Angry in the Great White North

Did David Suzuki really say that the Green Party is standing in the way of political progress on environmental issues?

If he did, good for him.  He was making a lot of sense, even if the Green Party disagreed.

Apparently, though, he didn't mean to make sense, and he's very upset at people who thought what he said made sense.  That is to say, what he didn't say made sense.

Whatever.

Camille Labchuck, Press Secretary for the Green Party, sent me this press release:

Suzuki’s remarks on Green Party were distorted

OTTAWA – Dr. David Suzuki has commented on a recent article where his views on the role of the Green Party in Canadian politics were severely distorted.

After a teleconference with Lakehead University students on Tuesday, an article appeared in the Thunder Bay Source suggesting that Dr. Suzuki said Canada’s political landscape should not include a Green Party. Commentators and bloggers were quick to spin the misleading article and have erroneously claimed that Dr. Suzuki believes the Green Party impedes environmental progress.

Dr. Suzuki has informed the Green Party that the article was misleading and does not accurately represent his opinion.

“The article is a grotesque version of what I said,” said Dr. Suzuki. “I said I look forward to the day when there is no Green Party because as long as there is one, the environment is a political football when it should be the basis of every party's platform. But until that time, I said I was glad there was a Green Party and that Elizabeth May got into the leaders’ debates. I did not ‘rebuke’ Greens. I wish these reporters would listen and report, not hear what they want to hear.”

Green Party leader Elizabeth May agrees with Dr. Suzuki that the old-line political parties must accept the environment and climate change as critical issues in order to arrest the climate crisis before it is too late.

“The Green Party has the best policies to deal with the climate crisis,” said Ms. May. “This is why we have continually urged the other parties to adopt our policies and embrace the changes we propose.

As Dr. Suzuki said in June, “We need to be at a point where the values that are talked about by the Green Party are all values that Canadians have."

I'm not so sure that this clarifies things.  As long as there is a Green Party, the environment is a political football.

So if there isn't a Green Party, then the environment ceases to be a political football?

A "political football" is an issue that is debated but never resolved.  That's not a good thing.  Especially since these people seem to think that there is a big environmental clock ticking down to doomsday. 

Maybe David Suzuki is confused about what a political football is.  But whatever David Suzuki thinks a political football is, it is the existence of the Green Party that makes it so.  So is the Green Party serving a purpose by turning the environment into a football?

Yet David Suzuki seems to understand that being a political football is not a good thing, since he says that the environment should be a part of every party's platform instead of being a football.  So if the Green Party is making the environment into a football, it is standing in the way of the other parties integrating it into their platforms.

I don't know about you, but it sure sounds like the reporter heard him correctly.