Like a great number of Canadians I grew up watching David Suzuki on CBC. The guy had a knack to explain things, even if they were complicated in a simple way. That's endearing for kids and helped make him an icon in this country. He's a smart guy. But even a smart guy who is an icon needs to be questioned when his actions are...well...questionable.This past winter, the David Suzuki super enviro-bus roared into New Brunswick as it did across Canada with the “If I were Prime Minister” campaign. The first thing that struck me as odd was that the King of Canadian environmentalists was touring the country in a gas guzzling bus. I raised the question at a blog and was jumped on by Suzuki supporters with the “how dare I question Suzuki's methods”. Besides, they pointed out that it was a special environmentally sound bus run on bio-diesel or something that didn't include dinosaur bones.
Not so
The "green" bus ran on diesel and in fairness Suzuki never said it didn't although it spoke volumes that so many of his supporters merely assumed it did.
However here's where the problem begins and why Suzuki lands on 101 at number two.
Suzuki didn't have a problem taking the behemoth across the country and spewing out pollution because he says he took steps to make the tour carbon neutral.
It's the same argument Al Gore made for the pollution he produces at his mansion, a house far less environmentally friendly than (surprising to many) President George Bush's.
Gore and Suzuki dabble in something known as carbon credits to still be able to spew out pollution while telling others they have to stop.
Carbon credits in a nutshell is figuring out how much pollution you're putting out, give it a monetary figure and take that money and do something environmentally friendly like planting a tree or putting up a windmill on the other side of the world. The theory goes that you've done some good to make up for the bad.
Except what proponents of this such as David Suzuki seem to forget is they're still doing the bad.
The pollution still goes out and this carbon credit thing isn't really regulated so it’s nearly impossible to know if that money actually did go to do what you think it’s going to. Did the tree get planted in South America at all or does the money go to run some environmental organization? Hard to tell and the mainstream media has been amazingly silent in asking those questions. One thing is for sure, purchasing carbon credits buys off your guilt and makes you feel warm and fuzzy (or look good if you’re an environmental crusader) but in reality it does little. The pollution still goes up, the offender's money goes somewhere and they didn't have to do anything to change their lifestyle except make a cash donation. This message that Suzuki is sending with the "carbon credits" philosophy is incredibly irresponsible at best and hypocritical at worst, but he looks good all the time while doing it.
Well, most of the time.
During a stop in Alberta, Suzuki gave a talk to elementary school students which I'm sure the kids were excited about. If David Suzuki had come to my school as a kid I would have been thrilled to hear and see Canada's most publicized scientist.
Instead what the kids got was Suzuki going on a politically motivated tirade about how Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't care about the environment.
Now I could see Suzuki making some points about what everyone has to do to clean up the environment (stop driving diesel sucking buses with half a dozen people on board might be one) including government and more importantly the kids themselves but using the kids as a backdrop?
It was during the same tour that Suzuki got up and walked out of an interview with a Toronto radio station when the host suggested the entire climate change/global warming situation may not be a "totally settled issue". Instead of arguing and debating the reasons he believes it is, Suzuki left but not before he said Canada should be branded as "international outlaws" for going back on Kyoto, a plan that was already headed for failure long before Canada bailed on it. Canada is criminal in the mind of David Suzuki.
This next one doesn’t really land Suzuki on this list but it is still worth pointing out because, well, this my list and this one just ticks me off.
Clever...perhaps but also classless. Dad in the ad is portrayed as a beer swigging idiot who would not only give up his second fridge so that he could buy more beer but turns out the juice on his kids and wife so that he can get inebriated more often. Beer first, family second. Subtle but the message is there. I'm surprised Mothers Against Drinking and Driving didn’t censure this one.
How much control mankind has over climate change, I don't know. Regardless, anytime you can make the air cleaner and the water cleaner, I'm all for that. That's never a bad thing. On that side I’m with Suzuki. We should do what we can to reduce waste and pollution. But for his message of do as I say not as I do when it is convenient, politicizing talks to kids, calling our country an outlaw and leaving the message that you can just buy your guilt away with carbon credits if you don't want to make serious changes in your lifestyle, David Suzuki is screwing up Canada and is almost the worst at it…almost.
57 comments:
i think you are way off base.
there are canadians flying around the world, performing rock shows, visiting the family, business emitting way more than a bus- nice shot but off target. jeez, a guy trying to do his job, traveling around in a crappy bus puts him at #2?
I'm afraid this just shows a bias, that you criticize this candidate for- you didn't really show what he's doing to screw up the country, you just don't like what he's saying- suzuki doing more potential harm to canda than clifford olsen? i'd rather have suzuki over to the house.
You're nuts.
We know Olsen is a murderer and scum...and fortunately the 'justice system is dealing with. He can no longer mess up Canada.
Suzuki on the other hand...we aren't sure what his motives are, but the fact that he can carry on the great deception gives him potential to "screw up Canada."
Good post Spinks!
So can I guess that #1 on the list are all those sheeple easily deceived by 'enviro-politics'?
bluetech
pollution abatement measures can in fact be economical on the long run; reducing cost by reducing the use of chemicals that a company has to pay for and which cause pollution is a simple example. and reducing pollution in the first place then reduces the costs of treating the polluted water or air or whatever.
skuzizuki misses all that and does the kneejerk blame harper thing.
also he is a 7th degree black belt hypocrite.
I wouldnt put him in the #2 spot but he does belong in the top 10.
If he lived in an urban area and lived like most of the population, rather than some Island off the coast of BC, he would be more credible.
He is creating a movement of young eco-nazis, who love to tell others what they should be doing or not doing.
...the mainstream media has been amazingly silent...
Yes! Yes! Yes! Suzuki is screwing up Canada for exactly the reason here. Carbon credits are the biggets scam since Bre-X.
To be honest, I'm surprised Spinks acknowledges the possibility that climate change may be man-made .. he's a tad less 1950s than I initially gave him credit for.
and to think the eco-conscious are referred to as sheeple.... pot, meet kettle.
Great post. Can't say that I disagree with this choice.
I have major concerns myself about carbon credits.They are total unregulated so once the company gets your money they can do what ever they want or nothing and you will never know,in some cases even when they did do some thing it didn't help with climate change or even damaged the environment some where else.My biggest concern with them though is that people will use them as an excuse to pollute all they want and not change their behaviour .
Millions of years ago cyanobacteria evolved the enormous advantage of photosynthesis, dominated the planet and "polluted" the world with their waste...Oxygen. We could not have evolved without it. Suzuki wants to freeze time and create a garden of eden for all presently evolved species. What evidence does he have that this brand of human interference is less harmful than our "pollutants"? Either way, the human brain evolved naturally and our actions are motivated by nature's most fundamental objective...survival.
Geological evidence suggests extinction IS the nature of things. There have been periods in earth's history where, apparently, as many as 90% of the species died off. Relatively abrupt changes to the atmosphere have been caused by asteroids, volcanoes and by the living inhabitants of the planet. These changes have always been and will always be advantageous to some forms of life. It's only natural.
Suzuki saw this coming long before it was fashionable to talk about it. Yes, we are in the 59th minute. Nothing a good war, disease or famine can't fix. Drastic times call for drastic measures. The only way to get attention these days is to be crazier than the rest of the crap provided by the media. The man isn't perfect, but, he's a prophet not a messiah.
Paradoxically, if he were to practice what he preaches none of us would know who he is. Ghandi lived in a different world. Suzuki's problem is he's got to lower his IQ several orders of magnitude if he wants anybody to listen to him. Regardless, congratulations on having the courage to include an untouchable on the list.
He's hardly an untouchable. Everyone swipes at him. Their assertion that he should do a cross-Canada tour on bicycle or something gets lots of play.
But you do make a good point about lowering his IQ by quite a bit if people are going to listen. I think the sadness of that situation pretty well illustrates itself.
Nobody doubts his intelligence. He is a deep thinker...with a bias. It is impossible to argue any point of view that differs from his without being labelled an idiot by his loyal herd. It's his intelligence that is untouchable. Is having a guru spoon feed the answers like Moses with the stone tablets bad for Canada? Only if it deafens ears to other opinions.
Should David Suzuki have made the list? Perhaps. I don't think so, but with a list of 101 people, he has as good a shot at making the list as anyone.
But number two? I think that's a little high. While not all of Suzuki's actions are environmentally kosher, he is still, in my view acting out of his best intentions, and I think that makes all the difference. I don't see Suzuki as disengenous like the McGuinty brothers or Elizabeth May. If you swing by his site, he has all kinds of great ideas on how a person can reduce their carbon footprint, and the depth of those options is very impressive indeed.
That being said, I am looking forward to seeing who's number one.
I love Suzuki & Gore. They are two of the gods of environmental correctness. As long as my carbon output is less than these two heros I know I am not part of the problem.
Ha ha ha. Shouldn't be hard to do if you don't have a Greyhound Bus and a mansion. Har Har. Well done Anonymous 3:32.
That David Suzuki made #2 on a list of people screwing up Canada clearly shows the bias behind the list.
As others have said, I fail to see how he's screwing up Canada. As far as hypocrisy goes, I'm sure you can find far better examples than someone using a bus to take a climate change message on a speaking tour. Like anyone doing a speaking tour with events, etc. you need a staff and materials -- staff and materials that also need to be transported with the speaker. It's not like he was the only passenger on this big bus. A bus is a much better option than a plane or a fleet of cars. Also, in other areas of his life, Suzuki is known to be frugal and walks the talk. For instance, he hasn't vacationed overseas in years, because of the high negative environmental impact of air travel. He has made major lifestyle changes to reflect his environmental beliefs.
And so what if he uses carbon credits? It's his money. In his personal life he's minimized his carbon footprint as much as possible. For the leftovers, he buys credits. Big deal. He's hardly advocating "buying away guilt".
As a geneticist and established member of the scientific community, Suzuki recognizes clearly when general consensus is reached on major scientific issues. Anthropomorphic climate change is one of those issues, and he has been a leader in Canada at delivering this message and in educating Canadians on how to reduce our country's carbon footprint. The writer of this list clearly disagrees with Suzuki and the scientific community on this issue, but let's say Suzuki and the IPPC are wrong: how is Suzuki's environmental evangelism screwing up Canada? If we end up wasting less energy, isn't that a good thing?
Regarding the critiques of Suzuki as a political actor, how does that make him a screw-up? Did he say anything untruthful? I don't get the outrage here: he does have political motivations -- to see an environmentally friendly platform adopted and promoted. Stephen Harper and his government have failed twice so far in delivering a climate change action plan. We are breaking international law by decommitting from Kyoto. What do you call someone who breaks the law?
Again, David Suzuki's position on this list says more about the man who created this list than David Suzuki himself.
Prediction: #1 on this list will be Stephane Dion. Who knows what the rationale will be, but I'm guessing the "not a leader" phrase will show up. I'm expecting big things -- I can't wait to hear how an opposition leader who's only been in the role for nine months is the single biggest source of screwed-up-ness in Canada.
The thought of being allowed to pollute because you have the "carbon credits" to do so is akin to driving impaired and justifying it by making a donation to M.A.D.D.
Not so much. You can't undo the frequent consequences of drunk driving. A real carbon credit can negate carbon emitted into the atmosphere.
Yes, there needs to be regulation of carbon credits to ensure that money actually goes to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. And yes, it would be best if people reduced their carbon footprints. But this isn't a reason to crap on David Suzuki for the reasons I've outlined above.
If I may...
I think many here are reading WAY too much into this and giving it way too much credence.
By its own admission, this list is the sole creation of ONE person in the Fredericton area who freely admits to being right of centre.
As a result, who cares where someone comes in on the list or why he felt the need to put them there? His opinions are just that... opinions... and you have them too.
You can start your own list and put Suzuki or whoever else in the list of people saving Canada (or trying to).
Just because the guy can do some googling (albeit extensive), find examples, spin them to support his opinions and has the time to write it out hardly makes his opinion a lock on, well... anything.
My advice: sit back, have a drink, read this list with angry nodding or a brief chuckle.. and move on. You're not going to change this guy's opinions anymore than he's going to change yours.
There's simply some topics that you can discuss to death and then simply have to agree to disagree.
Let me get this straight, you are saying that Suzuki is on this list despite the fact that he spent years making science accessible (which you liked), because travelled the country in a diesel fuelled bus. Harsh critic.
Here's to hoping that Steven Harper is #1 for breaking promises for the sake of a majority and failing to stand up for Canada.
After this maybe you should do a list of 101 people who are making Canada great.
I don't have a farm, but if I did, I'd likely be willing to bet that #1 won't be Stephen Harper. :)
However, I've been wrong before... I'm feeling 'reasonably' comfortable I'm not this time.
My guess - think someone progressive :)
Well Spinks, I expected you were going to get a trimming for this one.
Let us put the bus behind us ok? It isn't Airbus. I can't believe you ranted on so about the bus. The guy does have to get around right? Further more, if you consider how many people he has and is making ecologically aware, the Bus is absolutely insignificant.
Your "If I were Prime Minister” campaign", So what? Does he steal Harpo's thunder or is it the rubbing the nose in Kyoto accord that gets your goat?
Carbon credits, really. If someone is going to campaign on or against anything, they are going to create more carbon than a back to the land advocate. Simple deduction my dear Watson!
One talk to one group of children and you hold this up as an example of how he is screwing up Canada? Are you suggesting children have no right to exposure to political consequence? Then what about allowing Microsoft representatives into Ontario Schools to lecture kids on X Box 360 just before its release? Talk about your captive audience.
Walking out on an interviewer? Sometimes old age and continued exposure to questions you have answered hundreds of times can make you a bit crusty. I didn't see the interview.
The beer commercial? And you call yourself a Maritimer. I thought only the Borg Collective in Ontario and the various Separatist movements had no sense of humor. You weren't born here right?
As another poster said, what would you call it when the agreement was broken?
Say and think what you may, but I have lived a while, longer than you I expect and I have seen the climate change drastically. Here is the thing. If one is going to err, better to err on the side of caution. What harm can it do? What potential harm does global warming present?
P.S. I notice the absence of a single member of the Federal Conservative Party of Canada's upper echelon in your 101. One chance left for redemption.
As a footnote, have you seen the latest on Danny Williams and the negotiations with Chevron and Co.? Looks like your bipartisan leanings got you in the soup on that one too. Giuliano Zaccardelli #97, Mulroney #45, Emmerson at #39 and Suzuki #2?
You only threw in the countries most hated tories as tokens.
You are so off base on this one, you have left the park.
Bacteria, viruses, billy goats, sponges, pterodacyyls, humans are made of the same fundamental ingredients. What is "life"? A force that opposes entropy by extracting nature's resources (space, time, energy). Competition for these resources results in the evolution of increasingly complex containers but the fundamental motivation, burried deep in the complexity, is unaltered.....
...Suzuki would have us oppose life's defining force within us and exercise moderation. Communism failed. Can we make it work for all species? Should we try? Who would police the fair distribution of space, energy, time to all of earths inhabitants? What evidence does Suzuki have that these good intentions would not cause a bigger problem? He's in denial. He gives us too much credit. There WILL be suffering, hunger, death....
...the planet is still here, it's still beautiful. Imagine a Suzuki amongst the Cyanobacteria millions of years ago warning about too succesful a species poluting themselves to death with their oxygen waste. To stop evolution in it's tracks and preserve the world for the presently evolved species is perhaps the most selfish proposal ever raised by mankind...
...yet, I can't help but love the dreamer with a brain that is smaller only than his heart. (a poetic but very sincere compliment). He has asked us all to think and to have a conscience. Name a public figure that hasn't said or done something that can be viewed as hypocritical. This guy comes closer to walking on water than most on your list, still, thanks for paying him the compliment of occupying number 2. (no puns)
I don't think Suzuki deserves to be #2, or that he's "ruining Canada". I just think he's something of a hypocritical knob. Yeah, he tours around like Al Gore and burns buckets of gas. The "criminal" remark is irritating too. I wonder if he knows that Japan, the birthplace of the Kyoto Accord, hasn't even hit their emission standards.
Suzuki is trying to stop the debate. He says, "the science is settled." He does not see any value in discussing it further. He just wants action and seems to want to hush up any dissenters. That is a huge negative toward our country.
We need more debate. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is not a toxin. Get rid of smog. Cut back on energy use. Stop dumping hazardous waste down the drain. That is all good. Railing on CO2 before the science is in is pointless. To suggest that CO2 is a pollutant is untruthful.
A highly visible public figure trying to kill the debate does indeed harm this country. That same public figure promoting a worthless scheme of carbon credits as though it has value is also detrimental to this country. It could even be considered fraudulent.
As a geneticist and established member of the scientific community, Suzuki should realize that a general consensus is of no use in science; it is only useful in politics. Science requires criticism. Politicians talk about consensus. Science is not a democracy. To suggest otherwise is untruthful.
The whole global warming proof is based on models. It is still an unproven theory. For a scientist to even suggest a consensus at this stage is absurd. While I may not have put him at number two, his efforts for trying to kill debate in such a public way should get him into the top 10.
I can prove Global Warming is a not a serious problme.
If it was a serious problem David Suzuki would limit himself to one house. He has at least two. If it was a problem he would surely sell one of his houses (especially after lecturing us about two fridges).
If it was a serious problem problem Al Gore would cut back his energy usage, but he know's its not an environmental problem so he doesn't.
Suzuki is not screwing up Canada, he is trying to save Canada. I don't like that your top 5 to 10 picks are progressive people. It makes me wonder what kind of values you have.
John at 4:15 p.m. - I could not have said it better myself! Suzuki's main ability to damage is in the way he tries to stifle debate, and claims that "the science is settled". Any evidence to the contrary is greeted with "that has been debunked", or "they are just deniers". There is no respect (from Suzuki) for people, many of them climate scientists, geologists, etc, actually people who may have more fundamental knowledge than Suzuki, to hold an opinion contrary to his own. I have heard that if the Kyoto accord were being considered today, instead of over a decade ago, it would never see the light of day, because the science, the understanding of climate, has advanced so much. Suzuki has his head in the sand, he is the dinosaur, not the skeptics (a more respectful term than "deniers") who have looked at the evidence and actually dare to disagree with him. Unfortunately, his influence is still so great that some people are inclined to defend him, listen to him, without actually putting much thought into what he is saying. True scientists are willing to actually look at all the evidence, whether it supports their agenda or not, when arriving at a conclusion. David Suzuki is not a true scientist - he is a zealot who will accept no disagreement.
I would love to know from John Murney, or anyone else for that matter, how stifling debate is progressive. Indeed, it goes against freedom of speech.
Should we try? Who would police the fair distribution of space, energy, time to all of earths inhabitants? What evidence does Suzuki have that these good intentions would not cause a bigger problem? He's in denial. He gives us too much credit. There WILL be suffering, hunger, death....
Posted by Anonymous | 11:40 AM
And to the rest of you doubting Thomas's
Can one man stop all human suffering and self destructive behavior? No. Should he try? Yes.
In the late 1950's and into the 1970's we used to shovel snow from November until April. We played shinny on the ponds until there was too much snow to clear, then retired to the Marshes where the wind was our friend and blew much of the snow to the uplands. In the 1980's and early 1990's some years plowing the driveway twice a day wasn't enough. Other years, it was hard to find enough snow to justify owning plow.
The past few years the 100 meter laneway to my home only needed plowing 2 or 3 times all winter. Ice patches for kids to skate on have become more and more elusive, and trying to maintain an outdoor rink is an exercise in futility.
Global warming? Nah! I might have to sell my SUV, the wife's Yukon and replace those dollar store light bulbs with those expensive energy efficient ones. We wouldn't want that would we?
Longtooth, the days of Norman Rockwell are behind us. Suzuki saw what was coming decades ago. His obvious frustration is a result of the futility of his efforts. Longtooth, do you have children? A car? fridge? painted your house? Is there any plastic in your house? Do you have a TV? Flown in a plane? Burning $100/week of gas in a SUV or $75/wk in a Saturn...burning energy efficient light bulbs...buys us some time. The real problem is population. Come down off your high horse. It's easy to scapegoat and wash your hands of any responsibility.
The legacy of Suzuki/Gore is a herd of hollier-than-thou robots that buy new "energy efficient" internal combustion engine vehicles, buy new "energy efficient" light bulbs, buy carbon credits (lots of money changing hands...) to exonerate themselves from any responsibility. This allows the herd to make some token steps and feel superior but it makes as much difference as a fart in a hurricane. Suzuki belongs on the Spinks list.
Come down off your high horse. It's easy to scapegoat and wash your hands of any responsibility.
Posted by Anonymous | 11:47 AM
Your post was spoken like a true urbanite. Self justification abounds. If you travel not so far out of your bubble, you may find Rockwell alive, maybe not well but struggling at least.
Your assessment of population as the end rationale needs further thought. In Rockwell's world, Canada had 20 to 25 million people. It now has 35 million. This has resulted in the extraordinary changes? I suggest not.
Well spotted, Longtooth. I wouldn't know a combine if I tripped over one. Whether I drive an SUV or not, I'm still guilty of surrounding myself with thousands of pounds of metal to return my library book. I'm alive and I will leave a footprint, can't help it.
Asia. India, China...they want to live like we do. If there were 6 million people rather than 6 billion we could all continue to live like kings.
Most people in the world don't live in Canada. Regardsless, you suggest the addition of 10 million Canadian SUV drivers has had no impact? Can't have it both ways. We're guilty, Longtooth. Even with our fancy lightbulbs.
Posted by Anonymous | 5:02 PM
Umm, you mistook my comment about the SUV and the Yukon.
I don't have either.
And yes, this is the essence of the problem. Commercialism and irresponsible disregard for the environment. This is what Suzuki tries to help us to be aware of and propose alternative methods.
umm, do you own an internal combustion engine?
You are to be congratulated for having neither a Yukon nor an SUV. Clearly you are not contributing to the "CO2 footprint". I stand corrected. It is the self justifying urbanites, the drivers of SUV's, the burners of Norman Rockwell era lightbulbs and Stephen Harper that are to blame. The followers of Gore/Suzuki, like ghosts, walk the earth without leaving footsteps.
The followers of Gore/Suzuki, like ghosts, walk the earth without leaving footsteps.
Posted by Anonymous | 8:35 PM
It's comments like that which display clearly the depth of understanding of anti Suzuki advocates.
Reminds me of a Labrador retriever I used to have. Nice dog except for the bad habit of finding a pile of crap then rolling in it.
umm, do you own an internal combustion engine?
Anon 8:35 PM
Do you?
Tell me, how is Suzuki to get to conferences, interviews, lectures etc.? Should he demand all those who seek him out or wish to interact travel to him?
As you summize, Spinks, it's a long twisted journey from getting an award for counting fruit flies to being an evangelistic climate doom demigod ensconced in a carbon emitting affluent lifestyle....but our fuzzy-headed national identity insecurity promotes ANYONE from Canada who has had a public bull horn as being an "icon".
Soozie capitalizes on affluent urban self loathing (guilt) and junk science much the way the old revival tent evangelists capitalized on ignorance and guilt....they are in the same racket ...profiteering on ignorant angst which they stir up with fire and brimstone hysteria.
I put Soozook in that category...sort of like a Canadian Elmer Gantry who is at the cusp of his fall from grace due to his own demented megalomania.
Like most here, I grew up watching Soozie on his CBC soapbox and as I matured I noticed his messages becoming more and more emotional and less and less reasoned...making vast leaps of logic to sell the sensationalistic supposition over the dull but factual reality....particularly in sciences he is not schooled in....he became a "showman" adept at giving his following an emotional thrill with his magic science which made grasping alarmist conclusions rather than reasoned probability.
In the last few years tough, I believe age dementia has taken over what small reasoning capacity he had gravitating him and he has succumbed to his own delusions of grandeur... actually fancies himself as a king maker and a green messiah.....a sad fall from rationality for a guy who was once so good at counting fruit flies.
Having Suzuki on the list, let alone in number 2 puts your list in the "trash mag" section of hobby reading. He's done more to educate Canadians in regards to scientific issues, and the pressing issues of our time, than anyone else I can think of. He used a relatively new medium (TV) to bring complicated and important issues to Canadians, and I think our nation is smarter and better off because of his work.
Gandhi walked all over India to spread his message and reached many people without the aid of a CO2 spewing bus. Neither did he spend some "violence-credits" to help him promote non-violence.
Saskboy, what research have you done to conclude that Suzuki has all the answers? I know you have watched a lot of TV...
David Suzuki didn't even drive his bus all the way across Canada, he had it driven for him and flew one section.
I saw his bus in Kamloops, BC and that night he was doing a presentation in Edmonton... So he released even more CO2 than he admitted to.. Oh, but thats ok, because I have GOLD STANDARD offsets. What does that mean? Not much...
I absolutely agree with you that Suzuki and Gore need to be better living examples. That doesn't change the fact one iota that both are spreading messages that are vital. Let's not forget that - the messenger is not the message. To say Suzuki is "screwing up Canada" is a ludicrous leap. Black or white thinking at its worst.
We live in a transition period. My partner and i, for example, are starting up a horse-powered farm. To buy it, we made money serving a hydrocarbon based system (we all do, unless we're Amish.) To find it, we burned hydrocarbons. To get there, we burn hydrocarbons. The fact is, there are no alternatives - yet. We are taking this step with the idea in mind that by taking actions like these, there one day will be alternatives. The lesson we've learned is that we better start now (that means you, too), while we still can - it may well take the accelerated buring of oil for a period. Perhaps Suzuki and Gore can be seen in this light.
Harper IS screwing up Canada. Suzuki is not.
The "fact" is that there always have been alternatives. Fossil fuel exploitation became widespread only a few hundred years ago. The utilization of beasts of burden is not a novel idea. The "lesson" must be a relatively unimportant one if those that deliver the message don't feel strongly enough about it to practice what they preach. Confusion. Mixed messages. Hypocrisy. Is the lesson to flee the cities, abandon cars and plow our fields with newly purchased horses? We better act now and do...well...whatever it is we all do we'd best act quickly. While we're at it we can, as you suggest, admire Suzuki and Gore in the bright lights provided by the accelerated combustion of oil.
I love irony.
How did you, Anonymous 9:59, come to the conclusion that the Suzuki/Gore message is vital? You've watched some TV and perhaps rented a video....Regardless, your response to the gospel is to accelerate the burning of oil by commuting to and from your hobby farm where you can grow some carrots grown in eco-friendly horse manure. Perhaps you've purchased some carbon credits and a crate of fancy light bulbs. Congratulations, Suzuki, for providing your followers with conscience cleansing hobbies that exacerbate the problem you are trying to fix.
Thanks be to God for Suzuki and others for raising awareness of this problem. Just because they are works in progress themselves doesn't make the message less valid.
And his message isn't just about climate change but desertification, overfishing, draining of aquifers and water shortages and collapse of the fisheries, destruction of rainforests, pollution, draining of wetlands and extinction of species - things no one denies are happening on a wide scale.
It's interesting that he's #2. Take him out of the picture and who is left to raise awareness? No one and the denial and apathy continue.
And finally, even if Global Warming is Teh World's Biggest Hoax (tm), the fact remains that pretty much everything they advocate will still have to be done eventually because oil is a finite resource and at some point it will become too expensive to bring to market.
Countries like Sweden, which have a national policy in place to go off oil by 2020 will be pointing and laughing someday.
Good one, but I have my own reasons, one of them happens to be your number #3 and the association of Suzuki with Strong.
Gore,Strong,Suzuki and basically all of the "enviro-mental"leaders
are nothing but Rockefeller shills,in my opinion.
They are trying to turn envio-mental-ism into a religion.Look at the UN crud that Strong is trying to promote as replacing the Ten Commandments.
These people a promoting 100% new age bullshit and making a lot of money on this shit.Strong wants to ruin our economy because he thinks that as the only solution to the problems with the environment.Oh yeah, most of the population has to die too.US, not THEM. The goal is 2-3 hundred million will be the earth population when it is over.
Please people look in to this and what I am saying, I have just done this myself and the information is on line.Please look at some of the propaganda that these people put together,most of it is real sick shit.
The truth is they keep good technologies secret from the public.All the efficient light-bulbs in the world will not help us.
The only thing that will help is peaceful civil disobedience and I know Canada is not ready for that yet.But when we are, the Danes did a great job against Hitler and they had no leader, this came from the people.All of us need to do this together and as Canadians we can do it.We owe no allegiance to the government or any one.
We owe allegiance to truth and what is right and what used to be the Canadian way.We owe it to our children.
Hang in there because we are in for some rough times.
I sound alarmist, but I am very concerned about what is going on.
CO2 is a fertilizer, not a pollutent.
'Nuff said.
Nice one for putting the enviro campaigner so high on the list. Such people are an anathema to anyone who wants to succeed in the world. We shouldn't be taking it as read that CO2 is going to fry the planet, there's still decades of research to be done before anyone categorically proves it.
While there is still room for doubt or the slightest reason to think that maybe we can carry on burning oil by the bucketload without killing the planet we should all be allowed to carry on.
It's not like the consequences of a mistake would be irreversible or anything is it?
And as for this kyoto protocol thingie, I mean, most of the countries that are trying to fulfil it have failed. They've only slightly reduced their emmisions and in the process they've made themselves hugely poorer.
Why on earth should we have to join in?
The people that haven't broken their word, the ones actually making an attempt at the kyoto targets haven't succeeded anyhow. Surely it's better to not get all hung up on something as petty the future of the planet when there's still no proof that we're destroying it.
It's just stupid to miss out on this opportunity to make *so much* money. Everyone else is trying to limit their impact and it's the perfect time to capitalise on not being restricted. The're limiting themselve, we can overtake them in every (financial) way! We can take advantage of their self-sacrifice and make an enourmous killing out of it.
All we need to do is carry on talking about the ifs and maybes, carry on researching it, and by the time there's any absolute certainty we'll be so stinking rich we won't care at all.
Dave J.
The climate will change with or without human assistance.
Are humans causing global warming?
Maybe, enough evidence to support this theory, and we should take it seriously as a theory.
would the climate change if humans never existed?
Yes, it is constantly changing. or to put it another way, the only constant is change.
I hate hearing, "Help fight climate change"... ok. I know it may be semantics, but I would be happier with "Stop human induced climate change."
I would rather Canada focused on real tangible environmental targets.
Reduction of pollutants, cleaning of the water ways, reduction of waste, development of alternative energies, etc... Kyoto?? Why would we give our money to another country when it could be spent on other things like grants for scrubbers in industrial smoke stacks? What happened to concerns about smog, acid rain, heavy metals in the food supplies the air and water ways? This affects me every day. I see this.. I do not see carbon in the air. Sell me on these items.
Note that the side effect of many of these actions will also be reduced carbon emissions.
I digress though,
I agree with this post that Suzuki is doing more harm then good.
I heard the radio interview where he walked out.
I happen to agree that human caused global warming is a theory, as all good science should be. it is the basis for the scientific method.
As soon as you say it is fact, you close your eyes to all new incoming information and it becomes dogmatic.
So my problem then with David Susuki is:
He thinks that
either.
Global warming is 100% fact, if Humans were to vanish, the earth will "fix" itself and remain at the temperatures it has been at for the last 100 years. There will be no further long term fluctuations... This would turn me off of him as a credible scientist.
or
He believes that global warming is the correct theory, but knows that it is not fact. Rather only that it is a solid theory. Like all theories there are weak points and questions that do not "fit" into the explanations. He believes that we the general people will get hung up on these questions. Or that interest groups (Oil :-)) will exploit these questions in order to dissuade and distract the public from the "big picture".
Suzuki does not feel that we are smart enough to come to the "correct" conclusions. Thus he takes it upon himself to force us in a very dictatorial manner to see his side of the argument.
All new information that is contradictory is hearsay.
Anyone who says contrary is in bed with oil companies.
The world will end if the temperature goes up. (He does not say this, but that is the message I seem to get.)
I agree, if the temperature suddenly goes up, that there would be a huge global impact on the Economies, health, population distribution, death from famine (although, some areas will do better it would not be bad everywhere.) But we would adapt, as we have done in the past. (I knowledge that I would probably not be one of the lucky ones)
Although, I liked the theory that humans can thank a lot of our success as a species on the climate changes of the last ice age. Theory along the lines of;
It allowed us to maximize our benefit of being able to manipulate our surroundings environment. Thus allowed us to quickly fill in the voids left by other dominant species that could not change and adapt as quickly.
Going back:
I hear many comments saying,
He is doing this for the greater good.
Someone has to do this.
The problem will not get solved unless we take these extreme measures. etc.
Fair enough arguments, if human induced global warming happens and if it causes the problems forecasted.
But if this is going to be how things are done, then let's call the whole "democracy and voice of the majority, the free thought idea" the sham that it is. Let's have him appointed chairman while declaring ourselves to be under Suzuki-ism. His word is law.
This may not be a bad thing though, especially if he is right. Maybe we, the average people, don't know what we are doing and will only vote ourselves bread and circuses.
So if we are going to treat his word as law, then let's get away with the facade of the voice of the people and call the whole myth of the enlightened free and rational thought, for better or worse, busted.
Baird should be at the top of the list.
The worst environmental sin people like David Suzuki commit is ignoring the reality of overpopulation. Siring FIVE children isn't being responsible. Coupled with our absurdly-high immigration levels (over a QUARTER MILLION), people like Dr. Suzuki are helping to fuel urban sprawl, loss of greenspace and farmland, AND CO2 emissions.
This is an issue where the Right is as guilty as the Left. Lefties don't like to talk about population control in the 3rd World (mustn't tell those South Asians and Latin Americans that they have too many kids--that'd be 'racist') and think that 'smart growth' is the solution. Right-wingers' minds have been warped by Bible-thumper propaganda into thinking that miracle advances in food-production technology will save us (as the Bush Administration cut Developing World family-planning programmes). The reality is that both the Left and Right are in the pockets of the real-estate/developers' lobby, which needs a steady supply of warm-bodies to survive.
Post a Comment