IS THERE NO LIMIT TO THIS HYPOCRITE'S GALL?

In an on-line article posted on January 9/08, entitled “Canadians Must Take Personal Responsibility for Climate Change”, His Highness Dr. David Suzuki told readers that they could not depend on the imaginative leadership of politicians or businessmen who might care more about just the bottom line. Instead, they must look to themselves as well to fight climate change. In his words,

“We must also take responsibility in our own lives. A new report from Statistics Canada notes that individual Canadians are responsible for almost half the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, through our vehicle and electricity use and the choices we make in the products we buy.
That shouldn’t make us feel guilty; rather, it should show us how much opportunity and power we have as individuals to make a collective difference through personal choices and small steps. Another Statistics Canada study showed that Canadians are making efforts to recycle, compost, switch to environmentally friendly electrical and plumbing products and vehicles, and more.
We can’t wait for the politicians to save the world, but we do have to hold them to account. And we must all get informed and involved. If we act now, we—and our children and grandchildren—can hope to lead fulfilling and prosperous lives rather than moving from crisis to crisis. But the window of opportunity is closing a bit more every day.” http://www.straight.com/article-178473/david-suzuki-canadians-must-take-personal-responsibility-climate-change?

Those not umbilically connected to the CBC and able to think and research for themselves, or who are not of the mesmerized green yuppie members of the Suzuki cult on Quadra Island, reading this, his latest declaration of how WE should conduct our lives, would wonder on what historic day the good Doctor will take responsibility for HIS life. For HIS personal choices. And when we will be allowed to hold HIM to account in the manner that he wants us to hold politicians to account.

We wonder when HE will account for his use of the local marine garbage bin to dump his own personal garbage? For emptying the raw sewage from his house into the bay adjoining his Quadra property via a discreet pipe? For buying tropical fruit from the local Heriot Bay store when he instructs Canadians to live by a “100 mile diet” that consists of products grown only within that radius? For hunting and fishing in the Queen Charlottes with native friends under the protection of their exceptional quotas despite telling us to “live within OUR limits” and even telling us to avoid fishing altogether on page 98 of his “Green Guide”? For racking up more air miles than Richard Branson or an NHL hockey player in his trips between here there and everywhere. For using that big motorhome in last summer’s cross-Canada tour. And most of all, for siring 5 children from two relationships, who, using Canadian averages, would collectively emit 119 metric tonnes of Green House Gases per year, or thereabouts. I drive a Suzuki Sidekick and burn 11 litres of gasoline per week. Using carbon footprint analysis I determined that David Suzuki inflicted 86 times more damage to the atmosphere this past year with the five Suzukis he introduced into the world than I did driving my one Suzuki.

David Suzuki, in concluding his article, implores us to get “informed and involved”. That I am. I became informed that his David Suzuki Foundation is a benefactor of the Royal Bank of Canada, and that he is a recipient of an award from that nefarious growthist institution. What is RBC’s quid pro quo? Ask yourself this fundamental question. Once upon a time, the foundation of a comprehensive understanding of environmental problems was based on the “IPAT” equation partially formulated by Paul Erhlich, a man that Suzuki apparently once revered and interviewed. It stood for environmental impact (I) equals population level (P) times per capita consumption (A) times technology (T). But Dr. Suzuki and the rest of Canada’s environmental icons and the organizations they represent, have taken the “P” out of the IPAT equation, making nonsense of any sensible analysis of our ecological predicament? Why?
Because in the North American context, it is immigration which drives population growth, and mention of that ugly word not only offends the politically correct yuppie donor base, but also the big player on Bay Street, the Royal Bank. Its chairman, Gordon Nixon, has made public representations to Ottawa that he wishes to see immigration boosted by 167% to 400,000 people annually, a increase of 150,000 over the current level, despite the fact that Canada already suffers the highest growth rate of any G8 country. Even at the present pace, immigration can be cited for the loss of at least 60,000 acres of prime farmland in Ontario alone, and more in other rich farm enclaves like BC’s Fraser Valley and as well as the emission of GHG equivalent to one quarter of what the Alberta tar sands is now producing. Yet the David Suzuki Foundation has nothing to say, other than that they don’t have the resources to examine population issues! As if that should be of little environmental priority. Suzuki himself has made several anti-immigration remarks privately, but publically he is a wallflower every where but in Australia, where he is bold and outspoken about THEIR predicament. It is so easy to complain about your wife to the bartender, but not so easy to come home and tell her she’s overweight face to face. One wonders, what has he left to lose?