose of development is to enable people to enjoy long, healthy and fulfilling lives.” It goes on to say, “Development will only succeed if it maintains the productivity, resilience and variety of the biosphere.” Read the rest of this entry »

What will it take to get to a really sustainable world? I’ve been writing about environment and sustainability for close to 50 years. Often the discussions about how to solve environment problems centre on the technical issues. How can we build a better battery so more people will use electric cars? How many fish or trees can we harvest without running down the natural stocks? How do we deal with pollution in our food, air and water? Barriers to sustainability are more in our heads than in our workshops. The increasing pressures on our natural environment are driven by our demands and how we satisfy them. These demands are governed by our values, and what we think is right and wrong. If we continue trying to fix each environmental problem after it has become serious, we will never catch up. If we really want to stop over polluting and over consuming nature, we need a big shift in our values.

This is the first in a series of articles looking at environment, sustainability and values. In the first one I’ll try to sum up the past half century of environmental issues and how our values have been evolving. In the second article, I’ll lay out some goals and principles for sustainability. In the third, I’ll examine barriers slowing progress toward sustainability. In the fourth, I’ll look at people who are showing leadership in a transition to a more sustainable world.

Then, my colleague, Eric Hellman, co-creator of the famous Blue Box recycling program in Ontario, will continue the series with a story of the power of collective, individual changes to affect a society. He’ll explore ways we may be able to deal with the roots of our ‘unsustainability,’ starting with the values and attitudes that drive our behaviour in the first place. I hope this series will spark a discussion, and look forward to your thoughts and comments.

  Read the rest of this entry »

As government leaders prepare to head to the Paris climate summit on November 30, the world is still behind the eight ball when it comes to even slowing greenhouse gas emissions. It is not even on track to meet the target agreed to by governments to limit the long-term rise in the average global temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Global greenhouse gas emissions are increasing rapidly, and energy use is the single largest source. Fossil fuels make up 82 per cent of global commercial energy, the same as 25 years ago. Renewables are only forecast to reduce fossil fuels to around 75 per over the next two decades. At the same time the International Energy Agency has forecast that global energy demand will grow by 37 per cent by 2040. In other words, emissions are still predicted to go up even we know they need to come down.

How can we turn around this unsustainable trend? One way is to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency says governments around the world subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of $550 billion a year—more than five times greater than supports for renewable energy. Canada’s Pembina Institute estimates that this country subsidizes fossil fuels by close to $1 billion a year. The newly elected federal Liberal government said in its election platform: “We will fulfill our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium term.” This message has been reinforced by a new report that says removing fossil fuel subsidies and putting just 30 per cent of the savings into renewables and energy efficiency would cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 25 per cent in 20 countries it studied. The study Tackling Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Climate Change: Levelling the energy playing field was done by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Nordic Council of Ministers.

Our world is in a period of widespread change. On the economic front, markets and employment are unstable as one country after another becomes a global competitor. We have to evolve our industrial strategies to cope with the effects of globalization and competition from lower wage countries. Health care costs keep rising as the population ages and scientists discover new and more expensive ways of keeping us alive.

Environmental challenges, especially climate change, are forcing us to move the world’s energy system from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Excessive and improper fertilizer use is causing huge pollution problems in lakes, rivers and parts of oceans. Overharvesting and habitat losses are threatening many fisheries and species on land.

Thirty years ago, we were in the midst of another difficult period as governments and industries struggled with how to reduce pollution and still make money. Then, the big problems were acid rain, the weakening ozone layer and toxic chemicals in food and water.

It was at this time that the World Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland Commission, was travelling the world listening to people and evolving its message that development was needed, but it must be economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. A number of Canadians, inspired by that work, created the National Task Force on Environment and Economy, a group of environment ministers, and leaders from business, the environment movement and academe. Their recommendations led to the creation of round tables on environment and economy across Canada. They did a lot to raise awareness of the need to integrate economic, environmental and social factors in decision making. They were less successful in keeping high-level decision makers at the table to come to agreement on how to make development more sustainable.

What Canada did very well in that period was to develop the multistakeholder process, which brought major sectors together to try to tackle the new concept of sustainable development. What might be useful now is to revive that process, but with a clearer focus on how to achieve sustainability.

We know a lot about the changes that our needed. We know we need innovation to achieve many of these changes. Why not convene meetings in different parts of the country to hear what people think needs to be done and what they want to do? There should be a strong focus on young leaders and innovators from different parts of society and with different expertise. It’s not just about technologies, but changes in how we think about the future of our society. We would need people with ideas about the sustainable use of the environment, clean, healthy and interesting economic development, and how we can evolve our society in a way that makes it more equitable and improves our health.

Who should lead? I remember a meeting in the latter days of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy in 1988. The president of a major chemical company said that the federal government should convene leaders from different sectors to come to consensus on what each should do to be more sustainable, and how they would support each other’s efforts.

In a few days, Canada will have a new government. Whoever wins, they have to tackle these challenges. This could be a way for them to find a way forward and seek widespread agreement rather than pushing ideas that result in conflict.

According to an international survey, most environmental experts are getting more worried that ecological decline is threatening our future. For 24 years the Asahi Glass Foundation in Japan has polled people around the world about their level of concern about how the deteriorating environment threatens human survival. Experts from governments, academic institutions, NGOs, corporations and mass media are asked to plot their level of concern on the face of a clock.

This year, more than 2,000 people from 152 countries responded. Only about 10 per cent of people had a relatively low level of concern. The highest readings on the clock, about two hours to midnight, were from people in Oceania (threatened by rising global seas) and from Canada and the United States. The global average time was 9:23pm. The lowest levels of concern were in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Africa and the Middle East.

The Asahi Foundation’s Environmental Doomsday Clock is modeled on the Doomsday Clock created by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 1947 to represent the threat of nuclear war to human survival. More recently it has also reflected other risks, such as climate change.

In early August the United Nations agreed on 17 sustainable development goals and 169 specific targets for the post-2015 UN development agenda. It has a strong focus on ending poverty and hunger, ensuring equity, promoting sustainable patterns of consumption and production, and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the new development agenda “will chart a new era of Sustainable Development in which poverty will be eradicated, prosperity shared and the core drivers of climate change tackled.”

The document, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, resulted from two years of negotiations that had unprecedented participation by civil society. The agenda is to be formally adopted in late September by a summit meeting of some 150 world leaders at the UN headquarters in New York.

The new agenda with its 17 “integrated, interlinked and indivisible goals” is a successor to the eight Millennium Development Goals, adopted in 2000. That global agreement covered an array of issues including slashing poverty, hunger, disease, gender inequality, and access to water and sanitation by 2015.

The 17 sustainable development goals