There has been a minor dustup this week when David Suzuki was quoted in a Thunder Bay media report as saying that the Green Party is preventing the adoption of environmental policies by major parties.

Nonsense, says the Green Party.

I've been misquoted, says David Suzuki.

Well, then David Suzuki seems to have been misquote more than once.

The problem started early this week, when it seemed like David Suzuki was saying that the existence of the Green Party had the effect of keeping environmental issues off the political table:

David Suzuki on Tuesday via teleconference told a gathering of Lakehead University students that as long as there’s a Green Party the environment will be tossed around like a hot potato with no real action being completed.

"There shouldn’t be a Green Party," he said, matter-of-factly and unexpectedly.

An outspoken supporter of outgoing Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s much maligned Green Shift carbon tax proposal, Suzuki suggested having a party solely focused on sustainability and the environment will not make the impact most supporters are hoping for.

Suzuki praised Green Party Leader Elizabeth May for getting into the national television debates during the recent election campaign, but suggested her platform is one better served if adopted by more mainstream parties.

"I really think we’ve got to drive the green agenda so it becomes everyone’s agenda," Suzuki said to an Agora audience of about 150.

"But until they understand that, yes, this has got to be the way we all act, it’s going to continue to be a political football."

I, for one, thought David Suzuki made a lot of sense.  In a nutshell, the Green Party will always be the party of choice for diehard environmentalists.  That means no mainstream party will benefit much in the way of votes of going green, for the simple reason that no mainstream party could ever be as green as the Green Party.  Indeed, as the Liberals learned the hard way, going green means losing votes (people who are suspicious of green initiatives take their votes elsewhere, while green voters remain with the Green Party).

The Green Party was quick to respond, and insisted that David Suzuki was being misunderstood, dragging out a quote from June.

David Suzuki himself responded, via a Green Party press release, in which he tried to say that, yes, the presence of the Green Party makes the environment a political football, but that, no, that doesn't mean the Green Party ought to go away.  I noted that this didn't add much clarity, since being a political football generally means no party will take action on the issue.  So David Suzuki is all right with having the Green Party around?

So between the Green Party ignoring what David Suzuki actually said, and David Suzuki explaining that we don't understand him, where are we?

Well, we could go to statements made by David Suzuki three days after the election started.  Those would seem relevant to understanding what David Suzuki thinks of the Green Party as a means of advancing environmental issues in an election, as opposed to statements made outside of an election:

Just days into the election campaign, the climate change debate is veering onto the wrong track with suggestions that taking care of the environment could hurt the economy, says David Suzuki.

"Let's hope that the economy versus the environment (debate) will not continue, it's not either/or – without the environment there is no economy," Canada's most prominent environmentalist said.

But Suzuki also said he'd like to see the end of the one party that does put the environment at the centre of all its policies.

"I can't wait until there is no Green party," Suzuki said he told its leader Elizabeth May.

"As long as there's a Green party, the implication is that the Greens somehow have a stranglehold on this issue; they're the ones that worry about the environment so the other parties can worry about other things. I don't think it's a ghetto subject."

As long as there is a Green Party, the other parties can worry about other things.

Seems pretty clear to me.  Let me see if I can infer something logical from this.  It's hard, not having a PhD or nuthin'.

So if enough Canadians would insist that the environment was an important issue, and there was no Green Party to compartmentalize those votes away from the mainstream parties, then the mainstream parties would realize that those votes were actually up for grabs and make a concerted effort to win them by coming up with credible environmental policies.

Wait, I think I'm getting it.

That means that the Green Party is neutralizing that voting block, and with it, the issue that this voting block thinks is most important, that being the environment!

By George, I think I've got it!

But then, that's what I thought David Suzuki said when all this started, and this is what David Suzuki insists he doesn't mean.  Over and over again, David Suzuki seems to say that the Green Party is keeping the environment from finding a home in the mainstream parties.

That can't be a good thing, can it?

Maybe you do need a PhD to understand the guy.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 891 words, total size 6 kb.