Finally...Enviromentalists that I agree with

Early this morning, Enviromental Terrorists in Seattle set fire to three newly designed luxury homes. The terrorists were apparently upset over the fact that these newly designed homes were not enviromentally friendly. On a sign written in spray paint (the universal writing utensil of terrorists), the initials ELF were written. Most suspect it to be the work of the Enviromental Liberation Front, but one should not jump to logical conclusions so quickly; at least not before reading this blog.

The newly built houses, were not yet occupied by the tenants. The street itself was named "the street of dreams". This might remind some of an earlier post on Kevin Costner and the movie 'field of Dreams'; but so far it does not look like Costner is behind this particular assault of America. Each home cost over a million dollars and included some of the most technologically efficient ways of energization. Then why would eco terrorists destroy enviromentally friendly homes? Apparently, they were upset over the endangerment of chinook salmons in the nearby streams.

In other enviromental news, today at the university of Victoria, we were privileged to have the world renound David Suzuki give a free speech. He likely talked about pressing issues facing the current state of the enviroment. It is likely that none of these issues will make it beyond the world renound newspaper of the University of Victoria. However, the enviromental terrorists will likely be in newspapers across the country tomorow. The terrorists means of obtaining media attention are far more radical than that of the elderly Japanese Suzuki (the most radical thing he has done all day is use his cane to get to his enviromentally friendly rice cooker).

The problem I have with David Suzuki, is that he claims that the enviroment is growing rapidly worse every day. He takes the "Day After Tomorow Hypothesis", that things will get out of hand very quickly if we don't act immediately. If this is truly the case, then why is
Suzuki kindly lecturing at Universities and hosting a TV show for viewers of all ages on public network television? If it is true that the enviroment needs radical change today, then shouldn't his means of distributing this information be equally as radical?

Obviously the eco-terrorists that are burning down houses are afflicted with David Suzuki Syndrome. Constantly losing sleep over the torrential terror that awaits us on "the day after tomorow." Unlike Suzuki, they are acting radically to get radical change, which they believe is needed. If you want radical change you must act radically. Suzuki has it all wrong. His quiet, kind and laid-back manner make it seem that we can wait a few days before we implement change, even if he is preaching the opposite.

My prescription for David Suzuki: either tone down your message of impending doom, or join the ELF.

On the Enviroment

I attended a lecture earlier this year at Uvic, by a famous enviromental journalist that is one of the Uvic alumni. He arrived a little bit late, but that could be understood because he travels on his pedal bicycle. He gave us a rundown of many of the enviromental problems afflicting our country today. He is of the Suzuki class of enviromentalists; which means he is a person that loses sleep at night over the current state of the enviroment. This kind-hearted man has dedicated his life to delivering the scientific facts concerning the state of the enviroment to the public. His aim, is to create a better Canada for many generations to come: As soon as he remembers this thought, he is able to fall asleep at night.
-

This man was very encouraging to the room full of wide-eyed students that hoped one day to be journalists themselves. He told the room that there has never been a better time to be an enviromental journalist. Back in the late 1990's, it was very tough for him to sell his articles. Nowadays, there is always some magazine ready to buy articles written by enviromental journalists.

-

But who are these people that we entrust to deliver us our science? Why do we go to a journalist to learn about science, rather than the scientist? Wouldn't it be more proficient to skip out the middle man. The problem of journlists is the same problem that one encounters in the game of telephone that is played in elementary school. The class would be arranged in a cirlce, and a message is started with one person. He whispers it in an ear and the message gets passed around the circle until it comes back to the original creator who barely recognizes the message that he originally uttered. Who are these journalists that we entrust to feed us our knowledge?

-

In a 2005 study of American journalists and the American public, both were asked where they stood on the political spectrum. Interestingly enough, journalists varied greatly from the public.

The Graph shows it clearly and irrefutably. Journalists are typically more left wing than the general public (They also apparently have less time on their hands compared to the general public, considering their refusal rates). One must keep in mind that this includes all journalists. This graph does not narrow its focus on the "left-wing hippy-nut-job" field of enviromental journalism.

-

Enviromental journalists grow up in left wing enviroments. They live with vegan parents that have the full work of Karl Marx on their bookshelves. At a young age, the become afflicted with David Suzuki syndrome. When they start their research topic on the enviroment, they have already made up their mind on which side they will argue. Now it's just a matter of finding a scientist that has data to prove that global warming is destroying this earth.

-

What is needed is a revamp of vegan peoples bookshelves. We must supply all the vegans in north america, with the complete works of Ronald Regan, Malthus and other hardcore conservatives. If we did this, children of Vegans would grow up to argue that global warming is a giant myth, and therefore is not worth worrying about. This would of course have the effect of destroying the field of enviromental journalism; there would be nothing to write about any longer. And then the enviromental journalist that came to my school would be out of a job. A whole sector of scientists and journalists would be out of work. Al Gore would no longer be famous and David Suzuki would become the title of some ancient Japanese myth that we never took the time to learn.

-

But maybe arguing to save nature, is enough for most left-wing people. They don't want to experience the vast wilderness of Kanaskis summertimes that includes bears, lakes and forest-ranger dicks. They would rather stay home and Tivo the 'Nature of things': on every sunday at 7pm on CBC.