Conflict of Conscience
By STEVEN J. THOMPSON
Apr 05 2006
From the cars we drive, to the fruits and vegetables we eat, to the pesticides used in the production of the cotton shirts on our backs, every part of our existence can be considered a crime against nature.
Most of us are somewhat aware of deforestation, pollution, mass economic globalization and species extinction, while others are concentrating on doing something about it, starting now. However, those who do potentially face personal conflict. While doing all they can to reduce the human impact on the ecosystems of the world, they try to cope with the fact that even their own existence is a threat to the planet.
David Suzuki, the noted scientist and environmentalist, is no stranger to such conflict. Like every other sustainable practitioner, he's had to learn to accept that no matter how much he practices what he preaches, his own actions are still leaving a footprint on the earth.
"The big area that I contribute to the detriment of the planet is that I fly a lot," he says in an interview. "That's been a huge source of guilt for me, which I've rationalized by saying that the most important thing in a period of transition is to share ideas and empower people to begin to make the moves. We've [Suzuki's family] managed to reduce our use of the automobile; we have the most efficient car that you can get, which is a Toyota Prius, a gas-electric hybrid, and we try not to use it. We've reduced our garbage, as a family of four, to one bag a month. That's still way too much.
The reality is that we are each a destructive element on the planet. So the challenge is that we all have to just keep getting more and more efficient."
Sounds simple, but it's advice fraught with everyday conflicts. Imagine you need to stock up at the grocery store. You have a half-hour to spare, but the only store within walking or biking distance belongs to a multi-national grocery chain. You don't want to contribute to the mass-globalization of the economy, but you question if you should drive across town in your carbon dioxide-producing vehicle to get to the locally owned market. And then, what happens when you get to the market and your decision to eat meat-free is challenged by the tofu's plastic packaging?
"I think that it is really important for a person that is faced with that scenario to not agonize over making the wrong decision," says Suzuki. "It's not going to be possible to be politically right on the money every time."
He explains that we are in a time of transition, and that none of us can realistically live the way that we ideally should live. If Suzuki had to choose between a big chain grocer and a local one across town, he says, "I'd go to that Safeway and make that choice . . . I don't think that people should get caught up in feeling the burden of that guilt, because if they are already thinking about it they are aware that these compromises have to be made."
Even with much work ahead of him and fighting a war that, in his own words, "We are losing big time," he still has hope.
"One always has to have hope," says Suzuki, "because if you don't have hope then you may as well go out and rape, steal and murder, nothing would matter."
Suzuki's sense of hope often seems to be at conflict with itself. One moment he speaks brightly about the transition to a more sustainable infrastructure as if it will happen in his lifetime. The next, he speaks about how the current path society is on will affect future generations of his family.
"From my standpoint, the really difficult part is I have grandchildren. I know those grandchildren are in for a really tough future. Ecosystems around the world are going to continue to collapse and it's going to be very difficult." At the root of the despair that challenges his hope is Canada's federal government. In January, 2005, the Liberal government decided to dramatically weaken restrictions on industrial emissions. According to a news release from the David Suzuki Foundation, Natural Resources Canada planned to require large industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by just eight megatonnes, a significant drop compared to the 73 megatonnes originally required in the Climate Change Plan for Canada, released in 2002. "The problem is government is off-loading the issue onto us as citizens by not demanding that industry do its share. If industry is contributing 40 percent of the pollutants, then they ought to be expected to reduce accordingly."
Furthermore, in April, 2005, the Liberal government proposed an agreement with the Canadian auto industry to reduce emissions in future automobiles. After automakers protested, the agreement was made voluntary. "It's crystal clear that government is very reluctant to regulate the auto industry. I'm amazed that they have any power at all. If you look at the auto industry's record it is absolutely disgraceful."
So is Suzuki optimistic or pessimistic? "I'm neither," he says. "Optimists always say good things will happen, pessimists say bad things will happen. I just have hope."
With all of ecological destruction Suzuki has witnessed over his 70 years, and all the adversity he's faced while fighting for environmentalism, if he still has hope, then the ideal solution may not be so unrealistic and perhaps not so distant.
"I think in the transition there will come a point where people will see opportunities and will accelerate the process of change." M
David Suzuki will be in Victoria to lecture and read from his newest book, David Suzuki: The Autobiography, this Wednesday, April 12, at 7:30 p.m., Alix Goolden Hall. Tickets $10 at Bolen Books. 595-4232. Enviro-guru David Suzuki admits even he's a threat to the planet
