What does it say about "the movement" on environmental issues when two amazing minds like David Suzuki and Stephen Lewis are still plugging away after decades of pain, sweat and tears?
[Ed. note: It's taken a little while for Team Suzuki to catch their breath and post another message on the blog. Last time we left off, they were heading to Toronto.]
David Suzuki and Stephen Lewis on one stage?! The duo met up for a candid conversation at Toronto's Winter Garden Theatre for a sold-out crowd. (If you couldn't make it, don't feel bad. It was recorded for CBC Radio's IDEAS and will be broadcast nationally in March.)
It seems that when you decide to champion the plight of the planet and future generations, you must be prepared for a long haul. I think many of those in attendance were shocked to learn that climate change is an old concept. It was Stephen Lewis who chaired the IPCC panel where scientists stated that climate change was an immediate issue. That's decades ago!
Today, Mr. Lewis wishes he had devoted more of his life to climate change. "I want to show solidarity with David's efforts to bring the country to its senses," he told the packed Winter Gardens theatre in downtown Toronto.
"What is wrong with governments?" Lewis asked the audience. "In the old days, they used to do something. Granted, it didn't always work. But today, they moved from inertia to paralysis."
--Lindsay Coulter is the Foundation's Community Relations Officer on tour. Is David Suzuki coming to your town? Probably! Have a look at the schedule.
Meg Gagie
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that people have been talking about dangers to the planet for as many as 20 years. We were aware of the dangers thirty years ago when our second son was born; we chose then to limit our family to those two sons. We thought there were more than enough people on the planet then and were horrified at the exponential numbers being bandied about. Any individual who has replaced him or herself more than once in the last thirty years, therefore, I consider an environmental saboteur. Reducing the number of people the planet has to support must be one of the first and most important choices we need to make.
Suzanne Pals
I'm afraid I don't support Meg's strategy of restricting the number of children to two, to replace the parents but not add to the world's population. That sounds too much like the harsh restrictions imposed in China. Might it not lead to manipulating and/or eliminating the outcome of a particular pregency as I believe happens or has happened in some Chinese families.
Yes, we must fully embrace the concept of sustainablity globally but I don't believe that that means imposing the same pattern/set of criteria for everyone. Left to the effects of natural selection, might not the Earth's excesses and dirths balance themselves out as with the deer and the wolf?
When there are too many deer in a particular region, the wolf population increases to handle the overabundance. Then, when the deer population declines, so does the wolf numbers for lack of food. All this is, of course, if their habitat is healthy and not restricted. We need to see ourselves in the same light; as members of the greater scheme, not the director of it and, so, must respond in a natural way.
Too many people in one area can put a tremendous stress on their habitat,on the natural resources available to them. Rather than taking a fatalistic attitude, one must address both, the number of people in a particular area and the resources available to them in that same area. Buying credits (Who thought this one up?) is not an option. One must shore up or help heal the surrounding resources and work from the mind set that the two must be able to interact in a healthy, sustainable way.
Make people and corporations accountable for their part in knowingly polluting the water, the soil, the air. There are strategies and solutions. People, especially politians, must be committed to making that the number one priority in their agendas. No broken promises. No backpedaling. No discounting the work of many scientists over many decades. We must all be conservators because we all do and will suffer the consequences.