David Suzuki: Anti-environmentalists are stuck in the past
Environmentalists won’t be happy until we’re living in caves and scrounging for roots and berries. At least, that’s what I hear over and over again. The people who say this would have you believe that those of us who care about the Earth and its future are neo-primitives who don’t believe in modern ways.
Of course, many people before us developed complex societies over hundreds or thousands of years of cultural evolution, and many developed a far more sophisticated understanding of how their food, energy, and other needs affected the ecosystem they relied on than is typically displayed in our own technological society.
And so, we may have some lessons to learn from our ancestors about our place on this Earth. Many people seem to have forgotten, for example, that we are a part of nature, and not beings that stand outside or above it. Valuing these aspects of traditional societies isn’t about an atavistic wish to return to “primitive” life; it’s about recognizing facets of a more rational way of living.
Most environmentalists I know are looking to the future—a future in which modern and clean technology will help get us out of the environmental and economic jams we’re in. We believe that innovations in areas such as solar, wind, and tidal power—along with advanced ways of thinking about our relationship with nature—will lead us to a more just and sane path than the one we’re on.
Our earliest advances were based on burning wood or dung for fuel. Now we’re still using our Paleolithic trick, burning decayed organic materials in the form of fossil fuels. Isn’t it time we moved on? We are far too numerous—and the impacts of our actions far too great—to keep on acting like cavemen. It seems to me that those who criticize us, the anti-environmentalists, are the ones who want to turn their back on their future so that they can just go on burning stuff.
Our human history is one of change, of coming up with new ideas and new technologies to meet the challenges of allocating resources to growing populations. As environmentalists, we embrace change for the better. But our critics want us to remain stuck in a time that has no future. They reject progress, arguing that we should keep on our destructive way, with outmoded technologies and energy sources.
They reject the research of close to 98 percent of the world’s climate scientists, as well as numerous scientific institutions, that shows humans are contributing to rapidly increasing global average temperatures that threaten our future on this finite planet. Many of those who reject this overwhelming scientific evidence do so out of self-interest. The lucrative fossil fuel industries and their associated lobby groups have invested a lot of time and money into campaigns to stall progress by raising doubt and fear.
These tactics have had an effect. Many people do fear change, and it’s often easier to hold onto what you have—even if you know it isn’t working—than to embrace new ideas. But beyond the scientific predictions, it’s getting more difficult every day to deny the very real and immediate impacts of climate change. Environmental damage from climate change is already killing 300,000 people a year, with an economic impact of $125 billion a year.
A better world for us, our children, and our grandchildren is possible. Just as we’re seeing evidence of the damage caused by climate change today, we’re also seeing innovative ideas being applied to the problems. Many scientists, economists, environmentalists, business people, and citizens are proposing and implementing solutions. Their work is not only offering hope in the face of the catastrophic effects of climate change, it’s also offering hope for faltering economies by ushering in new technologies to replace the jobs and technologies that are becoming obsolete as supplies of polluting fossil fuels become scarce. But the longer we put off fully embracing these solutions the more difficult we will make life for ourselves.
We can continue to burn things until there is nothing left to burn, and we can continue to allow fossil fuel interests to continue to spew pollution into the air without cost, but where will that leave us? Maybe scrounging for roots and berries and huddling in caves for shelter?
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.




It's all about "scientists" binging on taxpayers $$$ at the global warming money trough. Scare stories produce "funding."
And stop ignoring all the record cold temperatures and the growing glaciers: http://www.iceagenow.com/
And the science is not settled. Read the Oregon Petition.
If the science is really settled why do the global warming scaremongers all have their greedy palms out wanting more research dollars? Why research what is "settled"?
We are already being royally ripped off by Campbell's "carbon taxes". What more do you want dude? How about leaving me some change on payday to feed my family.
Proofs of warming as the result of increased CO2 concentration abound. Outbound radiation is decreasing at CO2 absorption wavelengths and downward infrared radiation is increasing at those same wavelengths. That stratosphere, mesosphere and lower thermosphere are cooling. Human CO2 emissions amount to 30gt a year while the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration amount to 15gt a year or so. Warming based off CO2 is a fact. It is what will occur due to that warming that is in question. Anyone who denies this should open a quantum physics book and start reading.
If you want to know the real science you should visit http://www.realclimate.com or http://www.skepticalscience.com as opposed to the link listed above.
Bicycles, global taxes and clandestine depopulation agendas give Gaia multiple orgasms! Anyone who disagrees is working for oil companies!
Ignorance is strength! No one is illegal! Freedom is slavery! Social change!
Finally this notion of windmills and tidal power is great but we have an enormous capacity as a species to take things too far. There must be a point (tipping point?) at which we have built so many windmills that we are taking too much energy out of the atmosphere and that effects climate. The same may be true of projects that seek to put solar panels in the desert. That energy is going into the ground and what effect does that have. If you think that is impossible then remember that in the 1920s no one on the coast here believed that man would ever be able to cut down all the trees no matter how hard we tried. The invention of the chainsaw changed all of that.
The real problem with the enviromental movement is the unwillingness to take on the hardest issue, that of burgeoning human population, anything else is just fiddling while Rome burns, it might feel good but it won't do any good.
The 'non lefties' hold back because they are afraid----and their fears are more easily quashed by denials---others rationalize the movement as ideological left wing---or sense its part of some world order conspiracy---fear does funny things to people.
Religious types are concerned that supporting global warming (as man made) will negate their longstanding theories that these are consequences of prophesy.
Ultimately, the important arguments of science---get set aside by good people----until they begin to think about the earth in a good (God/non denominational religious) sense------and their obligation and responsibility to others--particulary their children----grandchildren---in part because their children believe there are problems--and tell their parents so. (Humanism)
Also -- older citizens who may be able to relax more (financially) are fast becoming supporters----as they think of legacy.
I believe the people -- for whatever reason - who haven't 'made a decision' on this subject are moving in larger numbers in support of the global warming advocates---and do so less because of the arguments by the experts--and more on community exchange including family discussions.
When the distractions of economic recession---lessen----I expect the number of citizens who are in support of a more grand plan to deal with global warming will have increased ahead of what they were prior to the 'recession'------the issue is: Will some governments and big business continue to try to stall the inevitable for their own financial benefit?
The race to trash and pillage the Earth is on!
Oh and many of the ENGO directrors have more than one home-they definitley do not want to live in Caves!
Deniers are financially supported by companies who comprise the, by far and away, most lucrative on the planet, and yet their science does not hold up to scrutiny.
"Of course, many people before us developed complex societies over hundreds or thousands of years of cultural evolution, and many developed a far more sophisticated understanding of how their food, energy, and other needs affected the ecosystem they relied on than is typically displayed in our own technological society."
When you make a statement like that, you should have specific examples to back it up, otherwise, it really doesn't mean a whole lot. I'll give you an example.
Studies into many ancient civilizations have shown that there is no need to worry about the long term effects of modern civilization on the environment, the world is going to end on Dec 21, 2012.
Here, I've made a statement which many people believe and many people do not. What does it mean? Without anything to back it up, absolutely nothing. It's just an statement, which you can choose to agree or disagree with. Don't worry, I won't demean your intelligence if you disagree. I'll leave that to people like Mr. David Suzuki and co.
a) Too many soap box preachers. I've encountered Catholic priests who are less preachy...stop smiting the unconverted.
b) Make the alternatives to fossil fuels cheaper.
c) Those of us that live in places like Prince George or Kelowna, have no alternative transportation to a car. YOU walk 15 kms to work in -25 °C, and learn to appreciate automatic car starters.
d) Through international trade we have diversified our diets and become more healthier...though I do try to take the steps to buy fair trade products which are often organic.
e) Without synthetic growth hormone I would have been a midget and had a VERY poor standard of life, or might not even lived this long. So what if my t-bone was also injected with it? (And for the record it's NOT actually growth hormone they use, but estrogen and testosterone-the USA uses growth hormone which cannot be absorbed through the digestive tract or my growing up would have been a whole lot easier)
Next these control freaks will want more taxes to stop continental drift. That's my fault also I guess.
And the fires in Russia: My personal fault because I don't drive a 4two.
The Monsoon Floods in Pakistan? My fault because I hate tofu and soy milk.
The Gulf Oil disaster: Yep - blame me for that one also because I have to drive 40 km to work.
Next they will want a camera in my bathroom so they can count how many squares of toilet paper I use to wipe my bottom.
And what happened to Al Gore? It seems he went into hiding at one of his mansions ever since the cops re-opened that "improper touching" and groping investigation.
Thanks for a sensible post, a real contribution to the discussion.
Don't worry about the apparent negative vote. That's just Ian H doing his job.
Rod Smelser
Not David Suzuki, Faisal Moola, Ian Hanington, nor any member of the David Suzki Foundation, has any say in what comments are approved or not approved for publication at Straight.com.
That aside, contrary to your comment, you can even find a discussion on the Foundation's funding and ties to different businesses and organizations here, and in other comment threads at Straight.com.
Travis Lupick
The Georgia Straight
Two ways to make alternatives to fossil fuels cheaper:
1) Put a stiff and rising price on carbon so that it creates an incentive to scale up alternatives and reduce our fossil fuel consumption. We need to get on this because as Vaclav Smil frustratingly but sagely explains our energy transition will take time:
“The inertia of existing massive and expensive energy infrastructures and prime movers and the time and capital investment needed for putting in place new convertors and new networks make it inevitable that the primary energy supply of most modern nations will contain a significant component of fossil fuels for decades to come."
"Affluent countries should thus replace their traditional pursuit of higher energy output and increased conversion efficiency with a new approach that would combine aggressively improved efficiency of energy conversion with decreasing rates of per capita energy use. This combination would be the best enabler of the unfolding energy transition. Until we get such history-changing conversions as reliable, inexpensive PV cells generating electricity with 50% efficiency or genetically engineered bacteria exuding billions of liters of kerosene, it is the best way to ensure that new renewables will come as close to displacing fossil fuels as is economically advantageous and environmentally acceptable.”
(http://www.vaclavsmil.com/energy-transitions-history-requirements-prospe...)
2) Get rid of the $550 billion in annual subsidies to fossil fuel production and invest heavily in R&D in renewables. A new Bloomberg New Energy Finance report shows that governments worldwide currently subsidize fossil fuels at more than 12 times, yes, you read that right, 12 TIMES the rate of renewables:
"Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008."
(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-ti...)
If this isn't just about scaring people to make money, and if the carbon taxers wanted some respect, then they could set up a transparent "open books" Non-Profit Organization.
It's just that simple.
Readings of over 400 degrees fahrenheit from the Great Lakes were used in their calculations. Scientists pointed this out, only then did NOAA take data after 2005 (when the satellite went awry) off their calculations. Specifically, satellites NOAA-16, 17, 18 fed temperatures of 415-604 degrees F into climate models. See http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26758
The Earth's climate is entering a cooling phase, man's CO2 has NOTHING to do with warming OR cooling. Suzuki MUST know this.
Pages