Bring it on -

Bring it on


National Post, November 5Mild-mannered, absolutely. But Environment Minister Jim Prentice wants the world to know he’ll be no boy scout when crucial climate change talks convene in Copenhagen a month from today … In the end, it’s almost a guarantee that no matter what happens, Canada will be vilified on the world stage as an energy superpower that abandoned the Kyoto Accord and isn’t shouldering its share of carbon reductions. “Well, if the price of having strong, capable, tough negotiators at the table is being singled out and given ‘fossil of the year’ awards, then so be it. Bring it on,”  Mr. Prentice told me, doing his best impression of not being a boy scout.

National Post, November 12As the most middle-of-the-road federal cabinet minister, Jim Prentice was never apprehensive about appearing on CBC. But the environment minister turned down an invitation to appear Friday morning on CBC radio’s flagship show The Current for a very good reason: a hostile host. That would be David Suzuki, the wildly successful environmental crusader and perennial alarm-ringer, who has seen the end of the world coming under a variety of climate change scenarios … What bothers Minister Prentice’s people is how they’re being asked to appear on a national current affairs show where the host would be an obvious antagonist.


Bring it on

  1. Wow Wherry! The CBC has a biased left wing host!

    You may be the only person left in Canada surprised by this news.

    Where was all the anger and protest from Suzuki while the Liberals were in office?

    • You’re such a reactionary clown. DS has always been a critic of the way our industrial consumer society effects our environment. Call him alarmist if you will, but to label him a political hack like you is beneath contempt.
      As for prentice’s objections for being on the show. Until now i never thought him gutless. Anyone who’s been at a Suzuki lecture/speech would know that a hostile person he is not. Being afraid to face him is childish…but what else is new with this govt?

      • Call him alarmist if you will


        David Suzuki is alarmist. Severely alarmist. Irresponsibly alarmist. Alarmist in Chicken Little proportions, approaching hysterical. Why should he be taken seriously?

        • “Why should he be taken seriously”

          Because he’s a scientist; because he’s devoted his life to his cause; because whether you like it or not he speaks for a considerable body of opinion in this country; because we debate and attempt to refute ideas in this country, not just piss all over the meseenger; and most of all because a cynic like you doesn’t like him!

        • Gosh, a baseless, ad hominem attack on somebody credible that you don't want to believe.

          What does that make you? Ah, right, a conservative.

        • why should he be taken seriously?

          Well, civilizations have to have some credible authorities, otherwise everyone will become wingnuts, for whom bilious hauteur and haughty dismissiveness completely replaces healthy skepticism and criticism in good faith.

      • So, if Prentice is gutless for not wanting to be ambushed by an alarmist eco-facist on a left wing CBC, then is Obama gutless for doing the same to the right wing FOX?

        • Now you’re equating Suzuki with O’really! Keep on going D. You’re getting more rational with each succeeding post.

          • Both are politically motivated alarmists…if the shoe fits.

        • Two things:

          (1) Yes. Obama should go on Fox.

          (2) I presume you are fully acknowledging Fox's right-wing bias.

          • To be fair i assume that Prentice and Obama are making the same caiculation – they have nothing to gain and they can’t win anyway. Personally i would love to see Obama kick O’really’s ass. That said a Pesident refusing to share the stage with a clown[s] i get. Prentice less so – Suzuki’s no Beck, o’really et al.,

          • agreed…

        • You should try listening to CBC radio sometime.

          CBC Radio is a lot of things, but a cable shoutfest it is not.3

          • Who is there to shout at? The CBC personalities are all left wing socialists preaching to the choir.

          • So you freely admit, you've never actually listened to CBC radio then…

          • I listen to the music, but when the left wing crazies come on I turn the channel. I just wish I had the option to turn off my funding as easily as I can turn off the radio and TV.

          • Who exactly are these "left-wing crazies" you keep talking about? Jian Ghomeshi? the Metro Morning crew?

            Surely you don't mean Stuart Maclean's tales of Dave and Morley and their maritial foibles do you?

          • Dave and Morley are Marxist dupes.

          • Uh-oh thought Dave…

        • Prentice is gutless and doesn't realize that he has a duty to engage people who don't agree with him, primarily because as the gov't in power he represents all Canadians. Unlike Lester B Pearson, who waded into a packed Legion hall of pro-union flag veterans and spoke honestly and bravely about his plan of a new flag, Prentice and virtually every member of this yellow-backed Harper government would prefer to deal in subterfuge and hide-the-answer tactics than debate their own stance. If they can avoid accountability and look like stupid laggards, they'll choose the latter every time.

          • Or Trudeau confronting Levesque in Quebec in the 1980 referendum. That was gutsy!

        • Heh, you mentioned Fox and CBC in the same sentence…

          I would recommend you should look up the word facist (sic) (redirects to fascist) because you clearly do no have the moral compass required to understand the sheer anti-human nature of the word.

  2. Great post – too many people focus on the differences between talk shows and multilateral negotiations. Good for you for not letting them distract you. People behaving differently in different situations are hypocrites and liars who are working to undermine both democracy and Canada.

    • Actually, that may be a reasonable point. After all, he has to face the nations of the world, it's part of the job requirement of the Minister, but talking to any radio host isn't.

      That said, it's still disappointing that he can muster up the courage to have Canada vilified in the international community, but not the personal courage to have himself possibly vilified to Canadians.

  3. Way to go Prentice .. you just earned a few kudos from me.

    • May I ask why?

      • Because if Suzuki wants to debate the Environment Minister it should be done in a neutral and fair setting, not while Suzuki is hosting the show. Also I'd suggest that government ministers shouldn't be publicly debating every activist that wants to take a shot at them.

    • a few kudos from me

      "Kudos" isn't the plural of "kudo," it's a singular abstract noun, κῦδος.

      • I thought he was talking about some obscure melanesian currency. :)

      • I thought it was a new cell phone plan. Personally, I'd give Prentice a fido for his chicken-act.

      • Well, can’t really expect a government to go into this one happily, considering that any awkward exchanges would be jumped on by opponents. So this is just an example of trying to control the communication channels as much as possible.

        Isn’t David Suzuki the guy who recommended throwing politicians in jail if they didn’t get on the global warming bandwagon? Oops, I suppose I’m taking him outta context, nevamind that.

        So Prentice/the Conservative government (and who knows exactly whose calling the shots on this, when it comes right down to it?) don’t want to take the chance of experiencing damage from a morning interview on Friday at CBC by an avowed opponent of their government policy. Well, what the heck, I wouldn’t do it either. No matter what the clowns on the Mac’s message board said. No matter Suzuki’s alleged gentleness, except with pols who don’t agree with him.

        Oh yeah, Suzuki’s a scientist, but his credibility is far from unquestionable. His schtick seems to be more about staying in the public eye than having the best, brightest or even the most scientific ideas. So I’m very far from a fan. He’s got more cred than Al Gore on the subject, though, I’ll give him that.

        • No one’s saying Suuzuki’s unquestionable or even necessarily right. So why avoid a debate? Oh right, becuause we gotta stay on message.

  4. I am not surprised Prentice declined to appear because Suzuki behaves an awful lot like a carny these days. The Minister is going to try and be serious while Suzuki is going to use hyperbole and voodoo science to prove his point. Minister doesn't want to be part of a freak show, which is fair enough.

    • Perhaps you could identify this "voodoo science" that you refer to.

      It looks to me like Prentice, for all his bellicose posturing, is afraid to face questioning by someone who knows what he's talking about.

      • Easy. Anything IPPC has put out. Their models/predictions are erroneous but 'scientists' and others keep pointing to them like they prove anything. When a biologist points to an org run by a railroad engineer, you have to wonder what expertise on climate these guys are bringing to the table.

        And then we have the fascist Suzuki himself who wants to round people up and prosecute them for not believing in his, and others, junk science.

        • Throwing around the term 'fascist' is easy. I dare say you have reduced your own credibility — yah i know, easy to surrender what you don't have — to invisible. And hiding behind the computer keyboard to do it also puts you up in the level of CON-chickenhawks.

        • No matter how many times I hear this line of "reasoning", I'm still struck by the arrogance that allows untrained individuals to dismiss the consensus opinion of the world's climate scientists.

          The willingness of conservatives to believe what they want to believe – despite evidence, despite the statements of scientists who have spent their lives studying this – is a defining characteristic.

          The ad hominem attacks – like calling David Suzuki a "fascist" is all part of the determination to destroy anybody whose credibility makes an unwanted reality impossible for conservatives to deny. See Bush's war on science.

          Perhaps you could show me where Dr. Suzuki has called for the rounding up and prosecution of people who disagree with him. It's never happened and you know it.

    • Disagree with DS all you want. But refusing to debate him publically is the answer, right? Pissing on others withe snide innuendo and questioning their character seems to be a hallmark of people like you whenever you don’t like the message. I doubt you tried this when you were at uni, god knows what makes you think it’s legitimate now.

      • "But refusing to debate him publically is the answer, right?"

        Refusing to debate a clown in public is the answer, yes. Suzuki wants to round up all pols and prosecute them for their non-belief in the fraud that is global warming. If Suzuki wants to be a fascist than not debating him seems entirely reasonable.

        • You are aware that the minute you express doubt global warming is the exact moment that you give up any claims to sitting at the grown ups table right?

          • I am ok with that, never been a fan of the grown up table anyways.

          • That has become quite obvious.

        • Suzuki was very unwise to have uttered those words…no doubt he was angry and frustrated. Anyone who knows anything about Suzuki knows he doesn't have a fascist bone in his body. His family was interned in the war, you're absolutely clueless on this issue.

          • "he doesn't have a fascist bone in his body"

            Says you. If Suzuki's response, when angry and tired, is to prosecute people and then lock them up because they disagree with him than I have all the insight I need into what Suzuki is. It's not like he only said that once, he has said it many times in different forums.

            Morgentaler was interned as well yet he dedicated his life to killing babies. Being interned does not automatically make a person concerned with freedom.

          • "Morgentaler was interned as well yet he dedicated his life to killing babies"

            Wow, with each successive post you show yourself to be even nuttier than I previously thought.

          • Well, if he is nutty roughly half the population is as nutty as he is on that particular issue.

          • Yeah….not really:

            "In a June 2008 Angus Reid Strategies poll, almost half of respondents (46%) believe abortion should be permitted in all cases. Roughly one-in-five Canadians (19%) would subject abortion to greater restrictions than now, 22 per cent would allow the procedure only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life, and seven per cent would only permit abortion to save the woman's life."

  5. Prentice and the CPC – actively undermining our long term future.

  6. First of all, what's wrong with the Boy Scouts? It's an organisation that has done much good in helping youth learn manky skills and values.

    Given the focus that is put on camping and the outdoors by the Scouts compared to the way this Conservative government treats the environment and the challenge of Global Climate Change then they definitely aren't behaving like Boy Scouts.

    • I agree. Don't denigrate the boy scouts. And last time I was a member of the boy scouts, there was no badge for irresponsible cowardice. But then Harper's crew is from a whole different tribe.

  7. I would be more surprised by the government discussing issues with those they disagree with rather than trying to discredit the other side to avoid the debate altogether.

    The hyperbole from Suzuki sure does irk the right… who often speak in hyperbole and rhetoric against Suzuki. The more the empty rhetoric and false moral platitudes are directed at Suzuki, the louder David's voice becomes. If the right started to ignore Suzuki, his influence would wain.

  8. Oh ya a guy who wants to actually protect the environment is an antagonist. SHEESH conservatives what is wrong with you?

  9. Fine, Prentice avoided a potentially loaded situation. But *kudos*? Really?

    • Yes kudos. If it were any person/group, I'd actually be disappointed. But David Suzuki has turned into a political animal who's only desire is to see the Conservative's unseated from government. It's important that our ministers engage in productive consultations with anybody in good faith. David Suzuki does not engage in good faith discussions. He deserves to be ignored.

      • "But David Suzuki has turned into a political animal who's only desire is to see the Conservative's unseated from government."

        With all respect, that is sheer bullsh*t.

          • So supporting a party and a policy position makes him someone to ignore?


          • For committed environmentalists, the Green Shift was the obvious – and pretty much the only – platform that promised substantive movement on the global warming front.

            To suggest that Suzuki was motivated by partisan ties is absurd.

            Your second link hardly demonstates the point you think it does. Again, bullsh*t.

          • "For committed environmentalists, the Green Shift was the obvious – and pretty much the only – platform that promised substantive movement on the global warming front."

            If we are tossing around allegations of bs, than I point to you SeanS.


          • Once again the persecution complex raises its head.
            Just as it's possible to detest Harper's party while not supporting the Liberals (as I do) I assume it's possible to support the Liberals while having more desires than to "see the Conservatives unseated from government"

            One of the things that I so dislike about Harper's party and the sycophants thereof — *everything* becomes a black and white issue

      • Absolute bullsh*t. Look at all the little conservatives, scurrying to attack somebody they don't want to believe.

        Not one of them can back up any of their claims, they just point and scream "alarmist!" "Hack!" "Eco-Fascist!"

        These are the people who deserve to be ignored.

        • Just because I don't think that some alarmist eco-fascist hack should be able to dictate how millions of Canadians live every moment their lives means I should be ignored?

          Is this because I don't blindly follow you're dear leader based on pseduo science, and a complete disregard for human suffering?

          The scary thing is that there are those who believe every word Suzuki and the Goreacle with religious zealotry, and absolutely zero critical thought. Reminds me of another religion.

  10. Wherry's point, if it's escaped any of you (note: it has), is that the Environment Minister exclaims "Bring it on!" and then declines to appear on a talk show hosted by David Suzuki, in this case the prospective on-bringer of it. Talk is cheap, you see.

    • I knew SOMEONE would actually read the post!

  11. David Suzuki has undermined a lot of his own credibility in recent years with raw partisanship. I do think the increased amount of CO2 emissions are a problem, but David Suzuki's approach isn't the way to get things done.

    First and foremost we need to have a means of curbing consumption and means to shift to reliable and cheap sources of renewable energy. No one is going to support any measures which make consumption more expensive or causes economic pain, even if they are so left wing that they are painted orange and have the hammer and sickle tattooed on their forehead.

    • "David Suzuki has undermined a lot of his own credibility in recent years with raw partisanship."

      It only looks like partisanship because the Canadian Right decided that most of the sciences had developed a liberal bias.

      Y'all imported that directly from the You Ess of A.

      • Yes, that's why I said I think CO2 emissions are a problem in my post you replied to.

        I understand you believe in a certain ideology, but must you be such a boring stereotype?

        • I've just been paying attention. It's not Suzuki who has changed all that much (he's been a social democrat since forever). It's how the Right has re-interpreted particular positions to be right/left, conservative/liberal, etc. etc.

          Ask any real Tory about that.

        • Most of what we should be doing to reduce emissions will make production and transport of goods and daily life less dependent on expensive energy. Failure to act on alternatives that are less oil-intensive (public transit, more compact communities, eco-efficiency in production) consigns all of us to pay more and more. If money is what motivates your interest why aren't you acting now?

          • I'm saying that money and lifestyle are what motivate your interest as well, Toby.

    • Will TedTE look also at who's been undermining their own credibility with a speed that eclipses the current melting ice caps? Of course, their denial or cheap disinterest in one only proves the other…

    • " No one is going to support any measures which make consumption more expensive or causes economic pain, even if they are so left wing that they are painted orange and have the hammer and sickle tattooed on their forehead"

      That's disappointing from someone who usually has something worthwhile to say – ye more cheap labelling.
      As for higher consumption prices – oil speculation and eventual scarcity will manage that on their own.

    • "No one is going to support any measures which make consumption more expensive or causes economic pain,"

      Well, you can let the market dictate the inevitable societal changes though more expensive consumption and economic pain, or you can practice some measure of control over the inevitable societal change caused by more expensive consumption and economic pain.

      • I agree with both you and kcm that it is going to have long term consequences down the road. As a society and civilization we can't consume like we are consuming without some long term consequences.

        However, we are consumers as a society and a civilization. All the environmental movement has really done is rebrand certain consumer choices as "green" even though it is still consumption. A Prius for example, is not a green car when you consider the toxic materials that go into making this car, and the huge amount of weight the thing lugs around. A smaller diesel or gasoline car is probably more environmentally friendly when you consider all factors. People as well tend to discount their own consumption as being problematic. So like you say, only by making goods more expensive are you going to curb consumption through the market.

        It is also the case that largely government is powerless in a democracy to put an end to that consumptive habit. A lot of our excessive consumption is through government subsidy and economic policy that is designed to make goods as cheap as possible for consumers. The place to start would be largely to stop those artificial subsidies and have things reflect their actual value. But you are never going to have that happen because there is such a vast amount of special interests in the government's pocket.

        • Excising those government subsidized interests from dictating policy is a real problem. They make consumption expensive – partly because of costs that are freeloaded.

          And I'd have to nudge your statement; "As a society and civilization we can't consume like we are consuming", to something more along the line of, " As a society and civilization based on capitalism and consumption, which consumes disproportionately to the rest of the world, we can't continue to consume like we are consuming…"

          The costs will catch up to us. The costs are catching up to us. You can let the market lead you based on the models of consumption that brought us to here, or you can apply some measure of control and direction.

          On the other hand, if we could "stop those artificial subsidies and have things reflect their actual value", truly accounting for the environmental costs, in this case, as that is the discussion topic, that does allow the government some measure of control to steer the economy. One way to impose, yes impose, those true value costs is taxing carbon. Industry won't do it themselves. Consumers will only buy the cheapest.

          • I hear a lot of people talking about taxing carbon, but they pretend that it will somehow only be borne by "industry" rather than making their own food, good and energy more expensive. Even if carbon taxing becomes a reality, it would quickly be overturned when the coddled consumer class demands after seeing their costs rise. Even if my view of human nature is overly cynical and the public allows it, in the short term perhaps it could be a good idea, but as a long term solution? The increased cost will largely be absorbed into inflation and it simply be a revenue stream for the government (and not a very good one because of the costs of administering the tax) rather than changing any habits of how people consume.

            No, the only way out is either scarcity, economic depression, or a renewable energy source as cheap as stored carbon.

          • Well the, the solution is to do nothing.

        • TT
          I gree that the assumption that green ideas are good just because they're green is ludicrous. Hybrids are a good example. Perhaps they may improve enough and come down in price enough to make sense eventually[ i like the plug in idea ] but it makes as much sense economically and evironmentally to go buy a yaris. And why the hell can't we buy the kind of diesels they have in germany – i've been trying to get something for my business for years. We have to be smart about changes. It makes sense to try and produce an affordable electric vehicle for most of our cities – but don't try and impose these on rural folks – because it makes no sense.
          i would also like to see a lot more attention to energy conservation – we lead the world in this area after the 70s oil shocks. lot's of non-linear thinking needed…not gimmicky crap.

    • Sorry. That's crap. I very much support eco-measures which make consumption more expensive. Why? Because I'm already suffering the expense from consuming in an eco-friendly manner, but because we haven't moved society en masse to that, I'm doing it without the benefits of economies of scale. ie, I'm paying a helluva lot more than I would be if everybody else was taking the same measures.

      So yeah.. I damn well support measures that'll drive more people over to the ways I'm doing things, because *my* costs will go down.

  12. Jim Prentice: "Bring it on!…but in Danish please, so I can safely ignore it with plausible deniability."

  13. Oh my, when the going gets tough, the supposed tough run away.

  14. "So supporting a party and a policy position makes him someone to ignore?"

    When it comes to hosting a supposedly unbiased news show, it sure does.

    • And does it support the bizarre hyperbole being spewed here?

  15. The soap box Suzuki stands on was built by the CBC over a couple of decades. He IS their boy. I think the good Doctor epitomizes "the Peter Principle". While commenting in general on science and genetics in particular, he started to believe his own hype and has risen to his personal level of incompetance. His green advocacy is no more supported by science than Rush Limbaugh's blathering is supported by theology.

    Minister Prentice made a reasonable choice. Why justify Suzuki's self annointed title and give him the on/off switch to boot? If Suzuki has the guts to debate an academic with real credentials in a neutral forum, I'd like to see it.

    • Agreed, I'd like to see how Suzuki, the little poster boy for Canada's eco-fascist movement, would do against one of his peers.

      But CBC would never agree to that.

    • Everything you've said here is patently absurd.

      • Not only that, but you'll never see a credible critic of Suzuki confront or debate him. Where are these credible con critics…why don't they come forward and defend their positions? No. it;s so much easier to mock and piss on your opponent.

        • The reason you never see Dr. Suzuki confront his critics is because he would never deign to give them a platform to dipute his faith. If, in spite of nearly overwhelming and obvious evidence the AGW is bogus (are you aware that there is almost ZERO evidence that the Hypothesis is valid?…the satellite data contradicts the computer models, the ground station data shows a cooling trend, Mann's tree ring data is being accused of scientific fraud and cherry picking and the historical record from ice cores and lake bottoms is 180 degrees from the AGW theory AND the obvious past variability in climate is directly porportional to sunspot activity), but no, let's knee cap our economy based on sceintific fraud. Not to say that reducing/eliminating toxic emissions is a bad thing,, it's just that carbon is NOT a poison, merely a convenient target from an industry with cash and a society with a very poor understanding of how stuff works..

          All this doesn't even begin to address the economic/political issues…maybe the Liberals and lefties here should prevail on Bob Rae to ask his brother to change Power Corporation's coal fired electrical generating activities in China and elsewhere in the developing world.

          • Everything you've said about the science is simply untrue.

        • I tried to respond but apparently the host doesn't like what i am saying.

          • Assuming you're the same Peter [ if not sorry ]. I'd say the reason the system wouldn't let you respond to yourself is because it couldn't take any more. It probably tried to run out under a bus or something. First you accuse Suzuki of mere faith in his beliefs and then you offer as a counter arguement your lack of faith, based on what credible sources? Don't believe him, believe me, right!

          • Actually, no I don't. I point out that Suzuki's scientific justification for his Belief is not supported by the evidence extant. In fact giant tracts of AGW orthodoxy and necessary arguments are in more of a state of flux than our climate seems to be. If you can use google you can verify this yourself in five minutes.

            You could say AGW is going through a "state change". When subjected to rigorous scrutiny something that appeared to be solid, Global Warming, became a liquid and transformed to Climate Change and upon further examination it seems Climate Change is now morphing into Hot Air.

            Sadly many of good will have been duped into believing something based on pretty shaky scientific footing. Promoted by powerful interests for purposes one can only speculate on AGW will shown to be another BreX or Madoff….how could so many who are so wise be fooled?

  16. "Reminds me of another religion."


  17. David vs. Goliath Government Oil Interests

  18. Have Prentice and a member of the scientific community of his choosing, appear on another CBC show and debate Suzuki and an MP from the opposition benches, perhaps David McGuinty or Linda Duncan.
    That's fair enough, don't you think?

    • Unbiased journalism from the CBC! Never going to happen.

      • Give it a rest.

        The CBC had David Frum host The Current either earlier this year or last year, and he's barely Canadian anymore.

        • "….and he's barely Canadian anymore. "

          Sounds like the current leader of the Liberal party. Ignatieff and Frum have a lot in common; both were former Bush supporters, both left Canada at an early age, and both are published authors.

          • Uh huh.

      • You dispute the venue, but the format is ok?

        • I don't dispute either, great idea, I just know that the CBC would never consent to something like that, they have invested 20 years into Suzuki's reputation and won't put that on the line.

  19. Another thought:

    Prentice is too savvy to appear on a show with a hostile host – yet I'm supposed to accept Mike Duffy as moderator in a Q&A session with a CPC friendly audience in SH's scripted Cambridge Economic update? Apparently the indignation to which Prentice is entitled is not expected by the government when airing economic infomercials to Canadian taxpayers.
    If a government or party expects my vote, then they should be willing to appear in a neutral format and answer tough questions.

    • I agree, but where do you propose to find a neutral venue?

      • I like Steve Paikin. He does a good job moderating the federal leaders debates and he hosts a show on TVO. Could it be made available across the country? I'd watch it.

        • That would work just fine . Prentice should pitch your proposal publicly (bonus points for the alliteration ) , I'd be interested in Suzuki's response .

  20. I would have enjoyed reading about the encounter in Suzuki's third autobiography. Or will it be his fourth…

  21. man that made me, like, literally laugh out loud!


  22. Dakota says,Wow Wherry! The CBC has a biased left wing host!
    But that is because Komarade Wherry only watches Pravada!!

  23. It can't be that hard to shut Suzuki up. Just remind him that he spent two decades warning that overpopulation was the greatest single threat to the planet. And then ask why he had five kids.

    Oh, then you could always remind him of the countless times he has scolded us for overconsumption. And then ask why he needs two house — one in Vancouver, and the other one on its own island. And a powerboat to get him there.

    • no one’s claimng that Suzuki’s infallible – except his critics. Is Canada overpopulated? Still he might have practised what he preached arguably. As far as his homes go wh not get some facts before you mouth off? His Vancouver home i belieive is supposed to be a model of an eco-friendly home. And his cottage on Quadra island i may have heard was willed to him, or something like that. Anyway, i believe he’s had it for many years. Whatever else Suzuki is, he isn’t a clone of Gore, who seems to be a hypocrite from what i’ve seen. I’ve personally seen Suzuki take the airporter in Edmonton rather than grab a taxi like some big shot. So why don’t you grow up, and attack him for his ideas, not your preconceived predjuidices.

      • Hmmm, taking the airporter rather than a taxi to the airport. Maybe he gets more frequent flyer points as a result.

        • Nah. In Edmonton anyway it's a good deal cheaper. I suspect David's parsimomious…not altogether a bad thing.

          • I was being sarcastic – he flies a hell of a lot.

    • Yeah, standard Republican talking-points are a sure fire way to get people to shut up.

    • As I said in another post, people tend to not see their own consumption as a problem.