Hey Doc, what would you do for the environment?

On Thursday February 15th, Dr. David Suzuki appeared on a popular Toronto radio program to promote his upcoming cross-country tour. Dr. Suzuki says he launched the tour because it seemed to him that so many Canadians are concerned about the environment and the health of their children, but government doesn't seem to be hearing their concerns.

During the interview, Toronto radio broadcaster John Oakley began to raise the issue of how there continues to be a quibble between those claiming global warming is a serious concern, and those that believe it is nothing more than hysteria.

Before John Oakley could finish asking the question, Dr. David Suzuki retorted that he couldn't believe he was even asking such a ridiculous question, and cautioned the broadcaster to "not even go there."

And even before the radio broadcaster could wrap-up the segment, Dr. David Suzuki stormed out of the radio studio.

I want to preface what I am about to share in the way of an opinion on the matter, by saying that I hold Dr. David Suzuki in high esteem. His contributions on numerous environmental fronts easily rank him up there as one of the most important contributors to environmental cause and awareness.

I can understand Dr. Suzuki's reasons for wanting to remain insistent on the importance of climate change, and how it is the biggest challenge facing humanity. I can also understand his need to remain steadfast, because after all, this is a man who has been preaching environmental awareness for such a long time. Even during times when no one cared to listen.

The optics of his dogmatism however lends itself to the perception that debate on the topic of global warming is futile. That somehow, the verdict is out, and that people like Timothy Ball are doing a disservice to awareness efforts.

In my estimation, Dr. Suzuki is himself causing a great disservice to any awareness campaign by taking the such a deterministic stand. As much as he is an authority on the environment, when he takes such a stand it comes of sounding like an "I told you so" speech.

At a time when people around the world are prepared to listen, the good doctor ought to recognize that the best ally in spreading awareness is open debate which is brutally honest, and tries to involve people as much as possible.

So what should Dr. Suzuki do for the environment? Simple. He ought to focus his energy in the following ways.

The first is to restore credibility within the ranks of environmental science. The heyday of science which was aimed at openly sharing breakthroughs and alarming discoveries has been replaced with a new age of scientists more keen on the commercial viability of their work.

The purity in science that existed in the 60's and 70's is all but a distant memory. So too is the element of activism. Ideas, research and passion are hushed, and swept under the carpet all too quickly, all in the name of the almighty dollar.

Some of the best researchers have advisory posts with some of the largest investment firms in the country. Their research is now burrowed down into the number crunching game, burying their activism in a manner that helps investors monetize on the worst perpetrators of carbon pollution. The only trace of activism is found in advising firms and their investors on how best to manage the perception and risk exposure in carbon production. A monetizing aspect which works to keep the worst perpetrators of carbon production and their machines well-oiled.

As I see it, there are quite a few people who stand to gain by keeping things as they are. If Dr. Suzuki is to have any impact on effecting change, then any sweeping-up effort must first trace back to the roots of environmental cause and awareness.

The first order is to restore some credibility within the ranks of the environmental science community, and that includes heightening the role of activism.

The second is to pressure key influencers on both political and economic fronts. There are far too many stakeholders, and those who are the most vocal and adverse to change must be outed.

The final point is to divest some of the responsibility from the average person, and place a brunt of the blame on to industry, because as I see it, placing responsibility solely on the backs of the average person needing to drive to and from work is not only unfair, but tackles a very small part of a much larger problem.

Any failure to revise his current approach and stand on the environment, and Dr. David Suzuki risks falling short on making his most important contribution to environmental awareness, and his message and coat hanger halo will otherwise appear tired and worn.

- Jcmj