What's so radical about caring for the Earth?
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
David Suzuki is a scientist and environmentalist who lives in Canada. This article he wrote has Canada and its government in mind, but his ideas and thoughts are universal.
What's so radical about caring for the Earth?
By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Editorial and Communications Specialist Ian Hanington
Caring about the air, water, and land that give us life. Exploring ways to ensure Canada's natural resources serve the national interest. Knowing that sacrificing our environment to a corporate-controlled economy is suicide. If those qualities make us radicals, as federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently claimed in an open letter, then I and many others will wear the label proudly.
But is it radical to care for our country, our world, our children and grandchildren, our future? It seems more radical for a government to come out swinging in favour of an industrial project in advance of public hearings into that project. It seems especially radical when the government paints everyone who opposes the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project as American-funded traitors with a radical ideological agenda "to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth."
It's bad enough when our government and its ethical oil and media supporters don't tell the truth, but it's worse when they don't even offer rational arguments. Their increasing attacks on charitable organizations and Canadians from all walks of life show that if they can't win with facts, they'll do everything they can to silence their critics. And we thought conservative-minded people valued free speech!
The proposed Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipeline projects and the massive, mostly foreign-controlled expansion of the tar sands are not about finding the best way to serve Canada's national interests. If we truly wanted to create jobs, we would refine the oil in Canada and use it to reduce our reliance on imported oil, much of which comes from countries that government supporters say are "unethical". If we really cared about using resources for the national interest, we would slow development in the tar sands, improve environmental standards, increase royalties and put some of the money away or use it to switch to cleaner energy, eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and encourage Canadian companies to develop the resource.
Instead, we are called radicals for daring to even question the wisdom of selling entire tar sands operations to China's state-owned oil companies and building a pipeline so that the repressive government of China, rather than Canadians, can reap most of the benefits from the refining jobs, profits, and the resource itself. We are radical because we are concerned about the real dangers of oil-filled supertankers moving through narrow fiords with unpredictable weather conditions and through some of the last pristine ecosystems on Earth. We are condemned by our own government because we question the safety of two pipelines crossing more than 1,000 streams and rivers through priceless wilderness — a reasonable concern, in light of the more than 800 pipeline spills that Enbridge, the company in charge of the Northern Gateway, has had since 1999.
And so here we are, a country with a government that boasts of our "energy superpower" status but doesn't even have a national energy plan. A country willing to sacrifice its manufacturing industry, its opportunities in the green-energy economy, its future, and the health of its people for the sake of short-term profits. A country hell-bent on selling its industry and resources wholesale to any country that wants them, without regard for the ethics or activities of those countries.
Our government is supposed to represent the interests of all Canadians, and not just those who voted for it or the corporations that support it. Instead we have a government that hurls insults at its citizens.
Canadians are better than that. While an investment banker like Joe Oliver or a former oil industry economist like Stephen Harper may look at Canada and only see numbers, we see a country rich in natural resources, wildlife, clean water, a diverse population of educated and caring people, and institutions that have been built up over the years to put the interests of Canadians first.
With recent or pending federal reviews into both environmental regulation and charitable giving, we can expect more attacks and more attempts to silence those who believe that we must at least have a discussion about our priorities before selling out our country to anyone who wants a piece. Maybe it's time to get radical!
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/scienc ... ocialposts
What's so radical about caring for the Earth?
By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Editorial and Communications Specialist Ian Hanington
Caring about the air, water, and land that give us life. Exploring ways to ensure Canada's natural resources serve the national interest. Knowing that sacrificing our environment to a corporate-controlled economy is suicide. If those qualities make us radicals, as federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently claimed in an open letter, then I and many others will wear the label proudly.
But is it radical to care for our country, our world, our children and grandchildren, our future? It seems more radical for a government to come out swinging in favour of an industrial project in advance of public hearings into that project. It seems especially radical when the government paints everyone who opposes the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project as American-funded traitors with a radical ideological agenda "to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth."
It's bad enough when our government and its ethical oil and media supporters don't tell the truth, but it's worse when they don't even offer rational arguments. Their increasing attacks on charitable organizations and Canadians from all walks of life show that if they can't win with facts, they'll do everything they can to silence their critics. And we thought conservative-minded people valued free speech!
The proposed Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipeline projects and the massive, mostly foreign-controlled expansion of the tar sands are not about finding the best way to serve Canada's national interests. If we truly wanted to create jobs, we would refine the oil in Canada and use it to reduce our reliance on imported oil, much of which comes from countries that government supporters say are "unethical". If we really cared about using resources for the national interest, we would slow development in the tar sands, improve environmental standards, increase royalties and put some of the money away or use it to switch to cleaner energy, eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and encourage Canadian companies to develop the resource.
Instead, we are called radicals for daring to even question the wisdom of selling entire tar sands operations to China's state-owned oil companies and building a pipeline so that the repressive government of China, rather than Canadians, can reap most of the benefits from the refining jobs, profits, and the resource itself. We are radical because we are concerned about the real dangers of oil-filled supertankers moving through narrow fiords with unpredictable weather conditions and through some of the last pristine ecosystems on Earth. We are condemned by our own government because we question the safety of two pipelines crossing more than 1,000 streams and rivers through priceless wilderness — a reasonable concern, in light of the more than 800 pipeline spills that Enbridge, the company in charge of the Northern Gateway, has had since 1999.
And so here we are, a country with a government that boasts of our "energy superpower" status but doesn't even have a national energy plan. A country willing to sacrifice its manufacturing industry, its opportunities in the green-energy economy, its future, and the health of its people for the sake of short-term profits. A country hell-bent on selling its industry and resources wholesale to any country that wants them, without regard for the ethics or activities of those countries.
Our government is supposed to represent the interests of all Canadians, and not just those who voted for it or the corporations that support it. Instead we have a government that hurls insults at its citizens.
Canadians are better than that. While an investment banker like Joe Oliver or a former oil industry economist like Stephen Harper may look at Canada and only see numbers, we see a country rich in natural resources, wildlife, clean water, a diverse population of educated and caring people, and institutions that have been built up over the years to put the interests of Canadians first.
With recent or pending federal reviews into both environmental regulation and charitable giving, we can expect more attacks and more attempts to silence those who believe that we must at least have a discussion about our priorities before selling out our country to anyone who wants a piece. Maybe it's time to get radical!
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/scienc ... ocialposts
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
this is what happens when you have millions of dollars to spread lies and your audience can't think critically ...0
-
David Suzuki is a national treasure.0
-
The only reason why I think environmentalism is Radical is because it is bad for business, i.e., it COSTS money, not MAKES money. Basic conservatism seems to lean towards the, 'Don't tell me how to run my business... just get out of my way and let me make money' side of the issue.
Am I wrong?
If so, then, please... tell me what it is.Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
Cosmo wrote:The only reason why I think environmentalism is Radical is because it is bad for business, i.e., it COSTS money, not MAKES money. Basic conservatism seems to lean towards the, 'Don't tell me how to run my business... just get out of my way and let me make money' side of the issue.
Am I wrong?
If so, then, please... tell me what it is.
it is perceived to be bad for business ... the reality is if you factor in sustainability not only for resources but economically, the environment makes perfect sense ...0 -
polaris_x wrote:it is perceived to be bad for business ... the reality is if you factor in sustainability not only for resources but economically, the environment makes perfect sense ...
Well, I've found this to not be true in the short-term, unsure if you look beyond 20 years or so.
The reality is if progress is going to be made, #1 consumers have to push for it. If they do it becomes cost effective regardless of the cost.hippiemom = goodness0 -
...polaris_x wrote:Cosmo wrote:The only reason why I think environmentalism is Radical is because it is bad for business, i.e., it COSTS money, not MAKES money. Basic conservatism seems to lean towards the, 'Don't tell me how to run my business... just get out of my way and let me make money' side of the issue.
Am I wrong?
If so, then, please... tell me what it is.
it is perceived to be bad for business ... the reality is if you factor in sustainability not only for resources but economically, the environment makes perfect sense ...
Yeah, that may be. But isn't the usual arguement that it is bad for business and will cause employers to move overseas?
I would tend to think Conservation would be at the forefront of conservatism... I mean, doesn't the name have 'Conserve' right in it?Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
polaris_x wrote:Cosmo wrote:The only reason why I think environmentalism is Radical is because it is bad for business, i.e., it COSTS money, not MAKES money. Basic conservatism seems to lean towards the, 'Don't tell me how to run my business... just get out of my way and let me make money' side of the issue.
Am I wrong?
If so, then, please... tell me what it is.
it is perceived to be bad for business ... the reality is if you factor in sustainability not only for resources but economically, the environment makes perfect sense ...
It's only perceived to be bad for business by business people who are solely focused on the bottom line and not much else. Good business execs who take into factor social responsibility, conservation and employee morale make a big difference in public image.0 -
Cosmo wrote:
...polaris_x wrote:Cosmo wrote:The only reason why I think environmentalism is Radical is because it is bad for business, i.e., it COSTS money, not MAKES money. Basic conservatism seems to lean towards the, 'Don't tell me how to run my business... just get out of my way and let me make money' side of the issue.
Am I wrong?
If so, then, please... tell me what it is.
it is perceived to be bad for business ... the reality is if you factor in sustainability not only for resources but economically, the environment makes perfect sense ...
Yeah, that may be. But isn't the usual arguement that it is bad for business and will cause employers to move overseas?
I would tend to think Conservation would be at the forefront of conservatism... I mean, doesn't the name have 'Conserve' right in it?
that way of business is turning around, companys are starting to change that way of thinking because it looked bad on their stockmarket reseume,companys are are making a mad dash for a "green footprint" or no or as little a footprint as possible and spending billions to do it and even finding a way to make money on it passing this cost onto you the consumer,corperations are giving their companys budgets and time lines to straightin out any issues inviormentaly and it's in the $billions, when we look at a corp like say united technologys that owns aprox. 500-600 business globally..the money spent on EH&S is mind boggeling.
Godfather.0 -
cincybearcat wrote:polaris_x wrote:it is perceived to be bad for business ... the reality is if you factor in sustainability not only for resources but economically, the environment makes perfect sense ...
Well, I've found this to not be true in the short-term, unsure if you look beyond 20 years or so.
The reality is if progress is going to be made, #1 consumers have to push for it. If they do it becomes cost effective regardless of the cost.
Not true. The leaders have to lead for example. It's not the customers! It's the business practices that not only benefit the environment but also use it as marketing tactics to entice customers for business. It's not about demand, it's about marketing and building a business right and ethically. Long term, businesses save money just like consumers save money by practicing green living.0 -
Jeanwah wrote:cincybearcat wrote:polaris_x wrote:it is perceived to be bad for business ... the reality is if you factor in sustainability not only for resources but economically, the environment makes perfect sense ...
Well, I've found this to not be true in the short-term, unsure if you look beyond 20 years or so.
The reality is if progress is going to be made, #1 consumers have to push for it. If they do it becomes cost effective regardless of the cost.
Not true. The leaders have to lead for example. It's not the customers! It's the business practices that not only benefit the environment but also use it as marketing tactics to entice customers for business. It's not about demand, it's about marketing and building a business right and ethically. Long term, businesses save money just like consumers save money by practicing green living.
That is true, companies can lead and use it to their advantage in marketing. But, if they don't make their consumers want it (i.e. make it something with tangible value), it's not likely to last.
And I'm just saying that it would speed things up if it were true.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Question: Do people who place profits over environment care is China places profit over environment?
...
I ask because China is looming to be the greatest polluter of all time. Why should Chinese companies give a shit about conservation, if American companies don't give a shit about it?Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
"What's so radical about caring for the Earth?"
I love that phrase. I'd put it right up there with "What's so funny about peace,love and understanding."
I really mean no offense to anyone here, but it makes me a little crazy to hear people talk about environmentalism being bad for the economy. What kind of economy could exist on a highly environmentally altered planet inhospitable (in most regions at least) for humans? A cockroach economy?
Has anyone else here read Bill McKibben's "Deep Economy? It really lays out excellent groundwork for a workable green economy. Highly recommended."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0
-
Take a quick look at Germany. Going green makes sense, dont listen to the debbie downers.
http://www.timescolonist.com/business/G ... story.html
or a bit of a longer look
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 8109ba8af20 -
Excellent! Thanks for posting these. Very positive, great examples, forward thinking!dignin wrote:Take a quick look at Germany. Going green makes sense, dont listen to the debbie downers.
http://www.timescolonist.com/business/G ... story.html
or a bit of a longer look
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 8109ba8af2"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Jeanwah wrote:David Suzuki is a scientist and environmentalist who lives in Canada. This article he wrote has Canada and its government in mind, but his ideas and thoughts are universal....
i find it interesting that you feltthe need to say who david suzuki is. i thought everyone already knew. im not trying to be funny or condescending i just figure if i keep hearing about someone and hearing what they have to say that its the same for everyone.
anyways i dont know why people find it easier to drop their trash on the ground than stuffing it in their pockets or bag. PICK UP YOUR TRASH PIGS!!!hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0 -
catefrances wrote:Jeanwah wrote:David Suzuki is a scientist and environmentalist who lives in Canada. This article he wrote has Canada and its government in mind, but his ideas and thoughts are universal....
i find it interesting that you feltthe need to say who david suzuki is. i thought everyone already knew. im not trying to be funny or condescending i just figure if i keep hearing about someone and hearing what they have to say that its the same for everyone.
anyways i dont know why people find it easier to drop their trash on the ground than stuffing it in their pockets or bag. PICK UP YOUR TRASH PIGS!!!
Ya know, I just threw that in in case someone didn't know who he was! Not everyone reads or pays attention... especially lately on this board with the trollish behavior of late... I find it interesting that you need to be sarcastic a lot of the time.
Post edited by Jeanwah on0 -
cincybearcat wrote:Jeanwah wrote:cincybearcat wrote:
Well, I've found this to not be true in the short-term, unsure if you look beyond 20 years or so.
The reality is if progress is going to be made, #1 consumers have to push for it. If they do it becomes cost effective regardless of the cost.
Not true. The leaders have to lead for example. It's not the customers! It's the business practices that not only benefit the environment but also use it as marketing tactics to entice customers for business. It's not about demand, it's about marketing and building a business right and ethically. Long term, businesses save money just like consumers save money by practicing green living.
That is true, companies can lead and use it to their advantage in marketing. But, if they don't make their consumers want it (i.e. make it something with tangible value), it's not likely to last.
And I'm just saying that it would speed things up if it were true.
The public does want it. It's become quite widespread to care about the earth. It's not some new fad that businesses feel the need to push. It's already there. Or are you not paying attention?0 -
Jeanwah wrote:
The public does want it. It's become quite widespread to care about the earth. It's not some new fad that businesses feel the need to push. It's already there. Or are you not paying attention?
Perhaps you aren't paying attention. The public wants it...but they have to want to help PAY for it. I dont think we are all the way there yet.
The difficulty for businesses is the global environment. You have to compete with places that do not eat the cost of sustainability etc. So, the short-term is difficult. But, for long-term thinking the best companies are already working towards sustainability. They are also building it into any new facilities/projects/products, etc. That is a great thing.hippiemom = goodness0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help