Latest news with #post-SecondWorldWar
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
27-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Bunkers and brinkmanship: Japan doubles bomb shelter capacity, prepares for the unthinkable
Japan is undergoing a profound shift from postwar pacifism to proactive civil defence, building a nationwide shelter network to confront growing regional threats and redefine its role in an uncertain world read more Japan is making major changes to its defence preparations, reflecting a shift in how the country approaches national security in today's increasingly unstable world. For many years, Japan relied on the peace-focussed rules in its postwar constitution, which kept it from building up its military too much. But now, Japan is quickly improving its defence systems because of growing fears about missile threats from nearby countries. As part of this major change, Japan has started a large project to build enough bomb shelters for 10 million people. This includes making more underground and long-term shelters, especially near Taiwan and other islands in the southwest, as reported by Nikkei Asia. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This is more than just building new shelters—it shows a deeper change in how Japan sees its role. The country is working to become a stronger and more protected island combining stronger buildings and shelters with more military readiness. This change was clearly stated in Japan's updated National Security Strategy, which came out in December 2022. In that report, Japan said its security situation is now 'more severe and complex than at any other time in the post-Second World War period,' showing just how serious the country views today's threats. Doubling shelter capacity: A race against time According to the Cabinet Secretariat, Japan now has more than 58,000 designated bomb shelters. But as reported by Nikkei Asia, only about 3,900 of these—or around 7 per cent—are underground, which many see as the most important type for protecting people from modern missile attacks. These underground shelters can currently hold only 5 per cent of Japan's population. To fix this, the government has set a new goal: to increase capacity so over 10 million people can be protected, nearly doubling the current limit of 6 million. As part of this effort, the government is looking at 1,489 more possible sites for underground shelters. This could add around 4 million square meters to the current total of 4.91 million square meters of shelter space. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Japan Times explained that using the short-stay space standard of 0.825 square metres per person, this would be enough room to protect more than 10 million people during an emergency. These shelters are being divided into short-term spaces for quick safety and long-term ones where people could stay for up to two weeks. The areas closest to Taiwan are getting special attention, especially the Sakishima island chain. According to The Japan News, this includes Ishigaki, Miyakojima, Yonaguni, Taketomi and the village of Tarama. These islands are considered frontline areas if a conflict involving Taiwan breaks out with Yonaguni being just 110 kilometres away from Taiwan and lacking many options for evacuating large groups of people. To protect the residents, the Japanese government is planning to build strong, new shelters that can hold people for about two weeks. The Japan Times reported that these shelters will have 30-centimetre-thick reinforced walls, multiple entry and exit points, emergency ventilation systems, food and water supplies and strong structures that can resist missile strikes and bombings from the air. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In Yonaguni Town, local leaders have asked the government for help building these shelters. Defence Minister Gen Nakatani, as quoted by The Japan News said that people in the area are very concerned and agreed that 'strengthening the defence system in the Nansei area is an urgent issue.' To support this, the defence ministry has included funding in the 2025 budget to help pay for building these vital shelters in the region. Tokyo's underground response Japan's capital, Tokyo, is also getting ready for possible major emergencies. According to The Japan News, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government is planning to build its first long-term underground shelter inside Azabu-juban Station on the Toei Oedo subway line. This new shelter is meant to protect people if the city ever faces a long-lasting missile attack since many citizens are worried that current evacuation centres wouldn't be strong enough to handle such a situation. The planned shelter will have food and water supplies, emergency electricity, air ventilation and communication systems to help people stay safe for an extended period. But as The Japan News also pointed out, the project comes with big money and planning problems. Each shelter could cost hundreds of millions of yen, so making similar shelters across the entire city would be very hard unless private companies help. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Tokyo is now looking at creative ideas like turning underground parking areas into shelters and encouraging private builders to create spaces that can be used both in everyday life and during emergencies. A psychological and social turning point Japan's major push to build more bomb shelters shows not just a change in defence planning but also a big shift in how people think and feel about safety. For many years, civil defence wasn't a big focus in Japan. It was seen as something from the past, especially because the country followed a pacifist path and relied on protection from the US through its nuclear shield. But now, both the government and the public are starting to face the hard truth that a military conflict in East Asia could directly affect Japan. This change in thinking has two sides. First, building more shelters makes people more aware that Japan could be in real danger—it's a sign that the country is no longer untouched by rising tensions in the region. But at the same time, it helps create a stronger feeling of unity and readiness. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who has supported civil defence efforts for a long time saying that showing a strong attitude—like saying, 'Shoot if you can, but not a single Japanese citizen will die'—can actually help prevent attacks. Businesses are also reacting to the possible risks. A Kyodo News survey shared by the Eurasian Times found that 53 per cent of Japan's major companies have already made emergency plans in case a crisis breaks out over Taiwan. These plans include evacuation routes and storing supplies. This shows that Japanese companies are increasingly worried about how a conflict could impact them, especially because Japan has close business and investment ties with Taiwan. Shelter specifications and comparative insights To make sure the new shelters work well, Japan is setting strict safety and building standards. In early 2025, the government carried out a nationwide survey to check if existing shelters were strong and safe enough under the Civil Protection Law. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As reported by The Japan Times, the results showed that 61 per cent of shelters had walls that met the required thickness of 30 centimetres. However, only 46 per cent had strong enough ceilings to handle powerful impacts. On a more positive note, 73 per cent of the shelters had the needed multiple entry points for people to get in and out safely. Japan is also looking at how other countries have built their shelter systems. According to The Japan Times, Finland has shelters for 86 per cent of its population. These are designed to protect people from chemical attacks and can support three-day stays. South Korea has gone even further, with shelters that could hold 331 per cent of its population. All of them are underground and fully equipped. When compared to these countries, Japan's shelters are still very different in terms of how well they are built and what they offer. This shows just how much work Japan still has to do to reach similar levels of protection. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Strategic context: Deterrence by denial Japan's shelter-building campaign is not happening on its own. It's a key part of a bigger plan to stop threats before they happen, as explained in the country's major defence update from 2022. In the National Security Strategy, National Defence Strategy and Defence Buildup Program released that year, Japan laid out its goal to raise defence spending to 2 per cent of its GDP by 2027 and to add counterstrike missile systems to its defences. Japan's new defence thinking is focussed on what it calls 'deterrence by denial.' This means making it harder for enemies to succeed if they attack, by strengthening both military and civilian defences. The basic idea is that if a country like Japan can take a hit and keep going, then enemies may be less likely to attack in the first place. This way of thinking is especially important now, as China becomes more forceful over the issue of Taiwan. Tokyo understands that if China takes action against Taiwan, it could also affect Japan—especially in places like the Senkaku Islands, which both Japan and China claim. So, Japan's efforts to improve civil defence are not just about keeping people safe during an attack. They are also about sending a clear message to potential enemies: attacking Japan won't be easy or worth it. Community preparedness: Civil defence as civic duty Local communities in Japan are also playing a big role in getting ready for emergencies. According to The Japan Times, five cities and towns in the Sakishima Islands were picked for the first round of shelter construction because they had already done evacuation planning and run civil defence drills. This shows how important it is for everyday people to be involved in preparing for disasters. These drills are not done alone—they are organised together with both the prefectural and national governments adding an important layer of safety and teamwork. Local governments are also working closely with the central government to make evacuation maps, let people know where the nearest shelters are and improve emergency alert systems. In some areas, residents are being taught basic survival skills and first aid bringing back old community traditions of helping each other during crises—traditions that had slowly disappeared after the war. Costs and challenges Even with strong progress, Japan faces many challenges ahead. Building strong shelters, especially underground ones designed for long stays, costs a lot of money. The Tokyo metropolitan government has already said that to build many of these shelters across the city, help from private companies will be needed. Japan also needs to balance civil defence needs with current laws like the Building Standards Act, which might not cover situations like wartime attacks. The government plans to create a clear policy by the end of fiscal 2026 that will guide shelter construction and may update these laws, according to The Japan Times. Another big issue is protection against unusual threats like nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) attacks. Unlike Finland, Japan's current shelter plans do not include systems to defend against these NBC threats, leaving an important weakness in the country's civil defence system. Japan's focus on building strong civil defence is a major part of its security identity in the 21st century. The plan to expand shelters, especially near Taiwan, shows that Japan is seriously facing regional dangers and choosing to be prepared and resilient. This change from a mostly peaceful approach to one of defensive readiness is more than just a strategy—it is a deep shift in how Japan thinks about its future safety. If done well, this plan could help Japan delay or stop attacks and give the country more influence in keeping peace.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump looks to jump-start American nuclear power with latest executive orders
The Trump administration is looking to speed up new nuclear power projects with a trio of executive orders intended to reduce the regulatory overhead required to get approval for new reactor licenses. Trump, who said nuclear power had become 'a hot industry' and 'very safe and environmental' just before he signed the orders in the Oval Office, did so flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the latter of whom said the signing marked 'a huge day for the nuclear industry.' 'Mark this day on your calendar. This is going to turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation of an industry,' he said. 'America has always American greatness has always come from innovation. And we were very innovative. We led post World War II and all things nuclear. But then we've been stagnated. We've choked it with overregulation.' Hegseth the orders were 'a big game changer' because they would enable the Pentagon to move forward with plans to increase use of artificial intelligence by increasing the power available for AI data centers. 'We're including artificial intelligence in everything we do. If we don't, we're not fast enough, we're not keeping up with adversaries. You need the energy to fuel it. Nuclear is a huge part of that, modular or otherwise. So we're going to have the lights on and AI operating when others do not faster than everybody else because of nuclear capability,' Hegseth said. Asked to respond to concerns that nuclear power is not safe, Trump replied: 'It's become very safe. And tremendous work's been done on that, more than anything else, and it's really the automatic shut offs.' 'But they have tremendous shut off power and other powers that and very redundant, as I understand, at a level that nobody's ever seen before. So it's safe, and we're going to do a lot of the small ones, and we're going to do some of the big ones. But yeah, very safe, safe and clean,' he added. According to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the plans, the executive orders will speed up reactor licensing and testing procedures at the Department of Energy by reforming the research and development process, remove roadblocks to building new reactors on federal land, and reform the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent agency charged with overseeing America's nuclear industry. Once hailed as the future of American energy in the post-Second World War era but reviled as dangerous after the Three Mile Island accident in the late 1970s, nuclear power has declined as a share of all electricity generation in the U.S. in recent years. But the need for more and more power to run data centers needed for artificial intelligence has led nuclear energy to get a second look. Constellation Energy plans to reopen the infamous Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania as part of an agreement with Microsoft, while Oracle has announced plans to harness small modular nuclear reactors to power a growing number of data centers. Both Google and Amazon have expressed interest in small reactor technology for their data power needs as well. Michael Kratsios, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said Trump's latest executive actions would 'ensure continued American strength and global leadership in science and technology.' Kratsios noted that the U.S. had once 'led the world in nuclear innovation' but has faltered in the last 30 years, with only two new reactors being commissioned compared with the 100 that were built between the 1950s and the 1990s. 'We decommissioned commercial reactors across the country, stepped back from nuclear R and D and abandoned hopes of nuclear energy, power and a bright future. America's great innovators and entrepreneurs have run into brick walls when it comes to nuclear technologies,' he said. Kratsios added that Trump is 'taking historic action to ensure America's energy dominance and provide affordable, reliable, safe and secure energy to the American people' and 'telling the world that America will build again and the American nuclear renaissance can begin.' The first order Trump signed will order the acceleration of nuclear research and other testing at DOE laboratories by expeding applications and review processes while enabling what the official called 'a pilot program for construction' over the next two years. Another order 'clears the regulatory path of the DOE and the Department of Defense to build nuclear reactors on federally owned land,' with the official noting that doing so would provide for 'safe and reliable nuclear energy to power and operate critical defense facilities and AI data centers.' In practice, the official said the reactors built on federal land would be outside the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would instead be licensed and managed by the Pentagon and Department of Energy. The commission itself would be targeted by the third Trump order, which calls for 'a total and complete reform of NRC culture to reorient to ensure reactor safety and promoting the development and adoption of nuclear technology.' It would also require the commission to make decisions on applications for new reactor licenses within 18 months. A fourth nuclear-related order is meant for 'reinvigorating' America's 'nuclear industrial base' by jump-starting the uranium mining industry and promoting domestic uranium enrichment. A White House official said the order would be tasking Energy Secretary Scott Wright with evaluating 'existing policies regarding a range of recycling and reprocessing topics' and recommending how to 'get the most value out of our nuclear materials supply.' He also stressed that 'nonproliferation concerns and other safety security considerations will be factored into those evaluations of those policies and any recommendations that come out of that process.'
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
MP Phil Brickell column - 'We live in an increasingly turbulent world'
Foreign affairs – that doesn't matter to me or my family you might think. Actually, what goes on in the world and how the UK can influence it is critical to our daily lives. In previous columns I've set out my views – on the NHS, on crime, on the environment. But for this column I want to let you know more about the jobs" target="_blank">work I do on the Foreign Affairs Committee, why it matters and how it's done. We live in an increasingly turbulent world – whether that's because of climate change, conflict abroad, the rise of authoritarian governments or the breakdown in the post-Second World War multilateral system. Britain is uniquely placed to tackle many of these issues. Issues which have real-life consequences for irregular migration, the cost of living, our economy and the UK's ability to influence neighbours and allies. And with war in Europe and conflict in the Middle East we see the actions of other states having visible impacts on our own streets. I serve as one of only 11 MPs on the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. Not all MPs are members of a select committee - formal groups of parliamentarians which scrutinise the work of a government department. So, as a relatively new MP, it's a real privilege to be given the opportunity to hold the government to account, to hear evidence from policy experts and to provide policy recommendations to the Foreign Office. The Committee is made up of seven Labour MPs, two Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. Crucially, it works across party lines to propose policy solutions to the Foreign Office on some of the most difficult issues of the day including: · The conflict between Israel and Palestine · Russia and Ukraine · The UK's reset with the European Union · Britain's role on the global stage – including our soft power assets such as the BBC World Service and the British Council · How the United Nations works and the UK's role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council · The effectiveness of the UK's sanctions regime – against Russia but also other state and non-state actors What we don't cover, but may take into account as part of our work: · International aid - covered by the separate House of Commons International Development Committee · Asylum and immigration – covered by the Home Affairs Committee · Foreign direct investment into the UK – covered by the Business and Trade Committee · UK military strength and security – looked at by the Defence Committee and Intelligence and Security Committee We usually meet formally twice every week when Parliament is sitting –on Monday afternoons and Tuesday mornings. Those sessions give me and my fellow MPs the opportunity to quiz witnesses on particular topics. We typically invite academics, foreign diplomats, think tanks, MPs from other countries and government ministers to speak in order to understand the latest developments in the relevant country and what UK policy might be. Sometimes those meetings will be private – given the confidential nature of the evidence given, or because of diplomatic sensitivities. Many of our sessions are broadcast live and you can watch them from home. Occasionally, we will write to the Foreign Secretary or Foreign Office ministers questioning their policy objectives or asking what assurances they can provide around their work to-date. And we also produce written reports on our enquiries as well, which are published and usually picked up by UK media. But it's also vital that we have a deep understanding of the issues at hand, which is why the Committee travels to countries of focus. At the start of this year I was on a delegation to Paris and Brussels to explore how the French government is tackling the rise of foreign dis- and misinformation and what we might learn from that. In Brussels we discussed the UK EU relationship, and the reset summit which was held earlier this week in London. In addition, we meet informally with ambassadors, representatives of international charities and supranational organisations (e.g. the United Nations), MPs from other countries and foreign policy experts. Those informal sessions provide a vital opportunity to delve into issues in further detail and to understand how our relationships with other countries can be improved – whether that's to create more jobs at home, improving security for British tourists abroad, helping British interests in general. The Foreign Affairs Committee is just one component part of my work as a Member of Parliament. It sits alongside being a constituency MP, a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and my involvement in a number of All Party Parliamentary Groups. At a time when geopolitics has never been more in flux, its vital we have the very best policy to ensure a strong, safe Britain. I'm proud to play my small part in making that happen.
The National
17-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The National
Has Robert De Niro found his most important role: taking on Trump?
With a soft kiss and a tender hug for Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro accepted his lifetime achievement Palme D'Or award earlier this week. What does an authentic patriarch (or for that matter, matriarch) do? Identify the threat to the tribe, gather forces for self-defence and self-belief. Small and bowed, craggy and thinning-greying, De Niro stepped up. Without missing a beat, the actor launched into his Trump attacks. This 'philistine president' cuts arts budgets; tries to put a 'tariff on creativity'; attacks creatives for their commitments to 'diversity' and 'inclusion'; sees artists as a threat 'to autocrats and fascists' (like him). Bob's quiet Brooklyn tones ended with a flourish to the assembled cinecrats, wreathed with his anxiety about democracy's survival in his country: 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité!' De Niro is rarely this polite in his objections to the Caligularity. His signature routine is to stroll up to a live mic and state: 'Fuck Trump … Fuck him.' It comes with a rich shower of other epithets. 'The jerk-off-in-chief'. 'The baby-in-chief'. 'A total loser … a wannabe gangster'. 'A punk, a dog, a pig, a con, a bullshit artist, a mutt who doesn't know what he's talking about, a bozo…' And from that famous black-and-white 2016 presidential campaign video, this: 'Trump says he wants to punch people in the face … Well … I'd like to punch him in the face.' Post-assassination attempt, De Niro has dialled this stuff down. On the Cannes stage, he stated: 'Unlike a film, we can't just all sit back and watch [the Trump regime]. We have to act, and we have to act now – without violence, but with great passion and determination.' Yet the question is begged: how effective, wherever he sets the dial, is De Niro's macho resistance against the broligarch-in-chief? Does this kind of 'hard talk' just reinforce the 'manosphere' that has been driving Trump's rise to power? There's an obvious (though crass) swipe to be made against De Niro. A career built on entertaining audiences with cold-hearted, pathological, calculating, murderous males is hardly a solid perch from which to, as it were, fire broadsides at Trump. It's certainly crass, if you dwell with the artistry of De Niro's work. He's covered the waterfront of post-Second World War masculinity, in ways that both subvert and reinforce stereotypes. Take Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter and Raging Bull (1973-80). These are existential man-children, alienated and repressed, unable to reconcile tenderness with violence. It's chastening to think that the corroded manhood we worry about these days was fully channelled by wartime-framed characters like Travis Bickle, Jake La Motta and Mike Vronsky. De Niro (and Martin Scorsese) completed their prophecy by doing The King Of Comedy in 1982. This captures very early the psychological distortions that celebrity-mania brings to broken, exhausted citizens. De Niro's 90s movies – like Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Casino, and Heat – again are, in retrospect, prophetic about our times. Here's your full range of criminal patriarchs – not railing against the system, but seeking mastery of their own version of it. And suffering an internal collapse, as they cut their deals, follow their codes of honour, show affection as the feint before a kill. You might imagine explicit masculinists – no doubt Trump among them – lauding these characters as men in action, getting things executed (at every level). But again, attend to De Niro's performance. He shows the deadened emotional abyss behind the organisational front. In his 2000s and 2010s films, like Meet The Parents, Silver Linings Playbook, The Good Shepherd and The Intern, De Niro is embodying those confused elder men, clinging to structures of traditional respect, that comprise much of Trump's electoral demographic. READ MORE: Israeli strikes kill at least 93 in Gaza as Trump wraps up Middle East visit They're suspicious and surveillant, trying to reinject meaning and emotion where it's not wanted. But De Niro plays this with pathos and irony. It's counter to some MAGA-style affirmation of the values of the past. De Niro's late roles – the strongest being The Irishman (2019) and Killers Of The Flower Moon (2023) – are haunted by the crimes and misdemeanours of being powerful, untrammelled men. Males aren't unrelentingly dominant here – they're busy reckoning with their past, what they've done and what they were too cowardly to stop. De Niro's current political fury against Trump often focuses on his sheer heedlessness, regarding the harsh effects of the policies he imposes through executive order. Indeed, it's as if De Niro's brutal and relentless denunciations of Trump are rooted in his mourning of all the varieties of broken and damaged men he has played in his career. Who better than De Niro to see what a poor construction Trump makes of his masculinity? A yearning for restoration – loud, resentful, imperial – which is actually a pathetic fantasy. One which De Niro's long list of characters refute. They know (at least eventually) that aggression has costs, honour is a trap and total control is a complete farce. So, a sit-down with the young men in your life around some key movies in the De Niro canon might well be an effective antidote to 'manosphere' blues. But that implies, in the first place, that these souls could physically disengage from the algorithm-driven devices that catch them in their snares. Compared to the shadowy, soulful monsters of De Niro's masculine characters, 'the tech-bro' is a telling update. These aren't mobsters or vigilantes but biohackers, aiming to maximise their productivity. They're self-branding males who build their sense of value from their optimisations, not their obligations. READ MORE: Secret Israeli party at British Museum attended by Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch Their aim isn't really control of the streets – it's control of the self, or the simulation of it. And this by means of computer code (as crypto), physical fitness, social status, charisma. Yet the cost, across the eras, is the same: emotional suppression, distrust of intimacy and a denial of relational vulnerability. What De Niro's archive of masculinity can point out is that the manosphere sets up young men to fail, as the criteria for success is increasingly unreal. Look at the pathetic or bloodied ends of the leads in Raging Bull and Heat: super-capable and agentic men, but utterly alone at the end of their days. In the closing sequences of The Irishman, De Niro's character Frank Sheeran sits in a care home, forgotten and abandoned. Sheeran has shown terrifying levels of impersonality in his killing career over the preceding three hours. Now, so confused he doesn't know whether it's Christmas or not, Frank asks the nurse if his door could be left open. This is a last nod to his security days –even his final descent still not free of the old paranoias. A diet of De Niro is certainly not enough for confused and direction-blurred young men to clarify and deepen themselves. We need more positive narratives and worlds made for them – the absence of which opens up the channels in which maleficent political operators can foment grievance. As the gender researcher Alice Lassman wrote in Newsweek this March, 'reclaiming what makes masculinity so endearing – its honesty, integrity and discipline – has never been more essential to the survival of our democracy … Make no mistake: the emerging definition of manhood consolidates Trump's power, encouraging conformity to an ideal that is out of reach.' Artistically, De Niro has tested to destruction the masks of manhood that our damaged societies of the 20th and 21st centuries asked us to wear. At a moment of dangerous crisis for male power, he's doing what he can – which is not perfect – to point out our old pathologies. It may be his most important role to date.
Canada Standard
16-05-2025
- Business
- Canada Standard
Canada's Natural Capital Is a Key in the Trump Era-But Needs a New Approach
The Trump 2.0 administration's assault on the rules of world trade and its disruption of other key global elements of the post-Second World War era have made it essential to reset Canada's economic strategy. The U.S. tariffs already imposed and the threats of more to come are unprecedented since the 1930s. They have strained alliances and created huge uncertainty for the re-elected federal Liberal government, the provinces, business and consumers. Amid this extraordinary volatility, Canada's natural capital is a largely overlooked competitive advantage, critical to supporting economic independence, resilience and productivity, write Peter van Dijk, Joanna Eyquem, and James K. Stewart for Policy Options. This natural capital-forests, wetlands, grasslands and other ecosystems-is more than an environmental treasure. These are powerful economic assets hidden in plain sight. Canada urgently needs to use its natural capital as a foundation of its long-term economic strategy, investing in restoring and sustaining green infrastructure, and disclosing in government financial statements the value, condition and trends of natural capital. Natural assets underpin our economic well-being. They provide protection from floods and heatwaves. They supply clean water and air, and contribute billions in services to public health. Unlike traditional infrastructure, natural assets do not depreciate unless they are degraded directly by pollution or overuse, or indirectly from climate change or the introduction of invasive species. The financial value of preserved assets often increases as more of our population depends on them. View our latest digests Natural capital offers multiple services simultaneously. For example, a forest sequesters carbon, filters water, cools surrounding areas and provides crucial habitat for biodiversity. No human-made structure can compete with this array of benefits. Yet, natural capital remains drastically undervalued and largely invisible in our public accounts. Canada's wetlands alone are estimated to provide $225 billion in ecosystem services annually (roughly 8% of GDP). But we do not even have a complete national inventory. This is unintended fiscal negligence in an era of intense budgetary pressures when every dollar of public spending should deliver resilience and long-term value. What is worse, most governments in Canada-federal, provincial and local-fail to track or disclose the condition and value of their natural assets. This blind spot leads to short-sighted decisions, degradation of existing assets and underinvestment in nature-based solutions that could save us money, foster more economic growth and strengthen our communities. Encouragingly, the re-elected Liberal government's campaign platform explicitly pledged to protect more of Canada's natural heritage, given the threats of "climate change and unsustainable development practices." Its key promises in this area include prioritizing natural infrastructure, mapping Canada's carbon and biodiversity-rich landscapes, and mitigating environmental and species-at-risk impacts in areas facing substantial infrastructure development. Yet, serious risks remain from the absence of federal valuation and accounting for natural assets, beginning with the ever-present difficulties of implementing programs versus making campaign pledges. The challenge of meshing the Liberal housing and natural resource development goals with the party's biodiversity, conservation and natural infrastructure pledges also bears watching. At the provincial level, the risks to, and inadequate valuation of, environmental lands and biodiversity have been evident in Ontario and Quebec in recent years. In their efforts to boost housing supply, a range of provincial (and federal) policies still facilitate building in areas at high risk of major flood and wildfire damage. With rising pressures in 2025 to accelerate resource and other development, protections for species at risk are being scaled back in Ontario and other jurisdictions. At a minimum, the following elements should be part of a new natural capital strategy: Invest in natural infrastructure. Restoring wetlands, protecting urban tree canopies and conserving grasslands are vital for the environment, as well as for reducing fiscal pressures from floods, heatwaves and water treatment costs. They are also much less expensive than man-made infrastructure. The cost of sustaining green infrastructure is often a fraction of repairing or replacing concrete and steel, while delivering broader benefits. Close the accounting gap. Government financial statements must begin to disclose the value, condition and trends of natural capital. This is already under way with a small group of forward-looking municipalities. International accounting standards for natural assets are on the way. Canada should lead, not lag, in adopting these frameworks across all levels of government. Recognize that natural capital is not a distraction from "real" economic policy. Instead, it must be a core part of economic policy. Natural assets directly shape our productivity, competitiveness and ability to adapt to shocks, whether from extreme weather or an erratic U.S. president. Canada has already fallen behind in investing in climate adaptation. While spending far more on climate mitigation-but not nearly enough-current Canadian efforts will not shield us from the existing costs of climate change and biodiversity loss. Our response must be to build systems-level resilience, and that means protecting and valuing the very foundation on which our economy rests. It is time for governments to embed natural capital into budgets, policies and financial reporting. It is time for Canada to create a national inventory of natural assets and time for the federal government, working with the provinces and territories, to lead a natural capital investment strategy that aligns fiscal responsibility with ecological sustainability. Natural capital is Canada's quiet and underappreciated strength. It is time we sustained and treated it like the decisive economic advantage it truly is. This post originally appeared on Policy Options under a Creative Commons licence. Source: The Energy Mix
