babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Is Canada's most significant living Canadian David Suzuki?
October 25, 2016 - 10:03pm
!!!
Ralph Nader is probably the United States' most significant living American and my hunch is that the most significant living Canadian is David Suzuki.
It's not a contest though, just want to celebrate these and other significant folks while they are alive, eh!
Who else merits recognition for their constructive contributions to our planet?
David Suzuki: Heated debates ignore an overheating planet
Scientists worldwide accept that Earth is warming at an unusually rapid rate, that humans are primarily responsible, mainly by burning fossil fuels, and that the consequences for humanity will be disastrous if we don’t take immediate, widespread action.
The U.S. Defense Department calls climate change a security risk “because it degrades living conditions, human security, and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations.”
People in the U.S. and around the world are already experiencing the costly impacts: more frequent and intense extreme weather, prolonged droughts, flooding in coastal areas, contaminated water, ocean acidification, growing refugee crises, and more. Every month this year has become the new hottest on record, and the past three years have also broken records.
Considering the magnitude of the threat, you’d think global warming would merit an entire debate between the two contenders for president of what is still the world’s most powerful and influential country. At the very least, it’s significant enough to warrant numerous questions from debate moderators and thorough policy discussions from the candidates.
So in three debates, how many questions have moderators asked about climate? How much time have candidates devoted to discussing it? The answer to the first question is zero. They’ve been asked about email usage, abortion, Muslims, and taxes, but not about an issue that overwhelms all the others.
The answer to the second question is “barely five minutes”, mostly about energy rather than climate. One candidate extolled the virtues of fossil fuels and mythical “clean coal”, while the other promoted the misguided notion of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to help us transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. But for much of the three debates, one candidate threatened and called the other names and discussion centred on issues such as tweets about a former Miss Universe and who has the required “stamina” to lead.
That doesn’t mean both candidates and their parties are equal on climate change. One talks about the need to shift to renewable energy and has a party platform that outlines solutions. The other calls climate change a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese and believes in promoting fossil fuels at the expense of renewables. But even their differences on this critical issue aren’t getting airtime.
“I’ve been shocked at the lack of questions on climate change. It really is fiddling while the world burns,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel told the Guardian, calling it “collective cowardice.”
http://www.straight.com/news/814616/david-suzuki-heated-debates-ignore-o...