Even something as simple as the way you park your vehicle can have an impact on the environment.  Here are small ways you can make a difference:

1. most important: pick the first available spot you come to instead of driving around looking for a closer spot.

2. choose a ‘drive-through’ parking spot if possible, so you can pull out without having to reverse

3. turn off your engine and coast those last few meters into your parking spot (easier with a standard than an automatic).  For safety’s sake, be sure the area is clear first, keep your foot ready on the brake, and remember that the steering wheel can lock if you turn the key too far and then try to straighten out the wheel!! 

In the news 

A new study shows Canada CAN reduce emissions significantly while growing jobs and the economy. http://www.cftktv.com/news/16/1014342 

Nepal's Cabinet will hold a meeting on Mount Everest to highlight the threat from global warming, which is causing glaciers to melt in the Himalayas.  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jfY-HAhhnjCmbcDBufRy84xY3VlgD9BNAK380 

The world needs many voices to speak in the in the run-up to Copenhagen - are you ready to be the change on climate change? http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/magazine/article/843540

If your household is like mine, Halloween is one of the most exciting times of the year.  (It also results in a pillowcase full of treats which tend to last into spring.)  But even Halloween has a impact on the planet – mainly through treats, decorations and travel.  If you’d like to reduce your family’s ‘Halloween carbon footprint’, here are a few ideas:

1. the best single action you can take is to leave the car home and walk around the neighbourhood.  Bundle up, and for added safety consider flashlights, reflective tape, face paint instead of masks, and, if the kids allow it, adult accompaniment.

2. minimize the use of inflatable decorations (they use as much power as 4-6 CFLs) and lights; use timers to turn them off automatically and save money

3. consider ‘greener’ treat options, food or otherwise.  Check out www.greenhalloween.org for lots of information and suggestions.

In the news

The President and cabinet of the Maldives, a tropical paradise threatened by rising sea levels, held an extraordinary underwater meeting Saturday to raise awareness and sign a declaration calling for cuts in global emissions. 

The CEO of Shell, one of the world’s largest oil companies, is urging the US Senate to act on climate change legislation.

Many are looking forward to this film making it to the local theaters! The documentary provides more information and insight about our country's use and misuse of fuel resources. It also presents more sustainable ways to fuel the country's needs with alternative fuels.

The Fuel Film was a Sundance Film award winner for "Best Documentary". Watch the video below as well as check out the film's website.

Then, check your local theater listings and if you can't find it on their calendar, call or email them and tell them you're waiting to see it!

The Choice is Ours!

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

Give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees, please!
~ Joni Mitchell

 Any parent knows that it can be a challenge to get kids to eat vegetables and some fruits. We’ve learned all the tricks: smothering broccoli with cheese sauce, putting peanut butter and raisins on celery sticks and calling it “ants on a log”, convincing kids that eating spinach will give them Popeye muscles.

Some kids just don’t like the taste of certain fruits and veggies, and some have issues with the way the food looks. Adults are usually less picky about taste but can be finicky when it comes to the appearance of our fruits and veggies. We’ve become accustomed to blemish-free produce. But what’s wrong with a few spots on our apples?

Well, according to the executives at two of the world’s largest agricultural companies, Monsanto and Dole, our kids may be right: there is something wrong with spots, as well as the shape, texture, and taste of some vegetables. Or, at least, that’s what they’d like you to think.

The two companies have come up with a five-year plan to produce new varieties of spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, and lettuce with improved nutrition, flavour, colour, texture, and aroma.

We’ve never really had a problem with the way these vegetables looked or felt or tasted. But then, we now live in a world where square, seedless watermelons are seen as desirable, and where companies like Monsanto can hold patents on genetically engineered seeds to grow food that has a uniform quality. The patents have allowed the biotech giant to sue farmers for “patent infringement” if the plants are found growing on their farms without a licence – even if the plants may have arrived by wind rather than plan.

Monsanto was also one of the first companies to start commercially marketing DDT, and has also been a major producer of Agent Orange, Roundup, and other toxic chemical pesticides, as well as bovine growth hormone to increase milk production in cows.

Dole has been involved in some controversies over its pesticide use, among other things, as well.

The issue isn’t just about the agri-giants and pesticides and genetically modified foods, though. (In fact, the two companies say their collaborative project will be done through breeding and not genetic engineering.) The issue is about our relationship with food.

Along with trying to maximize profits, the agriculture industry has made it possible for food to be transported around the world, and for produce to keep longer without spoiling. This can benefit areas that have food shortages or short growing seasons.

It also means, though, that we are giving up a lot of our control over one of the basics of life to large corporations that may not always have our best interests in mind. As Michael Pollan writes in his bestselling book In Defense of Food, eating goes beyond biological necessity: “Food is also about pleasure, about community, about family and spirituality, about our relationship to the natural world, and about expressing our identity.”

Agribusiness will continue to play a role in our food production and delivery systems, but that doesn’t mean we can’t embrace some of the other trends emerging in the way we feed ourselves. As Mr. Pollan argues: “What we need now, it seems to me, is to create a broader, more ecological – and more cultural – view of food.”

That means eating more locally grown and organic food, eating less meat, steering away from processed foods, and not worrying about the odd spot on your apple. Or, as Mr. Pollan says in the opening of his book: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

These small measures will help make us healthier, and they’ll also make the planet healthier, by reducing the emissions generated in food production and transportation and by improving the ways we use our land base. Not only that, but they may even help get your kids to eat more vegetables. Carrots and peas are more fun to eat if your children grow and pick them from the garden.

Come to think of it, we can all find spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, and lettuce with better nutrition, flavour, colour, texture, and aroma than some of the factory-farmed produce found on grocery-store shelves. We just have to look in the farmers markets, or in our own backyard or community gardens.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

This note is a call to action to have each and every person close to Northern NB to come to Bathurst on Thursday  from 2 - 9 At the Atlantic host.  Apparently information will be posted, however no official presentations will be made.    The information session will be concerning a propsed Nuclear Waste Disposal site to be located somewhere in Canada.  

Obviously it is important to see what they have to include in their discussion, however it will be very important to prepare our own list of questions. 

It appears that due to the economy people just seem to see that 1000 jobs will be created but in an era where corporations are going green and we are wanting to try and improve our quality of life it will be important to look and try and preserve our environment in the process.  I am am axious to see if they will respond to questions in writing or if they will only meet with hand selected groups to discussin information and get their approval. 

It is extremely important to think of the future of our kids, water shed and our ability to increase population and other industry. 

I am encouraging everyone that knows someone in Bathurst NB or the entire Northern Region to attend this session and get informed and ask any question that you need to.

I also would like to call on the Provincial Government to act now and ensure that the populations are represented and the not only one municipality will decided where this disposal centre will go.  All surrounding municipalities should have to understand the hightened security risk, the nature of products being trucked in, positive and negative results of  type of arrangement.

 I'm going to find out what the Nuclear people have to say.  I am hoping they will be open to answering questions so that I can be as informed as possible.

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

If you’re a Canadian taxpayer, you’re now the proud part owner of a failing automobile company, thanks to the federal and Ontario governments. They’re generously giving General Motors $10.5 billion of your money for an 11.7 per cent share in the company.

Former CIBC World Markets chief economist Jeff Rubin calls it an “investment in obsolescence.” The author of Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization, recently told the Tyee news website, “We should be investing in the future, not the past, making a huge capital investment to build buses and public transit.”

He’s not alone in his thinking. South of the border, where the U.S. government is giving GM a whopping $50 billion for a 60 per cent share of the company, filmmaker Michael Moore wrote, “The only way to save GM is to kill GM.”

He goes onto say that doesn’t mean killing the infrastructure. “If we allow the shutting down and tearing down of our auto plants, we will sorely wish we still had them when we realize that those factories could have built the alternative energy systems we now desperately need,” he writes. “And when we realize that the best way to transport ourselves is on light rail and bullet trains and cleaner buses, how will we do this if we've allowed our industrial capacity and its skilled workforce to disappear?”

How indeed? One thing is certain: We don’t want GM to go back to “business as usual”. This is a company that has fought every progressive move to improve safety and reduce the environmental impact of vehicles, from seat belts and air bags to fuel-efficiency standards. The usual argument has been that any progressive move would drive the price of cars up to the point where the company would go out of business. Well, guess what? Maybe if GM had spent more money on keeping up with the times than on lobbying and court challenges and building SUVS and Hummers, it wouldn’t be facing bankruptcy today.

GM executives have also argued in the past that the markets should dictate their actions and governments should stay out of the way, but they now seem to have made a u-turn when it comes to government involvement!

Well, we now own part of GM. Shouldn’t we have some say in what becomes of it?  Will the U.S. and Canadian governments show some imagination and foresight and turn this crisis into an opportunity?

Mr. Rubin and Mr. Moore are right: Our future is in fuel-efficient cars, buses, and trains, and in green energy. (And even private automobiles may eventually be a thing of the past; the idea of using of a tonne of metal and many litres of fossil fuel to get one person to the grocery store or work is more than a bit absurd.)

We often hear arguments that a major shift in our manufacturing base is not possible – it will be too costly and take too much time. But, as Michael Moore points out, in 1942, GM quickly switched from building cars to producing planes, tanks, and weapons for the war effort. The emergency we face today is no less severe; in fact, it is more so. And we have better technology now.

Likewise, when the Soviet Union launched its first Sputnik satellite in 1957, the U.S. spared no amount of money or effort to get people into space and eventually onto the moon.

And despite arguments that we can’t afford green technologies, governments didn’t have much trouble finding billions – or trillions – of dollars to bail out banks and car companies that were largely the authors of their own problems. Where are our priorities?

The need for a cleaner future is here. The technology is here. The opportunity is here. All that’s required is some will and imagination from governments and corporations. We can no longer rely on diminishing fossil fuel supplies. Our very survival depends on developing more sustainable technologies, transportation, and products that don’t pollute the air, water, and soil.

We don’t need more Cadillacs and Hummers. We need a new way of looking at our world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

Imagine a Canada with an abundance of nature and wildlife, clean air and water, healthy citizens, and a prosperous economy. Sounds close to what we have, doesn’t it? But it may not be for long if we keep heading down the road we’re on.

Author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued that Canada is becoming a petro-state. “Without long-term planning and policies, Canada and Alberta will fail to secure reliable energy supplies for Canadians, to develop alternative energy sources for the country, or to create valuable resource funds for the future,” he writes in his best-selling book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. Because of the response of Alberta to Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Plan, Canada doesn't even have a national energy plan.

The reality is that our government is putting all its eggs in one basket, relying on the tar sands to fuel the economy. And although the government has at least come around to acknowledging that global warming is a problem, it hasn’t acted as if it’s a problem worthy of much attention. Its energy and environmental policies show that it is willing to let the economics of the fossil fuel industry trump concern for our common future.

That was made clear with the release of an audit report by the federal environment and sustainable development commissioner on May 12. Scott Vaughan’s report found that the government has overstated expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, is unable to monitor actual reductions, lacks transparent plans, and is failing to meet its international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

The audit also found that the government is failing to adequately protect fish habitat. Vaughan charged the government with not knowing much about fish habitat in Canada, failing to implement some parts of the 23-year-old policy, and failing to even identify what it must do to stop harmful pollutants from being discharged into waters where the fish live.

This ongoing failure on the part of those elected to serve our interests is bad from both an environmental and an economic standpoint. A briefing note prepared for Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt last fall and recently obtained by Canadian Press warns that a lack of clarity and certainty regarding the government’s climate change policies is jeopardizing investment in Canada’s energy sector. The government promised new regulations more than two years ago but now says it is “reworking” its plan.

The briefing note says the government should have policies that facilitate investment in green equipment, buildings, and infrastructure.

But it appears that the government is really only interested in facilitating the ability of the fossil fuel industry to squeeze every drop of oil out of the ground until we are left with depleted energy supplies, devastated landscapes and polluted waters, and an economy that can’t compete with those of nations that have invested in renewable energy.

Our policies around oil extraction aren’t even that good. Mr. Nikiforuk argues in Tar Sands that, “Neither Canada nor Alberta has a rational plan for the tar sands other than full-scale liquidation.” With a more rational policy, he argues, “the tar sands could fund Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy.” Instead, “Feeble fiscal regimes have enriched multinationals and given Canada a petrodollar that hides the inflationary pressures of peak oil,” making Canada “nothing more than a Third World energy supermarket.”

It really is a case of short-term gain for long-term pain – and even the gain is only for a few foreign multinationals and their friends, and not for Canadians who should have more say in our energy future and in how our resources are managed.

And what about the long-term pain? Well, a recent report from the Lancet and the University College of London, Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change, notes that climate change is the biggest global health threat we face. The consequences include increased spread of disease as malaria-carrying mosquitoes move to higher altitudes, declining crop yields leading to food shortages, water shortages and illness related to poor sanitation, housing shortages, more extreme weather events such as flooding, and increased population migration.

And those are just the health consequences. Mass extinctions of animals and plants, dying oceans, and ravaged economies are also in our future if we don’t smarten up.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. In Canada, especially, we can still turn things around if we move quickly. Citizens across the country have been showing they care, by making changes in their lives to reduce their carbon footprint. Now it’s time to let our elected leaders know that we expect at least as much from them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Even if you drive a petrol-fueled car rather than a hybrid vehicle, you can still do your part to help the environment by using less fuel, a practice that will save you cash and save our earth at the same time. You just need to pay more attention to the details. 

Have a look at your tires

Did you know that a single tire under-inflated by two pounds of pressure can increase your car’s fuel consumption by 1 percent? Since you do have four tires, the wheels alone can increase your spending on fuel by 4 percent. So be sure to check your tires’ air pressure at regular intervals; most garages have an air pressure gauge and pump you can use for free. 

Make your car lose some weight-

This doesn’t mean you have to rid your car of panels, seats and spare tire, but you’re bound to be carrying around some unnecessary weight in your vehicle. Take a quick look in your trunk and remove anything that isn’t strictly necessary. For example, if you won’t get a chance to drop off those empty bottles at the recycling centre until the weekend, store them in your garage until then. And what about that roof box or bicycle rack you haven’t used in a while? All these objects add more weight to your car and make it burn more fuel. For every 5kg of weight you get rid of, you can reduce the engine’s fuel consumption by an average of 0.1 percent, so give your car a spring clean-out today! 

Keep an eye on your speed

Maintaining your speed on motorways is the best way to lower your car’s thirst for fuel. When you drive fast, more fuel is needed to combat the increasing air resistance. A good solution is to keep a steady pace of 65mph (105km/h). If you decide to drive at the maximum speed of 75mph (120km/h), be aware that your fuel consumption will increase by a horrifying 20 percent. Another point to consider is city driving. Speeding toward stop signs and traffic lights needlessly and then braking rapidly wastes fuel as well. By pressing the accelerator and brakes more frequently than necessary, you are using more petrol than you would if you drove at a steady pace. 

Let your engine rest

Turn your engine off when you are not on the move. Research shows that if you are stationary for more than 10 seconds, the car will actually burn less if you stop the engine and then restart it. So, if you are going to be sitting at a traffic light for a minute or two or you are going to wait for your passenger to arrive, you can save some fuel by turning your engine off, as an idling car can burn as much as 4 liters of fuel per hour. 

Listen to traffic reports

Pay closer attention to traffic reports on the radio before leaving your home or office, as these tips may enable you to choose a less congested route that will not only be more eco-friendly, but will also save you time and reduce stress. 

Clean your car’s air filter

The air filter prevents dirt from entering the engine of your car. Driving your vehicle with a dirty filter can reduce its fuel economy by 10 percent! Luckily, this problem can be easily avoided. The air filter is easy to clean, so you can do it yourself regularly, and it should also be cleaned each time you service the car. In time, the air filter will suffer wear and tear and need to be replaced, but this is a relatively small outlay. 

Get fit

Keep in mind that you could walk or cycle instead of using your car, particularly if your destination is nearby. As the weather improves with warming temperatures, get some fresh air while keeping fit, save money and reduce your carbon footprint by avoiding unnecessary car journeys.

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

The North Coast of B.C. is one of my favourite places. If you visit this spectacular and ecologically diverse region, you’ll see people fishing, logging, travelling on boats and ships, and raising families. You’ll see mountains, forests, oceans, sea lions, puffins, and whales. If you are fortunate to dive into the ocean, you’ll see salmon, herring, rockfish, sea anemones, giant scallops, kelp forests, and – deep below – 9,000-year-old glass-sponge reefs. There is so much to see here, but we still have a lot to learn about how this ecosystem works.

It’s absurd to think that we could manage our activities in such a vast and complex area by having different government departments oversee individual activities in isolation. But that’s pretty much the way we’ve been doing things.

Fortunately, people are beginning to talk about a new way of managing our oceans, a way that’s being tested in five large ocean areas in Canada. One of these areas is the North Coast of B.C., in a region stretching from northern Vancouver Island to the B.C.-Alaska border, which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has labelled the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area, or Pncima.

DFO is attempting to engage an integrated management planning process here, in part based on the recognition that everything in nature is interconnected, including human activity. For years, many scientists, resource managers, and environmentalists have encouraged government to adopt an ecosystem-based management, or EBM, approach that takes into account all values and interests. The Encyclopedia of Earth defines EBM as “an integrated, science-based approach to the management of natural resources that aims to sustain the health, resilience and diversity of ecosystems while allowing for sustainable use by humans of the goods and services they provide.”

The Federal government’s planning processes in the Beaufort Sea, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Eastern Scotian Shelf, Placentia Bay/Grand Banks, and Pacific North Coast could set an example for the EBM approach in all of Canada’s oceans. Until now, there’s been more talk than action.

The Pncima integrated management planning process has recently seen some significant breakthroughs, though. In December, DFO signed a formal governance agreement with First Nations in the area to move forward with a marine planning process. And in late March, more than to 380 people – including representatives from government, First Nations, coastal communities, marine industries, and non-governmental organizations – took part in a two-day forum to discuss management and conservation options for the region.

That so many people from so many walks of life and so many communities were able to come together to discuss the needs of this area shows not just that cooperation is possible but also that everyone understands the need for urgent action to protect the health of our oceans.

As with most processes involving a multitude of resources, interests, and ecological values, government must continue to play a leading role. Even more importantly, our government must provide enough money for scientific research to ensure that decisions are made according to the best local and scientific knowledge.

We don’t have a lot of time to waste. Many ocean ecosystems are at tipping points, with pollution, resource extraction, and industrial impacts contributing to declines in fish, mammal, and other marine-life populations. Add to that uncertainty about the effects climate change is having on these ecosystems, and the need for planning becomes even more urgent.

A credible, long-term plan for any ocean region must include an increase in protected areas where specific types of industrial activity are limited. Canada has the longest coastline of any nation on Earth, and 40 per cent of our jurisdictional area is ocean, yet the federal government has set aside less than one per cent of that as marine protected areas.

I hope governments, First Nations, and other interested people will continue the formal dialogue, scientific research, and relationship-building required to ensure we have intelligent management and conservation in our oceans. I believe most people understand that our own health depends on the health of ocean ecosystems, and are willing to come together to ensure ecological and economic well-being provided by our oceans are maintained at as high a level as possible. I encourage everyone in Canada who cares about the future health of our oceans to let the government know that we want a greater investment in science, management, and conservation so that our oceans stand a fighting chance in an all too uncertain future.

* * * * * * 

For more information, visit www.healthyoceans.ca/.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

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.

What is CCS? People in the oil industry found that as they drained oil from wells, they could pump CO2 back in to increase the yield. And the CO2 appeared to stay in the ground. But we have no idea what happens to this gas. Does it form a bubble under a big rock? Is it chemically bonded to its surrounding matrix? How long will it stay down there? We don’t know. We air-breathing terrestrial beings seem to have the attitude of “out of sight, out of mind,” and so we dump our garbage into the oceans or the ground or the atmosphere, as if that were a solution.

I can’t overemphasize the degree of our ignorance. Until a few years ago, scientists assumed no life existed below bedrock, but miners kept reporting that bits drilled far deeper into the ground came back contaminated. Researchers later discovered bizarre forms of life almost three kilometres below the surface. The organisms are bacteria, which in some cases are embedded in rock, eking out an existence scrounging for water, energy, and nutrition. Some are thought to divide only once in a thousand years! When these organisms are brought to the surface, their DNA is unlike anything we know about bacteria aboveground. Biologists have had to invent whole new phyla to describe them.

The layer of life on Earth’s surface is very thin, but these single-celled organisms go down kilometres. Now, scientists believe that protoplasm living underground are more abundant than all of the elephants, trees, whales, fish, and other life above! We have no idea how important these organisms are to the subsurface web of life. Do they play a role in movement of water and nutrients, of energy from the magma? We have no idea.

I met Princeton University’s Tullis Onstott, a geologist and expert on these organisms, at a lecture I gave at Princeton last year. I told him of the plans to pump millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the ground for CCS. “What effect will that have?” I asked. “I have no idea, but the methanogens should love it,” he replied. “What are they?” I asked. “They absorb carbon dioxide and make methane,” he responded. Methane is 22 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide! So, we could be pumping a greenhouse gas into the ground and ending up with a super-greenhouse gas instead. Has anyone even considered this possibility?

Remember that Paul Mueller won a Nobel Prize in 1948 for his discovery in 1939 that DDT kills insects. Years after we started using it on a massive scale around the world, we learned that DDT is “biomagnified” up the food chain, harming birds, fish, and human beings. When we began to use chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, in spray cans, most people didn’t even know there was an ozone layer, let alone that chlorine-free radicals from CFCs destroy ozone. And mark my words, we have no idea what genetically engineered organisms or nanotechnology will do. But if we humans are good at anything, it’s thinking we’ve got a terrific idea and going for it without acknowledging the potential consequences or our own ignorance.

CCS is a simple-minded idea based on a first impression. You’d think we would have learned from the past that we shouldn’t rush to apply new technologies before we know what the long-term effects will be. Carbon capture and storage may be worth studying, but the technology’s potential should not be used as an excuse for the oil and coal industries to avoid reducing their emissions and investing in renewable energy. After all, we know that energy conservation and renewable energy will yield immediate effects of a cleaner environment. We don’t know what carbon capture and storage will cost, when it will be commercially viable, or what it will do, other than perhaps to give us a way to keep relying on finite and polluting sources of energy.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.