Tag Archives: Climate Change

Regenerative Economics for Planetary Health and Thrivability: The European Green Deal

This policy brief explains the importance of regenerative economic principles for achieving climate neutrality by 2050. Furthermore, we offer a perspective on why mainstream economic systems are unsustainable by design; as they are a legacy of the earlier mechanistic paradigm of the Industrial Age dominated by Newtonian sciences and Darwinian economics. We will explore how a mechanistic approach for societal and human development leads to economic growth models that operate at the cost of vital planetary boundaries and social ceilings; as such, undermining the planetary health conditions on which all life on Earth depends.

Furthermore, we offer a complete overview of the circular economy principles and explain why circularity principles need to expand through regenerative principles in order to achieve the transition to post-carbon economies. We also emphasise the importance of the human factor in sustainability transitions which tends to be undervalued in many of the mainstream circular economy models.

Yet, more fundamentally, we address how the Circular Economy Action Plan needs to go further by addressing the underlying economic growth models and their systemic barriers. To support policymakers and sustainability leaders, this brief includes several Living Systems Protocols from the EARTHwise Constitution for a Planetary Civilization to explore how to transition to regenerative post-carbon economies where growth is decoupled from use of resources. In particular, how to shift economic design as extractive GDP growth machines within a free-market environment to economies as complex living systems embedded within vital planetary and social carrying capacities.

Finally, we conclude with reflections for a larger global vision based on collective so-called thrivability for people, planet and future generations. We invite decision-makers, influencers, thought leaders and think tanks to embrace a planetary health and thrivability perspective, which goes further than including natural capitals and ecosystem services as costs and assets in economic models.

Read the full Policy Brief (Chapter 5) here: Smitsman, A. & Martens, P. (2024). Regenerative Economics for Planetary Health and Thrivability: The European Green Deal. In: Special Collection Policy Briefs: Circular Economy. Studio Europa, Maastricht University.

Planetary Health: The Need for a Paradigm Shift

It is common knowledge that the Earth has changed considerably in recent centuries because of increasing economic and population growth. These changes have been so significant in recent years that scientists see the beginning of a new geological era, the Anthropocene, an era in which man has become the most important factor in degrading the Earth (Steffen et al. 2007). These changes affect not only our atmosphere but also our soil, water, and biodiversity.

Our food but also clean water and clean air depend on nature. Our energy sources, raw materials, building materials, and medicines come from nature too. We may have a cure for cancer within reach if we make an effort to protect our ecosystems and plant species. Nature and biodiversity ensure our health, well-being, and quality of life. For example, people feel more comfortable in nature. Various lifestyles and cultural practices could not survive without the nature on which they depend. Maintaining biodiversity is important for our health and for the health of the planet.

Planetary health

One of the concepts that acts as an umbrella describing changes on our planet in relation to our health is planetary health (Whitmee et al. 2015). However, the concept as launched a few years ago is too human oriented (Martens 2023). The emphasis is mainly on the consequences for our health through disturbances in the environment. Later definitions are already better, and the focus is more on the health of our planet, with the realization that human health ultimately depends on the health of the planet.

However the field of planetary health is more than that. It is not only the realization that everything is connected but also the realization that it is not nearly enough to keep the planet as it is. Positive, regenerative development must take place to keep the planet and everything on it healthy. This also includes a different way of dealing with our Earth: a change of perspective. Planetary health can therefore be defined as a holistic systems view of the world, recognizing the interconnectedness of the health and well-being of all life on Earth and the need to regenerate natural systems, rather than simply minimizing harm.

In recent years, the term planetary health has gained popularity within the medical and health sciences. And although the term planetary health is relatively new, some underlying concepts are not. An important example is global health, in which the population’s health is studied globally, or one health, which recognizes the interconnectedness among humans, animals, plants, and their environment.

Another way to look at planetary health is from an ecological perspective. For example, ecohealth looks at how changes in the Earth’s ecosystems affect human health. Another concept, planetary boundaries, was introduced in 2009 (Rockström et al. 2009). Nine planetary boundaries were established within which humanity must remain without causing further damage to our planet.

However, planetary health does not replace these closely related concepts but, instead, complements them. Even more so than the other disciplines just mentioned, the field of planetary health will be interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. Given the complexity of the problems we face, it is imperative that doctors, ecologists, social scientists, agricultural scientists, and the rest of us work together.

There must also be cooperation outside the academic walls with governments, companies, and other organizations—so-called transdisciplinary research. But to ensure the health of our Earth, planetary health will also need to embrace a holistic and perhaps even a spiritual approach and integrate it with scientific disciplines. One example of nonacademic knowledge that can play an essential role is the knowledge inherited by indigenous communities.

Indigenous knowledge

Globally, indigenous peoples and local communities play an important role in the management, conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity and nature. Many indigenous communities live in areas of high biodiversity, where living in harmony with nature is essential for survival. These communities have strong ties to their territory and apply indigenous knowledge to protect, manage, and use the natural resources in these areas. It has been shown that the ecosystems and species in areas managed by indigenous peoples are often less threatened than in other areas (Sze et al. 2022). And this is just one of the examples where we can learn from indigenous knowledge.

The two-eyed seeing principle calls for the art of bundling all available knowledge and skills. This can apply everywhere in the world (“We are all indigenous to Mother Earth”; Phil Lane Jr., personal communication, 31 August 2020), by integrating the knowledge of, among others, farmers and civilians—in other words, the local indigenous people. We call this transdisciplinary research. If we also keep in mind the aforementioned definition of planetary health and start to see it as two eyed, our cities and countryside may be able to become planetarily healthy in the future.

Hand in hand with transdisciplinary research goes repairing the damage that has been done. We can do this in different ways, but I would like to explain one way in more detail. Nature-based solutions harness nature and the power of healthy ecosystems to protect people, produce food, and secure a stable and biodiverse future.

So transdisciplinary scientific research, using indigenous knowledge that is present everywhere on Earth, as well as restoring nature, is needed. The final element central to planetary health is change.

Paradigm shift

In these times when influencers, movie stars, and the media increasingly determine how scientific knowledge should be interpreted, we, as scientists, also have to assume a different role. Despite the many pitfalls and the resistance of climate sceptics and people suffering from the shifting-baseline syndrome (Pauly 1995), we, as scientists, can no longer hide behind our academic walls. As scientivists—scientivists are scientist–activists, people that are engaged in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge (the science part) to promote, impede, or direct societal change (the activist part)—we must take a more active social role to bring about the necessary change.

Change is also needed in the education we provide. At all levels, most students and teachers are amateurs regarding the planetary health crisis. There is a great need for students who can regenerate our Earth and reshape it in every way. For example, education that still embraces classical economic theories has long ceased to suffice. The current economy, with a strong belief in the efficiency of the private sector and the market mechanism, is one of the causes of today’s global environmental problems. But most education on circularity also has serious shortcomings. In the case of circularity, the solutions are mainly sought in technology, in particular, and not from, for example, the social or cultural angle.

So we also need to train students with regenerative education. To restore the health of our planet, we need more systems thinkers and doers. The next generation of students will have to become the regeneration, a generation that combines theory and practice with a long-term vision and integrates different disciplines.

Conclusions

Although some people believe the Earth would be better off without humans, I don’t think so. Of course, certain systems we have created are not healthy—such as intensive agriculture—but we are not these systems. We can change. The Earth needs us humans. To this end, we should not separate ourselves further from nature—for example, by putting fences around it—but we should learn to live with nature again.

So it has never been more important to fundamentally rethink our relationship with our living planet. However, this cannot be done without thinking differently about our place on Earth. Healthy human societies cannot exist on a dying planet. So we must wonder and reconnect with nature. When you respect the Earth, you respect life and yourself. And that, to me, is the essence of planetary health.

Read the full paper here: Martens, P. (2023). Planetary health: The need for a paradigm shiftBioScience, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad107

Scientivists urgently needed!

Almost every scientist recognises this picture. Having devoted much of their lives to perform research on a specific issue, but not being able to get the message outside the academic walls (and it’s not only the government that’s ‘out there’). This holds for the more fundamental sciences, but even more so for research on more complex issues, like climate change, poverty, biodiversity loss, financial-economic crisis, and the current corona pandemic.

Of course, many scientists are to be blamed as well. Being so caught up in their own scientific square centimetre, they are unable to communicate the main message of their research to others. Stimulated by the perverse publication system that only accounts for peer-reviewed publications (and not so much for more understandable messages), leaves people outside academia with only scientific papers. Not very useful in the public arena.

But still. Isn’t it funny, that a society that pays lots of money to universities and research centres, that does value teaching and research done at these places highly, then dismisses results of these institutes if it is not ‘handy’, and perhaps a little too vague?

Academia has responded through the initiation of new fields of research, such as sustainability science, focusing on research collaborations among scientists from different disciplines and non-academic stakeholders from business, government, and the civil society. Not so much for the fundamental sciences, but for the earlier mentioned ‘complex societal issues’ humanity faces today. The idea behind this is that we all need to work together in order to address sustainability challenges and develop real solution patterns.

Well, that’s a step in the right direction. However, being good scientists, this idea of ‘sustainability science’ is becoming formalised rapidly. And  – although classified by concepts such as post-normal, mode-2, triple helix, and other science paradigms – it still are ‘scientific’ classifications. With other words, it is being ‘bounded’ by similar rules that apply to other sciences as well.

From a scientific point of view, this is fine. But what about the point of view of moving forward to a more sustainable world? Does this not oblige scientists to take more responsibility, especially at times when many signals in nature and society are red? Or do we (scientists) continue to discuss the rules under which ‘sustainability science’ needs to be operated? Rules that probably will be ‘dismissed’ by the other stakeholders if it suits their purpose?

It is about time for many (more) scientists to become scientivists. Scientivists are people that are engaged in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge (the ‘science part’), to promote, impede, or direct societal change (the ‘activist part’). Scientivism can take a wide range of forms from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, to economic activism, such as boycotts, sit-ins etc. Scientivists are not afraid of interfering with legitimized procedures and official politics when science shows this would be needed.

On the other hand, scientivists must be aware that their actions may increase the risk of scientific results inappropriately being used into social discourses and in the media. This might lead to situations where, for instance, researchers find themselves unwittingly “supporting” an application of the generated knowledge they might strongly disagree with.

It is, therefore, not a ‘job’ (as for most of us ‘being a scientist’ is), but rather an ‘attitude’. An attitude that may be urgently to move forward to a more sustainable society. As in this era of social media, opportunities for scientivists will increase as we speak, there are no reasons not to join…unless you do not have that attitude…

(Published earlier (in 2012) by Pim Martens and Jan Rotmans)

See also (in Dutch): Een taxonomie van de wetenschapsactivist and The meaning of academia in times of environmental crisis.

Our sustainability challenges: climate change, health, and animal well-being

The lecture by Prof. Pim Martens, given Monday June 15th

Our dominant current socio-economic and political systems have become decoupled from the larger ecology of life, and our relationship with our natural environment and the animals within has changed dramatically. This has led to various outbreaks of vector-borne and zoonotic diseases – with COVID-19 as the hard lesson learned (or not?). In this lecture, Pim Martens, Professor of Sustainable Development at Maastricht University, will discuss the complexities and connections between our own well-being and that of the animals with whom we live, and global environmental changes like climate change and biodiversity loss.

Compared to climate change, the impact of covid-19 will look like peanuts

We’ve been warning about this for decades

COVID-19, the third outbreak of coronavirus in 20 years, wasn’t exactly unpredictable. Professor Pim Martens, who tries to integrate scientific knowledge and animal advocacy, talks about how zoonoses, infectious diseases that jump from animals to humans, foreground the complex interconnectedness of our wellbeing and our treatment of animals.

“It was strange – I had no idea. And even when the first reports emerged, I was quite sure they would contain it within the province….” Professor of Sustainable Development Pim Martens has been to China at the end of last year at the invitation of Bingtao Su, his former PhD student at Maastricht University. As a visiting professor, he spent two weeks lecturing at Shandong University and the Chinese Academy of Science.

Under his guidance, Su had studied the Chinese perspective on animal welfare, as compared to the Netherlands and Japan. They used questionnaires to collect data about how factors such as age, gender, or religion relate to attitudes towards animals. He is now also supervising PhD and MSc students conducting similar research in Indonesia and Spain.

Chinese attitudes towards animals

“Sustainability is underrepresented in Chinese Academics, but they are keen to bring in expertise, especially integrated perspectives on interdisciplinary sustainability science.” Sustainable human-animal relationship is a somewhat delicate topic in China: apart from the vast amounts of money at stake, there is also still a belief in the medicinal powers of rare animals’ organs as well as a cultural reluctance towards open criticism.

“China is a huge and very diverse country, so it’s difficult to generalise – that’s also what we’ve found in the study. It is true that they eat a much bigger variety of animals than we do – although you could also say it’s surprising how few animals we in Western Europe eat…” In any case, many suspect that wet markets, on which many different species of animal are kept in close proximity, is where COVID-19 has originated.

Meat, milk and raw materials

More and more animals are kept closely together in unsanitary or overly hygienic (antibiotics, etc.) conditions to satisfy the rising demand for animal protein of densely populated megacities. The need for space and raw materials perpetuates the encroachment on animal habitats like rainforests, which, in turn, brings more humans in contact with more exotic animal species. Add to that frequent international travel – both human and animal – and it’s excellent conditions for zoonosis.

Diseases moving from animals to humans isn’t entirely preventable of course. “It’s a question of probabilities – if we were all vegan animal rights activists, there could still be a zoonotic pandemic but it would be infinitely less likely.” And this was no perfect storm either. “Academics have been warning for decades that this will happen – it was always a question of when, not if.” We’ve had several zoonotic epidemics – several of them corona in fact – in recent decades.

Zoonosis closer to home

According to Martens, a Western European source of zoonotic disease isn’t unthinkable either. The Netherlands, for example, is a densely populated country with a lot of intensively farmed livestock: more than a 1.5 million animals are slaughtered per day, after having spent their lives at very close quarters indeed. The population is very mobile within the country and Schiphol is one of the busiest airports in Europe.

Martens cites the 2007 outbreak of Q Fever, a rather uncommon but devastating disease that can spread from livestock to humans. Dutch authorities were struggling to contain or monitor the spread and the original tally of 25 victims is now estimated to be closer to a hundred. The spread of the disease was eventually contained through a mass cull (of goats and sheep, that is) and by introducing a vaccine for animals.

Greater respect for nature

“The solution is greater respect for nature: moving away from industrial livestock farming, deforestation, wet markets, etc. This would also help address climate change, the impact of which will make this look like peanuts.” Martens’ own contribution to science – together with many international scientists – is studying the complexity and interactions between humans, animals and nature by, among other things, developing mathematical models to simulate the spread of zoonoses. But he also hopes to do his part in bringing about a change of attitude.

He was certainly heartened by how many students attended his lectures in China and how interested and knowledgeable they were. “You can tell that there is a cultural shift especially among young, educated people in urban areas.” Together with Su, he now wants to repeat the original study to see whether the COVID-19 outbreak has changed attitudes towards animal welfare in China.

Surely, it must have changed? Given the public and political discourse, Martens has his doubts. “Of course, economic recovery is very important, but I really hope we won’t rush back to business as usual without fixing the underlying problem.” He adds with a sigh: “If we haven’t learnt anything from this pandemic, then maybe we will from the next one…”

By: Florian Raith. See original post on UMnieuws.