World’s First Green Bank – 3 Billion Sterling to Lend to Sustainable Projects

 

green-investment-bank-logo

 

 

 

A new banking consciousness has begun!

As Britain heads towards it’s goal to drastically cut its carbon emissions by 2020, thw world’s first green bank will
use at least 80 percent of its capital to fund the Government’s Green Deal.

According to their website — and fabulously snubbing Canada:

In order to meet this green challenge there are ambitious and legally binding targets which the UK must meet.  These are set out in the Kyoto Protocol, the 2008 Climate Change Act and the Energy Bill of 2012.  Building green infrastructure and financing the projects to support this will be fundamental in meeting the targets including:

  • a reduction in green-house gas emissions of 34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050;
  • 15% of all energy consumed generated from green sources by 2020; and
  • ‘reduction in waste’ to landfill.

 

Visit The Banks Website!

 

 

Avaaz – Live hearing in days — Stop “Fox News North”

In days, the CRTC could decide whether Canadians should be forced to pay for Sun News or ‘Fox News North’. Both Avaaz and Sun News have been asked to appear at the hearing, and Sun News has built a petition of 53,000 over months. We have just a few days to blow it out of the water.

SIGN PETITION HERE

After Harper and his top spin doctor Kory Teneycke met secretly with Rupert Murdoch, Teneycke was involved in modelling Sun News after Murdoch’s Fox News, the political propaganda network that has poisoned U.S. politics. It’s Canadian crony-media — run by a political crony, pushing a political agenda, and now seeking to be funded by a government handout, asking the CRTC to force it onto our basic cable packages.

Sun News have been pushing their petition non-stop for months. If we can double it in a few days, it will send a powerful signal to the CRTC about where Canadians stand – click below to sign and share this email with everyone whocares about Canadian democracy.

As concerned citizens we stand together in urging you to deny Quebecor’s application to grant their Sun News Network exceptional status and force it into our homes at our own expense. Sun News may have the right to offer its views to those who want to listen, but we as consumers have the right not to be forced to pay for it.

 
4248_sunnews2_1_459x230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why food riots are likely to become the new normal | Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Courtesy by: Naafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. The Guardian

images-1Just over two years since Egypt’s dictator President Hosni Mubarak resigned , little has changed. Cairo’s infamous Tahrir Square has remained a continual site of clashes between demonstrators and security forces, despite a newly elected president. It’s the same story in Tunisia, and Libya where protests and civil unrest have persisted under now ostensibly democratic governments.

The problem is that the political changes brought about by the Arab spring were largely cosmetic. Scratch beneath the surface, and one finds the same deadly combination of environmental, energy and economic crises.

We now know that the fundamental triggers for the Arab spring were unprecedented food price rises. The first sign things were unravelling hit in 2008, when a global rice shortage coincided with dramatic increases in staple food prices, triggering food riots across the middle east, north Africa and south Asia. A month before the fall of the Egyptian and Tunisian regimes, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reported record high food prices for dairy, meat, sugar and cereals.

Since 2008, global food prices have been consistently higher than in preceding decades, despite wild fluctuations. This year, even with prices stabilising, the food price index remains at 210 – which some experts believe is the threshold beyond which civil unrest becomes probable. The FAO warns that 2013 could see prices increase later owing to tight grain stocks from last year’s adverse crop weather.

Whether or not those prices materialise this year, food price volatility is only a symptom of deeper systemic problems – namely, that the global industrial food system is increasingly unsustainable. Last year, the world produced 2,241m tonnes of grain, down 75m tonnes or 3% from the 2011 record harvest.

The key issue, of course, is climate change. Droughts exacerbated by global warming in key food-basket regions have already led to a 10-20% drop in rice yields over the past decade. Last year, four-fifths of the US experienced a heatwave, there were prolonged droughts in Russia and Africa, a lighter monsoon in India and floods in Pakistan – extreme weather events that were likely linked to climate change afflicting the world’s major food basket regions.

The US Department of Agriculture predicts a 3-4% food price rise this year – a warning that is seconded in the UK. Make no mistake: on a business-as-usual scenario, this is the new normal. Overall, global grain consumption has exceeded production in eight of the past 13 years. By mid-century, world crop yields could fall as much as 20-40% because of climate change alone.

But climate is not the only problem. Industrial farming methods are breaching the biophysical limits of the soil. World agricultural land productivity between 1990 and 2007 was 1.2% a year, nearly half compared with 1950-90 levels of 2.1%.

2008 also saw a shift to a new era of volatile, but consistently higher, oil prices. Regardless of where one stands on the prospects for unconventional oil and gas for ameliorating “peak oil”, the truth is that we will never return to the heyday of cheap petroleum.

High oil prices will continue to debilitate the global economy, particularly in Europe – but they will also continue to feed into the oil-dependent industrial food system. Currently, every major point in industrial food production is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. To make matters worse, predatory speculation on food and other commodities by banks drives prices higher, increasing profits at the expense of millions of the world’s poor.

In the context of economies wracked by debt, this creates a perfect storm of problems which will guarantee high prices – eventually triggering civil unrest – for the foreseeable future.

It’s only a matter of time before this fatal cocktail of climate, energy and economic challenges hits the Gulf kingdoms – where Saudi Arabia is struggling with an average total oil depletion rate of about 29%. If oil revenues reduce in coming years, this would lower subsidies for food and fuel. We’ve already seen how this can play out, for instance, in Egypt, whose domestic oil production peaked back in 1996, reducing government spending on services amid mounting debt.

The link between intensifying inequality, debt, climate change, fossil fuel dependency and the global food crisis is now undeniable. As population and industrial growth continue, the food crisis will only get worse. If we don’t do something about it, according to an astounding new Royal Society paper, we may face the prospect of civilisational collapse within this century.

The Arab spring is merely a taste of things to come.

Ending Animal Testing for Cosmetics: Will India Be Next?

Courtesy by: Alicia Graef. Care 2.

UnknownAnimal advocates are celebrating a landmark decision handed down from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to fast-track the removal of two final tests of cosmetic products on animals from India’s safety standard.

“The directive was issued during an emergency meeting of the Bureau of Indian Standards PCD19 Cosmetic Sectional Committee, to which HSI/India was a special invitee, and marks the beginning of the end of acute oral toxicity (lethal poisoning) and oral mucosal irritation animal testing for cosmetic purposes in India,”according to the Humane Society International.

From now on, companies who want to test their products or ingredients will have to submit a non-animal testing proposal to the DCGI for approval.

“It’s unthinkable that in this day and age, animals are still choking on cosmetic chemicals in decades-old poisoning tests while companies choke on their own inertia in switching to a cruelty-free business model,” said HSI India Be Cruelty-Free Campaign Manager Alokparna Sengupta.

In the absence of non-animal alternatives, validation by the regulator will be done on an individual basis. The regulator is currently examining the European Union’s ban, according to the Hindu Business Line.

After decades of campaigning, the EU is set to finalize its ban this month, and animal advocates are counting down the days. This historic victory for animals means that from March 11 onwards, anyone who wants to sell new cosmetics products and their raw ingredients in the EU may not test either on animals anywhere the world.

Israel also recently enacted a law banning animal testing for cosmetics, personal care and household products that went into effect on December 31.

Both of these moves send a strong message in support of cruelty-free products to the rest of the world and have peaked curiosity and support from a number of countries, including Korea, who will hopefully follow suit.

“Following the European marketing ban we are seeing doors open in all the major exporting countries as industry tackles the job of converting all their safety testing to modern non-animal methods. We are particularly pleased to see the active interest of Korean industry and we will do all we can to encourage progress,” said Cruelty Free International Director of Policy, Dr Nick Palmer.

To find cruelty-free products already available on the international market, visit gocrueltyfree.org.

via Ending Animal Testing for Cosmetics: Will India Be Next? | Care2 Causes.

Hundreds of Baby Seals Saved from Slaughter

Courtesy by: Piper Hoffman. Care 2

Unknown-5A seal slaughter in Canada has been cancelled!

The Huffington Post reports that the annual hunt on Hay Island was called off. The seals of Hay Island were spared last year as well. The Hay Island hunt usually kills a few hundred seals each year, out of the hundreds of thousands bludgeoned to death off the Newfoundland coast.

A spokesman for the hunters said that they had suspended the hunt because of low market demand for seal pelts. The president of the Canadian Seals Association agreed: “Right now we’re in a situation where we don’t have very many markets.” He added, “if there is no market, no buyers, there’s not much point in taking the seals.” It is comforting to learn that the killers weren’t bashing in the heads of helpless baby seals just for fun — it was just for money.

The targeted seals really are babies. “Hunters are permitted to kill seal pups when they start to moult their downy white fur at around 12-15 days. As a result many of the seals are only babies that haven’t even eaten their first solid meal or taken their first swim.” 98% of the seals killed are less than three months old.

Here’s how the hunt works, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica Blog:

“For six to eight weeks each spring, the ice floes of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the eastern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador turn bloody, as some 300,000 harp seal pups, virtually all between 2 and 12 weeks old, are beaten to death—their skulls crushed with a heavy club called a hakapik—or shot. They are then skinned on the ice or in nearby hunting vessels after being dragged to the ships with boat hooks. The skinned carcasses are usually left on the ice or tossed in the ocean.

“Thousands of other wounded pups (estimates range from 15,000 to 150,000 per year) manage to escape the hunters but die later of their injuries or drown after falling off the ice (pups younger than about 5 weeks cannot swim).”

Growing international opposition to these slaughters is drying up demand for seal products. Activism has finally led to governments around the world taking action. Perhaps most important is the Russian Federation’s 2011 decision to prohibit importing seal products from Canada, because it was one of the largest markets for the Canadian hunters’ grisly products according to CTV News. (Harp Seals, however, offers government statistics showing that Norway is by far the biggest importer, and it still actively defends Canadian hunts.)

The Russian Federation’s ban followed the adoption of a similar ban in the European Union in 2009. The United States outlawed trade in seal products way back in 1972. The international bans were a seminal coup for the friends of seals because, unlike appeals to the hunters’ hypothetical basic decency, they hit the hunters where they lived — in their wallets.

A long and active history of protests led up to those bans. Going back to the 1970s, “images of fuzzy white seal pups were everywhere as activists fought to end the seal hunt in Canada.” In the 1980s, activism continued, with the International Fund for Animal Welfare calling for a boycott on Canadian seafood. During that time, Canada banned vessel-based seal hunting, which made a big dent in the number of seals massacred, but the motivation was to give the seal population time to recover after hunting dramatically lowered their numbers. The plan was still to resume the killing in time.

Soon the ban on vessel-based hunting was lifted, apparently because of arguments that seals were devastating the populations of certain species of fish, especially cod. Activists went back to work educating the public about the killing and lobbying public officials.

The hunters’ refusal to stop massacring seals because it is the right thing to do has been stubborn and lasting. They have had the backing of Canada’s government, even though most Canadians opposed funneling their tax dollars to subsidize this bloody industry.

The Hay Island slaughter is a drop in the bucket of seal blood Canadian hunters shed each year, but it is a sign that the tide may be turning against the industry.

Polar Bears Win After Alaska Tries to Delist Them

Courtesy by:  Alicia Graef. Care 2

Unknown-3Despite protests from Alaska, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that polar bears will keep their “threatened” status and continue to receive protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Polar bears were listed under the ESA in 2008 as a result of a petition and legal action taken by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace. They were the first species added to the list solely because of the threat of climate change.

There are still an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears left in the wild around the world, with two-thirds of the population in Canada, but they face a number of threats ranging from the loss of sea ice which they rely on for survival, to disease, pollution, shipping and hunting, among other issues.

“This ruling forces Alaska to acknowledge what has been painfully clear to everyone else: polar bears are on a collision course with climate change and deserve protection,” said Rebecca Riley, attorney in NRDC’s land and wildlife program. “Now, we need to get serious about tackling climate change and other threats to the species like hunting and toxic contamination.”

Their status has been controversial in Alaska, where they’re seen as impeding development, particularly when it comes to drilling for oil. The state, along with the international hunting group Safari Club International, argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) should have taken into account the fact that polar bears are doing well elsewhere in the world where steps are being taken to increase their numbers, according to the LA Times.

However, the court found that the USFWS’s decision to list them was scientifically supported, noting the record low in sea ice in 2007, which “further support[s] the concern that current sea ice models may be conservative and underestimate the rate and level of change expected in the future.”

Scientists believe that without protection, more than two-thirds of the planet’s polar bears, including all of the ones in Alaska, will likely be gone by 2050, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

“Today’s decision is the latest legal confirmation of the indisputable science on climate change and the very real threats that polar bears face,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “If we’re going to save polar bears, the Obama administration needs to move swiftly to cut greenhouse pollution.”

Polar bears may also get even more support as countries gather at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in the coming weeks, where the U.S., with support from the Russian Federation, is proposing a ban on the international trade in polar bear parts by uplisting them from Appendix II to Appendix I, which is currently the highest level of protection a species can get.

The legal trade in parts including paws, teeth and pelts results in the death of hundreds of polar bears annually. Canada, the only country that allows polar bear hunting and commercial trade, argues that populations are healthy and necessary for subsistence hunting, but troubling numbers gathered by the USFWS indicate that while some populations are stable or increasing, more than a dozen are either declining or haven’t been checked in decades.

The U.S. sponsored a proposal at the last meeting of CITES in 2010, but didn’t get enough votes to move forward.

via Polar Bears Win After Alaska Tries to Delist Them | Care2 Causes.

Israel Bans Animal-Tested Cosmetics. Why Can’t We Do the Same? | Care2 Causes

Courtesy by: Alicia Graef.Care 2

UnknownAnimal advocates, and animals in labs, were given yet another reason to celebrate the new year with the enactment of a law in Israel banning animal testing for cosmetics, personal care and household products that went into effect at midnight on December 31.

“Animal testing in the Cosmetics Industry inflicts horrific suffering on these animals. Each product requires between 2,000-3,000 tests, and animals die in agony,” said MK Eitan Cabel, who called the move a “true revolution in animal welfare.”

Animal testing for cosmetics and other products was banned in Israel in 2007, but this new ban is focused on products that are imported from other countries and will also mean an end to marketing products that have been tested on animals, even if the testing was done elsewhere in the world.

“The end of animal testing for cosmetics has come a step closer today,” said Troy Seidle, director of research & toxicology for Humane Society International (HSI). “Whilst we commend Israel for taking this truly historic action, strict enforcement of the law alongside active assistance from cosmetic companies, will now be vital. HSI’s Be Cruelty-Free campaign is working in India, Brazil, South Korea, the United States and beyond to achieve a world where no animal has to suffer and die for the sake of cosmetics. Once the EU enforces its own sales ban in March, the creation of these two cruelty-free markets will be a significant milestone towards achieving our goal.”

The EU adopted legislation to ban animal testing for cosmetics in 1993, which was supposed to go into effect in 1998, but was repeatedly delayed. In 2009, all animal testing for cosmetics was banned in the EU and supported by campaigns from organizations including HSI, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments.

The 2009 ban was also accompanied by a marketing ban for products that were tested outside of the EU. However, the deadline was delayed for three types of tests in an effort to buy time to develop alternatives. As of the March deadline, if it’s not delayed again, no cosmetic products with ingredients that have been tested on animals will be sold in the EU, whether or not there is an alternative test available.

For more information on the EU ban, visit No Cruel Cosmetics. To find truly cruelty-free products, visit gocrueltyfree.org.

 

Can the new EPA chief stop Obama approving the Keystone XL pipeline?

Courtesy by: Richard Schiffman. The Guardian. 

images-1Environmentalists got some bad news when the State Department released a report on Friday – a full month earlier than had been anticipated – saying that there are no convincing environmental reasons that the Keystone XL pipeline should not be built.

This just two weeks after thousands of demonstrators gathered at the National Mall for what has been called the largest climate rally ever. Environmental groups have joined in a rare united front to block the pipeline. If built, activists predict that the pipeline will hugely increase greenhouse gas emissions and reverse the progress that has been made in recent years toward switching to renewable sources of energy.

The usually measured Sierra Club president, Michael Brune, called last week’s State Department report “nothing short of malpractice”, and suggested that the president toss it in the garbage. In an email interview, 350.org spokesperson Daniel Kessler characterized the pipeline as “a boondoggle perpetuated by monied interests” whose impact on the climate would be “horrific”.

But there has been a lot of pressure on the administration from the fossil fuel industry to ratify the pipeline. According to Marty Durbin, executive vice-president of the American Petroleum Institute:

“The latest impact statement from the State Department puts this important, job-creating project one step closer to reality.”

A little over a month ago, Nebraska’s Republican governor, Dave Heineman, removed a major hurdle to the construction of Keystone when he approved a new path for the pipeline – one that avoids the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region. President Obama had rejected an earlier route because of the state’s objections, and the dangers of a spill to underground water in the critical Ogallala aquifer.

Obama’s decision on the pipeline will be seen as a litmus test of the direction which he will take on the environment in his second term. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat, Rhode Island) said that last month’s historic climate rally was intended to “get the fellow in the White House to follow up on the wonderful things he’s said in speeches recently and put a really strong regulatory regime in.”

But if Friday’s report is any indication of the administration thinking, the president may be preparing to give the controversial pipeline the green light. While the 2,000-word document makes no policy recommendations, it does give Obama a degree of political cover should he decide – as seems increasingly likely – to approve the project: the pipeline that would bring 800,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta to refineries on the US Gulf coast.

The State Department document claims that “the proposed project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands.” Many outside observers disagree, saying that if Keystone were nixed by the administration, it would significantly slow the exploitation of the Canadian tar sand reserves. Alternate pipeline routes, which would take the oil to ports in Canada, have faced fierce opposition in British Columbia, and would undoubtedly be challenged in court.

Some environmentalists were encouraged by the president’s nomination Monday of Gina McCarthy for the post of EPA administrator, to replace the outgoing Lisa Jackson. McCarthy served as a top official in charge of air quality at the EPA and has the reputation of being a fighter for tougher environmental standards.

She is expected to face resistance from congressional Republicans and the coal industry, which have consistently opposed regulations. Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program, told me:

“The Gina McCarthy pick is outstanding. The question is: what support the president will give her.”

Some observers believe that Lisa Jackson decided to leave her post as head of the EPA because the administration failed to back her efforts to draft stronger ozone limits and emissions standards for power plants. As I reported in the Guardian in January, there was also speculation that Jackson, an opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, resigned because the president had already decided to approve the project.

The president is expected to announce his final decision on Keystone XL pipeline in the Spring. If it is true that his mind is already made up – to approve it – there may be little that Gina McCarthy, or Secretary of State John Kerry (who is known as a “climate hawk”), can do to change the administration’s course.

Shell faces damages over Nigeria oil spill

Courtesy by: Al Jazeera

2012101153834415734_20Dutch court upholds just one out of five allegations by Niger Delta farmers against the oil company.

A court in the Netherlands has ruled that Royal Dutch Shell can be held partially responsible for pollution in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region and ordered it to pay damages to one farmer.

The court dismissed on Wednesday 30th of January  four out of five allegations against the oil company. The amount of damages to be paid was to be announced at a later date.

Activists say the case could set a precedent for damage claims related to the foreign activities of multinational companies.

Four Nigerians and interest group Friends of the Earth filed the suit in 2008 in The Hague, where Shell has its joint global headquarters, seeking unspecified reparations for lost income from contaminated land and waterways in the Niger Delta.

The Nigerians – fishermen and farmers – said they could no longer feed their families because the region had been polluted by oil from Shell’s pipelines and production facilities.

The pollution is a result of oil spills in 2004, 2005 and 2007, they said.

“The significance of the case is that at least there is an international agreement, if you like, in an international space where money and corruption do not come to play the way it does in Nigeria,” Annkio Briggs, a Niger Delta activist, told Al Jazeera’s Yvonne Ndege in Port Harcourt.

“This is a great victory even though we still have the issues of the other ones that have been thrown out. It is very important for us and very encouraging that we will have to take these cases outside of Nigeria for Nigerians to have justice.

“Ironically we have to take the cases out to the counties where these oil companies come from. So it shows what we’ve been saying for years – that oil companies are doing [things in Nigeria] illegally what they will never dare to do anywhere else in the world.”

Corporate fears

Al Jazeera’s Simon McGregor-Wood, reporting from the Hague, said: “There will be a bit of a shiver going through the corporate world because all along the environmental companies have been arguing that companies like Shell do not necessarily act with the same level of responsibility in places like Nigeria which are a long way from home.

“When things go wrong, when there are these catastrophic pollutions or these systematic pollutions occur, they are not as quick to clear up as if a tanker would spill its oil off the channel for the coast of Netherlands,” he added.

“It was the idea of this case to set the precedent that these big companies have to take care wherever they are operating in the world,” McGregor-Wood said.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Channa Samkalden, a lawyer acting on behalf of the Nigerian farmers, said:  “Overall it’s actually quite a good outcome for us.

“At least Shell was held liable for one of the cases. That’s a good start. Also, a very important fact is that the court has said that Shell has a duty to take measures to prevent sabotage, which is of course a principal issue.”

It is the first time a Dutch-registered company has been sued in a domestic court for offences allegedly carried out by a foreign subsidiary.

The suit targets Shell’s parent company in the Netherlands and its Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Co (SPDC). It is the largest oil and gas company in Nigeria, Africa’s top energy producer, with an output of more than one million barrels of oil or equivalent per day.

Science Matters: Uruguay’s “poor” president is a unique leader

By David Suzuki

When bright young idealists share their environmental concerns with me, I encourage them to get involved in politics. That’s where decisions have to be made about the severe ecological problems we face.

3954570014_ea2a64f073
Have you noticed, though, how often idealism gives way to a sense of entitlement to all the perks that come with political office? It’s amazing how being elected to serve the people is often turned on its head: we’re expected to support elected leaders without protest or question. And what happens to many who leave government? Lucrative board memberships and business deals.

Some politicians take a different road, though. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter stepped down after one term, was roundly ridiculed by popular media, yet continued to dedicate his life to promoting justice and eliminating poverty around the world. Nelson Mandela is another incredible role model who sets a high bar.

But something particularly unique is happening in South America. I only recently learned of Jose Mujica, a remarkable man who became president of Uruguay in 2009.

He’s a radical activist who, in the 1960s, joined the left-wing guerrilla group known as Tupamaros, formed by sugar-cane workers and students. The organization was crushed after a military coup in 1973. Mujica was shot six times and imprisoned for 14 years; he claims incarceration solidified his thinking. In 1985, constitutional democracy was restored to Uruguay and Mujica was released. He ran for office and was elected president in 2009.

And what a politician! He’s a vegetarian who lives in his wife’s ramshackle farmhouse where they work together in the fields growing flowers. He turned down the opportunity to move into the presidential palace in Montevideo, preferring to stay on the farm, which is linked to the capital city by a dirt road. Under Uruguay’s law, elected officials must declare their personal wealth. In 2010, Mujica’s was $1,800, the value of the 1987 Volkswagen beetle he drives. When he added a share of his wife’s assets – her house, land and tractor – it brought his declared family wealth to $215,000.

Mujica receives $12,000 a month as president but donates 90 per cent of it to the poor and small businesses. “I can live well with what I have,” he says. “I’m called ‘the poorest president’, but I don’t feel poor. Poor people are those who only work to try to keep an expensive lifestyle, and always want more and more.”

He added, “This is a matter of freedom. If you don’t have many possessions then you don’t need to work all your life like a slave to sustain them, and therefore you have more time for yourself. I may appear to be an eccentric old man… But this is a free choice.”

Mujica attended Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, in June 2012, where he stated: “We’ve been talking all afternoon about sustainable development – to get the masses out of poverty. But what are we thinking? Do we want the model of development and consumption of the rich countries? I ask you now: What would happen to this planet if Indians would have the same proportion of cars per household as Germans? How much oxygen would we have left? Does this planet have enough resources so seven or eight billion can have the same level of consumption and waste that today is seen in rich societies? It is this level of hyper-consumption that is harming our planet.”

Mujica says most world leaders have a “blind obsession to achieve growth with consumption, as if the contrary would mean the end of the world.”

He’s hit a bit of a bump in popularity, dropping below 50 per cent for refusing to veto a bill legalizing abortion before 12 weeks (as all his predecessors did) and supporting a debate on legalization of marijuana use that would give the state a monopoly over its trade. Mujica points out: “Consumption of cannabis is not the most worrying thing; drug-dealing is the real problem.”

Mujica isn’t worried about the drop in popularity. It’s part of politics, and besides, he’s 77 and can’t run again in 2014. He’s a good role model with wise, enduring values, and an inspiration for people around the world.

For more insights from David Suzuki, please read Everything Under the Sun (Greystone Books/David Suzuki Foundation), by David Suzuki and Ian Hanington, now available in bookstores and online