We Warned Them in 2000. They Didn't Listen.
Pim Martens on the delay between science and action, the limits of evidence and why our economic paradigms are obstacles to change...
Forty years of alarming environmental evidence have done a lot to shift the academic conversation about sustainability but less to shift our economic systems. After eighteen years as a professor of sustainable development, Pim Martens has thoughts.
Last week we shared a discussion with Conor Kretsch on the role of traditional local knowledge in tackling environmental crises. This is something we’re fascinated by at Foodlands.
Traditional practices are increasingly providing inspiration and guidance for more sustainable agriculture. Meanwhile, without local buy-in and genuine involvement technocratic solutions to environmental challenges are often miss-fires.
Pim reflects on this and widens the scope to explore the pros and cons of putting price tags on nature, the danger of climate anxiety without hope and why action often trails the science.
Pim is Professor of Planetary Health at Maastricht University, where he also serves as Dean of a university college focused on social engagement. His research investigates the interconnectedness of human health and planetary health, and increasingly the inadequacy of scientific knowledge alone to drive systemic change.
We hope you enjoy the conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length…
What led you to transition from sustainable development to planetary health?
I was a Professor of Sustainable Development for 18 years, but I became increasingly frustrated with how the term was being misused and commodified. Everything from sustainable pyjamas to sustainable investment was being marketed with the label, yet much of it had nothing to do with actual sustainability.
The term became hijacked by governance, industry and business in ways that distracted from real progress. I approached my dean and asked if I could transfer my chair into planetary health instead. He agreed, and I think this was the right move because planetary health represents sustainability 2.0, taking the concept to the next level. In many sustainable development discussions, the focus was primarily on maintaining the status quo, on not doing any more harm.
But that’s not enough. We really need to regenerate and actively restore ecosystems, making systems more resilient rather than simply preserving them as they are.
You’ve said that science alone is not enough. What do you mean by that?
I learned this the hard way as a young researcher in the 1990s. I naively thought that if I did good science and showed that climate change might increase certain risks, people would listen and act. But they didn’t.
We published models on the Asian tiger mosquito potentially returning to the Netherlands, and there were warnings about bluetongue disease in sheep as early as 2000. We weren’t heeded at that time, yet now both of these phenomena have indeed emerged in the Netherlands. This taught me that just doing science at universities, publishing papers and hoping for change doesn’t work.
We’ve known this for decades. The problem is partly that governors lack sufficient knowledge about the urgency of action. But equally important, we scientists ourselves need to take a more active role.
We can’t stay within our academic walls. We need to speak out at other meetings and do our best to inform people about serious issues like planetary boundaries, climate change and biodiversity loss.
You’re cautious about putting monetary values on ecosystem services. Why?
I’m always very cautious and hesitant about incorporating ecosystem valuation into monetary systems because I’m concerned it actually perpetuates the same system that causes damage in the first place.
There’s an implicit assumption of continuous growth, and whilst I understand this can help communicate with economists, putting a monetary value on an oak tree in order to justify it in development decisions is problematic. If we simply put nature into the existing economic system, we’re far away from the paradigm shift we need.
That said, if monetisation is a first step that helps us move towards more intrinsic valuation of ecosystems, then I support it. But only having a price on nature, without moving beyond that framework, is going in the wrong direction as far as I’m concerned.
How do planetary and human health relate to each other?
For me, these concepts are essentially the same, though they may approach the question from different angles. The crucial thing they all share is that they aim to regenerate, to make systems more resilient, not just maintain the status quo.
This is fundamentally different from the traditional sustainability framework, which often stopped at prevention of further harm. What we’re discussing now is active restoration.
What practical examples give you hope about transformative change?
I see seeds of hope in local initiatives. In the Netherlands, we have cooperatives where people buy things together on a local scale to eat and initiatives where people buy land to practice regenerative agriculture that can feed households.
These are small examples, but they exist in many places and could be seeds for real transformative change. There’s also wisdom we can learn from the past. I like to phrase it as ‘moving forward to the past’ without wanting to return to the Middle Ages. But there are elements from how people used to live and integrate with nature that we’ve lost and that we can reclaim.
Respecting nature is a first step in that direction. Learning from indigenous communities about how to react and integrate with the nature surrounding us is also essential. We don’t need to create something entirely new, we need to blend ancient wisdom with modern knowledge.
How do you approach the challenge of climate anxiety among young people?
My students do research on climate anxiety amongst young adults, and it’s still heartbreaking to see so many of them feeling depressed about the state of our world. That’s not something we want to expose the next generation to.
When I talk about climate issues myself, I keep the doom and gloom story as short as possible because you lose people if you spend too much time detailing everything that’s going wrong, even though that information is still very much needed. The challenge is to educate people about the urgency while also leaving room for hope and positive change.
In my university college, I try to create a social engagement atmosphere where students can be aware of critical issues from a scientific perspective, learn what they need to graduate, but also remain engaged with society and aware of what matters for the future.
We need them to understand that there is still room for positive change, and that can help prevent depression and inaction.
You’ve said the medical community needs to be part of this discussion - from managing zoonotic diseases to improving nutrition. Why is this important?
Planetary health has fortunately started to bring the medical community on board in recent years, though they weren’t really part of the discussion about how we deal with our planet for several decades.
It’s excellent that the medical profession is now engaged because this field is truly interdisciplinary. We need everybody involved. What’s particularly important is that we also need indigenous knowledge and perspectives. And most fundamentally, we need a paradigm shift.
We can dive into science and do many things, but ultimately it’s not about economics. It’s about this paradigm shift that we all need to create a world that is ecologically healthy, planetary healthy, one healthy, or however you want to frame it.
The current way of action is not the correct action, and we need to move forward with a fundamental shift in how we think.
What forms can this expanded scientific role take?
There are many ways to be an activist scientist. Some people, like Nobel Prize winners, have the authority to speak from a position of prominence and try to make a difference. But I believe we can all take this role in one form or another.
Personally, I try to be active in local and national land use discussions and papers, rather than gluing myself to roads for protests, though I respect that approach. I’m not confrontational by nature, but I try to be active in more written and formal channels.
What matters is that we all can have a role to play in conveying our message to a wider audience. And importantly, I try to inspire my students and young people to take on this role as well. They are the next generation and the future.
This interview was brought to you through a collaboration with ESP.
Authors: Theodore Simmons and Marcia Arredondo Rivera | Learn More >
Check out Lyla June's work. That's the real sustainable agenda. Ancient wisdom.
Great piece.