David Suzuki2013-06-18T22:06:02-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=david-suzukiCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for David SuzukiGood old fashioned elbow grease.Science Should Be About Curiosity, Not Profittag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.34240892013-06-12T12:26:29-04:002013-06-12T12:26:39-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/reorganization of the National Research Council to make it more "business-led" and industry-focused. It appears we're coming full circle to the early 1970s, when Sen. Maurice Lamontagne released "A Science Policy for Canada," a report proposing Canadian science be directed to "mission-oriented" work rather than "curiosity driven" research.
Since then, many politicians have encouraged support for science that serves market interests. I believe we should support science because curiosity and the ability to ask and answer questions are part of what makes our species unique and helps us find our way in the world. Still, basic research aimed at specific outcomes can lead to game-changing applications, from transistors and pesticides to nuclear bombs, penicillin and oral contraceptives. But how do new applications flow from science?
Many scientists support a mythical notion of what makes science innovative. To be "relevant," they write grant applications as if their work will lead to cures for cancer, new energy forms or salt-tolerant plants, depending on the priorities of funders and governments. This creates the illusion that science proceeds from experiment A to B to C to solution. But we really have no idea what results an experiment will produce. If we did, there would be no point to the experiment.
It's more likely that a scientist will do experiment A leading to F then O, while another in a different area will do experiment Z leading to W then L. Maybe the two will meet at a conference or even a pub and, in talking about their respective work, realize that results O and L could lead to a new invention!
In 1958, during my genetics studies, we were assigned to critique papers by corn geneticist Barbara McClintock. She painstakingly crossed corn plants, harvesting two crops, first in Indiana then in Mexico. She discovered an amazing and mystifying phenomenon: "jumping" genes that moved from one chromosome location to another, suppressing gene activity wherever they landed. It defied everything we had learned. I sweated blood to make sense of her elegant experiments, although we assumed the phenomena she studied were peculiar to corn.
Decades later, scientists discovered jumping genes in other organisms, including fruit flies, and found they were useful for studying their development. McClintock was belatedly lionized for her discoveries and ultimately awarded a Nobel Prize in 1983. If her research proposals had been assessed for relevance or potential applications, she wouldn't have received funding for her early, trailblazing work.
As a graduate student, I also studied the experiments of microbial geneticists Werner Arber and Daniel Nathans, and biochemist Hamilton Smith, who were investigating an esoteric phenomenon: bacteria that resisted infection by viruses called bacteriophages (meaning "eaters of bacteria"). Like McClintock's work, their experiments were elegant, especially when you consider they were working with microorganisms you can't see the way you can observe a corn plant or fruit fly.
It was astonishing. The bacteria produced enzymes that cut DNA into pieces. They were called "restriction enzymes" and acted by recognizing specific sequences within the DNA and cutting at that point. Various bacterial species evolved distinct restriction enzymes, cutting DNA at different sequences. When the original experiments were carried out, no one could have anticipated that these enzymes would turn out to be critical tools for genetic engineering. It was just good science. And, like McClintock, the scientists were awarded a Nobel Prize for their work.
Canada's contribution to science is minuscule compared to countries like the U.S., Britain, Germany and even China. But if our top scientists are as good as any, they become our eyes and ears to cutting-edge science around the world, are invited to speak at top universities and institutes and attend meetings where the latest ideas and discoveries are shared.
If we're serious about creating partnerships between science and business, we have to support the best scientists so they are competitive with any around the world. We also have to recognize that innovation and discoveries don't always come from market-driven research. We should recognize truly internationally groundbreaking work to inspire young people who will grow up knowing they can be as good as scientists anywhere. This takes commitment from governments, more generous grants and long-term support.
]]>Great Public Transit Makes for a Great Citytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33863672013-06-05T12:24:29-04:002013-06-05T12:24:36-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
New York City is world class, not just because it's a driver of global finance and a hotbed of cultural innovation; it's also known for its green spaces, like Central Park and the award-winning High Line.
San Francisco is celebrated for its narrow streets, compact lots and historic buildings. These contribute to the city's old-world charm, but they're also the building blocks of a more sustainable urban form. They facilitate densification and decrease the cost of energy and transportation for businesses while improving walkability.
When it comes to urban sustainability, cities in the U.S. and Canada are employing innovative programs and policies to improve the health and well-being of residents and their local environments, like reducing waste and improving recycling (Los Angeles), containing urban sprawl (Portland), conserving water (Calgary) and passing policies to combat climate change (Toronto).
But most cities in Canada and the U.S. are lacking in infrastructure to move millions of people safely and affordably. With some notable exceptions, such as Vancouver and Calgary, no successful rapid transit infrastructure projects have been built in Canadian cities for decades.
A recent survey of urban experts and other "city-builders" across Canada -- planners, municipal politicians, academics, nongovernmental organizations, developers and architects -- concluded the abysmal state of public transit is the Achilles' heel of urban sustainability and is holding many cities back from achieving greatness.
Toronto residents spend more time battling congestion to get to and from work than in any other city in North America. This shouldn't be a surprise, as successive governments have failed to sustain and expand transit systems, even though the region has grown by about a 100,000 new residents a year. Toronto now scores 15th of 21 on per capita investment in public transit among large global cities -- well behind sixth-placed New York City, which spends twice as much.
Furthermore, air pollution from traffic congestion is a major threat to public health, especially for our most vulnerable citizens, like children and the elderly. According to the Toronto Board of Health, pollution-related ailments result in 440 premature deaths, 1,700 hospitalizations, 1,200 acute bronchitis episodes and about 68,000 asthma-symptom days a year.
Fortunately, politicians are starting to respond. Ontario's government plans to spend billions to expand its regional transit system in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, under a plan called the Big Move. It's also looking at new financing tools to ensure funding levels are adequate and continue into the future. But before we spend enormous amounts on improvements, we need to ensure projects contribute to a region-wide rapid transit network using the latest technology and adhering to the highest sustainability standards. They should also move the most people in the most cost-effective way.
That's why a proposal to use diesel trains for the Air-Rail-Link plan to connect downtown Toronto with its international airport in Mississauga is concerning. A rapid transit link with the airport is long overdue, but heavy diesel trains emit particulates and other contaminants, including known carcinogens. The proposed rail line would be close to dozens of schools and daycare centres, several long-term care facilities and a chronic respiratory care hospital.
Numerous experts, including Toronto's Medical Health Officer, have urged the Ontario government to abandon its diesel plan in favour of electric trains that could be better integrated into a region-wide rapid transit network.
Vancouver, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and New York City have consistently ranked among the most livable cities on the continent, in part because they take the environment into account for planning decisions. They all have world-class public transit systems that move residents in a safe, affordable and sustainable way. It's time for Toronto and its suburbs to do the same. Effective transit and transportation solutions can spur economic productivity, protect the environment and improve quality of life.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada Director General Faisal Moola.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.]]>B.C.'s Gas Plan Is a Pipe Dreamtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33488232013-05-29T11:08:39-04:002013-05-29T12:34:01-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
Taking a cue from the liquidation-sale policies of the Alberta and federal governments, B.C.'s leaders want to get fossil fuels out of the ground, piped to the coast, liquefied and shipped to Asia or wherever they can find buyers, as quickly as possible. It's a short-sighted plan based on outmoded thinking. In the long run, it's not good for the economy or the environment.
Whether politicians believe fossil fuel supplies are endless or can only see as far as the next election, they're selling out our future and leaving a shattered legacy for our kids and grandkids. To start, natural gas is not the clean-energy solution it's touted to be. According to the Pembina Institute, if only five of 12 proposed liquefied natural gas terminals were built on the B.C. coast, they could spew 63-million tonnes of carbon a year into the atmosphere -- exceeding the amount now produced by the Alberta tar sands and equal to all of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Discharges of particulate matter and volatile organic compounds would also be significant new sources of pollution.
Liquefying the gas for export, which requires enormous amounts of energy, isn't the only source of greenhouse gases. Leaks -- or what the industry refers to as "fugitive emissions" -- during drilling, extraction and transport are also concerns. Although the B.C. Environment Ministry claims just .3 to .4 per cent of gas escapes into the atmosphere, independent studies say it's likely many times that amount.
According to an article in Nature, scientists from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado in Boulder found leaks of methane -- a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide -- amounted to between four and nine per cent of total production at two gas fields in the U.S.
Even the economic benefits of the province's LNG plans are suspect. Many analysts expect price corrections, and U.K. LNG expert Peter Hughes told the CBC the perceived windfall is "wishful thinking" because B.C. will have to compete with producers in places like Qatar, East Africa and Australia. Most of the money wouldn't even stay in B.C., as many gas companies are from other provinces and countries. As for jobs, natural gas extraction, transport and production create relatively few compared to almost every other economic sector -- including tourism, science and technology, health care, education and small business.
On top of that, hydraulic fracturing or fracking -- shooting water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to shatter shale and release natural gas -- has many other environmental consequences. It requires massive amounts of water, contaminates drinking water, damages habitat and ecosystems -- even causes small earthquakes!
As well as seeing natural gas as an economic panacea, some argue it could be a "bridging fuel" -- something cleaner than oil or coal to use while we make the transition to renewable energy. But it's a hazard-strewn bridge, and subsidizing and investing in natural gas extraction and infrastructure without any real commitment to wean us off oil, coal and gas will only keep us on the fossil fuel road and discourage investment in clean energy and conservation.
The industry also relies on taxpayers' money to subsidize it, through tax and royalty credits, and to provide water, roads and the massive amounts of energy required to liquefy the gas, perhaps from a new Site C dam on the Peace River. And fugitive emissions from gas operations are exempt from the carbon tax. If we are really "bridging" to reduce fossil fuels, why are we subsidizing companies for their carbon costs?
It's time to invest our money and human resources in long-term, innovative ideas that will create good, lasting jobs, and ensure that we and our children and grandchildren continue to enjoy healthy and prosperous lives and that our spectacular "supernatural" environment is protected. We have abundant renewable resources and opportunities to conserve energy and lead the way in developing clean energy. It's time to move forward.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.
]]>Ontario's Wildlife Needs Continued Protectiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33150362013-05-22T08:11:49-04:002013-05-22T08:13:53-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
A 1970 Vancouver benefit concert against nuclear testing in Amchitka, Alaska launched Greenpeace. Earth Day also started that year. The famous picture taken from space by Apollo 17 astronauts, revealing the Earth to be a finite and vulnerable "blue marble," was shared with the world in 1972.
In 1973, the U.S. recognized that resource extraction, development and land conversion were destroying wildlife homes and ranges to the point that their continued existence was at risk. It passed the Endangered Species Act, to protect plants and animals from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation."
Canada's Species at Risk Act wasn't passed until 2002. But Ontario, in keeping with the trend of the times, introduced legislation in 1971, and then revised it, passing an improved Endangered Species Act in 2007, which scientists and conservationists now consider the gold standard of wildlife protection law in Canada and beyond. Unlike the U.S., much of our country is crown land, managed by provincial governments on behalf of citizens. In other words, government stewards nature on our behalf.
The primary mandate of these acts is to protect the areas species need to survive. In Canada, habitat loss and degradation are the primary causes of decline for more than 80 per cent of listed species.
Sadly, we seem to be entering a new phase: environmental deregulation. Now, when habitat needs to be protected to ensure the survival of a species, government and industry often balk and backpedal. This signals a failure to understand that we depend on nature for our well-being and survival. The web of living things cleanses, replenishes and creates air, water, soil and photosynthetic energy. Species in danger of extinction inform us that our activity is undermining the very life support systems of the planet.
Witness the sage grouse in Alberta: almost 90 per cent of its Canadian population died off between 1988 and 2006 because of habitat destruction caused mainly by oil and gas development. But the Alberta government refuses to curb economic growth and protect the areas it needs to survive and recover. Witness the changes the federal government made last year to the Fisheries Act, controversially weakening the law so only a few select categories of fish will receive legal protection from industrial development. And now, Ontario is poised to weaken its Endangered Species Act by creating a range of exemptions so industry will not have to follow its habitat-protection requirements.
A recently released scientific study proves that endangered species legislation really works. According to the U.S. Center for Biological Diversity's report, scientists estimate that, were it not for the Endangered Species Act, at least 227 species would likely have gone extinct. The report notes the act wasn't merely saving plants and creatures from extinction; it also facilitated recovery for more than 100 at-risk species, including the American crocodile, whooping crane and black-footed ferret.
Despite the evidence that endangered species laws are effective, governments in Canada are proceeding with deregulation and abdicating their responsibilities for wildlife habitat protection, often quietly. After all, only a few environmental watchdogs such as the David Suzuki Foundation are looking out for creatures that otherwise have no voice.
But our governments underestimate the public. The federal government likely wagered few would pay much attention when it stripped protections from the Fisheries Act and Environmental Assessment Act. But concerned citizens not only noticed, they protested loudly across the country.
Now, we have an opportunity to be heard before a change is made, as the government of Ontario has not yet passed its proposed exemptions to the Endangered Species Act. Politicians need to know that people care about at-risk plant and wildlife populations. You can make a difference by calling cabinet ministers or MPPs to let them know you oppose the deregulation trend. Visit www.protectendangeredspecies.ca to learn more.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario Science Projects Manager Rachel Plotkin.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org. ]]>Bean Leaves, Bedbugs and Biomimicry: Natural Solutions to Modern Problemstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32754662013-05-15T12:30:44-04:002013-05-15T12:30:50-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
Modern methods of controlling pests have consisted mainly of poisoning them with chemicals. But that's led to problems. Pesticides kill far more than the bugs they target, and pollute air, water and soil. As we learned with the widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests and mosquitoes, chemicals can bioaccumulate, meaning molecules may concentrate hundreds of thousands of times up the food web -- eventually reaching people.
As Rachel Carson wrote in her 1962 book Silent Spring, using DDT widely without knowing the full consequences was folly. She showed it was polluting water and killing wildlife, especially birds, and that it could cause cancer in humans. Her book launched the environmental movement but did little to change our overall strategy for dealing with bugs. Although DDT was banned worldwide for agricultural purposes in 2001, the chemical is still used to control insects that spread disease.
Recent research shows that widespread use of pesticides like DDT may have caused us to ignore or forget benign methods of pest control. Because the chemicals were so effective, infestations were reduced and there was little interest in non-toxic methods. But bugs evolve quickly and can become immune to pesticides. That's true of bedbugs, the now ubiquitous critters that are showing up around the world in homes, hotels, schools, movie theatres -- even libraries.
But a method used long ago provides an effective and non-toxic weapon against the pests, according to a U.S. study in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface. The authors looked into the once-common Eastern European practice of spreading bean leaves around a bed to control bedbugs. What they found was fascinating.
"During the night, bed bugs walking on the floor would accumulate on these bean leaves, which were collected and burned the following morning to exterminate the bed bugs. The entrapment of bed bugs by the bean leaves was attributed to the action of microscopic plant hairs (trichomes) on the leaf surfaces that would entangle the legs of the bed bugs," the scientists, from the University of California, Irvine, and University of Kentucky, wrote.
They discovered that after bugs get caught up in the hooked plant hairs, they struggle to escape, and in the process vulnerable parts of their feet are pierced by the hooks, permanently trapping them. The research focuses on a way to replicate this. "This physical entrapment is a source of inspiration in the development of new and sustainable methods to control the burgeoning numbers of bed bugs," the researchers wrote, adding that the method "would avoid the problem of pesticide resistance that has been documented extensively for this insect."
Other research has literally dug up pest control methods that go back millennia. An international team of archeologists recently found evidence that people living in South Africa almost 80,000 years ago made bedding out of insect-repelling plants.
According to the journal Science, the research team found 15 different layers containing bedding made from compacted stems and leaves of sedges and rushes, dating between 77,000 and 38,000 years ago. One layer of leaves was identified as River Wild-quince, which contains "chemicals that are insecticidal, and would be suitable for repelling mosquitoes." The archeologists also found evidence that people often burned the bedding after use, possibly to remove pests.
These are just two examples of what we can learn from our ancestors and from nature. Because natural systems tend toward balance, the fascinating field of biomimicry has developed to explore what nature can teach us. It's aimed at finding "sustainable solutions by emulating nature's time-tested patterns and strategies," according to the Biomimicry Guild website. "The goal is to create products, processes, and policies -- new ways of living -- that are well-adapted to life on earth over the long haul."
Maybe the truest sign of human intelligence is not to learn how we can shoehorn nature into our own agenda, but to see how we can better find our own place in nature.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.]]>The Nation That Values Happiness Over Economicstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32334292013-05-08T10:52:49-04:002013-05-08T12:13:50-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
Society has undergone huge changes since the Second World War. Our lives have been transformed by jet travel, oral contraceptives, plastics, satellites, television, cellphones, computers and digital technology. We seem endlessly adaptable as we adjust to the impacts of these new technologies, products and ideas. We only become aware of how dependant on them we are when they malfunction (work comes to a standstill when the network goes down) or don't exist (when we visit a "developing country"). Most of the time, we can't even imagine a way of living beyond being endlessly occupied with making money to get more stuff to make our lives "easier".
But some people have had the benefit of directly comparing a simpler way with the accelerated societies we've created. In the mid-20th century, the tiny Kingdom of Bhutan, hidden deep in the Himalayas between China and India, emerged from three hundred years of isolation. In 1961, the third king of Bhutan started sending students to schools in India. From there, some went on to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and other universities. The first of their nation to encounter Western society after three centuries of separation, those young people clearly saw the contrast in values. Upon returning to Bhutan, they expressed shock that, in the West, "development" and "progress" were measured in terms of money and material possessions.
At a 1972 international conference in India, a reporter asked Bhutan's king about his country's gross national product - a measure of economic activity. His response was semi-facetious: He said Bhutan's priority was not the GNP but GNH - gross national happiness. Bhutan's government has since taken the concept of GNH seriously and galvanized thinking around the world with the notion that the economy should serve people, not the other way around.
In 2004, Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, who became king in late 2006, said, "There cannot be enduring peace, prosperity, equality and brotherhood in this world if our aims are so separate and divergent - if we do not accept that in the end we are people, all alike, sharing the earth among ourselves and also with other sentient beings."
That empowered Bhutan to convene a high-level meeting. I was delighted when its leaders asked me to serve on a working group charged with defining happiness and well-being, and developing ways to measure these states and strategies. Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley even cited the David Suzuki Foundation's "Declaration of Interdependence" as an inspiration for the proposal.
The Bhutanese understand that well-being and happiness depend on a healthy environment. They vow to protect 60 per cent of forest cover in their country, are already carbon-neutral (they generate electricity from hydro) and have vowed to make their entire agriculture sector organic. They have snow leopards, elephants, rhinos, tigers and valleys of tree-sized rhododendrons - and know their happiness depends on protecting them.
The people of this tiny nation see that money and hyper-consumption aren't what contribute to happiness and well-being. I'm proud to be part of the important initiative they've embarked upon, and look forward to the work leading up to a presentation to the UN by 2015.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.]]>Devient-on une superpuissance énergétique en bradant ses ressources?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31115802013-05-07T11:18:28-04:002013-05-07T11:18:45-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
Au même moment, la première ministre de l'Alberta, Alison Redford, qui a été élue pour diriger une province économiquement forte, découvre que les revenus de sa province diminuent en raison des fluctuations des prix de l'énergie. Le boom économique de la Saskatchewan est associé aux revenus tirés du pétrole, du gaz naturel et de l'uranium, et la première ministre de la Colombie-Britannique, Christy Clark, prévoit une forte expansion de l'exploitation du gaz naturel liquéfié qui exige d'énormes quantités d'énergie et qui met en cause la pratique hautement controversée de la fracturation.
Alors que la première ministre du Québec, Pauline Marois, continue de ne pas autoriser les activités de fracturation hydraulique, le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick, David Alward, y voit une belle occasion pour sa province sur le plan énergétique. La Loi sur l'énergie verte de l'Ontario, une législation progressiste adoptée par l'ancien premier ministre Dalton McGuinty, est sérieusement attaquée et le premier ministre Stephen Harper défend vigoureusement l'exploration pétrolière alors que les glaces de l'Arctique et la toundra fondent en raison du réchauffement climatique.
Le billet de David Suzuki se poursuit après la galerie
Pendant que le gouvernement fédéral diabolise les environnementalistes en les traitant de «radicaux» qui ne cherchent qu'à faire dérailler les plans pour l'exploitation des sables bitumineux et des autres ressources naturelles, de plus en plus de gens s'opposent au transport du bitume dilué de l'Alberta vers la côte de la Colombie-Britannique via le pipeline Northern Gateway d'Enbridge ou vers les raffineries du Texas via le pipeline Keystone XL. La plus grande partie du pétrole serait exportée, notamment en Chine, où les effets négatifs extrêmes de la pollution liée à l'utilisation des combustibles fossiles augmentent de jour en jour.
Les politiciens qui souhaitent de véritables changements doivent se préoccuper en premier lieu de leur réélection s'ils veulent voir leur programme se concrétiser. Par conséquent, ils doivent répondre à des exigences économiques immédiates et mettre de côté les problèmes à régler à plus long terme, comme les changements climatiques et les questions portant sur l'eau. De toute évidence, les impacts durables des actions ou inactions présentes devraient être une priorité. Nous allons devoir vivre avec les multiples conséquences des décisions et des actions des politiciens d'aujourd'hui bien après que ceux-ci auront été relégués à l'histoire.
Une crise financière est un facteur puissant de motivation, comme nous l'avons constaté lors de la crise financière de 2008. En quelques semaines seulement, le président George W. Bush et son successeur, Barack Obama, ont débloqué des centaines de milliards de dollars pour renflouer les banques et les fabricants d'automobiles, sans pour autant leur imposer de conditions pour les amener à changer leurs façons de faire. J'ai été étonné de la rapidité et de l'ampleur des actions posées par les gouvernements, à comparer à la lenteur et à l'inefficacité des mesures prises pour résoudre les problèmes écologiques qui menacent la survie de notre espèce, de notre mode de vie et de notre société.
La science démontre depuis plus de deux décennies que l'utilisation par l'humain des combustibles fossiles, en créant des niveaux sans précédent de gaz à effet de serre, altère la chimie de l'atmosphère et entraîne des phénomènes climatiques et météorologiques chaotiques et dévastateurs. La hausse continue des émissions ne fera qu'exacerber la transformation atmosphérique - déjà hors de contrôle - de la biosphère, notre seul habitat.
Le billet de David Suzuki se poursuit après la galerie
Nous prétendons que l'intelligence fait de nous des êtres supérieurs à toute autre forme de vie sur cette planète, mais à quoi sert l'intelligence si nous ne l'utilisons pas pour répondre aux menaces et utiliser les opportunités? Après tout, la prévoyance a été un attribut important de l'humain qui l'a amené à se positionner en dominant sur cette planète. Nous avons utilisé nos connaissances et notre expérience pour regarder vers l'avenir en reconnaissant les dangers potentiels et les circonstances favorables afin de contrôler notre propre destin et en agissant de façon à éviter les dangers et à tirer profit des possibilités offertes.
C'est un moment charnière pour le Canada. Nous faisons face à une crise sur le plan économique et énergétique. Aucune économie ne peut croître indéfiniment; c'est tout simplement impossible sur une planète dont les ressources sont limitées. Ne devrions-nous pas nous demander à quoi sert l'économie? Jusqu'où peut-on aller? Où sont les limites? Comment faisons-nous pour mettre sur pied une économie durable? Les collectivités à ressource unique ont appris, après des expériences difficiles, que dépendre d'un secteur dominant de l'économie -- que ce soit la forêt, les pêches ou les mines -- prédispose à des cycles d'expansion et de ralentissement dévastateurs.
L'avenir du secteur énergétique au Canada déterminera le sort de notre société. Cette question doit être largement discutée, tant à l'échelle nationale que provinciale, et doit dépasser les frontières politiques et économiques. Nous devons définir le genre de pays que nous voulons léguer à nos enfants et à nos petits enfants.
VOIR AUSSI
]]>Canada Is Ready For a Transformative Energy Experiencetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31886772013-05-01T17:29:03-04:002013-05-01T17:29:17-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
A lot of research is challenging those skeptical assumptions, including some by the David Suzuki Foundation, working with the Trottier Energy Futures Project. "Canada has vast renewable energy resources in the form of hydropower, solar, wind energy, and biomass, as well as geothermal, wave, and tidal resources that are many times larger than current or projected levels of total fuel and electricity consumption," the recent Trottier report, "An Inventory of Low-Carbon Energy for Canada," concludes.
An article in the New York Times points to research by the Paris-based International Energy Agency, showing, "Thirteen countries got more than 30 per cent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2011."
The Stanford study's lead author, engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson, told the New York Times, "You could power America with renewables from a technical and economic standpoint. The biggest obstacles are social and political -- what you need is the will to do it."
It would be even less of a challenge in Canada. Thanks in part to our abundant hydro resources, we produced more than 63 per cent of our electricity with renewable sources in 2011. The U.S. produced 12.3 per cent.
The biggest obstacles in shifting to clean energy may be social and political, but one of the greatest challenges is creating a "smart" electricity grid. As Trottier Project managing director Ralph Torrie says, we'll have to replace our antiquated grid with one that "will use information technologies to balance a wider range of supply sources, energy storage, interprovincial transfers of electricity and a wide variety of energy management and efficiency tools." Because the current system is due for an overhaul, now is an ideal time to invest in reconfiguring it.
Other challenges include the costs and the impacts of renewable energy installations on ecosystems and wildlife. And with biofuels, the sustainability of source materials and effects on land and food supplies must also be considered. But these are far from insurmountable. Fossil fuel and nuclear power sources are also extremely costly and have far greater environmental impacts. And many studies show that moving to renewables creates jobs and contributes to economic health.
The recent Trottier study looked at Canada's potential in the context of reducing energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 -- a necessary target if we are to do our part to combat climate change. Reaching that target will also require becoming more efficient in the ways we produce and consume fuels and electricity. This means looking at our individual behaviours as well as considering our habits and practices for everything from public transportation to building design to manufacturing.
Sure, it will be a challenge. But the alternative -- to carry on polluting air, water and soil and putting our future at risk with global warming -- isn't pretty. We've faced and overcome many challenges before. When people have mobilized resources in the past, we've been able to accomplish a lot in relatively little time -- from defeating the fascist threat in the Second World War to putting people on the moon.
Finding smarter ways to power our societies is something we can and must do.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.
]]>Une perspective globale est nécessaire pour protéger la naturetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31862382013-05-01T10:27:05-04:002013-05-01T10:27:06-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/une étude publiée dans la revue Science. Des images satellites prises à des centaines de kilomètres au-dessus de la planète révèlent un monde que nous avons modifié irrévocablement et dans un délai remarquablement court.
Bien que les projets industriels comme le projet de pipeline Northern Gateway d'Enbridge ou celui récemment avorté d'une méga carrière en Ontario font habituellement la une des manchettes et font ressortir l'opposition du public, ce sont souvent les effets conjugués d'une pluralité d'activités humaines sur les mêmes territoires qui menacent de conduire la nature au-delà de seuils critiques de basculement. Une fois que ceux-ci auront été franchis, de rapides changements écologiques peuvent se produire telle qu'une extinction d'espèces.
Par exemple, dans la région en plein essor économique de la Peace River en Colombie-Britannique, les licences et concessions forestières, énergétiques et minières sont très répandues et se recoupent souvent dans la même zone. Comme diverses industries ont exploité ces «mandats», une mosaïque tentaculaire de grandes coupes à blanc, de puits de pétrole, de barrages et de réservoirs, d'opérations de fracturation hydraulique, de milliers de kilomètres de corridors de relevés sismiques, de routes et de pipelines en sont venus à dominer le paysage. Aujourd'hui, plus de 65 % de la région a ressenti l'impact du développement industriel, laissant peu d'habitats intacts pour des espèces sensibles et menacées tel le caribou afin qu'il puisse se nourrir, se reproduire ou se déplacer. La dégradation ou la destruction de l'habitat a convaincu les scientifiques que les derniers troupeaux de la région ne sont plus autonomes et sont entrés dans une spirale de déclin les menant vers l'extinction à l'échelle locale. Les Premières Nations, qui ont compté sur le caribou comme source principale de nourriture depuis des milliers d'années, ne peuvent plus les chasser. Il s'agit d'une violation flagrante des droits obtenus par l'intermédiaire de certains traités.
Cette situation désastreuse ne s'est pas produite par accident ou en raison d'une approche laxiste vis-à-vis de la gestion des ressources et du territoire. De nombreuses industries de la région ont opéré légalement et conformément aux règles et règlements établis par le gouvernement.
Mais les experts juridiques, tells que ceux appartenant à l'organisation non gouvernementale West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL), estiment que l'une des causes du problème réside dans le fait que les lois sur la gestion du territoire, des ressources et de l'eau sont "court-circuitées" afin de contourner les engagements pris envers les communautés et l'environnement. L'étroitesse de vision de ces lois permet aux industries d'opérer de manière isolée les unes des autres.
La Colombie-Britannique, par exemple, a développé de nombreuses lois individuelles, comme le Forest and Range Practices Act, le Oil and Gas Activities Act ou encore le Mines Act, en travaillant parallèlement avec les industries que ces lois réglementent. Mais la province ne dispose pas d'un cadre juridique qui permette de gérer, de manière proactive et globale, les impacts cumulatifs engendrés par les multiples industries exploitant les ressources et opérant dans une même zone.
Pour cette raison, la WCEL et les Premières Nations partenaires sont engagées dans un projet pluriannuel de réforme du droit qui vise à modifier la façon dont nous supervisons et réglementons actuellement les impacts cumulatifs, allant de la détérioration de la qualité de l'eau qui peut survenir à cause de l'utilisation commune de la même ressource par plusieurs industries jusqu'aux menaces émergentes telles que les changements climatiques.
La régulation du développement des ressources par une approche intégrant les impacts cumulatifs pourrait contrebalancer le paradigme actuel de gestion. Cette approche serait axée sur les besoins en gestion du territoire, de l'eau, de l'air, de la faune et des communautés qui en dépendent en premier lieu, plutôt que sur l'extraction des ressources. En termes pratiques, cela signifie que, plutôt que de se concentrer sur ce que nous devrions prendre de la nature afin de créer de la richesse et de l'emploi, nous devrions d'abord examiner ce qui doit être conservé dans la nature pour préserver à la fois la faune et le bien-être des communautés locales, telles que la qualité de l'air, de l'eau potable ou encore une alimentation locale saine.
Lors d'un récent colloque sur la gestion des impacts cumulatifs dus à l'exploitation des ressources en Colombie-Britannique, de nombreux intervenants allant des Premières Nations aux universitaires et aux chefs d'entreprises, ont souligné que pour mener une gestion efficace des effets cumulatifs, il faudra de nouvelles institutions et mécanismes de régulation, voire de nouveaux leviers juridiques. De manière encore plus importante, il faudra que nos dirigeants adoptent une façon plus proactive et holistique d'aborder le monde - une approche qui reconnaît que, loin d'être simplement un lieu d'extraction des ressources comme les combustibles fossiles, le bois et les minéraux, la nature est notre maison. La nature répond à nos besoins les plus fondamentaux et impose des limites à la croissance, sa protection devrait donc être notre plus grande priorité.
La gestion plus durable de notre empreinte écologique, de plus en plus importante sur cette planète, exigera un leadership, en grande partie issu des peuples des Premières Nations qui sont aux premières lignes de la réalité quotidienne des changements environnementaux cumulatifs. Nous devons regarder la situation sous une perspective globale plutôt qu'y voir des éléments individuels isolés entre eux.
Rédigé avec la contribution du Directeur général de la Fondation David Suzuki de l'Ontario et du Nord du Canada, Faisal Moola.
VOIR AUSSI
]]>The Greenest Way to Deal With Stresstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31421432013-04-24T11:28:40-04:002013-04-24T12:51:49-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
The modern workday pose -- fingers on keyboard, slight slouch, glassy eyes fixed on glowing screen, bathed in unnatural light -- can drain vitality, happiness and creativity. Designed to maximize efficiency, this sterile setup actually reduces productivity and job satisfaction.
In fact, modern workplaces are the main reason adults now spend about 9.3 hours a day sitting. Medical journal The Lancet estimates this unprecedented level of inactivity is causing 5.3 million deaths a year worldwide, similar to smoking -- prompting the Harvard Business Review to suggest "Sitting is the smoking of our generation."
The good news is that researchers have built an increasingly persuasive case for what most of us know intuitively: nature is good for us. Being regularly immersed in a natural setting can reduce stress while boosting immunity, ingenuity and energy.
As neuroscientist Marc Berman explains, adding a daily dose of green to your routine may be the best prescription for dealing with workday stress. His research shows that even simple, brief interactions with nature can improve cognitive control and mood.
Why does green time reduce stress? Various studies suggest exposure to natural settings stimulate "soft fascination" -- something New York Times reporter Gretchen Reynolds describes as "a beguiling term for quiet contemplation, during which directed attention is barely called upon and the brain can reset those overstretched resources." Hard fascination, by contrast, is stimulated by bright, loud activities like watching TV or sports, which require little or no effort but don't allow for mental rest.
Researchers at the University of Michigan estimated that memory performance and attention span can improve by 20 per cent after an hour in nature, while University of Rochester studies concluded that being outside for 20 minutes a day is enough to boost vitality. And a new study from Scotland demonstrated brain fatigue can be eased with just a 10-minute walk in the park.
But how can we fit more green time into our hectic schedules?
The David Suzuki Foundation has a solution. The 30x30 Nature Challenge asks Canadians to commit to spending at least 30 minutes a day in nature for 30 days in May. Participants can take the 30x30 pledge at davidsuzuki.org/30x30Challenge and receive tips about how to add green time to their routines.
Finding your nature fix can be easy. Hold your next meeting outdoors -- maybe make it a walking meeting. Invite colleagues to have lunch in a nearby park. Take the scenic route home and go for a walk in a neighbourhood green space along the way. Stop to smell the flowers and take notice of critters, trees and plants. Skip the gym, and head outside for a jog or bike ride.
Even if you can't make it outside for a daily dose of nature, simple changes inside can help make you happier and healthier. As Alan Logan and Eva Selhub document in their book Your Brain on Nature, workers in windowless settings are more anxious, hostile and depressed than colleagues on windowed floors. Increasing natural light within the workplace has been linked to improved productivity and contentment. Researchers in Texas even found employees in offices with plants or green-space views felt greater job satisfaction and reported a higher overall quality of life.
Increased exposure to nature also leads people to nurture closer relationships and build stronger community bonds. When Capilano University professor Joe Kelly spent at least an hour a day outside each day this March, he observed that "free of the distractions and background noise present in the city, the serenity of nature provides a perfect venue to connect with others."
Even the world's worst boss should know employees who are less stressed and healthier are more productive. So why not sign up for the 30x30 Nature Challenge -- and encourage your office mates to join? Challenge your entire company to head outside for 30 minutes a day for 30 days. And be sure to take part in the surveys before and after. Tell us how you feel. Does regular time in nature make you calmer? More alert? Happier? Let's all get into the nature habit. It can make our lives better.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Specialist Jode Roberts.
]]>Wind Power Opponents May Be Blowing Hot Airtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30954372013-04-17T07:57:00-04:002013-06-17T05:12:01-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/recent research, it may not be the infrasound from wind-energy installations but, oddly enough, the warnings from opponents.
For a study published in the American Psychological Association's Health Psychology journal, researchers from New Zealand's University of Auckland showed readily available anti-wind-power film footage to 27 people. Another 27 were shown interviews with experts who said infrasound, such as that created by wind turbines, can't directly cause negative health effects. Subjects were then told they would be exposed to two 10-minute periods of infrasound, but were actually only exposed to one.
After both real and "sham" exposure, people in the first group were far more likely to report negative symptoms than those in the second. In fact, subjects in the second group reported "no symptomatic changes" after either exposure. According to the researchers, "Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints."
Another study, which has yet to be published, shows people living near wind-power installations report more health problems during anti-wind campaigns. Researchers from Australia's Sydney University found only 120 complaints from people living within five kilometres of the country's 49 wind farms between 1993 and 2012. But 68 per cent were from people living near five wind farms targeted by anti-wind-farm groups, and 82 per cent occurred after 2009, when wind-energy opponents started highlighting health scares in their campaigns.
The power of suggestion can be extremely effective, especially when it comes to human health. Unfortunately, in the case of wind energy, this can delay or even stop wind-power installations that are a necessary part of the shift from polluting fossil fuels to clean energy, as has happened recently in Canada.
In fact, science shows that wind energy does not negatively affect human health in any significant way. An independent panel convened by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection reviewed the available research and released a report last year. It found no scientific evidence to support most claims about "Wind Turbine Syndrome," infrasound effects and harm blamed on wind power such as pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease and headache/migraine.
At worst, there is some evidence that wind installations may cause annoyance and sleep disruption. But most of the resulting minor effects can be overcome by regulations governing how close windmills are to residences. In Ontario, the required setback is 550 metres. At this distance, audible sound from windmills is normally below 40 decibels, which is about what you'd find in most bedrooms and living rooms.
On the other hand, we know that using fossil fuels for energy has profound effects on human health -- and on the economy. The Canadian Medical Association reports that in 2008 air pollution in Canada was responsible for 21,000 premature deaths, 92,000 emergency room visits and 620,000 visits to a doctor's office. And a new study by the Pembina Institute found that "health impact costs associated with burning coal for electricity in Alberta are close to $300 million annually."
According to Pembina researchers, "Coal plants are a major source of toxic air contaminants, including mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, and particulate matter. The study shows that in Alberta each year this pollution contributes to over 4,000 asthma episodes, over 700 emergency visits for respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, and around 80 hospital admissions, with chronic exposures resulting in nearly 100 premature deaths."
Factor these costs into the equation, and coal and other fossil fuels don't seem like the bargain they're purported to be -- especially considering the sector is subsidized by about $1.9 trillion a year worldwide, according to the International Monetary Fund. With the costs of renewable energy coming down, and the technology improving, more and more research shows that switching from fossil fuels to clean energy is feasible.
When it comes to wind power, we have to be careful to ensure that impacts on the environment and on animals such as birds and bats are minimized, and we should continue to study possible effects on health. But we must also be wary of false arguments against it.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington. Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org. ]]>Muzzling Scientists Is an Assault on Democracytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30475712013-04-10T12:17:33-04:002013-06-10T05:12:01-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/Charter of Rights and Freedoms also gives us "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."
We must protect these rights. As we alter the chemical, physical and biological properties of the biosphere, we face an increasingly uncertain future, and the best information we have to guide us comes from science. That scientists -- and even librarians -- are speaking out against what appear to be increasing efforts to suppress information shows we have cause for concern. The situation has become so alarming that Canada's Information Commissioner is investigating seven government departments in response to a complaint that they're "muzzling" scientists.
The submission from the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre and Democracy Watch alleges that "the federal government is preventing the media and the Canadian public from speaking to government scientists for news stories -- especially when the scientists' research or point of view runs counter to current Government policies on matters such as environmental protection, oil sands development, and climate change" and that this "impoverishes the public debate on issues of significant national concern."
The complaint and investigation follow numerous similar charges from scientists and organizations such as the Canadian Science Writers' Association and the World Federation of Science Journalists, and publications such as the science journal Nature. Hundreds of scientists marched on Parliament Hill last July to mark "the death of evidence".
All of this has been taking place as the federal government guts environmental laws and cuts funding for environmental departments through its omnibus budget bills. It has justified those massive environmental policy changes in part by saying the review process was slow and inefficient, but research by scientists at the University of Toronto, published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, "found no evidence that regulatory review in Canada was inefficient, even when regulators had an ongoing load of over 600 projects for review at any given time."
The government appears determined to challenge any information, person or organization that could stand in the way of its plans for rapid tar sands expansion and transport and sale of raw resources as quickly as possible to any country with money.
The results have been astounding. An Environment Canada document leaked to the Climate Action Network states, "Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent."
In the environmental movement, we've become accustomed to attacks and attempts by government and its proxies to silence us. We've been called everything from "radicals" to "un-Canadian" to "money-launderers". Federal Treasury Board President Tony Clement even blamed the David Suzuki Foundation and me for opposition to the proposed TransCanada west-to-east pipeline, a project we have yet to say a word about! Some of the ongoing media slurs have been even sillier. Are they that threatened by credible scientific research that might stand in the way of their current liquidation policies?
Canada is a large country with the longest coastline in the world, and is particularly sensitive to climate fluctuations, especially in economic sectors like agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism. We aspire to be an "energy superpower". Surely, understanding the effects of climate change should be at the top of our agenda.
In a truly open and democratic society, ideas, policies and legislation are exposed to scrutiny, debate and criticism. Information is shared freely. Governments support research that makes the country stronger by ensuring its policies are in the best interests of the people. A government that values its citizens more than its industrial backers does not fear information and opposition.
Countries where governments hold a tight rein on information, shut down or stifle research that runs counter to their priorities, and demonize and attack opponents are never good places to live. We have to make sure Canada doesn't become one.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org. ]]>Plus de temps dans la nature pour des enfants en bonne santétag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30145722013-04-09T07:00:42-04:002013-06-09T05:12:01-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/le rapport regroupe des commentaires de parents ainsi qu'une étude prouvant que les enfants passent nettement moins de temps dehors qu'auparavant, il ne les encourage pas à s'amuser au cœur de la nature.
Ceci dit, de nombreuses recommandations issues de ce rapport devraient être mises en place et soutenues aux niveaux local, provincial et national afin de réduire l'obésité chez les enfants. Cela fait déjà longtemps qu'on aurait dû inciter les parents et les enfants à avoir un point de vue plus critique sur leurs choix diététiques et que les restaurants et producteurs alimentaires auraient dû fournir davantage d'informations et un meilleur étiquetage des produits.
L'Ontario n'est pas la seule province à travailler sur la réduction du taux d'obésité et sur le soutien des parents pour élever des enfants en bonne santé, notamment dès leur plus jeune âge. L'Alberta a diffusé des rapports similaires en 2011 et le Québec interdit depuis 1980 toute publicité destinée aux enfants et reliée aux aliments de la malbouffe. On ne peut se tromper face à l'importance de la sensibilisation et de l'éducation du public concernant les bénéfices d'une alimentation saine et des activités physiques. Nous devons mettre en place une stratégie à l'échelle nationale qui amènera nos enfants à manger de façon saine et à poursuivre des activités de plein air.
Bien qu'il semble logique que la majeure partie du temps passé à être actif s'effectue à l'extérieur, le rapport ontarien reconnaît que « de nombreuses communautés ne sont pas conçues pour inciter les enfants à bouger ou à être physiquement actifs... et possèdent peu d'espaces verts sécuritaires. L'un des parents membre du groupe d'analyse explique que les parcs de son village sont soit clôturés soit interdis d'accès lorsque l'école est fermée. Donc, même s'il existe des espaces verts, ils ne sont pas toujours accessibles.
L'année dernière, la Fondation David Suzuki a réalisé un sondage auprès de jeunes Canadiens et a découvert que 70 % d'entre eux passaient moins d'une heure par jour dehors. Le Bulletin 2012 pour Jeunes en forme Canada indique qu'ils passent près de huit heures par jour devant un écran. Cela ne veut pas dire que les enfants n'ont pas le temps de s'amuser dehors. Cela ne fait tout simplement pas partie de leur style de vie.
On parle beaucoup d'une recommandation faite par le Comité d'experts de l'Ontario visant à interdire la publicité pour la malbouffe s'adressant aux enfants de moins de 12 ans. Cette méthode a fonctionné au Québec et est en cours d'étude en Alberta. Cette approche est toutefois disputée par des individus qui pensent que toute personne devrait avoir le droit de faire ses propres choix. Il est bien tentant de vouloir réduire l'accessibilité aux mauvaises choses, mais les décideurs ne devraient-ils pas davantage se concentrer sur la mise en valeur de méthodes permettant de rendre les bonnes choses plus accessibles?
Passer du temps avec la nature est bénéfique pour tous. Les personnes qui sont régulièrement dehors sont moins stressées, possèdent un système immunitaire plus résistant et sont généralement plus heureuses. C'est également bon pour nos enfants. Plusieurs études ont démontré que les symptômes du trouble du déficit de l'attention avec hyperactivité (TDAH) étaient réduits chez les individus passant du temps dans la nature ou dans les espaces verts. Même dans les aires de jeux aménagées, les enfants passent deux fois plus de temps à jouer, ils utilisent davantage leur imagination et se lancent plus dans des activités demandant force et endurance lorsque ces espaces intègrent des éléments naturels tels que des troncs d'arbres, des fleurs et de petites rivières, selon une étude réalisée par l'Université du Tennessee à Knoxville.
Bien que les bénéfices issus des activités de plein air soient évidents pour la santé, les gouvernements fédéraux et provinciaux n'intègrent pas de dose quotidienne de nature dans leurs lois. La société de nos jours oublie également d'en faire une priorité dans la vie de nos enfants. Cette méthode peu coûteuse et efficace permettant de nous rendre plus sains et heureux devrait être une solution évidente.
Nous devons faire en sorte que nos quartiers possèdent des espaces verts où les gens peuvent se reconnecter à la nature. Nous devons demander aux enseignants et aux représentants des commissions scolaires de sortir les élèves et de faire de la nature une salle de classe. Nous devons arrêter de faire croire aux enfants que l'extérieur est un endroit effrayant en aidant les parents à comprendre que les risques encourus en jouant dehors sont bien plus minimaux que les bénéfices qu'ils en tirent.
Il faudra sensibiliser et éduquer le public, et modifier la façon dont nous construisons les villes et vivons dans nos communautés pour ramener la nature dans nos vies. Connecter nos enfants avec la nature de manière quotidienne doit devenir un objectif de politique prioritaire dans toute stratégie pour des enfants en pleine forme et aurait pu être facilement intégré aux recommandations du Comité d'Experts pour la Santé des Enfants en Ontario. Prendre nos enfants par la main et passer du temps avec eux dehors nous aidera également à faire de nous des adultes plus sains et heureux.
Ce texte a été rédigé à l'aide de contributions de la spécialiste des communications de la Fondation David Suzuki, Leanne Clare.
VOIR AUSSI
]]>Sneaking Out of the Desertification Convention Sends the Wrong Messagetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30015572013-04-03T08:48:25-04:002013-06-03T05:12:01-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/UN Convention to Combat Desertification. It's aimed at fighting drought, a problem that affects almost 30 per cent of Earth's land surface and threatens the well-being of more than a billion people worldwide, including in our Prairie provinces.
Every year, the cumulative effects of overgrazing, over-cultivation, deforestation, poor irrigation and increasing extreme weather events -- including those that cause drought -- permanently degrade close to 10-million hectares of land. This has led to a creeping loss of places where food can easily be grown.
The deterioration of dry-land ecosystems has already created desert-like "dead zones" that can no longer support human life in places such as sub-Saharan Africa. No region is immune. Close to three-quarters of North America's dry lands, including parts of the Prairies, are vulnerable to drought. And sudden loss of agricultural productivity can be devastating to farm communities across Canada.
Under the UN convention, close to 195 countries are working to improve living conditions for some of the world's most vulnerable people, to maintain and restore land and soil productivity and to reduce the effects of drought, including food and water shortages, malnutrition, mass migrations, increased political instability and war.
Many aid and development experts believe this international agreement is critical to advancing global economic, political and food security. Canada is the only country to walk away.
The convention is a rare example of people from around the world coming together to address the root causes of environmental and social crises. It was passed shortly after drought-related crop failures and resulting malnutrition, starvation and mass migrations ravaged the Horn of Africa in the 1980s in places like Somalia and Ethiopia.
Canadians opened their hearts and wallets to these horrific droughts. Our government matched public efforts with leadership in helping to negotiate the Desertification Convention, signed in 1994. Canadians even led its decision-making body for many years. Through our partnership in the convention, previous federal governments also poured hundreds of millions of dollars into research, education and direct aid to drought-stricken nations.
Canada's past leadership is no surprise. Drought is a serious problem for our farmers. We are, in fact, officially designated as an "affected nation" under the convention, given that 60 per cent of our croplands and 80 per cent of our rangelands are in dry-land areas. Earlier droughts, such as the dust bowls of the Dirty '30s, triggered severe erosion and dust storms, and resulted in tragic consequences, including massive unemployment and abandonment of farms across the Prairies.
The current government even recognizes our social and economic vulnerability to droughts. A 2008 study by Environment Canada and the Saskatchewan Research Council found that a severe dry period in 2001-02 resulted in $3.6 billion in losses to farmers from reduced agricultural production in Canada. The study warned that climate change is likely to cause more droughts and associated economic risks. As one of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emitters in the world, we're contributing to worldwide drought.
Canada was once renowned internationally for progressive ideals and values that help improve the world -- from the creation and deployment of peacekeepers by the government of Lester B. Pearson to our support for a global ban on anti-personnel land mines with the passing of the Ottawa Treaty (also known as the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention). The world community recognized many of our leaders for these efforts with Nobel Peace Prizes and nominations.
By abandoning the UN Desertification Convention, as well as other important international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, we're sending the wrong message to the world community. We're saying that exporting resources like oil and timber matter more to us than contributing to dialogue and partnership on global issues. That Canada snuck out of the agreement without even notifying the UN secretariat, just to save about $300,000 a year, makes matters worse.
Nature doesn't heed human borders, and global problems like drought and desertification require global solutions. Canada was wrong to pull out of the UN Desertification Convention. Doing so further isolates us on the world stage as a partner in addressing environmental issues and tarnishes our hard-earned reputation when it comes to making the world a better place to live.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada Director General Faisal Moola.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org. ]]>Does Selling off Our Resources Make Us an Energy Superpower?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29587632013-03-27T08:06:35-04:002013-05-27T05:12:01-04:00David Suzukihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suzuki/
Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Alison Redford, elected to lead a province with a strong economy, now finds energy price fluctuations are reducing provincial revenues. Saskatchewan is booming from oil, gas and uranium revenues, and B.C. Premier Christy Clark plans to vastly expand exploitation of liquefied natural gas, which requires huge amounts of energy and involves the highly contentious practice of fracking.
While Quebec Premier Pauline Marois maintains a moratorium on fracking, New Brunswick Premier David Alward claims it's an energy opportunity for his province. Former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's progressive Green Energy Act is under serious attack, and Prime Minister Harper eagerly embraces exploration for oil as Arctic sea ice and tundra melt from the warming climate.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
While the federal government demonizes environmentalists as "radicals" bent on derailing exploitation plans for the tar sands and other natural resources, opposition is rising against pipelines to transport Alberta's diluted bitumen to the B.C. coast via Enbridge's Northern Gateway or to Texas refineries via the Keystone XL. Much of the oil would be exported to countries like China, where the extreme negative effects of fossil fuel pollution are increasing daily.
Politicians who want to make significant change must focus primarily on re-election if they are to see their agendas come to fruition. That means they must respond to immediate economic demands while leaving longer-term problems like climate change and water issues on the back burner. Surely the enduring consequences of today's actions or inactions must be a priority. We'll be living with the ramifications of the current crop of politicians' decisions and actions long after they've been relegated to history.
Crisis is a powerful motivator, as we saw during the economic crash of 2008. In a matter of weeks, President George W. Bush and his successor, Barack Obama, committed hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and automobile companies -- without imposing any conditions that might get them to change their ways. I was astounded at the speed and scale of these actions, compared to the ineffectual snail's pace on ecological issues that threaten the survival of our species and our way of life and society.
The science has been in for more than two decades: Human use of fossil fuels creating unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases is altering the chemistry of the atmosphere, leading to climate and weather effects that will be chaotic and devastating. Continued increases in emissions will only exacerbate what is already an out-of-control atmospheric transformation of the biosphere -- our only home.
We claim brainpower makes us superior to the rest of life on this planet. But what use is intelligence if we don't use it to respond to threats and opportunities? After all, foresight was a great human attribute that brought us to a position of dominance on the planet. We used our knowledge and experiences to look ahead and recognize potential dangers and favourable circumstances so we could take some control over our destiny by acting to avoid hazards and exploit possibilities.
This is Canada's moment. We are confronting a crisis with the economy and energy. No economy can grow forever; it is simply impossible on a finite planet. Shouldn't we ask what an economy is for? How much is enough? What are the limits? How do we build a sustainable economy? We have learned from painful experience in single-resource communities that relying primarily on one major component of the economy -- logging, fishing, mining -- makes for dangerous boom-and-bust cycles.
Nations that export fossil fuel too often become over-reliant on that sector. That destabilizes the economy (as we're seeing in Alberta), distorts priorities (leading to the so-called "Dutch disease" where other parts of the economy are neglected or ignored) and undermines democracy by holding government hostage (as we saw in the enormous lobbying power of industry in the last U.S. presidential election).
The future of energy in Canada will determine the fate of our society. It must be widely discussed, nationally as well as provincially, beyond the boundaries of politics and economics. This is about the type of country we will leave to our children and grandchildren.