By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola
Vol. 11, No. 13

If we want to put the brakes on global warming and reduce our reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels, we must look to renewable energy such as solar, wind, hydro, and sustainable bioenergy. Given what the world’s leading climate change scientists are saying about the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels, we have little time to lose.
Dr. David Suzuki
Dr. Faisal Moola
Looking at the enormous changes the world has experienced over the past century, it’s clear that the most powerful force shaping our lives and society was not politics or economics but science when applied by business, the pharmaceutical and medical industries, and the military. Think of the impact of antibiotics, chainsaws, nuclear weapons, computers, oral contraceptives, cars, television – the list is long.
The discovery by Swiss chemist Paul Mueller in 1939 that DDT kills insect “pests” was hailed as a breakthrough. Dr. Mueller went on to win a Nobel Prize in 1948 for his work, and DDT became the most widely used pesticide in the world during the 1950s. Years later, scientists learned that DDT is “biomagnified” up the food chain, harming fish, birds, humans, and other life.
We know that global warming is a reality and that we humans are its primary cause. And we know that carbon dioxide emissions, in large part from burning fossil fuels, are one of the biggest contributors to global warming. But we still have much to learn about the Earth’s mechanisms when it comes to regulating emissions and warming.
The Alberta and federal governments are pumping billions of dollars into carbon capture and storage as part of their climate change plans. U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minster Stephen Harper also discussed this largely untested technology during the president’s recent visit to Ottawa. But is it a good strategy? Think of what that money could do if it were invested in energy conservation and renewable energy instead of prolonging our addiction to dirty and finite fossil fuels, especially from the tar sands.
As I approach my 73rd birthday, I’ve been thinking about my children and grandchildren and what lies ahead for them. We trumpet the enormous scientific advances and technological innovations of the 20th century, but is the world a better place than when I was born?
The word sustainability gets bandied about a lot, but what does it mean? It means living within the productive capacity of the biosphere. We survive because our most fundamental needs – clean water, fresh air, soil, energy from the sun (through photosynthesis), and resources like trees, fish, and so on – can be replenished by nature as long as we don’t exceed its ability to replace them. Nonrenewable resources like metals must be used carefully and recycled because, no matter how plentiful they are, they will be depleted.
We humans are air-breathing landlubbers, and that shapes the way we see and treat the world. We don’t think much about what’s underwater or underground. So we’ve been dumping garbage into the oceans and taking what we want from them for years without considering the consequences. We’ve never had to look at any of it – until now.
Science has taken a beating over the past few years – especially in the U.S. and Canada. We’ve put up with incessant braying from climate change deniers who, in the words of Guardian writer 

