Angry in the Great White North

In truth, I almost feel sorry for David Suzuki.  I mean, his uncritical belief in the global warming nonsense is annoying.  Who of us has not imagined watching him being brought down a peg or two (or five or fifty)?  And yet these particular attacks on him go straight to his integrity, as opposed to merely debating the merits of global warming theory.

Then again, David Suzuki turns on anyone who dares suggest global warming might be a figment of a bad computer model's imagination instead of anything real with accusations that the doubter is in league with Big Oil or is criminally insane...so maybe I shouldn't feel sorry for David Suzuki at all.

The issue is renewable energy.  Apparently, British Columbia is selling rights to private companies (mostly American, it is feared) to exploit the province's rivers for electricity:

On Thursday, March 26, thousands of British Columbians will be standing up for B.C.'s rivers in the 10,000 Voices for BC Rivers campaign. On that day, citizens from around the province will phone and e-mail Premier Campbell and their local MLAs to ask for a moratorium on the privatization of rivers for private power projects.

"10,000 Voices is in response to the hundreds of water license applications submitted to develop rivers in B.C. for private river hydro projects," said Dave Quinn, Wildsight's Purcell program manager. It is in the Purcells that many of the license applications are pending. Each license application represents one river or creek that will be "tapped" for privately-operated, for-profit hydro power plants.

"It's simple. We will ask the Campbell government to put a moratorium on private power projects on B.C.'s rivers until a system is in place that ensures three things," Quinn said.

"One: any river power project is regionally supported. Two, each river power project is environmentally appropriate. Three, all river power projects are publicly owned."

Green socialism.  Double yuck. 

So what does David Suzuki have to say about this?  Well, remember that his foundation is funded entirely from private donations, and not from government subsidy.  So naturally, David Suzuki jumps to the defence of private interests, using global warming as his excuse.

Why global warming?  Probably because it's the one-size-fits-all excuse that ought to shut down any debate.  I mean, nothing is more important than global warming, right? 

See, this is how a debate with David Suzuki would go: 

But what about private...global warming...yes, but the question of public...Global Warming...of course, but for a moment consider the consequences of...GLOBAL WARMING!...Jeez, you're annoying.

And so it goes as David Suzuki tries to soothe the ruffled feathers of these river folk:

It's in our best interests to act quickly to get as much renewable energy into play as possible. As well as getting us off fossil fuels and combating global warming, renewable energy is also one way to dig ourselves out of the economic mess we're facing. It's good for business. But that doesn't mean environmental safeguards should be relaxed in the name of green energy.

Global warming is, without a doubt, the most critical environmental issue we face. Clearly, there's no time to waste, but unless we tie our shoelaces before we race out the door, we're guaranteed to trip ourselves up long before we get to our destination. We need to ensure that our solutions don't lead to the destruction of the very thing we're trying to protect.

So what David Suzuki is saying is that we ought to be certain that these private companies do things right before we try to "get as much renewable energy into play as possible".  But what if the private company doesn't do all the right things?  Do we forgo the renewable energy?

Some people seem to think that David Suzuki would let a suspect project proceed.  Some local environmental degradation has to be better than global catastrophe that is only hours away (according to David Suzuki fanboy Elizabeth May) -- that makes sense, right?  Here are excerpts of responses to David Suzuki's article:

• Here we have have more Liberal party claptrap from neocon apologist Da Gucci Suzuki who should know better. In case he has forgotten how to do research...
• Ecological ignorance is killing the planet.  It's past time for our leaders, especially the scientists, to point the direction we collectively must take to survive. It's time to do with less, a lot less...
• I doubt that climate change is less important than habitat loss David... and if you were honest with yourself you would realize the two are intertwined...
• I first saw you at an antiwar rally, I sat atop one of the stone lions on the back side of the Vancouver Art Gallery. I believed in you then.  But times have changed. You lost the pulse of what is important...
• Perhaps one should know the facts before taking the position that we need to "act quickly to get as much renewable energy into play as possible"...
• Perhaps though [David Suzuki] could defend his travel habits and his blind promotion of the use of dubious carbon offsets which is turning our atmosphere into just another item of human trade...
• First he shills global carbon tax and cap and trade and now this...
• Interestingly Suzuki doesn't mention *CONSERVATION *once in his article.  What Suzuki, Weaver, and the American scientist cited in the article repeatedly ignore is that those who oppose this private river power regime primarily do so because it represents a green-washed heist of our most valuable and vital natural resources by private global capital...
• When i see Gucci Suzuki I just turn it off now. The guy is all about himself and supporting his little empire...

And these are responses on straight.com, a independent anti-establishment left-wing publication.

So is there someone behind this attack on Canada's high priest of global warming orthodoxy?  If there is one person we can point to as playing a key role, it would be Robert "Bob" Broughton, the former provincial Green Party candidate for New Westminster in 2001 and 2005.

Here is part of what he wrote in an article posted at a website he maintains for the Save Our Rivers Society.  The article is entitled "What David Suzuki Didn't Tell Us":

When Suzuki refers to a "better system", he's grossly understating the case. The current environmental assessment process is heavily loaded in favour of the proponent of a river privatization project.

Suzuki also failed to mention Bill 30, which took the power to evaluate and approve or disapprove river privatization projects away from local government.

Finally, the fundamental assumption of Suzuki's piece is that "we want to put the brakes on global warming and reduce our reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels." He fails to mention that the projects currently under consideration will do nothing to accomplish this purpose.

You can read the whole thing, but what strikes me is that this web site that Bob Broughton maintains, and which publishes his thrashing of David Suzuki, is not some cheap web site by a bunch of disgruntled greenies looking for some attention.  The board of advisors is led by none other by Naomi Klein, Canada's leading anti-capitalist.

So does Naomi Klein think David Suzuki is deliberately misstating the case for private energy production on BC rivers?  I assume she does, as the website is hosting Bob Broughton's article, and Bob Broughton designed and developed the site for the society.

Oh yeah, this could be lots of fun.