I'm glad/happy if researchers are not politicians. Cause somtimes they have a very narrow look on things. They focus on one thing. This is fine/ok and can be very informativ, but it doesn't work if you have to make deals with others.
I believe that this David Suzuki is a genetics researcher and he says: «L'air que nous respirons est beaucoup plus important que l'économie et notre système économique est en gran­de partie responsable des problèmes que nous vivons. From google I get this translation: "The air we breathe is more important than the economy and our economic system is largely responsible for the problems we face"
So, he should think about the mercury emission from coal, but a person like him doesn't have to choose, he can leave this to the politicians.
I dont know, but I have read that the north-pole is moving westward. If this is true, then the magnetic fields will make a hole lot of climate change. He should agree that we dont know much. That we need to do alot more research and this is maybe the best we can do. If we should calculate in human lives and saving lives.
Of cause, we have to think about polution and do something about it, but to stop or slow down on research could be a very bad idea and this could maybe be one of the things, that will be hurt if they dont use their natural resources, like shale-gas.
Someone said, we should paint our rooftops white, to reduce CO2-emission. Well, maybe not, one ting is, for denmark, this will be a bad idea in the winter-time, cause we need to heat, but it's a very good idea to try to focus also on other things, than CO2.
Quebec should think about others also, not only Quebec. The climat-change is a global thing and this is the air that we breathe also. Back, when they made research on DDT polution, I think it was from Sweden, they found the DDT in Pinguins on the South-Pole, some of what have been used in Sweden:)

David Suzuki may be right, but how would it solve anything?
Maybe he could learn something about how money can actually solve some of the problems. an example is to buy rainforest.
Well, I'll stop, this gets very long I think.I must also sleep, but here's a link:
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0818-mitchell_interview_gcp.html

"According to Mitchell, the concept really gained momentum in 2005 after Michael Somare, the prime minister of Papua New Guinea, told developed countries at an international climate meeting that if they wanted tropical nations to stop cutting down their forests, they would have to pay them. Since then the idea has won wider support from interests ranging from environmentalists to business to politicians. Even some indigenous rights' groups see the concept as offering potential to protect forests and improve rural livelihoods, provided it takes their historical land rights and access into consideration".

Andrew Mitchell: In order to create these kinds of new markets there are basically four things you have to do. It begins with science. Scientists have to tell us what the services are and what tropical forests do for us. Scientists view them as a giant global system that can be broken into four major utilities: the Amazon, the Guyana shield, the Congo basin, and the Southeast Asian forest (primarily between Borneo and New Guinea). These utilities operate on both local and global scales in terms of the ecosystem services.

The next step is bringing in the environmental economists to work with the scientists to put a value on those services. The Amazon is producing 20 billion tons of moisture a day. What's that worth? How do you price that?

Next you have to take that information into the policy arena and create an enabling framework to encourage payment for ecosystem services.

And the fourth thing that you need to do is go to the market and persuade people to pay for those services.

All of those four stages are what we are trying to influence at the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research and think again. Stop using money isn't likely, but other ways of thinking. I think he could agree on this. I don't know ofcause, but sometimes, we just talk beside of each other or how do you say, when someone say different, but mean the same thing?