Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for June 10, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Tom Allen

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

TOM ALLEN: Good evening, I'm Tom Allen. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

TA: Tonight:

CO: Disposable disposables. They're a major part of literal and diplomatic messes — tonight, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna explains the government's plans for banning single-use plastics.

TA: An extremely critical mass. In Hong Kong, hundreds of thousands of people protest against a new extradition law. And our guest says the very future of his city is at stake.

CO: Anti-giant strides. Claire Stapleton says she felt forced to resign from Google — and accuses the tech company of retaliating against her for organizing a major walkout.

TA: This nose-to-tail thing is really catching on. Canadian scientists find that some carnivorous pitcher plants have developed an appetite for something more substantial than insects: they're consuming salamanders.

CO: Art-tomiton. Ai-Da doesn't care what you think of the paintings, drawings, or sculptures in her new exhibition. Not because she's arrogant, but because she's a robot.

TA: And a staggering achievement. George A. Romero's zombies changed horror movies forever. And now, the late director's archives have found a final resting place at the University of Pittsburgh.

TA: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that's undead on arrival.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Plastics: McKenna, Claire Stapleton, Ai-Da exhibit

Plastics: McKenna

Guest: Catherine McKenna

TA: They are in our landfills, our oceans, and shipping containers across the world. But single-use plastics may soon be banned in this country. Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed to follow in the footsteps of the European Union, and ban single-use plastics in Canada by as early as 2021. Catherine McKenna is Canada's minister of the environment and climate change. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Minister McKenna, what exactly are you planning to ban in the way of plastics specifically?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, very exciting announcement about how we're goning move forward on banning harmful single-use plastics. So that would include looking at banning straws, cutlery, plates, really plastics that we're seeing in our oceans, our lakes, our rivers, and landfills, and are really hard to recycle and collect.

CO: And you say looking at because in your release, you say where it's supported by scientific evidence and warranted — a bit vague. What is exactly you think that you'll be doing?

CM: Well, we know that the science is there. The European Union has moved forward on bans. But we know that bans aren't the only solution. So if you think about a straw, a straw is pretty hard to recycle. And there are alternatives to straws that are reasonably priced. And so it's really figuring out okay, well maybe a ban and not case makes sense, but we do have to look at the science, and look at you know if that's the best way to deal with plastic straws. And in other cases, it may be increasing recycling rates. So when you think about only nine per cent of plastics that we put in our blue bin, for example, in Ontario is recycled. We've got a huge problem, and we can do better. We also made another announcement today, which got a little bit less attention, which was holding companies that produce the plastics in the first place — the plastic waste — fully responsible for making sure that the plastics they create are recycled — because right now, a lot of the onus is on cities and towns. It's expensive for them, it's very hard, and our rates of recycling are too low.

CO: I just still don't understand what exactly will be different when I shop?

CM: Okay, so say you go into your local coffee shop to get your coffee in the morning. Your coffee you know won't have the plastic top, or there'll be a way to recycle that top right there to make sure that you're top, where we know we've got a huge problem, we're just throwing all these plastic tops so that we will make sure it's not ending up in the waste. That we're not using plastic stir-sticks, for example, that there are you know alternatives to straws, but there's an emphasis on not using a straw. You're already seeing that happen. That when you go to a grocery store, or you go to a store Ikea. I’ll use Ikea as an example, they're already limiting as much as possible the plastic packaging that you get. I mean we have a really big problem where people are wrapping apples in plastic, and then putting a bunch of them in a plastic container. That makes no sense. So we'll be making sure that that no longer happens. And when you put things in your blue bin at the end of the day, where there were plastics that weren't banned because we need them for health or other reasons, that they actually will be recycled.

CO: So if I understand this, you want to perhaps ban the plastics we don't recycle, and you want to see more recycling of the ones that are easier to recycle?

CM: Yeah. I mean in some cases it is a lot easier. We could do a much better job on recycling plastic water bottles. You know maybe a band doesn't make sense in that case because there are going to be times you know you may need to use a plastic water bottle. But just make sure that we're recycling all of them, and then using that recycled material for another product. Because you can keep the plastics in the economy. It's this life cycle approach. It’s like throwing it out. we're throwing out 120-billion dollars of value that we can actually reuse the plastics. But by 2021, my hope is that we see that we've actually taken serious action so that we don't see the plastic pollution in our lakes, our rivers, our oceans.

CO: Okay, you're hoping that's the case I mean, but we don't know quite yet what will meet the standard. But I might also one about Styrofoam, plastic water bottles, you mentioned cups, clamshell plastic containers in supermarkets, any of those to be banned?

CM: We will be looking at all of those. So all single-use plastics. And look, you know what? My Y in Ottawa, I go there, and they are now you know for takeout, they've moved from plastic clam shells to paper. So there are alternatives, and businesses are playing a leadership role. In Ottawa, we also have New Grocery, so it’s the first zero-waste grocery, so you don't know have any plastics in grocery. So business needs to step up and be responsible for the plastics that they produce.

CO: But at the same time, by banning single-use plastics are you hoping that there's less plastic produced? Because we've talked to people who do recycling of plastic here in Canada, and they say they can't compete with the price of virgin plastic. That the petrochemical industry is being able to produce plastic that's cheaper than the stuff that they can make with recycled products. So what incentives are you going to put in place?

CM: Well, I mean look, when I look at British Columbia, where producers have been responsible for the plastics they produce, there's actually a market because they can actually get a huge volume of plastics and then use it again. And that's just about being smarter. There's also we're reducing greenhouse gas emissions because we're not creating new plastics. So there's a huge opportunity to do this. But right now, we don't even have scale because we're only recycling nine per cent.

CO: Your argument on carbon tax is that it has to be a price on CO2 emissions. That is this way that people's behaviour will change. Would you consider that? Is that something that would be too politically sensitive to consider that you would put a tax on some of this plastic as a disincentive?

CM: Well, I mean our focus is, first of all, figuring out what is the best you know are there alternatives to plastics and looking at bans. So I mean we're not talking about putting a price on plastics. But I will say like you know cities are doing that. Toronto instituted a five cent per plastic bag charge. And now, businesses they've seen a reduction by 70 per cent of the use of plastic bags. That's not something we intend to do. But there are different solutions, and we're working with cities, we're working with provinces. Ontario did announce their extended producer responsibility approach. They're going to make producers responsible for the plastics they produce and paying the costs. So we all have a role to play in this.

CO: Your release describes this as a defining moment, a problem that just cannot be ignored anymore, yet it says that this banning of some single-use plastics will be as early as 2021. Why such a vague deadline if it's so urgent?

CM: Well, first of all, there is a process you have to go through. You have to review the science. Then you have to look at what alternatives there are. You have to hear from folks. And also, businesses need time to adapt. If you're a small corner store or a coffee shop you know you need to figure out alternatives. But we are working as fast as possible within the confines of the law. But I'm really hopeful and I'm really excited that this is a very important step.

CO: We'll leave it there. Minister McKenna, thank you.

CM: Thanks so much.

TA: Catherine McKenna is Canada's minister of the environment and climate change. She's in Toronto.

[Music: Jazz]

Clare Stapleton

Guest: Claire Stapleton

TA: "Public flogging, shunning, and stress". Those would be lousy working conditions in the 17th century. But Claire Stapleton used those words to describe the last few months of her job in 2019 — working as a marketing manager at Google. She quit last month. And last week, she issued a public note. She wrote that she was leaving because the tech giant had retaliated against her, after she helped organize the Google Walkout that took place last November. That's when tens of thousands of Google employees walked out to protest a culture of harassment and discrimination, and unfair working conditions. We reached Claire Stapleton in New York City.

CO: Ms. Stapleton, how did it feel to write that goodbye note to your colleagues after all those years at Google?

CLAIRE STAPLETON: You know, it was unbelievably emotional, and I couldn't believe that after all these years I was leaving on that note. But I also felt a tremendous sense of community and purpose that has sprung up around the walkout and since. And so while I have left and I'm going to the outside, I hope that you know I left a message with my colleagues and all the people that are continuing to fight for what's right there.

CO: So you came right from college into working at Google in 2007. You loved working there, what was it you liked about the culture?

CS: So you know I was a communications associate, and I worked on a weekly all-hands meeting hosted by Larry and Sergei, the founders. And there was incredible lore around Google's culture, its openness, and transparency, and collaboration, and all these incredibly smart people. And it just felt to me like this utopia of what a company could be. You know people often say you know when the spaceship lands in your backyard you get on it. And that's exactly how I felt.

CO: You talk about your walkout last November is what you sort of date major changes in your relationship with your employer to.

CS: Yes.

CO: Just remind people what happened, why you staged that walkout or helped to stage it?

CS: Yeah, so there was a news story at the end of October last year about a huge 90-million dollar payout that had been made to sort of known harasser in the company, Andy Rubin, who was the long-time head of the Android division. And it was such a bombshell story, and so I can't believe that this could happen at Google. And the story itself was outrageous. But I was on a Google moms mailing list. it's a very, very active internal community. It's all anonymous. And people started sharing stories of things that happened to them in their careers in technology. And it was really eye-opening for me. I still feel you know relatively bright-eyed, and you know new-ish to the workforce. I really had not experienced sexism or opportunity discrimination the way people were describing. But people seemed to kind of connect the dots between rank and file sexism and discrimination, all the way up to how this person gets paid an exorbitant sum to leave the company under these circumstances. So I was inspired to call for women of the company, but it quickly became just as many who met, to just register our dissatisfaction with executives and the leadership and to be heard.

CO: Were you surprised that so many people responded to your call for a walkout?

CS: I was completely shocked. And I think of something at 40 offices, 20,000 people took part, and it was a very quick turnaround. And it clearly struck a chord because so many people actually participated in it.

CO: Around the world not just in New York City, but other…

[crosstalk]

CS: Yes!

CO: The multinational corporation that Google is. So you're leaving because you feel you were retaliated against for having done that. What evidence do you have for that?

CS: So I was the corporate marketing division of YouTube for five years. Always a strong performer, always sort of you know moving up, gaining more scope, and projects. And I had a conversation with my manager in January, in which she informed me that I was essentially being demoted. So my role was being diminished, and I would lose about half my team. She was proposing giving me another project or two of things that were almost completely disconnected from what I'd been working on. But the message was clear that my role and my influence was being marginalized within the team. And I didn't immediately think that this is retaliation. I just wanted to understand where this was coming from. And as I started to ask these questions and raise some alarm bells, it significantly made things worse for me. And I also in speaking out about these issues over the past few months started to see how widespread they were. And I also understood that other organizers in the company were experiencing the same thing. And again, the response, just as with the walkout, was so widespread. And we collected a couple hundred stories from around the company of retaliation in many different forms. And that's not just retaliation for organizing, but retaliation for raising a flag and saying something doesn't feel right in the culture.

CO: At one point you they asked you to take medical leave, is that right?

CS: Yes, when I had escalated this to hire amongst the company, and I was put with a top person in H.R. She heard my story, and let me know the next day that she figured out the perfect solution which is that I should take a medical leave. Sure, I was stressed out by the situation that was unfolding. but you know I wasn't unwell. I wasn't unable to work. And so many people have said oh yeah, yeah, when I raised a claim, I was also told a great solution would be to go on medical leave and sort of just take myself out of the work environment, instead of you know upper levels of management actually looking at the problem at hand and trying to fix it.

CO: You were planning on going on maternity leave. So does that mean you're leaving now and you just won't go back to Google?

CS: Yeah, so I my son is due in the end of October. So I have a little bit of time before what would have been my maternity leave. But yeah, I just you know made the decision to focus on my health and family and take some time off. So yes, I'm leaving before what would have been my maternity leave. And I left the company, so I won't be returning.

CO: Now, Google says... well, they thanked you for your work at Google, wished you the best, and they said that our employee relations team did a thorough investigation of your claims and found no evidence of retaliation. They found that Claire's management team supported her contributions to our workplace — including awarding her their “Team Culture Award” for her role in the walkout. So how to explain that?

CS: Yeah, the culture award it's an interesting one. There was a weekly email that goes out to my department, and I was mentioned in that for my work on the walk out along with a few others on the team. But I don't think that anyone would call that a departmental award. I guess that may be splitting hairs. But yeah, so I think that another issue that employees have been raising over these past months is we've been having this open conversation about retaliation is the role of institutions like the Employee Relations Team? are they serving Google, or are they sort of serving Googlers? You know, they came back to me and said that sure, they'd found mismanagement, and they'd found some issues with how my manager had conducted the situation. But you know by their definition of retaliation, they had not found any evidence for it. So it seemed to me to be an insufficient investigation. I don't know how it was conducted. If it wasn't retaliation my case, I would love to understand what it was.

CO: All right. Ms. Stapleton, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

CS: Yes, thank you so much.

CO: Bye.

TA: Claire Stapleton is a former marketing manager at Google. We reached her in New York City.

[Music: Instrumental]

Ai-Da exhibit

Guest: Aidan Meller

TA: Let me paint you a picture of Ai-Da. She's an artist. She has brown eyes and brown hair that falls softly over her shoulders. She's wearing a white blouse, and she's holding a pencil — in her bionic hand. Ai-Da is not a human artist. She's a humanoid robot artist, and this week, she's holding her first solo show in the Barn Gallery at Oxford University. Aidan Meller is in charge of the project. We reached him in Oxford.

CO: Aidan, we have a general sense of what Ai-Da looks like. But for someone who hasn't seen her up close, how would you describe her?

AIDAN MELLER: She absolutely is uncanny valley to see her. She does look human in her face. And with face recognition, she is able to look across to you when you walk into the room. And in actual fact, she even follows you as you go across the room. So it is [dry laugh] slightly unnerving when you first see her.

CO: How did you decide on how she would look? I mean she's modeled on an attractive young woman. One would say even looking a bit Barbie doll. How did you decide on how she would look?

AM: Basically, we wanted to have an engaging persona. And we are also well aware that women are massively underrepresented in the art world. So those two elements came together to create Ai-Da robot.

CO: And what does her art look like?

AM: Well, she does a range of work. She does drawings. When she actually sees you, she can draw. We've also been able to take those drawing coordinates and put them into some A.I. algorithms, which enables her to do some paintings, some outputs as images. And we’ve use those coordinates also to do some sculpture work. So there's a direct relationship between the output that she does that goes into painting and sculpture. She's also a performance artist. So there's some video works you'll be able to see online, which shows, again, some aspects of where she is able to perform.

CO: And given the shape you have provided her, when she's doing her art, or it's art, are the eyes camera eyes that are actually taking the image and then interpreting it?

AM: Yes, that’s right. So the technology is incredible when you actually realize what is going on. She has cameras in her eyes that able to take in the image, which will then translate to real-world coordinates that enables her to then draw with her hand.

CO: And what she’s drawing… I’m going to say it because it really is and it. [laughs] Is it taking a record, is it a reproduction of what the robot sees?

AM: Well, that’s again that's what we worked very hard at. When we look at being able to do drawing with her, we realized that if we just did a the type representation drawing, people would just dismiss it as some kind of I don’t know expensive printer or something like that. And because it's genuinely creative, we do not quite know how the output is going to be when she does a drawing. We just felt that she needed to have a expressive style. So the algorithm actually shows that expressive style, which we thought was particularly apt for a robot where people are expecting some kind of photo realism.

CO: But isn't her perception of what is being produced, isn't it programmed into Ai-Da?

AM: That's the whole point. That is exactly the point. And that's why we're incredibly proud to show her work now, so people can scrutinize it. Even if she did the same person twice, it would have a completely different drawing. And so that shows you the way that technology is going. It can be genuinely creative. In fact, we've even taken the academic Margaret Bowden's description of what creativity is. She says that it's got to be new, it's got to be surprising, and it's got to be a value. She’s done that as a definition of creativity. So when you look at Ai-Da’s work, it's new. It's never been done in the way that we've done it before. Is it surprising? We don't know what the outcome is going to be. And is it of value? Well, in light of the enormous press interest in this whole project, boy has it got some value.

CO: But if Ai-Da's creativity and her interpretation is based on the algorithms, is based on how she is programmed, why use an interface at all? If it's actually what's produced is the creativity that goes through programing?

AM: There's so many permutations. There's so many different ways. It's no different to a human in that respect that a human there's lots of different ways that they can do it. And the A.I. algorithm is, again, just having an output that can do it in different ways.

CO: Why are you doing this?

AM: We're doing it because we're actually very, very concerned about the use and abuse of A.I.

CO: Why was it necessary then to create this artificial intelligence in the form of a human, let alone a human who is a sympathetic young woman, who seems quite approachable?

AM: Very, very clear ideas on that. When you look at an artwork, you always do it through the lens of the artist. When you look at a Picasso, you think of Picasso. You're always thinking of the artist who actually did the work to get their views. So to actually have this idea of the other, a non-human, a robot that has a view on the human world, actually to have a persona is actually essential to how you view the artwork. So in actual fact, in light of the fact that we're presenting artwork that does get into the ethics of A.I. Actually, it's really good that you're doing it from the point of view of technology itself. So in actual fact, having a humanoid robot is essential to understanding the work.

CO: You're saying that Ai-Da is the artwork?

AM: Ai-Da is the artwork. Ai-Da is creating the artwork. There's many questions her identity brings up. And in actual fact, just by the sheer amount of engagement that is happening around this project, we can see that people are really engaging and really questioning all aspects of what this whole thing might mean for artists in the future and where we're going as a world with A.I.

CO: We will leave it there. Aidan, thank you.

AM: Pleasure.

TA: Aidan Meller is overseeing an exhibition of art by Ai-Da, a humanoid robot artist, at Oxford University. We reached Mr. Meller in Oxford. And we've posted more about Ai-Da, including photos, on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: World music]

Lobster roll seagull

TA: Alicia Jessop wanted to capture the perfect photo of her lobster roll. On Friday, the California women was visiting Fox's Lobster House in York, Maine. She bought the roll, and got herself set up to take the ideal Instagram photo. But instead of capturing a glorious shot of that sandwich, she captured the exact moment a seagull captured her sandwich. Here's Alicia Jessop telling NBC Los Angeles what happened.

SOUNDCLIP

ALICIA JESSOP: I know it's lobster season, so I wanted to have a lobster roll on the coast. The big attraction there is this lighthouse. Went, saw the lighthouse, took a few pictures for the Instagram, and realized that I could get my lobster roll right across the parking lot. So went to the lobster shack, payed $21.50. So I decided to go back to the lighthouse, and decided to capture a picture for Instagram. Got my iPhone, was maneuvering the lobster roll, trying to figure out the best angle for it. When it felt like I dropped my lobster roll. So I was like oh, Alicia, like you're such a millennial. Like you literally just wasted $21.50! But in that moment, I realized what had happened was a seagull had swooped in, I was so focused on my picture that I didn't even see him coming. He swooped in, snatched the pieces of lobster, tossed them out of the role, and his friends had flown in to enjoy a nice dinner on my expense. I was like all right, well I need to go back to the lobster shack and get another lobster roll. So as I'm walking across the parking lot I knew that I hit the button on my iPhone to take a picture. It's like well, let me see like what I got. And I about fell over on the ground. Everyone's like oh my gosh, I've been there before, I've had that moment. And I think what the world really needs right now is just a laugh. So if my $21.50 can make hundreds of thousands of people laugh, I'm all game.

TA: That was Alicia Jessop describing the moment a seagull stole her lobster roll, which she captured in a photo. To see it, head over to our Twitter feed: @cbcasithappens.

[Music: Electronic]

Part two: Hong Kong protests, Romero collection

Hong Kong protests

Guests: Martin Lee

TA: The streets of Hong Kong were jammed with protesters — more than at any other demonstration in recent history.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Much shouting]

TA: In the early hours last night, riot police moved in to break up the protest — hitting young demonstrators with batons and pepper spray. Up until then, the rally had been peaceful. Organizers say about a million people came out to voice their opposition to a proposed law that critics say would allow mainland China to go after political opponents in Hong Kong. Martin Lee is a lawyer and one of the protest organizers. We reached him in Hong Kong.

CO: Mr. Lee, in the face of this massive protest, Hong Kong's leader Carrie Lam says she's not going to back down on the plans to pass this extradition law. So will you back down?

MARTIN LEE: No. Actually, the Hong Kong people are very smart, and they know that they're being let down by our own government. What Carrie Lam is doing is to make Hong Kong a totally unsafe place to all our visitors and to the Hong Kong people, of course. Because once this bill is passed into law, Beijing can actually apply for anybody in Hong Kong, living here, working here, or even passing by, to be transferred to China for trial on trumped up charges.

CO: Now, Carrie Lam is saying that it will go through your courts in Hong Kong. That there will be no political interference. That like all other extradition laws, this is a matter that will be tested by your courts. You say that's not true?

ML: Judges cannot help because once we enter into an extradition treaty with any government it must be on the basis that we respect the legal and judicial systems of each other. And therefore, the evidence which was required to support the request for transfer is set at very low standard. And it's called prima facie case. In other words, all that is necessary is an affidavit or even a witness statement to say this particular person, this fugitive, which is being wanted for trial in Beijing, has committed certain offense in mainland China maybe 20 years ago. And all they need is a witness statement to that effect. And the judge would look at that then there must be a transfer. A judge cannot safeguard the interests of the offender in question. All the judges know that, the lawyers know that, and the government pretends the judges can actually hold the balance.

CO: But why do you believe that that will go beyond fighting crime? This is what the Hong Kong leadership is arguing that this is a matter of being able to deal with criminality. Do you suspect it will go beyond that?

ML: Of course, they can trump up any charge in Beijing. We know that. We have seen too many cases of this kind. For instance, they will say on such a such a date you actually sold dangerous drugs in Shanghai, and that's good enough. That witness statement is good enough.

CO: Isn't China able to get anybody, political prisoners, political activists that it targets, does it not do that by other means anyways?

ML: Well, at the moment, a number of them have been spirited away from Hong Kong. They were in effect kidnapped and taken back to China by force. And we've got two cases of that recently. The bookkeepers case and a tycoon — a billionaire — was kidnapped from a five-star hotel in Hong Kong. But this law passed. They can do it legally in broad daylight.

CO: How do you think this extradition law will change Hong Kong?

ML: Well, it will change Hong Kong to a totally unsafe place. We can no longer guarantee the safety of any person living or working in Hong Kong, or even passing by Hong Kong. And if we cannot grant personal safety to any of our visitors and our own people, how can we have stability, and how can Hong Kong continue to be treated or to boast ourselves to be an international city?

CO: And what can you possibly do about it at this point? We just saw what happened early this morning when the police broke up the protests with batons and pepper spray. Where can you take your opposition at this point?

ML: Well, the Hong Kong people have already spoken; they marched with this in the narrow streets on a very hot day. A million people did that. Now, surely our chief executive should listen. But she is not. I think this is a time for the international community to come out and actually say to the Hong Kong government, and if necessary to the Beijing government, stop this because you've got to protect your citizens in Hong Kong. And there are officially 300,000 Canadians living or working in Hong Kong. And the official figure is even more than half a million. How are you going to protect them?

CO: Why is Carrie Lam, why is Hong Kong's leader, pursuing this then do you think? What's the reason?

ML: You ask her. And she's saying that she owes it to her conscience to do this, to kill Hong Kong. As chief executive, she should be defending Hong Kong. It should not be left to us. But now, the Hong Kong people have spoken out. There are former Chinese citizens all over the world in 27 countries who also staged marches yesterday in conjunction with Hong Kong people.

CO: She says this is to improve the rule of law.

[crosstalk]

ML: That’s ridiculous! That’s absolutely ridiculous!

CO: But, Mr.Lee, what do you think is her real motivation then?

ML: Well, I can think of one. If Beijing tells it to do so, and she is happy to do that, she will do it. But she has an obligation to the Hong Kong people to defend the city.

CO: What is the evidence that Beijing is involved?

ML: Of course, Beijing is involved. How can a chief executive of Hong Kong do such terrible things to Hong Kong without the blessing from Beijing or without instructions from Beijing?

CO: But Beijing is saying that these protests are simply the product of foreign interference.

ML: That's ridiculous! That's ridiculous! Hong Kong people are now protecting Hong Kong. They're now trying to save Hong Kong. The job is the chief executive's job to save Hong Kong. But she’s trying to kill Hong Kong as an international city. Now, the Hong Kong people have spoken. The Hong Kong people, we are defending Hong Kong.

CO: Mr. Lee, we will be following these developments in Hong Kong. And I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

ML: Please follow us. Thank you.

CO: We certainly will. Thank you. Bye-bye.

ML: Bye-bye.

TA: Martin Lee is a lawyer and a founder of the Hong Kong Democracy Party. He was in Hong Kong.

[Music: Ambient]

LR: Metric/imperial

TA: Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson has found a new enemy. And that enemy is the metric system. Last week, we played you an interview between Mr. Carlson and anti-metric crusader James Panero. And at least one of our listeners wrote in offering an ounce of sympathy — that's 28-point-3-5 grams — for Mr. Panero's defense of Imperial.

CO: [dry laugh] Jill Rose from Toronto wrote: "James Panero made perfect sense...he just didn't take his argument far enough. "As Panero states, the number ten does not divide easily into smaller parts, making it an impractical tool for measurement. Whereas the number 12 divides by 2, 3, 4, and 6. "However, the only way that the imperial system would work with the simplicity of the metric system is if we counted in base 12 instead of base ten. Which we would surely be doing if we had evolved with 12 fingers instead of ten. "But it's never too late to change. So perhaps we should take this opportunity to start a movement towards counting in base 12. This would mean creating two new numbers between nine and ten, such as 'bing' and 'bong'. ten would have to equal 12 because it's a one and a zero, and that's the base we would be counting in. We would have all sorts of new numbers such as bingty bong and bongty bing. "The change to base 12 would be a complicated undertaking and would be subject to a lot of resistance. But it really does make so much sense."

TA: [both laugh] Thanks so much to Jill Rose for that convincing argument. A little tricky to fully understand, but very promising — I give it a solid bing out of bong.

[Music: Swing]

George A. Romero collection

Guest: Suzanne Desrocher-Romero

TA: "When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth." That's a line from the 1978 classic "Dawn of the Dead," — just one of many horror films directed by George Romero. The late filmmaker, who died in 2017 in Toronto, changed the course of independent cinema — and changed the way we think about the shambling undead and their appetite for human flesh. Now, materials from the late filmmaker's archives are also finding a second life — in a new collection at the University of Pittsburgh. Suzanne Desrocher-Romero is the founder and president of the George A. Romero Foundation — and the director's widow. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Suzanne, I know a lot of people would like to find out what's in this archive. Can you give us any idea what's there?

SUZANNE DESROCHER-ROMERO: Well, a lot of it is scripts, different drafts of the same script. For instance, “The Dark Half”, there would be you know nine or ten different drafts. There's contracts, there's paraphernalia, there's correspondences, and I guess the holy grail is an annotated copy of “Night of the Living Dead”.

CO: Annotated with your late husband's notes?

SDR: Yes.

CO: Right.

SDR: Directors notes. You know, angle, shots, and that kind of thing.

CO: Fun! And so I understand there's also a zombie head.

SDR: There is a couple of zombie heads. There's one in particular I think that everyone has been looking at. But I think there's a few of them. And there's you know there's the monkey in “Monkey Shines”, you know? So there's a lot of paraphernalia.

CO: Now, have you ever tried that zombie head on?

SDR: [slight laugh] No, no, no, it would be way too small I think. And nor would I be inclined.

CO: [heavy laughs] I think there's more to the point. Now, you mentioned “Night of the Living Dead” — a great cult classic. And we have a bit of the opening scene. We're just going to play that for our listeners.

SDR: Great!

SOUNDCLIP

MAN: Do you remember one time when we were small we were out here? I jumped out at you from behind the tree, and Grandpa got all excited, and he shook his fist at me, and he said boy, you’ll be damned to hell. [slight laugh] Remember that? Right over there. Well, you used to really be scared here.

WOMAN: Johnny!

MAN: You’re still afraid.

WOMAN: Stop it now! I mean it!

MAN: They’re coming to get you, Barbara.

WOMAN: Stop it! You're ignorant!

MAN: They're coming for you, Barbara.

WOMAN: Stop it! You're acting like a child!

MAN: They're coming for you! Look, there comes one of them now.

CO: [light laugh] And, of course, it is a zombie.

SDR: And it is a zombie. And Bill Heinzman is the first zombie ever, so it's great.

CO: You mentioned that this is an annotated script that's in this archive for this film. Did George have any idea what a cult classic, what a big hit this film was going to be?

SDR: Absolutely not. Absolutely not, and you know and as a director, you know your first foray out turns out to be a home run is extraordinary. And it is exactly what it was. It was a homerun.

CO: And he shot it on a shoestring: a hundred thousand dollars.

SDR: Yeah.

CO: Any idea how much it grossed?

SDR: Oh, millions and millions and millions. Yeah. And, of course, it's in public domain. But there's you know there's an advantage to that too because otherwise, maybe people wouldn't have seen it. And because it was in public domain, it was you know shown it in drive-ins for years, and you know it's one of those things it's almost like free publicity in a way, you know? So it's a double-edged sword.

CO: Now, when you met your husband in 2005, were you drawn to him because he was a zombie creator?

SDR: Oh no, not at all. In fact, I wasn't drawn to him at all. You know, I just I was working as a bartender, and I saw this very strange looking chap lurking. I called it lurking, but really. And he seemed to me like a writer of some kind, eccentric. And then somebody told me he was the famous Mr. George Romero, and I said oh, I had no idea who that was.

CO: Oh no!

SDR: And that's it. And I just started communicating with him, and we got along really, really well. And once we sort of fell in love and hung out, he said to me you know, Suze, I think you need to see my movie. I went ah, I guess I should. And so we did a weekend — a Romero festival. And so I saw all his films. [dry laugh]

CO: [slight laugh] And what did you think?

SDR: You know, first of all, I had not seen “Night”, which is extraordinary really. And I thought it was terrific, and I still think it's the best film of his. And it's still creeps me out. You know, I'm not a huge fan of the genre actually. But I was a huge fan of him. And I did think it was smart. All his films are smart.

CO: They’re very clever.

SDR: And I appreciated that and respected that.

CO: And, of course, all of this was set in what is now called the zombie capital of the world: Pittsburgh.

SDR: Right.

CO: That's where he went to school. That's why the University of Pittsburgh is getting this collection. How are people going to use it?

SDR: Well, once it's curated and sorted, then scholars will have access to it digitally, I would think. And also, if they wanted, they could go physically to the library. But I think at the end of the day, if you have a student in Copenhagen or in Beijing, they'll have access to all of his work you know digitally.

CO: And this is also they believe that will be the foundation for horror studies, horror film studies.

SDR: Right. So because the archive is at the Hellman Library system, they want to establish the first-of-its-kind Horror Studies Center. And we are very interested in having that horror center named or endowed the George A. Romero Research Center. And so we're looking to raise some money to get that done. And then that gives us the opportunity to have you know an educational arm. And then we continue to pursue a museum idea. And the foundation will have its own lane, and we will nurture independent filmmakers, and progress the genre of horror.

CO: Just on a personal note, how hard was it for you to part with all this stuff?

SDR: When I just about signed the document, you know I had a little bit of seller's remorse. But at the end of the day, I'm glad it's going to be protected, it will be cherished, and that was really very important to me. Yeah.

CO: A people continue to watch these movies?

SDR: Yeah, to continue watching his movies, and you know make sure that his legacy moves forward.

CO: Suzanne, thanks for speaking with us.

SDR: Oh, you're welcome. Thanks, Carol.

CO: Bye.

SDR: Bye-bye.

TA: Suzanne Desrocher-Romero is the founder and president of the George A. Romero Foundation. She's also the widow of the late director, who died in 2017. We reached her in Toronto.

[Music: Industrial]

Rachel Chavkin

TA: All hell broke loose at the Tony Awards last night. I mean that one of the biggest winners was the Broadway musical "Hadestown" — a so-called "folk opera" adaptation of the Greek myth of Orpheus, and his trip to the underworld. It won for Best Score, Best Musical, and Best Director of a Musical. That made Rachel Chavkin only the fourth woman to ever win that particular honour. And this year, she was the only woman nominated in the category. In her acceptance speech, Ms. Chavkin made it clear she wasn't happy about that.

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL CHAVKIN: And this is why I wish I wasn't the only woman directing a musical on Broadway this season. There are so many women. Who are ready to go. There are so many artists of colour who are ready to go. And we need to see that racial diversity and gender diversity reflected in our critical establishment too. This is not a pipeline issue. It is a failure of imagination by a field whose job is to imagine the way the worlds could be. So let's do it. Thank you. Thank you.

TA: That's Rachel Chavkin accepting her Tony Award for Best Director of a Musical for “Hadestown”, Last night.

[Music: Instrumental]

Part three: Pitcher plants, Finland carbon neutral

Helicopter crash

TA: It shook the skyscraper, and residents of Manhattan. Earlier today, a helicopter crashed onto the roof of a 54-storey building just south of Central Park. Authorities say it was making a forced, emergency landing that went very wrong — ending in the death of one person, believed to be the pilot. Nathan Hutton works on the building's 29th floor. He described his reaction to CNN.

SOUNDCLIP

NATHAN HUTTON: You could feel the building shake. And you could actually hear the alarms when they went off. The alarms went off. Security came in, told us everybody get out of the building now. Do not take the elevators. Walk down the stairs. We could feel it when it hit. But no one knew what it was. We thought like years ago when they had an earthquake and you felt the buildings here in Manhattan shake. We thought well, that might have happened again. But when they said that a helicopter hit, we thought a helicopter?

REPOTER: You were on the 29th floor, did you smell smoke? Did you see fire?

NH: Only coming down the staircase. You could smell it coming down the staircase. Because that whole staircases like one big shaft, a vent. It’s like you could smell the smoke. Not thick, but you knew that there was smoke.

REPOTER: Did it smell like fuel, or what did it smell like?

NH: It smelled like all construction material that was on fire, or burning. That was the smell you smelled.

REPOTER: Given the history of September 11^th, 2001, what was it like when you felt it, and the confusion there?

NH: Well, a lot, a lot of people felt the building shake, and that's what they thought. Well, at first, they didn't think a lot of it. But then when security said get out of the building, then you got a little nervous. Then you started thinking staircase. Do I want to be coming down a staircase if there's something bad that's happening? We had no choice. We all got out. Everybody was somewhat calm, but they were nervous because that thought is in the back of your mind.

TA: That was Nathan Hutton speaking to CNN. He works on the 29th floor of a skyscraper in Manhattan, where today, a helicopter crash landed on the roof. Authorities say the pilot of the helicopter was killed.

[Music: Sombre]

Pitcher plant

Guest: Alex Smith

TA: Pitcher plants are already known for adventurous eating. They're carnivorous, and regularly chow down on — well, actually, rather slowly and horrifically digest — insects and spiders. But researchers from the University of Guelph have discovered that bugs aren't the only thing on the menu. For what's believed to be the first time in North America, pitcher plants in Ontario's Algonquin Park have been caught dissolving more substantial prey. Alex Smith is one of the researchers who made the discovery. We reached him in Guelph, Ontario.

CO: Alex, you've talked about a so-called WTF moment when you're out there in the bog. Tell us about that?

ALEX SMITH Oh, Carol, it was it was such an amazing moment. 'm a bald man, but my hair stands up just talking about it. It was last August. I was teaching a field course at the Wildlife Research Station in Algonquin Park. And we're standing in the bog, or I'm kneeling in the bog, and one of the things that are exciting about bogs are carnivorous plants — plants that eat animals, and get their nutrients from animals. So I'm preparing to show these students one of the pitcher plants — one of the two characteristic plants that are there. And I peek over one of the little cups, and I bend it towards the student, and instead of seeing a collection of decaying spiders and insects and other deliciousness for that plant, I see a juvenile yellow spotted salamander, and I say I say WTF.

CO: Now, why is it surprising? A salamander is not a bug. And so we're talking about an animal, right? With a vertebrae. I mean this is like this is a major thing.

AS: Yeah, instead of the diverse things of the little the arthropods and the other invertebrates that the plant normally eats. This is a vertebrate. And so it's not that they were uncommon. The plants are common. The salamanders are common. It's just the interaction of the two. That was a real surprise.

CO: Now for anyone who has not seen a pitcher plant, or doesn't know they've seen a pitcher plant, just describe it and how it's possible that a salamander might end up in one?

AS: Sure, everybody should go out and try and see pitcher plants. So these are not like the snap trap, Venus fly trap-like Seymour or Audrey Two from the “Little Shop of Horrors”. This is basically the pitcher plant, the axial edge of the leaf of the plant kind of grows together, and they make just a little cup. Rainwater collects in that cup, into that rainwater the plant secretes digestive enzymes, and then eventually, hosts an entire community of organisms that then decay or eat up all of the other arthropods and insects that fall into that trap. And why don't they fly in and then fly out again? Because the plant has super slick waxy edges, and even recurve spines — adapted parts of their leaf — that prevent things from crawling out, so it's carnivorous, but it's kind of passive carnivorous.

CO: Okay, and so you see one salamander, but can you really draw a conclusion from that?

AS: Well, exactly. So as we stand there, it's a teachable moment. We talked about being surprised by things that we think we know we know. That kind of that Rumsfeldian part of biology. The things you know you know, the things you know you don't know, and the things you don't know you don't know yet. And I'm thinking well, maybe we've moved this relationship one category. And in talking over dinner time at the picnic tables behind the research station, I talked with Patrick Muldoon, who is a passionate salamander biologist who is responsible for running a long-term research program on the salamanders in Algonquin Park at the research station. And we get each other very excited about this because he connects the fact that a student on the field course the year before had observed one instance of this. And we start then comparing ideas and hypotheses about how common this might be. So Patrick then is the catalyst of the second WTF moment because Patrick returns to the bog in later in August and September, and he surveys half of the pitcher plants. And in 20 per cent of those plants, he finds salamanders. so the hairs standing up on my head again already. He knows because he studies the salamanders how many individual juvenile salamanders there are. So we can take that number and express it as a proportion of the total young of the year. And it's anywhere from two-and-a-half per cent to perhaps five per cent of the young salamanders of the year were trapped and dying in those pitcher plants.

CO: But I mean people have been studying pitcher plants since bogs were invented. So how is it that nobody noticed this before?

AS: Well, isn't that the thing? How have we not seen this? So there is one other case in North America where a different salamander was found in one instance in a pitcher plant. So is this something where we've missed it because we are not looking at the common things at closely as we should? Have we missed it because maybe things are changing? And I don't know the answer to that. This paper is kind of an expression of the surprising events and frequency these WTF moments that the bug has taught us. But then also an indication for us to go out and study these things more and to tell the rest of the story, and so that's what Patrick's doing right now in Algonquin.

CO: Now, I know that do you that bugs take a long time to be digested by pitcher plants — that’s why it's fun to look inside. So I mean we're talking about an up to five centimetre size creature here. How long does it take for that plant to actually digest that?

AS: So it's a great question. And it could be a number of weeks or days. It'll depend on how kind of how hot the temperature is, how acidic the little catchment in the little cup is, all those things can vary by plant, by the age of the leaf, the weather, and how much rainfall there's been.

CO: So it takes days, right? So it's not the all you can eat buffet. I mean they have to some time.

AS: That's right. There shouldn't be like an image of belching leaves out on the bog.

CO: [laughs] But now, I’m just trying to imagine how this happens having seen pitcher plants. They’re pretty passive. Do they lure? Is there some kind of lure of bait? Or are these hapless salamanders just accidental tourists?

AS: That's one hypothesis. So the salamanders, they emerge, they're juveniles, this is a new terrestrial environment, and they're kind of bubbling along the environment, and they fall into the pitcher plants. Or are the salamanders emerging and actively looking for a moist and dark kind of a hidey hole, a catch, somewhere to protect themselves on their way on their migratory little dispersal event into the forest floor? Or are the salamanders, in fact, lured to the plants because of the promise or the evidence of ample food? Because of the all of the other invertebrates that are in the plant and around the plant flying around the plant and about to fall in themselves?

CO: Well, I think you have your life's work cut out for you here. [AS laughs] Alex, great work. Thank you.

AS: Well, thanks, Carol. It's been a real pleasure talking to you.

CO: Bye.

AS: Bye.

TA: We reached Alex Smith in Guelph, Ontario. For more on carnivorous pitcher plants, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Indie rock]

Raptors

TA: The Toronto Raptors are hoping to make history, and win their first NBA Finals. But first, they have to win tonight's game. As they have throughout the playoffs, fans are gathered in Jurassic Park to watch the team take on the Golden State Warriors in Game 5. But this time, lineups for the public square in downtown Toronto began this past weekend — with some folks camping out for days. The CBC went to Jurassic Park, to meet some of those diehard fans.

SOUNDCLIP

REPOTER: Some people here came prepared. Look at this tent. Hey guys, can I come in?

FANS: Of course.

REPOTER: All right. Sorry, I didn't take my shoes off.

FAN ONE: Don’t worry. We didn’t either.

REPORTER: Can you give me a little tour of your place here?

FAN ONE: Of course, this is our bear skin. You know to keep me warm.

FAN TWO: It’s faux bear skin.

FAN ONE: We’ve got a little we've got a little lamp. I don't think we're gonna need it because of all the city lights. But we got some snacks, we got some drinks, we're all set. We don't really need anything except the people here and yeah.

FAN TWO: And the Raptors to take the championship. Let's go.

FAN ONE: Let's make history baby. We the North!

FAN THREE: I just wanted to be here so that way I can be the first person to step foot on like the Jurassic Park stomping grounds.

[Sound: Fans cheer defence}

FAN FOUR: Well, the best defence in the league. Marc Gasol to anchor down the middle. We got Kawhi, the Defensive Player of the Year. He’s Kawhi. He's the Klaw. He's gonna transform the city. And that's no shade to anybody who's been here before. But here's where we are now. And this is what he's helped cultivate. I mean I remember the Juan Dixon Raptors. I remember the Garbajosa Raptors. The Matt Bonner Raptors. The Chris Bosh. Vince Carter, of course. Damon Stoudamir. It's been a long time coming. And this is like… it’s the pinnacle. It’s what everybody waits for for sports. Raps in five.

[Sound: Fans cheer Raps in five]

TA: [slight laugh] A few of the folks at Jurassic Park tonight, as the Toronto Raptors take on the Golden State Warriors. The vast majority of fans there will be cheering for the home team. But for a few people, it's not just sports — it's personal. James Siakam is the brother of Raptors forward Pascal “Spicy P” Siakam — who hails from Cameroon.

SOUNDCLIP

PASCAL SIAKAM: I think I'm more nervous than he is. We were sitting on the stands just like everybody else at Jurassic Park. We are super excited. It’s the first time we have a chance to make history, to be honest. And so for us, it's more of an excitement. I think for him, he can tune all that out, and it's probably easier for him. But for us, it’s nerve-wracking. The wave of emotions throughout the game. It’s difficult to see them go down, and wondering whether or not they will come back up. Just seeing my brother just perform at this level you know coming out of nowhere to be an important piece of this team for us is just like unbelievable. I don't even think I know the words to describe how I'm feeling right now. And how we feel as a family, you know? No one expected this city to be at the level they are right now. And I think that for us, coming from Cameroon, my dad you know dreamed of this moment. Pascal made it happen. And we’re just happy, so happy, that this dream was is able to be a reality, and hopefully being a champion, an NBA champion.

TA: That's James Siakam — the brother of Toronto Raptors forward Pascal Siakam — speaking to the CBC.

[Music: Instrumental]

FOA: Chernobyl

TA: It's barely been out a month. But TV critics are already calling HBO's "Chernobyl" one of the best shows in years. The mini-series is a bleak window into the worst nuclear power plant accident in history. On April 26, 1986, a reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine suffered a catastrophic explosion — spreading radiation far and wide. Two days after the accident, As It Happens covered the story — but there was scant information. There were hints as far away as Sweden, though. A spokesperson from Sweden's Radiation Protection Authority, Jon Olof Snihs, told former host Dennis Trudeau that high levels of radiation had been discovered in Sweden by nuclear power plant workers. Here's part of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

JON OLOF SNIHS: Today, this morning, they found that they were contaminated. So they were measured, and they also some made some measurements outdoors on the ground. And then found spots here and there with radioactive material contamination.

DENNIS TRUDEAU: Your staff, when reporting to work at that nuclear plant today, were contaminated on their way into work?

JOS: Yes, they were contaminated when they went into the station from outdoors. So then they were very surprised. And they didn’t know what this could be. And their first thought was, of course, it could be something from the power station itself. But they had no indication at all that something has happened. So it was a very mysterious situation.

DT: Jon, at this point, what do you know about where the radiation comes from, what kind of an accident, what kind of a plant?

JOS: Now, it is confirmed that it has been a nuclear accident in Russia, in Soviet Union.

DT: In the Ukraine.

JOS: And that accident probably occurred already yesterday before two o’clock. But it has not been told, and we found it now by accident.

DT: Do you have any idea, Mr. Snihs, how big the accident would have to be for the radiation?

JOS: Well, it’s difficult to say. But you see the activity here from health point of view in Sweden is not serious.

DT: Could it be a meltdown though? Could it be as serious as a meltdown of the heart of the reactor?

JOS: Maybe, maybe. It’s very difficult to say.

DT: And in the meantime, what can you do? You just sit there and have the radiation blown at you from over the Soviet Union by the prevailing winds?

JOS: Well, we cannot change the wind. But we make measurements, and we have concluded that the countermeasures are necessary.

JD: That was Jon Olof Snihs, with Sweden's Radiation Protection Authority, speaking to As It Happens 48 hours after the nuclear power plant accident in Chernobyl in 1986.

[Music: Sad piano]

Finland carbon neutral

Guest: Heidi Hautala

JD: Finland's new government is green with ambition. After the election in mid-April, the multi-party coalition took some time to hammer out who exactly would get which cabinet posts. But even before it had done that, it released a plan that promises to make the whole country carbon neutral by 2035. It's a target that would put Finland out in front of the rest of the developed world. And it's a target that Heidi Hautala says Finland can and must hit. Ms. Hautala is a Member of the European Parliament for the Finnish Green Party. We reached her in Brussels.

CO: Ms. Hautala, as you know, politicians around the world have made climate change commitments. And then they have failed to keep those commitments. So why should we take Finnish commitments to carbon neutrality seriously?

HEIDI HAUTALA: That's a very good question because, of course, one can set very ambitious targets. But really, the reality is that we need a pathway. We need many different means and instruments to get there. And I, of course, believe that the Finnish government is on the way to create such a roadmap to meet that target. So it's taken very seriously anyway. And it's probably the most ambitious climate neutrality target in the whole world, if I'm not mistaken — climate neutrality, carbon neutrality, by 2035.

CO: But can we compare Finland to Canada, and that you live in a cold climate. You have long winters, as we do. You burn peat for fuel. People need to keep warm. They need to use their fossil fuels until they have some alternative. So how are you going to make such a dramatic change so quickly?

HH: Well, you hit the right point, indeed. For instance, burning peat for energy, which is still a reality in Finland, is very detrimental to the climate. And I think one of the very first things is that the Finnish government has to look at this how to direct the whole energy production away from using peat, which is probably even worse than coal. But then, of course, the roadmap towards getting rid of coal powered stations is urgent. But we’re talking about cold climates Canada and Finland. I believe that in our countries we also have them very efficient the energy systems. And I must say that the new Finnish buildings are really quite even energy neutral. So there's a lot of development in this area.

CO: I think you're way ahead of Canada on that regard. So thank you for thinking that we are in the same league. But I just want to continue with the comparison to Canada. Because the incentives are similar to what the Canadian government, the Trudeau government, is trying to do in that they're trying for carbon pricing. In Canada, the government, the Trudeau government, is facing tremendous backlash from the opposition, from the Conservatives. In fact, they are campaigning, successfully campaigning, on getting rid of the carbon tax. So what makes you think you can avoid a similar fate?

HH: Well, first of all, I think that the electorate in the recent parliamentary and European elections have shown that a big majority is very ready for changing our lifestyles to become more energy efficient and less wasteful. So I believe that the companies and industries also have to listen to this message. Plus, I believe that the Finnish industries are actually now producing a lot of solutions. So nobody's really seriously saying that it's only going to be costly. The more and more one looks into it, the more one finds out that there are there are economic opportunities in producing solutions. And then, of course, the new government wants to increase research and development funding compared with the previous one.

CO: But I wonder how fragile this coalition you have is? You cobbled this together out of five parties. The Nationalist Party, your opposition, is just waiting for you to stumble because you won this by a narrow victory. So what makes you so sure you have a mandate to make such a massive change?

HH: Because I believe also that the corporate world is more and more support is because they see also opportunities. Plus, the previous government with the Nationalists was not at all very popular. So this government has a very good starting point. But you are absolutely right hinting that the measures to reach those ambitious goals must be planned and taken almost immediately because if we don't start now, how can we ever face a carbon neutrality by 2035? So the test will be really I would say that the very first months and years.

CO: I would say the world would watch you on this one because if you stumble, if it's revealed that what happens is that people's living standards are reduced, there is austerity, there is turmoil, anything you do that indicates that this is not a good idea, that people will suffer from it, can actually turn back the clock for others in Europe, would it not?

HH: Yes, but that's exactly why the government, which is let's say centre left Green, it's pointing out that he wants this transition to be just, which means that it's not the least well to do that should pay the price. Also, if you look at you know who has the biggest cars, it’s not the poorest people. It's the richest people. But this needs to be taken care of because what we have seen in France, and I'm sure that in Canada, you have been observing that the yellow vests that was exactly a reaction towards President Macron, who first reduced property taxes, which is a very big gift for the rich people. And then, as a second step, increased the diesel tax, which hits, more or less, everyone — including the poorest ones. So there needs to be this balance.

CO: And that's what it seems that’s what another plank of your platform is that major investment in social services and social infrastructure. So what are you aiming for? What’s the balance you're trying to strike here with the electorate?

HH: Well, I think let's say that the gamble of this government according to assessments now is that it has to succeed in creating new jobs. Because only by creating new jobs will it raise the budget allocations and funds that are needed to balance the situation of the least well to do people. And also, of course, to pay for some of the new sustainable infrastructure. So that's really the test. And that's why the prime minister, who is a Social Democrat, together with the four other parties is very determined to succeed in this one. And that will be the test.

CO: Ms. Hautala, we will be watching. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

HH: Yes, thanks a lot, and good luck.

CO: Bye-bye.

HH: Thanks, bye.

JD: Heidi Hautala is a Finnish Green Party Member of the European Parliament. We reached her in Brussels.

[Music: Ambient]

Dead tree

TA: Japan's Prime Minister gave him a five-thousand-dollar golf club. And Justin Trudeau gave U.S. President Donald Trump a 1981 picture of his father, Pierre, alongside real estate mogul...Donald Trump. Both safe gifts, appealing to Mr. Trump's famous love of golf and of himself, respectively. And right now, French President Emmanuel Macron is kicking himself for giving a thoughtful gift that was also a metaphor. Because it died. Last April, the French President gave the U.S. President a sapling oak tree, from the site of a First World War battle in France where hundreds of American marines were killed. "This oak," President Macron tweeted, "will be a reminder, in the heart of the White House, of this link that unites us." The tree was planted on the White House lawn. But almost immediately, two things happened. First, the tree was yanked out and whisked away — because all foreign trees have to go in quarantine to ensure they won't spread parasites. Second, the relationship between the two men soured, over climate change and Mr. Trump's "America First" approach. Now, the French newspaper Le Monde has reported that metaphorical oak sapling has un-metaphorically died. Apparently it didn't survive the quarantine period. But given the state of their relationship, that's also symbolic. Because, like that unfortunate oak, neither man seems capable of turning over a new leaf.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

June 10, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode