David Suzuki getting wiser?

[quinton]

In this article, Suzuki questions our plan for a perpetually growing economy in a finite planet, which ultimately means a societal goal of "producing more consumer goods":

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_Dav...kly02240601.asp

He links it to population in the end of the article also. He doesn't question global population growth and why Canada supports it via its mass immigration program, but at least he is starting to see the big picture.

It's important not to just get bogged down in any one of the thousands of symptomatic environmental disasters happening simultaneously around the globe.

It is important to see the root cause, which points to the problems of population growth and consumption growth.

Population growth and consumption growth are what fuels the universal societal goal: economic growth.

Perhaps we should change our priorities while there are still forests and biodiversity left.

[speaker]

Good article, right to the last line, "Solutions are in our Nature" Now there is a positivist.

Kind of like a game of Monopoly where the only way the richest player at the game can get richer is if you extend the board to include a new set each time you pass Go. It's easier to extend a board game than it is to extend a planet. If we want sustainable human well being it is possible.

[uOttawaMan]

David Suzuki is the man.

[August1991]

That is one of the silliest articles I have read in a long time. Suzuki makes the same prosaic point Malthus made 200 years ago:

Under our current economic system, you can never have enough and you can never have too much. In fact, our entire economy is predicated on continued, endless growth. Yet we live in a finite world, with finite resources and a limited amount of space to dump our wastes.

Suzuki goes on to make boiler-plate comments about the GDP and then he shows that he fundamentally misunderstands how society is a combination of individuals:

So, this thing that pretty much rules the world and dominates politics at all levels; this thing that citizens are expected to submit to virtually without question and "help prop up" or "buckle down for" or whatever we are being told to do at any given time; the ultimate purpose of this thing that so controls all of our lives is to ... create more stuff?

"This thing?" Huh?

----

When I saw this thread title, I thought Suzuki might have something original to say. Well, he doesn't. He states the same old nonsense.

Suzuki is a good example of why natural scientists and engineers should stay away from social questions. Suzuki may be good in analyzing the genetic structures of fruit flies, and explaining this to non-scientists, but he has little notion of how people are and what society is.

OTOH, I agree with Suzuki that we face extremely serious environmental problems and I have always liked this quote of his:

My fear is that we're not going to do anything radical or drastic until we hit the wall. I keep saying that I feel like we're in a car heading to a brick wall at 100 miles and hour and everybody in the car is arguing about wanting to drive and nobody is saying, “Turn the steering wheel and put on the brakes!”

I just disagree with his whole approach to the problem which is illustrated here:

Dr. Suzuki said he used to urge people to think globally, act locally. "That was a mistake," he says today. "When people think globally, they feel helpless."

NYT

Duh.

[newbie]

He's not getting wiser. He's always been this way. The "Right" seem to reject anyting he has to say.

[quinton]

newbie, then why does his "Sustainability within a Generation" plan on http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Sustainability/ not address the specific need to stop population growth, stop resource exportation, and stop economic growth in Canada?

He merely suggests ways how people can reduce their footprint. Doesn't he realize that consumption per capita will never go down so long as there is money to be made? Canada's people and government still measure their success and wellbeing via its GDP.

Think about how stupid that is. We base our goals on economic growth. That means the more logs of Douglas Fir or Sitka Spruce we send to the USA, the more successful we are in a given year.

To me, that just means that we are successfully destroying Canada's natural landscapes, watersheds and biodiversity. To the general public, they don't seem to care as long as Canadian forestry corporations get their softwood lumber refund from the duties they shouldn't have had to pay to the USA.

[Montgomery Burns]

David Suzuki is the typical anti-capitalist socialist leech. He is mooching off the taxpayer (he works for the CBC) and wants Canadians to drop their standard of living so he can continue to be a liberal elitist and look down his nose at the foolish masses who slave away paying taxes to this parasite...not to mention that he endorsed a NDP candidate--which is supposed to be a no-no when you are employed by the state-run TV station. But the media turns a blind eye. Wink wink...look the other way.

Using the data of the global warming fearmongers, Kyoto is estimated to have cost about $154 billion so far, while only hypothetically reducing the average global temperature by 0.0015 degrees Centigrade.

At this rate, it would take about 667 years and cost about $100 trillion to hypothetically avert just 1 degree Celcius of global warming.

What a joke.

Am I the only one who has noticed that the CBC never has anyone from "the right" debate him? There is a reason why....

[quinton]

Montgomery Burns sounds like you made up some numbers there relating to global warming.

I think habitat and biodiversity loss are bigger problems than global warming personally, but global warming, ozone depletion, and the large scale changes are hard to fully understand and could always turn out much worse than we expect.

Montgomery Burns, would you mind giving us a URL link to David Suzuki's endorsement of the NDP?

The NDP supports exponential population growth in Canada of 1% per year via immigration in order to support their status quo plans for economic growth.

If David Suzuki supports them, he may just consider them the lesser of 3 evils, or he may actually be unaware that the NDP is not really environmentally progressive.

The NDP also wants cheaper electricity for forestry corporations to operate more efficiently up north where their clearcutting is ransacking the boreal forest. Howard Hampton has spoke publicly that he wants to subsidize their electricity. I was disgusted when I heard that.

Furthermore, Jack Layton publicly states how he will get back the softwood lumber tarrifs that Canada shouldn't have had to pay under NAFTA, but he never speaks publicly on the rate of deforestation in the north. After all, his goal is economic growth.

Suzuki's website says he supports the idea of "smart growth" which is building cities up and not out. In otherwords, cramming people (new immigrants) into highrise apartments.

To me, "smart growth" is an oxymoron. Canada is already overpopulated and the only "smart" growth is none at all.

[geoffrey]

To me, "smart growth" is an oxymoron. Canada is already overpopulated and the only "smart" growth is none at all.

Tell that to your 'environmentally friendly' European friends.

Canada, overpopulated! Hah!

[Montgomery Burns]

Quinton:

Montgomery Burns sounds like you made up some numbers there relating to global warming.

I didn't make it up. I'm going by Steve Milloy's stats. He's not exactly a nobody--although the liberal media refuses to give him any airtime. Thank goodness for Fox News who does give him air time.

Steve Milloy's credentials: Biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.

Yes, we have to be careful about pollution and greenhouse gas. However, I am old enough to remember the late 70s and early 80s where the "ice age" hysteria was the latest rage. Let's just say I am suspicious of the global warming hysteria. I believe that trying to combat nature is a waste of money.

Montgomery Burns, would you mind giving us a URL link to David Suzuki's endorsement of the NDP?

Sure

[geoffrey]

The Nature of Things used to be interesting until it was turned into some political weapon. When will Suzuki realise he only speaks to the converted... none of us care about his apocolyptic non-sense. He changes his outlook on things every couple of years.

Things are going to get hot!

Things are going to get cold!

Things are getting wetter!

Things are getting drier!

It's like he looks at the weather forcast and decides what the future will be.

I'm one of those environmentalists that hasn't boughten this CO2 crap or David Suzuki's condescending attack on those that are any bit lesser than he in putting out only 1 bag of garbage a week.

[Hicksey]

The Nature of Things used to be interesting until it was turned into some political weapon. When will Suzuki realise he only speaks to the converted... none of us care about his apocolyptic non-sense. He changes his outlook on things every couple of years.

Things are going to get hot!

Things are going to get cold!

Things are getting wetter!

Things are getting drier!

It's like he looks at the weather forcast and decides what the future will be.

I'm one of those environmentalists that hasn't boughten this CO2 crap or David Suzuki's condescending attack on those that are any bit lesser than he in putting out only 1 bag of garbage a week.

Me too.

I recycle what is allowed and with 4 people in my household I put out 3 bags every week. If DS thinks that makes me a lesser person, he can kiss my ass.

What burns my butt is that all the same environmentalists that preach alternative energy sources are usually hypocritical NIMBY types when gov't goes looking for places to build the infrastructure for their precious renewable energy sources.

[quinton]

If we didn't keep growing our population with so many immigrants, there wouldn't be so much pressure to consume less.

Ultimately its a matter of scale. With so many new immigrants planned, we apparently have to sacrifice our lands and waters for more nuclear power plants. They are now targetting the north shore of lake Huron in a pristine area.

[margrace]

If we didn't keep growing our population with so many immigrants, there wouldn't be so much pressure to consume less.

Ultimately its a matter of scale. With so many new immigrants planned, we apparently have to sacrifice our lands and waters for more nuclear power plants. They are now targetting the north shore of lake Huron in a pristine area.

It's -30C here this morning, we have snow half way up our windows, we live in Mid Ontario. On the four lane highway you do not have to dim your lights for oncoming traffic in a lot of places, they can't see your car.

The reason given for the snow is lake effect snow caused by lakes that never froze this winter. Most of the lakes are unsafe in our area for cars or trucks and have only recently been a little safer for snowmobiles.

At an Ontario Federation of Farmers this past week the farmers were commenting on the fact that wind towers dry out the land around them, therefore creating a problem for farmers.

Our weather fluctuates from -30 to above freezing, in some cases, overnight. This used to happen occasionaly with weather system travelling east but now it seems to happen very suddenly.

Our summers have become a lot hotter over the last few years. Some days the air is nearly unbreathable with polution and this is an area where a cottage costs an average of $250,000 and where the taxes are unbelievable on these cottages, families who have owned them for three generations have to sell.

Just some trivia this morning.

[Hicksey]

If we didn't keep growing our population with so many immigrants, there wouldn't be so much pressure to consume less.

Ultimately its a matter of scale. With so many new immigrants planned, we apparently have to sacrifice our lands and waters for more nuclear power plants. They are now targetting the north shore of lake Huron in a pristine area.

The real problem is that we keep handing out welfare cheques/foreign aid cheques/new social programs (ie daycare) instead of funding infrastructure to keep up with population growth.

If we're not going to fund infrastructure, we need to control population growth.

Of course people need to conserve where they can, but a 5 or 6 person family in a home needn't be penalized on their hydro bill by way of higher rates for higher consumption because they consume more than a 3 or 4 person family.

[quinton]

Yes I believe that even wind turbines cause undesirable affects on climate and birds and many other things we don't understand.

Hicksey, why would we want to fund the growth of infrastructure?

Is that just so we can have more population growth?

What for? Isn't there enough lanes on the 401 already?

What about preserving our natural heritage? The Lake Ontario Salmon was a unique species that is already extinct. How much further shall we impoverish our local environment in the name of "growth"?

I really hate that word "growth". The amount of sun and rain is not growing. The amount of cod and turbot on the Atlantic Coast is not growing. If we create huge monocultures of genetically modified crops to grow more livestock, we will definitely put ourselves at risk to bad health, loss of biodiversity, and pollution.

It's time we questioned Dalton McGuinty's and every other politicians plans to grow the population.

I don't remember being asked if I wanted more immigrants. I like this Country the way it is. In fact I would have liked it more 50 years ago and more still 100 years ago.

[Black Dog]

August:

Suzuki is a good example of why natural scientists and engineers should stay away from social questions. Suzuki may be good in analyzing the genetic structures of fruit flies, and explaining this to non-scientists, but he has little notion of how people are and what society is.

Does the reverse apply? Should people with no scientific backgrounds whatsoever get input into a field where they have no expertise? Exhibit A:

I'm going by Steve Milloy's stats. He's not exactly a nobody--although the liberal media refuses to give him any airtime. Thank goodness for Fox News who does give him air time.

Steve Milloy's credentials: Biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.

Conspiciuous in its abscence in this list of qualifications is an actual science degree. So: Steve Milloy is not a scientist. Milloy is a bought-and-paid for shill, having spent his career suckling at the teat of Exxon-Mobile and Philip Morris.

[speaker]

It wasn't all that long ago that there was a study done that showed that if everyone could get by with 1 sqare foot of living space we could all "Stand on Zanzibar." Now there are studies around that say that we need multiple Earths to provide all of us with the ability to have the consumer habits of North Americans. And yet we have people who consider it to be traiterous, not to mention the height of un reason to suggest that we should scale back on our wants and needs on this continent.

As if building an even more unsustainable society is somehow going to take us over the top. This is the kind of example that pro-growth activists would have us provide to the developing world, because their spending will get us through this tight spot?

I believe that it is necessary for us to ease the population pressure in the world by allowing significantly higher immigration to Canada. At some point I hope that the pressures in the urban areas reach a point that people there can see their way clear to breaking free of the reservation system and moving out into the great country that we live in. It is time that we encouraged city dwellers to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. They're never going to be properly integrated into the nation until we do.

[Spike22]

I loved David as Arnold in Happy Days and the Karate Kid.

As for him getting wiser - you will never know Grasshopper!

[quinton]

Speaker, so your solution is to import everyone into one of the last places with wilderness left to protect, which will ultimately destroy it?

Canada has 25% of world's remaining wilderness forests.

[speaker]

Well, I wouldn't want to invite every one of the people on the planet, that would likely be counter productive. I wouldn't really like to see us allow any more immigration at all if it comes right down to it, but I think that since we are so fortunate here it is our resonsibility to relieve some of the pressure. People can live in forests with out ruining them, we can make a sustainable society here. If not here there ain't noplace else that's for sure.

I think that would be an example that would be very good to pass on so that the next generation worldwide would have the opportunity to pick up on it. The alternative might be having people come with considerably less good will and looking to get a piece of our good fortune as advertised.

[August1991]

Does the reverse apply? Should people with no scientific backgrounds whatsoever get input into a field where they have no expertise?

I have never heard of Steve Milloy but it seems to me that everyone has the right (if not duty) to question authority but that doesn't mean the rest of us should listen.

BD, I agree with your point though. If someone with a degree in nuclear physics speaks about nuclear physics, I'm inclined to listen more carefully.

----

Both Russia and Canada have a similar geography. Russia has about 1.7 times the land area of Canada and yet has about 5 times the population.

Holland has one of the highest standards of living in the world and also one of the highest population densities. (Roughly equivalent to Canada's entire population living in the part of Alberta, south of Calgary.)

At present, the world's population is about 6 billion and I have read of estimates suggesting it could support up to 100 billion people. Most projections predict that the world's population will rise to 15 billion and then level off.

----

Seen from afar, or seen from the perspective of extra-terrestrials, we are a species that has invented in the past few thousand years a very complex system of signals to achieve a relatively high degree of co-operation. In effect, we have turned a competitive equilibrium into a co-operative equilibrium.

The system is all the more remarkable because it is not genetically embedded but must be learned at each generation. Unfortunately, the system has gaping holes which haved only been understood in the past hundred years or so. No one at present has a clear idea about practical solutions.

[Riverwind]

Both Russia and Canada have a similar geography. Russia has about 1.7 times the land area of Canada and yet has about 5 times the population.

80% of the population in Russia lives in the relatively small, fertile area west of the Urals. Like Canada most of Russia is empty and cannot support large populations.

Holland has one of the highest standards of living in the world and also one of the highest population densities. (Roughly equivalent to Canada's entire population living in the part of Alberta, south of Calgary.)

Holland exists within the context larger European continent. You cannot extrapolate the population densities you see in Holland over larger land areas.

At present, the world's population is about 6 billion and I have read of estimates suggesting it could support up to 100 billion people. Most projections predict that the world's population will rise to 15 billion and then level off.

Population projections depend a lot on assumptions about consumption patterns. The world could support more people if everyone consumed only the minimum amount necessary to ensure survival. However, the planet could not support the current 6 billion population if that entire population consumed enegry/resources at the rate that we do in Canada or the US.

The biggest issue is energy. Our society depends on the cheap portable energy provided by oil. Higher oil prices will moderate consumption and direct economic activity into less energy intensive uses, however, it is likely that there will be many losers as these adjustments happen (i.e. many people will experience declining standards of living over the next few generations).

The current projections for peak population are 9.1 billion. I think we will be able to support that population but it will require some pretty dramatic changes to our economic system.

[Hicksey]

Yes I believe that even wind turbines cause undesirable affects on climate and birds and many other things we don't understand.

Hicksey, why would we want to fund the growth of infrastructure?

Is that just so we can have more population growth?

What for? Isn't there enough lanes on the 401 already?

What about preserving our natural heritage? The Lake Ontario Salmon was a unique species that is already extinct. How much further shall we impoverish our local environment in the name of "growth"?

I really hate that word "growth". The amount of sun and rain is not growing. The amount of cod and turbot on the Atlantic Coast is not growing. If we create huge monocultures of genetically modified crops to grow more livestock, we will definitely put ourselves at risk to bad health, loss of biodiversity, and pollution.

It's time we questioned Dalton McGuinty's and every other politicians plans to grow the population.

I don't remember being asked if I wanted more immigrants. I like this Country the way it is. In fact I would have liked it more 50 years ago and more still 100 years ago.

Maybe you misunderstood. I said either get busy building to support the growth or stop the growth. Either or.

Personally I think we need to stop the growth and start building to support the population we have.

How many litres of gasoline and diesel do you think are wasted, and extra unnecessary polution contributed because the city of Toronto hasn't built roads to support the population explosion in the area? Every truck that sits idling in traffic waiting to move uses 3 litres of diesel fuel per hour. In my average trip across the city each day in my truck I spend no less than 40 min idling along (most days in excess of an hour) the 401. If we build better roads, it lends to better and more reliable public transportation, which in turn might make it a more appealing alternative.

[August1991]

Personally I think we need to stop the growth and start building to support the population we have.

How many litres of gasoline and diesel do you think are wasted, and extra unnecessary polution contributed because the city of Toronto hasn't built roads to support the population explosion in the area? Every truck that sits idling in traffic waiting to move uses 3 litres of diesel fuel per hour. In my average trip across the city each day in my truck I spend no less than 40 min idling along (most days in excess of an hour) the 401. If we build better roads, it lends to better and more reliable public transportation, which in turn might make it a more appealing alternative.

The problem is indirectly related to infrastructure, and much more directly related to the fact that you (and everyone else) can drive on the road for "free".

This leads to so many other problems: wasted fuel, wasted time, excessive air pollution, wear-and-tear on the roads, accidents, incorrectly built roads, badly designed and zoned cities.

If I had to make an urgent to-do-list for the environment, one item would be charging drivers for the use of road space according to the specific time they use it - free at 3 am, expensive at 5 pm.