Environmental advocate and national television icon David Suzuki came to Montreal last Thursday to address climate change issues. In between saving the world and educating the youth, Suzuki found a half hour to sit down with the Tribune and discuss his ideas for Canadians' role in preserving the environment.
What value do Canadians place on the environment and how should Canadians address climate change?
My sense is that Canadians are very concerned about global warming and they want something done. They want leadership on the part of their politicians. They're really sick of the rhetoric and posturing and they want some action from government. I would be shocked if Canadians objected to rising prices of gases or increased taxes on certain luxury items. I think they're ready to pay this price.
The people are concerned; global warming is very real. In the media, it seems that we've suddenly gone over a tipping point. If you read the Globe and Mail, all the columnists are no longer arguing about whether global warming is happening; they're all arguing about what we have to do about it and it's very exciting. The pressure is on the public. Let's get on with doing something.
Does the federal budget released last week reflect Canadian environmental goals?
No it doesn't. There were fee rebates for the gas guzzlers, which are a nice beginning, but it only covers 10 per cent of the cars; the most efficient and the most polluting. We should be putting a $10,000 fee on every SUV and take that and give it to the low-polluting cars.
It's an income-neutral program for the government because they're not making money, but what you're doing is rewarding the people that are doing the right thing. In the budget itself, the commitment to climate change was less than in the Liberal [government's] budget. They had cancelled the Liberal programs and now they have cobbled them together to try to bring them back, but it's not enough.
You have always given the Kyoto Accord a lukewarm reception. Is Kyoto the right way to go? Are Kyoto Accord targets enough to control global warming?
All Kyoto did was set a framework to meet a certain target and it is a very modest target. Even meeting Kyoto targets barely makes a dent in what we have to achieve, but it's really important because the whole idea was to have the industrialized countries that created the problems begin to limit their emissions and bring them down and by 2012, the developing world would be brought into Kyoto. If Canada, one of the richest nations in the world, can't meet Kyoto targets, why should China or India give any considerations for meeting the targets?
We have done so little, so the target is going to be so much harder to reach now because emissions are always on the rise. We're not going to be able to make an absolute reduction to below 1990 levels. Scientists say that we've got to keep our emissions down enough to prevent temperatures by two degrees this century. If we can keep it below a two degree rise, maybe conditions won't go totally crazy. In order to meet those two degrees we have to reduce by 90 per cent in the next 10 years. We've got to start reducing immediately and I don't think the political courage is there to do that.
Do you think ethanol fuel is a viable alternative fuel source?
I don't think it's the way to go. Corn ought to be grown for food! I think it's a stop-gap measure and we've got to find a way to grow grain for food and use the waste and ferment the waste and make ethanol from that. Farmers can harvest food, wind and ethanol from waste. As a stop-gap measure, it is possible, but we've got to go to something new, non-polluting and non-detracting from food.
How can you convince companies to put aside their profit-seeking motives and reduce their emissions?
The economy has to consider the impact on the environment. Economics considers what we do to the air, water and soil as an 'externality' and we have to internalize what we're doing to the environment.
I once talked to Toyota Canada, which has been a very progressive company. I asked them why they are bothering to sell SUVs, and they replied that SUVs are one of their most profitable lines. What they tried to do is make sure every one of their cars in every category is the most efficient, but I think that's a bit of a cop-out. I think there's simply no justification for driving an SUV anymore. It's interesting to see the social shifts in attitudes towards SUVs. At one time, we thought they were terrific; they were a status symbol. I think that the SUV, socially, has almost become like having syphilis or something; you're embarrassed to have it.
With the knowledge you have of our future perils, how do you stay optimistic?
I don't stay optimistic or pessimistic; I just have hope. We're going down a very dangerous path and I believe we now have a very narrow window. This is the time to act and if we don't act in the next few years, we're toast. I'm at the end of my life; I have more than I need of everything. Whatever happens now is not going to affect me, but it's going to affect my grandchildren. I've got to do everything I can to make sure that my grandchildren don't say to me, "Grandpa, you could have done more." n
-
Compiled by Ken Sun
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
David Naugler
posted 3/27/07 @ 10:42 PM EST
Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 36% since the beginning of the industrial age. I don't consider that a big problem, considering all the benefits that have have occured as a result. (Continued…)
Post a Comment