Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Suzuki

GET UPDATES FROM David Suzuki
 

Can Our Government Get it Right in 2012?

Posted: 01/ 4/2012 6:03 pm

What purpose do governments serve? Some people think we could do without them, but that's absurd. Even libertarians agree that some kind of police force and legal system are necessary to ensure that individual freedoms and property are protected, especially when conflicts arise over competing freedoms and property rights.

Others argue that the ever-expanding economy is our highest priority, and that governments should encourage this unending growth by subsidizing or promoting business and removing so-called regulatory red tape.

At its most basic, a government is there to protect its citizens. That's more complicated than it seems. What rights do citizens have? Most democratic countries spell those out in their constitutions. Canada's Constitution, for example, enshrines rights in a range of areas: fundamental, democratic, legal, equality, language, and so on.

As we begin a New Year, it's worth reflecting on how well our government has looked after the interests of its citizens, and where we might be heading.

According to our Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are legally entitled to life, liberty, and security in Canada. But how can we fulfill that right without protecting the necessary preconditions for life: clean air, water, and productive soils to grow food?

These all come from and depend on natural functioning ecosystems. We can try to clean up water that has been polluted or grow food in a lab, but those strategies will cost much more than protecting the ecosystems before they are compromised.

Natural functioning ecosystems (let's just call them "nature") supply resources that we all depend on to meet our basic needs and to survive. We need nature, including each other, more than anything else.

We can't rely on technological fixes, individual actions, or market systems to protect it. Unfortunately, the negative costs of damaging the environment and the benefits that nature provides are rarely factored into economic equations.

In that light, one of government's primary roles is to protect nature. Arguments between the so-called political left and right are often summarized as the difference between wanting more or less government. But that misses the point of government.

Governments set priorities, many of them based on where they allocate money and resources. Successive governments in Canada have promoted the idea that a strong economy is the most important consideration and that to have prosperity we must put the interests of corporations above those of citizens. This is backwards.

While continuing to spend tens of billions of dollars on jet fighters, war ships, and campaigns to promote itself and the tar sands, Canada's government is gutting resources from the programs and departments responsible for protecting our environment, as well as weakening policies and laws designed to conserve nature.

At the end of 2011, we saw our government trying to cajole other countries to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol during the climate change talks in Durban, South Africa. When no one went along, Canada became the first country to abandon this legally binding international agreement.

Of course, our current government isn't the only one that has failed to live up to the agreement's requirements. Kyoto may not have been perfect, but in abandoning it rather than working to strengthen it, Canada's leadership failed to acknowledge that dealing with climate change is essential to protecting its citizens, and those of the world.

We can only take this administration's word that it will come up with a realistic plan to cut emissions and fight climate change, but the record of successive governments so far doesn't inspire much confidence.

Let's get beyond this false dichotomy of economy versus environment. If we look at economy as a way to provide for the health and well-being of citizens, then it's there to serve the environment, of which we are a part, and not the other way around. Environmental protection shouldn't be seen as a barrier to opportunity; it should be seen as an essential part of a healthy economy.

It's up to all of us to ensure that the governments we elect to look after our interests protect nature because we depend on it for our very lives. That's what they're for.

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Aquatic Biologist Jeffery Young.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

 
What purpose do governments serve? Some people think we could do without them, but that's absurd. Even libertarians agree that some kind of police force and legal system are necessary to ensure that i...
What purpose do governments serve? Some people think we could do without them, but that's absurd. Even libertarians agree that some kind of police force and legal system are necessary to ensure that i...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 22
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JBSCanada
They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot!
11:55 AM on 01/08/2012
Q) Who wants tankers with 1,000,000 barrels of liquid bitumen plying Canada's rugged and very narrow coastline?

A) Only an idiot.

You have to go to Kitimat, BC to experience the pristine beauty of the place. Whales in plain sight from shore, part of the year. Other wild life is also on stunning display. Bald Eagles, otters, seals, you name it, it's there. It really is a diverse and very full ecosystem.

If you are in favour of oil-tanker traffic on that part of Canada's western coastline, you obviously haven't been there. Even the most jaded human couldn't live with themselves if a major spill happened there.

Go, see for yourself. Get informed. Spend a week there. It will change you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
06:21 PM on 01/07/2012
The Keystone pipeline is a good example of governmental foolishness, whether it goes ahead or not. Now we have an even greater problem and that is the "Northern Gateway" line. It appears the shipping route from Kitimat to Prince Rupert, is through the "Inside Passage". That route cannot possibly be accepted by Canadians. It is far too narrow for a large oil tanker due to the channel being used by ferries and by cruise ships. I am surprised that the issue has not come to the forefront yet!

Is this another example of our government's foolishness? People need to become aware of this pending disastrous decision, as it will definitely affect our coastline. If it isn't an aquifer, it is something else. This route must be changed! David please say something!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:18 AM on 01/07/2012
Isn't the Government's role to work for the good of it's people?
But, since approx 61% of qualified voters turned out the last election I guess the Government will only perform 61% of their job.
I wish I could get away with that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miller Time
01:05 AM on 01/08/2012
If you spent half the time doing your job as MPs do, you would probably be working twice a hard and long as you are doing now.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:15 PM on 01/06/2012
"It's up to all of us to ensure that the governments we elect to look after our interests protect nature because we depend on it for our very lives."

The trouble is, we stupidly let the worst possible party get a majority government, and now it's impossible to stop the damage they are doing. People often say that one should write to one's MP to tell them what you want from government, but what good does that do? If you have the misfortune of having a Conservative MP, you will be ignored; if your MP is not a Con, you are preaching to the powerless choir.

The vast majority of Canadians despise Harper and his Con party, but yet they couldn't get their act together enough to do the incredibly simple thing of voting for the non-Con candidate most likely to defeat the local Con candidate. The necessary information to make the best strategic choice at the riding level was readily available, and yet many people completely flubbed it. If so many Canadians are too dumb to be able handle a simple task such as keeping Harper out of power, how can we possibly prevent a majority government that cares nothing about the environment from doing ever more damage?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Keith E
Earth Warrior
04:17 PM on 01/06/2012
David Suzuki for PM 2015!
12:37 PM on 01/06/2012
Dear Professor Suzuki,
Thank you for your tireless efforts on our behalf to bring us kicking and screaming into reality. No one else has done so much in my memory to keep us all breathing. I have been and remain sir, your fan and agree whole-heartedly with your ideology.
John Tripp
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sdgreen
08:47 PM on 01/06/2012
Problem is that the Suzuki Doctrine would lead Canada back to the caveman days.
11:41 PM on 01/06/2012
Have you watched Doctor Suzuki's latest lecture on CBC? He has put it in terms even the most ignorant could understand if he cared about breathing. I don't have any grandchildren but I care about all the children and wonder if they'll be able to breathe in twenty years.
Doctor Suzuki doesn't have a doctrine but he does know where we're heading if we don't wake up. When's the last time you had a nice drink of pure well water? In the largest country on Earth you'd have to get pretty remote to find any pure water. Get it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 PM on 01/06/2012
Harper out in 2015!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
sonoffestus
Got smart & got out!
12:39 PM on 01/08/2012
I'll vote for that, sooner if I could....................SOF.
10:00 AM on 01/06/2012
David Suzuki is right, it's up to all Canadians. And the voting majority gave the Conservatives a majority government. In regards to Kyoto, China and the US are the largest emitters of CO2 with almost half of the worlds. Without the US and China at the table Kyoto would never reduce CO2, only transfer wealth to other nations. Canada emits 2% and most citizens recycle, reduce and reuse where they can. Our Oil Sands is not perfect, but not as bad as all the environmentalists would have you believe. US coal is by far worse and you never hear a peep from David or anyone else about it. I don't work for the oil industry, but am tired of the Canadian Oil Sands as an easy target by Americans, including actors, when they are one of the largest contributors. Lets call the kettle black.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Creox
Life is too important to take seriously.
12:55 PM on 01/06/2012
Suzuki makes lots of comments on pollution world wide but he focuses on those in his own country and rightfully so. Just because this is the case does not remove the threat of the tar sands to our environment.

You're making a false arguement.
06:36 PM on 01/06/2012
Convenient, avoid the fact that US and China make up almost 50% of the CO2 emissions and focus on Canada with 2%. Could it be the fact the Suzuki receives millions from US lobbyists.

btw I couldn't find any articles of US Coal on the Suzuki Foundation website. False indeed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sdgreen
08:46 PM on 01/06/2012
Nonsense!
photo
john frodo
armchair expert
09:27 AM on 01/06/2012
Harper is a hopeless human
photo
vogonpoet42
Illegitimus Non Carborundum
11:02 AM on 01/06/2012
I agree with the first part of your assessment but not the second. Just look in those eyes. That aint human.
12:39 PM on 01/06/2012
Its a trick you learn in public speaking. If you don't want to telegraph you're intent you tune out the foreground and you're eyes look blank. On the other hand you could be right, only an autopsy could tell for sure eh.
01:16 PM on 01/06/2012
Thank God for Mr Harper...He is a stabilizing influence
in a world going crazy over excessive green panic.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:04 PM on 01/06/2012
Everyone's talking about it, but few are actually doing anything of substance.