David Suzuki getting wiser?

[speaker]

That's cute, irresponsible practices in the past have been mostly remedied? well maybe some have but I can't think of any off hand. And what about the irresponsible practices of the present? We continue to overuse resources to the point that we are polluting the air, land, and water. The greatest white collar crimes may be crimes against the environment, and economics appears to be the defense.

Population is a factor in our misuse of our kids inheritance, but more significant is what the population is consuming on an individual by individual basis.

[geoffrey]

That's cute, irresponsible practices in the past have been mostly remedied? well maybe some have but I can't think of any off hand. And what about the irresponsible practices of the present? We continue to overuse resources to the point that we are polluting the air, land, and water. The greatest white collar crimes may be crimes against the environment, and economics appears to be the defense.

Population is a factor in our misuse of our kids inheritance, but more significant is what the population is consuming on an individual by individual basis.

How do you know we are overusing resources? Do you have some magical power that can sense how much total resources we have? Or how much more the Earth can handle?

I haven't seen any hard science on this, because there isn't any.

[quinton]

Geoffrey says:

Either way, you haven't explained how your going to stop population growth?

For Canada the only way would be for a good number of us to unite and say that we are having too many immigrants arriving in Canada and we don't care about economic growth anymore, and therefore, we'd force the politicians to deliver negative net migration (immigrants < emigrants) or lose their jobs.

For this to happen, there'd need to be a lot more people with views like my own and a lot less people like Geoffrey who seem to think that we'd all be better off with more people in Canada.

Economic growth is an illusion of "progress" for dozens of reasons that I could explain in great detail over hundreds of pages with thousands of examples.

My opinion is that per capita, life will be poorer for each Canadian the more people we have.

For the southern part of Ontario alone (a true biodiversity hot spot because of the mild winters and long growing season)... just look at all the species we will lose if we don't stop population, consumption and economic growth:

Look at how many species are of Special Concern:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=7

Look at how many species are Threatened:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=4

Look at how many species are Endangered:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=3

Look at how many species are Extirpated:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=2

Look at how many species are Extinct:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=1

And that's only for the southern deciduous forest region.

This doesn't look much like a deciduous forest to me anymore:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=cha...06,0.862427&t=h

And the growth in the southern region affects the northern regions too.

New natural gas pipelines, mineral and timber exploitations, etc.

For you to say we can have growth and prevent further environmental erosion is nonsense.

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey says:

Either way, you haven't explained how your going to stop population growth?

For Canada the only way would be for a good number of us to unite and say that we are having too many immigrants arriving in Canada and we don't care about economic growth anymore, and therefore, we'd force the politicians to deliver negative net migration (immigrants < emigrants) or lose their jobs.

For this to happen, there'd need to be a lot more people with views like my own and a lot less people like Geoffrey who seem to think that we'd all be better off with more people in Canada.

Economic growth is an illusion of "progress" for dozens of reasons that I could explain in great detail over hundreds of pages with thousands of examples.

My opinion is that per capita, life will be poorer for each Canadian the more people we have.

For the southern part of Ontario alone (a true biodiversity hot spot because of the mild winters and long growing season)... just look at all the species we will lose if we don't stop population, consumption and economic growth:

Look at how many species are of Special Concern:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=7

Look at how many species are Threatened:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=4

Look at how many species are Endangered:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=3

Look at how many species are Extirpated:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=2

Look at how many species are Extinct:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_...gion=5&status=1

And that's only for the southern deciduous forest region.

This doesn't look much like a deciduous forest to me anymore:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=cha...06,0.862427&t=h

And the growth in the southern region affects the northern regions too.

New natural gas pipelines, mineral and timber exploitations, etc.

For you to say we can have growth and prevent further environmental erosion is nonsense.

I know for a fact, outside of the oilsands project which I agree is trouble, most oil and gas devlopment leaves a very small footprint on the environment. They do this to make locals happy, and not to piss off the environmentalists. Flaring at natural gas wellsites remains a negative, and I think we needs laws along the lines of Texas in this area (they have a ban on unneccessary flaring, but still allow it in emergency situations without fines). But other than that, oil companies now hire environmental protection people to ensure that steps are taking above their legal requirements to make things good. I know this because I work with these people.

[quinton]

geoffrey, suffice it to say that when it comes to environmental integrity your definition of good enough is a lot different than mine.

[Hollus]

I have worked in oil and gas also. The policies towards direct effects on the environment may be relatively effective; but the indirect effects from the roads, right of ways, leases and over-all development of an area are substantial. Development in pristine areas like Alaskan Wildlife Refuge mark the begining of decline of the areas biodiversity, which has a chain reaction effect on related ecosystems. I dont know if youve ever flown over large oil fields, or seen satilite pics of them, but the expanse of the operations are nothing to scoff at.

[geoffrey]

I have worked in oil and gas also. The policies towards direct effects on the environment may be relatively effective; but the indirect effects from the roads, right of ways, leases and over-all development of an area are substantial. Development in pristine areas like Alaskan Wildlife Refuge mark the begining of decline of the areas biodiversity, which has a chain reaction effect on related ecosystems. I dont know if youve ever flown over large oil fields, or seen satilite pics of them, but the expanse of the operations are nothing to scoff at.

I don't disagree with that. The Wildlife refuge drilling is wrong, I don't support everything they do! I love my parkland, I enjoy it constantly, I don't want oil rigs in it!

I know many of you environmental crazies won't read anything from an gas company, but here is Encana's environment policy, which includes the Eco-Trust fund for 25-years(coming out of the Ludwig confrontation) and compliance in a leadership role with the VCR system.

Here is EnCana's most recent filing with the VCR (its a PDF). As you can tell, real progress is being made.

[speaker]

How do I know that we are overusing resources? Not really magical. We are reaching a peak of oil production, and worse our usage rates are still going up which means that the peak is going to have a very steep downhill side. Our soils are being eroded through overuse and contamination. Forests are being stripped at rates that are intensifying global warming rather than having forests that will ameliorate it. Fishstocks are disappearing at a really alarming rate. There are all the species problems Quinton has been pointing out to us, being used up with their habitats. The air, atmosphere, our planets thin skim of gases that protect us, is not able to handle the pollution from our excessive burning of oil and gas and coal and wood and dung.

There are definitely some clues out there if you look for them.

[quinton]

speaker, I think geoffrey is a lost cause who will forever remain oblivious to those clues.

He believes that a supernatural power will look after us anyway so he thinks there is no point in conserving or stopping growth.

He reads the propaganda statements of oil companies like "We take the environment very seriously". I've heard that before from the Irving family who has clearcut a huge percentage of NS and NB.

Do you know how much these oil giants and forest multinationals spend on PR? They even hire private consulting companies to pump out rhetoric and websites disguised to showcase their bogus award winning environmental stewardship.

Much the way Dalton McGuinty puts on TV commercials in Ontario trying to tell us all of the sudden that Nuclear power is clean. It says something stupid like "Some people are unclear about nuclear. Well let me tell you its clear that nuclear is clean" which is a complete lie.

They should tell that to the people of Port Hope who have polluted soil and what about the radioactive waste that has to be stored for at least 250,000 years. Oh wait, the cost of storing it counts as our GDP so I guess we are making "progress".

Bottom line is that unless Ontarians and Canadians say no to more immigrants (migration of people from high to low density places supports a global population explosion), and unless they say no to more natural resource exportation (which we don't presently need to survive since we still have enough resources domestically), then the environment here at home will never be protected.

Designating protected areas is just a smoke screen. That "protection" policy (i.e. national parks, provincial parks, etc) can always be thrown out or eroded with new legislation to meet the needs of a growing population with a growing consumption.

I think the wise first step is to speak openly against more population growth in Ontario and Canada. Most of that growth is coming from immigration so that's an easy first place to start to curtail environmental damage.

[Hicksey]

I'm all for doing everything we can to help the environment.

But there has to be a balance.

It can't be all environment all all else be damned.

[quinton]

Since I was born in 1980, Canada has grown by about 10 million, which is the same amount as the entire population of Canada in 1931.

This is such a short period in history of life on earth, and yet we've already threatened, endangered, extirpated and even extincted some of the oldest creatures to walk the land, swim the waters and fly the sky right here in Canada.

WORLD facts: http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm

CANADA facts: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo62a.htm?sdi=population

Even if you don't care about the downfalls of an impoverished earth low in biodiversity...

Ask yourself, how has life in Canada improved since 1980?

Do you have more leisure time as an employee in 2006 than 1980?

Are there more acres of virgin old growth forest?

Are you able to afford more lobster dinners?

Is your boss telling you to work later nights and weekends?

Is the average Canadian better off or just you?

Is it ethical to grow human numbers in Canada to a density like Bangladesh at the expense of our natural environment?

Even if we are wealthy enough to import the food we need to survive, is it ethical to import our food from across the world when we reach the point where we can no longer feed ourselves?

Where will our food come from if we get to be grossly overpopulated to the point where we cannot feed ourselves (eg: Netherlands)?

Is it as easy to get a license to hunt a moose?

Is it as easy to catch fish and do you have to drive further to catch them where they won't be full of PCBs and mercury?

How far do you have to drive to find solitude in a place where you can camp and fish where the wolves still howl and where the lakes aren't polluted by septic beds of cottages occupied for 10% of the year?

Can you get to that place without seeing massive clearcuts, recreational ATVers, hunters, industrial mining cut lines, oil and gas developments or new highways with expanding lanes?

How far to drive to see dark sky without light pollution filled with stars and free of airline jet trails?

[geoffrey]

These are mostly personal choices. How much lesiure time you have is completely up to you. I go to school and work both full-time and I get out to the mountains twice a week to either climb them, or ski them. Less lesiure time my ass, people are just lazy!

Virgin old growth forest is only caused by our activity, you should know this being such a hardcore tree-hugger. Forest fires used to ravage forests every 20-25 years. Instead, we have overgrowth that create infernos when they start on fire now, like in Kelowna a few years back.

My family personally can afford alot more due to economic growth. We weren't very well off in the 80's, but since, we've done considerably better.

I work nights and weekends because I want to.

Most people are better off, they have more money than before. More than inflation. So materialistically, they are better off considerably.

Ethical to grow our population? I don't see why not?

No one can feed themselves. We can't grow peaches, or banana's (actually BC might be able to cook up some peachs, but thats beside the point)... Thats the idea of TRADE. Some countries can grow some things better, so we trade and both of us are better off.

It's harder to get tags for moose because of stricter controls on hunting. We were mismanaging populations of animals before, now we've fixed that problem. Move on.

Mercury and PCB's were in the water before, probably since the 40's. We just haven't known before.

I have to drive 35 minutes from my house to a remote area with wolves howling and lakes aren't polluted, no cottages exist, and I'm in a major centre. You might just have to walk in a bit, away from your car on your highway! But walking defeats most Canadians before they leave the couch. You can't expect to have beautiful wilderness in an area you can drive to easily.

In the most oil and gas developed province in Canada, I can get to previously mentioned place with only seeing one sour gas well, which can only be seen with binoculars, and its really close to Calgary, not the wilderness area!

About an hour and 10 minutes if I want no light pollution, just have to cross the front ranges and get away from Canmore. Or if I go the longview way, an hour and half... or if I head east out past Strathmore, 45 minutes.

Your arugments have no substance. It sounds nice, but really I get the impression you just haven't tried to find such areas, or too lazy to go somewhere your car can't take you.

[Hollus]

Does our lack of understanding regarding the effects human activity have on the planet justify continued growth and increased resource exploitation?

In a related thread Thomas Malthus was used as an example why dissident views on population are miss-concerted. I would expect views such as Malthus’ to draw criticism in the early 19th century, when our resource exploitation was limited to what our relatively simple technology would allow. But here in the 21rst century, what used to take a workforce months to accomplish, can now be achieved by one person and one machine in a matter of days. Industry technology has been developed for the sole purpose of increasing production and efficiency(1). Coupled with an ever-growing population, our ability to transform landscapes and habitat continues to grow at an unprecedented rate.

I think its quite obvious human activity is having a dramatic effect on the planets natural course of evolution. Pollutants are being produced at a higher rate than the earths ability to disperse them. Dioxins and furans are stock pilling in the artic. Leachate in our soil and ground water etc.

The problems we face as a species are fast-paced and complex. Given that our scientific observation of the environment is still in its relative infancy, it is difficult to negate through all the causes of our changing environment. However, I believe we have enough indicators for common sense to suggest that we are the cause of these changes and that out continuance will lead to irreversible changes, culminating in the decline of civilization as we know it.

1: With exception to those made to appease profit damaging public relations.

[Hicksey]

Don't get me wrong.

I'm with you in that I agree that we aren't doing enough to protect the environment.

But where is a good balance between protecting the environment and economic sustenance for the middle class and poor?

I repeat: It can't be all environment and all else be damned.

There's got to be a good balance that can be achieved so that we're helping the environment incrementally, but still making the improvements substantive. The reality remains that we have an economy to foster or we will not be able to pay for all these measures. I don't think that a strong economy and a vigilent environmental protection policy need to be mutually exclusive.

[quinton]

Hicksey, what are you so afraid of? A ban on pesticides? Not having cable tv with multi-million dollar superbowl commercials?

Why do you keep emphasizing that we need to strike a balance between economic agendas and environmental agendas?

So far it's been pretty one-sided in our culture favouring economic agendas thanks to people like Geoffrey.

Hollus, I agree with all of your points in your last statement. But do we have a chance at getting Geoffrey and the general public to realize this and change their priorities?

Geoffrey, I sort of figured you'd paint a rosy picture for economic growth. You are the epitome of ignorance. Your statement that old growth forests are man's creation only confirms this. You elude to the idea that forests will burn every 20-25 years from forest fires anyway, so why not cut them first?

You say that if man doesn't cut the forests, they'll all go up in a blaze. I don't think you realize how complicated ecology is. You also don't realize that no human will ever understand ecology because it is far too complex.

Suppressing forest fires destroys wild forests and turns them into humanized tame forests under experimentation.

Trees like white pine and burr oak develop a thick fire resistant bark when they reach well beyond 100 years, which is why they usually survive natural surface fires.

I realize that I do not understand the complete picture of forest ecology (and no human or group of humans ever will), which is why I see the need for large wilderness forests to be unmanaged by humans.

I do not insure my car over the winter. I only insure my car over the summer to get out of the city.

To reach the closest thing to wilderness (Algonquin Park which allows clearcut logging still and is increasing the cut allowance each year cleverly leaving strips along visible areas and doing large clearcuts where people don't frequent) is over a 5 hour drive away.

Sure I could go to Point Pelee, Rondeau, Pinery (super tiny) but they aren't close to being wilderness and are at least an hour away by car.

The pinery which is closest to me seems to have more miles of paved roads winding through it than the perimiter of the park's boundaries.

Geoffrey, ever heard of the Niagara Falls area? They grow enough peaches there to send surplus all the way to the Maritimes. The Annapolis Valley can grow peaches too but they are much later and not nearly as plentiful due to insufficient heat units.

Geoffrey, you fit the stereotypical Albertan (which is why I don't live there) Ever realize the only reason you have wilderness close by is because it is mountainous and unsuited for development?

You like other Albertans seem to care most about a quick buck. You are even more stereotypical of a Christian, who denies evolution and seems to be pro-growth and anti-conservation.

Geoffrey I go on multi-day backpacking trips to get off the corridors. I walk miles to lakes and still find they are often fished-out because ATV trails can also reach them.

If not being happy about having to drive a minimum of 5 hours on highspeed hiways (and even having to pass through the disgusting tangled mess of the GTA first) just to get to a pseudo wilderness makes me lazy than I think you are irrational (which I've noticed very early on with you) since I long to be outdoors in pristine settings a minimum of once a week, and I'm not willing to drive that far every week. This is partially why I will be moving.

In closing, you say you choose to work long hours for the economic engine. What would happen if you stopped? Could you keep up with your car insurance, mountain climbing hobby, rent or property taxes, other bills, cellphone expense?

Thankfully, I've only worked the minimum for the system and have done without most luxuries. I have savings and will not need to work again. I am glad I'm not paying for Dalton McGuinty's corporate handouts to GM and for welfare people to breed like flies.

I would sooner live in a cabin in the woods than work 9-5. Even if it were a job I believed in, I would still be paying 30% tax to a corrupt government that I despise.

[geoffrey]

Hicksey, what are you so afraid of? A ban on pesticides? Not having cable tv with multi-million dollar superbowl commercials?

Why do you keep emphasizing that we need to strike a balance between economic agendas and environmental agendas?

So far it's been pretty one-sided in our culture favouring economic agendas thanks to people like Geoffrey.

Hollus, I agree with all of your points in your last statement. But do we have a chance at getting Geoffrey and the general public to realize this and change their priorities?

Geoffrey, I sort of figured you'd paint a rosy picture for economic growth. You are the epitome of ignorance. Your statement that old growth forests are man's creation only confirms this. You elude to the idea that forests will burn every 20-25 years from forest fires anyway, so why not cut them first?

You say that if man doesn't cut the forests, they'll all go up in a blaze. I don't think you realize how complicated ecology is. You also don't realize that no human will ever understand ecology because it is far too complex.

Suppressing forest fires destroys wild forests and turns them into humanized tame forests under experimentation.

Trees like white pine and burr oak develop a thick fire resistant bark when they reach well beyond 100 years, which is why they usually survive natural surface fires.

I realize that I do not understand the complete picture of forest ecology (and no human or group of humans ever will), which is why I see the need for large wilderness forests to be unmanaged by humans.

I do not insure my car over the winter. I only insure my car over the summer to get out of the city.

To reach the closest thing to wilderness (Algonquin Park which allows clearcut logging still and is increasing the cut allowance each year cleverly leaving strips along visible areas and doing large clearcuts where people don't frequent) is over a 5 hour drive away.

Sure I could go to Point Pelee, Rondeau, Pinery (super tiny) but they aren't close to being wilderness and are at least an hour away by car.

The pinery which is closest to me seems to have more miles of paved roads winding through it than the perimiter of the park's boundaries.

Geoffrey, ever heard of the Niagara Falls area? They grow enough peaches there to send surplus all the way to the Maritimes. The Annapolis Valley can grow peaches too but they are much later and not nearly as plentiful due to insufficient heat units.

Geoffrey, you fit the stereotypical Albertan (which is why I don't live there) Ever realize the only reason you have wilderness close by is because it is mountainous and unsuited for development?

You like other Albertans seem to care most about a quick buck. You are even more stereotypical of a Christian, who denies evolution and seems to be pro-growth and anti-conservation.

Geoffrey I go on multi-day backpacking trips to get off the corridors. I walk miles to lakes and still find they are often fished-out because ATV trails can also reach them.

If not being happy about having to drive a minimum of 5 hours on highspeed hiways (and even having to pass through the disgusting tangled mess of the GTA first) just to get to a pseudo wilderness makes me lazy than I think you are irrational (which I've noticed very early on with you) since I long to be outdoors in pristine settings a minimum of once a week, and I'm not willing to drive that far every week. This is partially why I will be moving.

In closing, you say you choose to work long hours for the economic engine. What would happen if you stopped? Could you keep up with your car insurance, mountain climbing hobby, rent or property taxes, other bills, cellphone expense?

Thankfully, I've only worked the minimum for the system and have done without most luxuries. I have savings and will not need to work again. I am glad I'm not paying for Dalton McGuinty's corporate handouts to GM and for welfare people to breed like flies.

I would sooner live in a cabin in the woods than work 9-5. Even if it were a job I believed in, I would still be paying 30% tax to a corrupt government that I despise.

You sir, are a bigot. Typical Alberta, typical Christian that denies evolution. You sure look like a half-brained idiot.

I really can't be held responsible for where you've chosen to live. You want wilderness, but instead choose to live where is far from it. You sound a little less than pragmatic in your approach. What stupidity.

How much economics education or knowledge do you have? Probably very little to be able to justify your attack on my thoughts on economic growth.

The mountains are unfit for development? Are you blind? Tell that to Banff that had to enact strict laws against it because everyone wanted to develop there. Do a little research before you make stupid comments.

I can't believe you. You seriously come across as the most pig-headed ignorant person I have ever talked to.

You complain about not having wilderness but refuse to move anywhere that has it. You complain about economic growth, but you still rely on the benifets of it. You complain about trade, but approve of it as long as it stays in Canada. You complain about the time it takes to get to wilderness, then complain about the speed on highways. You drive to wilderness, but complain about the other that do to.

I work because firstly I enjoy my work. I'm going to school to improve on how much I enjoy my work. And I enjoy the profits of my labour. You can't have everything and do nothing for it.

It seems like you are very critical of Alberta and its environment without actually knowing anything about it. We protect our forests from clearcut logging more so than Ontario. We have never had a smog day. Calgary has the worlds largest urban park inside it (forbidding all development inside it).

[quinton]

Geoffrey once again you make a bunch of vague incoherent statements.

I lived and am living in SW Ontario for the purpose of making and saving money that can be used to support my future plans. I am now retired. I will be looking for a place to move that supports my values this Spring.

Yes that includes a place with unpolluted air and opportunities to explore untouched landscapes without owning a car.

Your attempts to portray me as a hypocrite have failed.

Yes I am critical of Alberta and will continue to be. I have watched many documentaries about that province and read many magazine articles and books and Internet sites about it.

The way they built hiways through their National Parks that were supposed to be protected and the way they over used the Bow river for irrigation and the way they mine the tarsands and lie about restoring them to a natural state.... These are just a few of the reasons I think they are not wise or acting responsibly or sustainably. I know there are many Albertans who oppose the actions of multinationals and government, but they are in the minority.

[Hollus]

Here is one Albertan munical councillor who understands the growing problem of urban sprawl.

[quinton]

Hollus, not quite because he did not once mention stopping population growth.

Some recognize urban sprawl as a problem and propose "smart growth" as the solution which means "building up" instead of "building out".

But this does not solve the problem. "smart growth" is an oxy moron.

Canada is on the path towards becoming like Netherlands. Netherlands now spends double the Europe average to clean up historical pollution, but still has more toxins.

I just watched "Nature Of Things Journey to the Source" tonight. Highly recommend it.

[Hollus]

Hollus, not quite because he did not once mention stopping population growth.

Some recognize urban sprawl as a problem and propose "smart growth" as the solution which means "building up" instead of "building out".

But this does not solve the problem. "smart growth" is an oxy moron.

Canada is on the path towards becoming like Netherlands. Netherlands now spends double the Europe average to clean up historical pollution, but still has more toxins.

I just watched "Nature Of Things Journey to the Source" tonight. Highly recommend it.

He does not mention it in that article but he does in this one. He says: "Population growth is not sustainable; even if population growth occurs at the apparently slow rate of one percent per year the population will double every 70 years and the consequences will eventually become impossible. Growth of our already high consumption levels is not sustainable."

Take a look through his articles at the lefthand side of his page. I think you'd really like him. He proposes 'quantitve growth'

[cybercoma]

God created disease, famine and nuclear weapons to combat population growth. I wouldn't worry about it.

[Hollus]

God created disease, famine and nuclear weapons to combat population growth. I wouldn't worry about it.

I completely disagree with that.

Epidemic disease began affecting human populations because of our domestication of animals and because of the interaction between people of different geographic origin. Hunter-Gatherer societies never experienced anything of the like until the first explorers from other continents arrived.

Epidemic famine exists mostly because of our transition from hunter-gatherers to sedentary societies of farmers and the ability to transform land that naturally has .06% of edible bio-mass per acre into land that produces 90% edible biomass. Before this decisive event in our evolution took place, populations were limited to what was available from foraging; after the development of agriculture population densities per acre increased dramatically. When the agricultural system falters for whatever reason, the sedentary farming society has no means to support itself.

Although war is often waged in the name of God, an analysis of war throughout history will yield they are the endeavors of conquest. Before sedentary societies conquested them, hunter-gatherers lived a rather egalitarian life devoid of the turf wars of expanding civilizations.

Human constructs as the result of evolution.

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

Aren't our rivers, forests, lakes, oceans getting cleaner over the past couple of decades?

I look for evidence to the contrary?

These fanatics keep predicting the end of things based upon a need for secondary impulses and ignoring the basic REAL problems - such as muslim intolerance of the othe cultures - that we face.

I nice luxury in a great society. Let's wake up to the real problems and stop pounding the drum for the false ones.

[geoffrey]

Hollus, not quite because he did not once mention stopping population growth.

Some recognize urban sprawl as a problem and propose "smart growth" as the solution which means "building up" instead of "building out".

But this does not solve the problem. "smart growth" is an oxy moron.

Canada is on the path towards becoming like Netherlands. Netherlands now spends double the Europe average to clean up historical pollution, but still has more toxins.

I just watched "Nature Of Things Journey to the Source" tonight. Highly recommend it.

Do you not see how ridiculous you sound, comparing Canada to the Netherlands? What about the hundreds of other countries smaller than us with larger populations that are doing just fine? You really have no comprehension of reality and instead wish to live in fear right?

God created disease, famine and nuclear weapons to combat population growth. I wouldn't worry about it.

I completely disagree with that.

I disagree religiously and in secular terms... its a faulty argument to use your religion to justify your cause.

Disease, while so frightening in its approach, has always been here, and always will be. Nothing we can do besides be more vigilant in protecting ourselves and our families. The government won't help ya when epidemics come a' calling.

Famine is a tradegy beyond compare. I've gone hungry for all of a day because I got stuck on a mountain. It sucked royally, but its 1/10000 of the pain that many go through daily... I can't imagine the pain and suffering many go through on a daily basis. It's very critical that we support programs that encourage third world countries to produce enough food to feed themselves, and only then produce 'cash crops.'

Boohoo to me eh.

Nuclear weapons are such a big issue I don't want to deal with it right now. Personally, I think some people should have them and some shouldn't.

--

From a theological perspective, and don't criticise my arguments in this part as an aspect of my bigger argument on this thread because I won't use religion as my defense, see this is an aside directly to cyber:

God doesn't create everything just like that. Humans have free will to make choices, good or bad. Humans chose to make the nuclear bomb. Did it end WW2 saving millions? Yes. Did it create a global security issue now? Yes. Would some rogue nation have invented one anyways? Yes.

Just because its in existance, doesn't mean God created or approves of such things. Murder is existance and I can tell ya God doesn't approve of that.

[quinton]

Indeed Glen Lawrence councilor of Ward 7, Strathcona Alberta is a rare politician who is a diamond in the rough.

Hollus you were right he does seem to grasp the problem in this article:

http://www.strathcona.ab.ca/Strathcona/Cou...+planning++.htm

I think what he means by qualitative growth is striving for personal growth in knowledge and understanding instead of just economic growth which he understands is doing us more harm than good.