# CBC interview with David Suzuki



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Suzuki turned 80 recently and I have enjoyed and been informed by his Nature of Things over the years so taking in this interview was interesting. 

They played a 1970's era clip of Suzuki predicting that in 20 years no one would want to live on planet earth due to environmental damage caused by humans. That would make the end of the world around 1990. Suzuki claimed (presently) that the environmental movement had not won a single significant battle. He was asked about life and how did he feel about living? Apparently he loves life even though the end of the world came around 1990. 

Too, he said he had a chat on the phone with the new Prime Minister and they did not get along. Reportedly the PM hung up on him. 

I find him to be an enigma. On the one hand he seems to be a decent scientist, and on the other he is very ideological and impractical. Somehow he manages to compartmentalize his ideological self and his science self, and switches between compartments at his convenience.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Heh. Sounds like Jehova Witnesses.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Another few years, and his age will equal his IQ.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

C'mon, he has a PhD in zoology. :tiger:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Where else would people live ?

Perhaps that is the more relevant question that Suzuki raises. There is no escape hatch from this planet. As we despoil it..........we have to live in what we create.

Conditions in some parts of the world are becoming intolerable for human life. Chinese biggest cities are so polluted the sun is rarely visible. A permanent toxic haze hangs over cities.

The oceans are so full of plastic garbage that air disaster rescue crews spent a lot of time sorting through garbage to see if it belonged to the missing aircraft, and that is in a remote part of the ocean.

Doctors tell us that the incidence of skin cancer is rising. My grandson's dermatologist warns him to lather on the sunscreen and wear a hat. He sees young people all the time who have developed skin cancer.

My father and his buddies swam in the river that runs through our city in their youth. Nobody would swim in it today.

How many abandoned oil well sites are there ? How many former factory areas designated as toxic ? How much communities don't have access to clean water ?

The Fukishima reactor is still leaking radioactive water. Chernobyl is still smoldering under a pile of concrete.........out of sight, but still active.

Abandoned oil drilling holes are all over the Gulf of Mexico, and any of them could start leaking at any time. We can fix those....maybe, but now they want to drill in the Arctic Ocean. Good luck fixing a screw up there.

Anyone who has been on this planet for awhile has watched the gradual increase in pollution around them. 

None of these problems existed when I was young. In less than 65 years, this is what humans have done. God help what it will look like in another 65 years.

There is no denying what Suzuki and others are saying, which is if we don't stop we will destroy the only place we have to live.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Pluto said:


> I find him to be an enigma. On the one hand he seems to be a decent scientist, and on the other he is very ideological and impractical. Somehow he manages to compartmentalize his ideological self and his science self, and switches between compartments at his convenience.


His credibility has been shaken over the years due to his inconsistencies AND his assets. It iis one thing to be a critically acclaimed scientist (which I acknowledge and respect) and another thing to be an obsessive idealogue who has not walked the talk. For that, he is another polyestered UCS like Al Gore. He does not have my respect.

This is a fairly balanced 2013 article (I think). http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/the-nature-of-david-suzuki/

Added: One needs to be careful to separate pollution issues with climate change issues. They have little in common other than some pollutants can be climate change influencers, or have constituents that contribute to global warming. But CO2 and CH4 can hardly be considered pollutants. I say...focus on water, air and soil pollutants and the rest will take care of itself.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

And yet...... wait for it:- life expectancy is rising.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The article is a good read and appears well balanced............and even though environmental crusaders aren't perfect examples, I focus on the message, rather than the messenger.

I also agree with Suzuki that years of preaching the environment gospel has little show for it.

I think Suzuki has reached the same place in life..........debating the obvious endlessly with non believers, that well known evolutionists have reached debating creationists.

Sometimes you have to stop banging your head on the wall to stop the pain.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

A degree in science does not make you a scientist. Suzuki is no scientist, he is a sensationalist at worst and a reporter at best.
He talks about global warming etc but he is a worse offender than Gore with his multiple houses, travel etc.
The environmental front has had numerous victories and in many ways the world is better off environmentally than 50 to 60 years ago. ( mostly in the western world and the former ussr) of course it is worse off in many ways too as lesser developed countries try to catch up.
Remember the hole in the ozone, ddt, the moonscape in Sudbury, dumping of industrial pollutants in rivers, agent orange, the cod fishery etc. Maybe not big wins. But wins none the less. But nothing I would attribute to suzuki.
I agree totally with altared on this guy except I don't see him as a scientist in anyway beyond having a degree.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Anyone who has been on this planet for awhile has watched the gradual increase in pollution around them.
> 
> None of these problems existed when I was young.


Things are better now compared to when you were young. When you were young many rivers were dead, but are now cleaned up and revived. When you were young people burned coal and wood to heat their houses and cook: the air was filthy in cities with smoke. Switching to oil and natural gas greatly contributed to clearer air. Then came nuclear power, still our best hope for abundant clean energy. And you never know, Musk just might come up with a great battery to help store solar and wind power. I await his announcements. 

I'm weary of hearing about Chernobyl. It was an uncontained reactor. It blew due to human error. Nobody makes them like that anymore. And systems are built in to prevent human error. And I am weary of hearing about Fukishima. The tsunami, not the reactor, killed 20000+ people. On balance nuclear power is saving lives by not polluting the air with coal fired plants. Because environmentalists prefer coal over nuclear, they obviously don't think air pollution is a real threat.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> They played a 1970's era clip of Suzuki predicting that in 20 years no one would want to live on planet earth due to environmental damage caused by humans. That would make the end of the world around 1990. Suzuki claimed (presently) that the environmental movement had not won a single significant battle...


Suzuki is a promoter. He has had significant success promoting himself over the years. He seems to have escaped the derision that Al Gore attracted. I suppose because his talk the walk has been less ostentatious than Gore.

Here is an article on German alternative energy experience:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/10/g...on-most-green-energy-subsidies/#ixzz4Elgw0c2v 


> Germany’s wind and solar power systems have provided too much power at unpredictable times, which damaged the power grid and made the system vulnerable to blackouts. Grid operators paid companies $548 million to shutter turbines to fix the problem, according to a survey by Wirtschaftswoche of Germany’s largest power companies.,The German government plans to cap the total amount of wind energy at 40 to 45 percent of national capacity, according to a report published earlier this month by the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung. Germany will get rid of 6,000 megawatts of wind power by 2019.


When we were barging The Moselle, there were numerous coal barges going upriver for power generation. At least they are not flooding prime land like BCs Site C dam.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

kcowan said:


> At least they are not flooding prime land like BCs Site C dam.


Prime land??? It is a small chunk of scrub and 3rd rate alfalfa in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

sags said:


> Anyone who has been on this planet for awhile has watched the gradual increase in pollution around them.
> 
> None of these problems existed when I was young. In less than 65 years, this is what humans have done. God help what it will look like in another 65 years.


Ridiculous, as Pluto has explained. This is either a figment of your imagination, or you are purposefully lying to yourself and others to promote an eco religion.




AltaRed said:


> Added: One needs to be careful to separate pollution issues with climate change issues. They have little in common other than some pollutants can be climate change influencers, or have constituents that contribute to global warming. But CO2 and CH4 can hardly be considered pollutants. I say...focus on water, air and soil pollutants and the rest will take care of itself.


Indeed. And indeed great strides have been made in all areas of remediating acute pollutants that have devastating effects on local communities and ecosystems. We should remain ever vigilant and improving with this science and technology to minimize the impact any industry has on it's neighbours in an economical and science-based manner.



steve41 said:


> Prime land??? It is a small chunk of scrub and 3rd rate alfalfa in the middle of nowhere.


And the oil sands are located in a completely unremarkable and unimportant piece of the boreal forest in the middle of nowhere. The way oil sands expansion is portrayed you'd think we were chopping down the only home of the world's last known endangered species all living in one unique place on the planet.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There is way more representation and outright lies by the idealists but they seem to be able to get away with it. There are few, if any, consequences for an individual or small organization to exaggerate and outright misrepresent the facts. Institutions cannot do the same thing. It is not a level playing field.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

There are real scientists trying to understand our world's climate and attempting to prove results of their work, unlike pseudo scientists like Suzuki that rely on alarm ism & headlines. Too bad our youth are often not skeptical enough of Huffington Post type of stuff,as it is their future these guys want to steal,


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

David Suzuki is a TV personality and self promoter. The last science he did involved experiments on fruit flies in the 1960s. There is no reason to think he is any better informed than anyone else, and much reason to think that his statements are tailored to advance his popularity with his fans.

His personal life frequently clashes with his statements, in a do as I say not as I do fashion. In other words a typical show biz hypocrite.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Added: One needs to be careful to separate pollution issues with climate change issues. They have little in common other than some pollutants can be climate change influencers, or have constituents that contribute to global warming. But CO2 and CH4 can hardly be considered pollutants. I say...focus on water, air and soil pollutants and the rest will take care of itself.


This isn't necessarily true. For instance, even aside from its greenhouse impact, increased concentrations of CO2 can cause ocean acidification, which can affect things like coral, shellfish, etc.  I'm not sure of any significant effects of our increased methane (CH4) levels, aside from indicating you may have too many cows in your neighbourhood...


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

kcowan said:


> Suzuki is a promoter. He has had significant success promoting himself over the years. He seems to have escaped the derision that Al Gore attracted. I suppose because his talk the walk has been less ostentatious than Gore.
> 
> Here is an article on German alternative energy experience:
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/10/g...on-most-green-energy-subsidies/#ixzz4Elgw0c2v
> When we were barging The Moselle, there were numerous coal barges going upriver for power generation. At least they are not flooding prime land like BCs Site C dam.


Yeah, nice article. What a nightmare Germany's wind and solar has been. Mercifully, in Canada the Green party did not get much traction beyond Elizabeth May.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

NorthernRaven said:


> This isn't necessarily true. For instance, even aside from its greenhouse impact, increased concentrations of CO2 can cause ocean acidification, which can affect things like coral, shellfish, etc. I'm not sure of any significant effects of our increased methane (CH4) levels, aside from indicating you may have too many cows in your neighbourhood...


Methane, of course, is a way higher greenhouse gas than is CO2 and not much can offset it, as compared to CO2 which us used by plant life. More effort is needed on reducing methane concentrations from landfills, raising cattle, etc. I don't disagree CO2 can have some effect on oceans as they warm and absorb more CO2, but acidification's main source is via things like SO2, etc. That is how lakes died and that water all ends up in the oceans. We are way too quick to blame CO2 and a lot of scientists will be eating their own papers someday once proven sensationalists on global warming. But that is off topic to the this thread is all about Oh wait...maybe not. DS has cried wolf way too often too.


----------

