構造改革、民営化、市場原理主義の虚妄から、マインドコントロールを解くための参考図書館

« Blackmail | トップページ | White Christmas »

A Courage to say No

ネイション紙に掲載された、ナオミクライン女史のコペンハーゲンの環境会議に対するコメントである。悪い結論が出るよりは、結論が出ない方が良かったとしている。エチオピアの裏切りの話なども興味深い(京都会合で、ヨーロッパが撮ったような妥協の仕方である。)日本独特の熱心さで、環境政策を進めることが大切である。特に、排出権のような、実体経済が伴わない可能性のあるメカニズムは、慎重に考えるべきで、その点、それを推進したヨーロッパの一部の首脳の失望は大きいようであるが、もしかしたら、市場原理主義に対する罰が加えられているという天佑かも知れない。日本の中でも、外国勢力に追随して、金儲けの為の環境問題を主張している向きもあったから、頭を冷やして、考える時間が出来たことは良い。大胆な削減の数字を上げて、中国や米国を含め世界にメッセージを発信したことも良い。しかも他が同調することを前提にと付言して、それが出来ないかも知れないことを当て込んで主張したことも良い。炭酸ガスをまき散らしている市場原理主義丸出しの国々を引きずり出す効果もあった。美しい日本の国を護ることがまず第一である。ヨーロッパのように、アフリカが3度気温が上がっても、気にしないような植民地意識ではなく、アジアで、八紘為宇の心意気で、優れた環境技術を提供する国際協力を行うことが大切である。日本の国土で、今過疎地と呼ばれている地域が、ちゃんと日本の崩壊を守っているのではあるから、その自然とエネルギーを大事にする政策を果敢に実施すべきである。景気対策にもなる。

The Courage to Say No
by Naomi Klein

This article can be found on the web at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100104/klein


Copenhagen

On the ninth day of the Copenhagen climate summit, Africa was
sacrificed. The position of the G-77 negotiating bloc, including African
states, had been clear: a 2 degree Celsius increase in average global
temperatures translates into a 3-3.5 degree increase in Africa.

That means, according to the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, "an
additional 55 million people could be at risk from hunger" and "water
stress could affect between 350 and 600 million more people." Archbishop
Desmond Tutu puts the stakes like this: "We are facing impending
disaster on a monstrous scale.... A global goal of about 2 degrees C is
to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development."

And yet that is precisely what Ethiopia's prime minister, Meles Zenawi,
proposed to do when he stopped off in Paris on his way to Copenhagen:
standing with President Nicolas Sarkozy, and claiming to speak on behalf
of all of Africa (he is the head of the African climate-negotiating
group), he unveiled a plan that includes the dreaded 2 degree increase
and offers developing countries just $10 billion a year to help pay for
everything climate related, from sea walls to malaria treatment to
fighting deforestation.

It's hard to believe this is the same man who only three months ago was
saying this: "We will use our numbers to delegitimize any agreement that
is not consistent with our minimal position.... If need be, we are
prepared to walk out of any negotiations that threaten to be another
rape of our continent.... What we are not prepared to live with is
global warming above the minimum avoidable level."

And this: "We will participate in the upcoming negotiations not as
supplicants pleading for our case but as negotiators defending our views
and interests."

We don't yet know what Zenawi got in exchange for so radically changing
his tune or how, exactly, you go from a position calling for $400
billion a year in financing (the Africa group's position) to a mere $10
billion. Similarly, we do not know what happened when Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton met with Philippine President Gloria Arroyo just weeks
before the summit and all of a sudden the toughest Filipino negotiators
were kicked off their delegation and the country, which had been
demanding deep cuts from the rich world, suddenly fell in line.

We do know, from witnessing a series of these jarring about-faces, that
the G-8 powers are willing to do just about anything to get a deal in
Copenhagen. The urgency clearly does not flow from a burning desire to
avert cataclysmic climate change, since the negotiators know full well
that the paltry emissions cuts they are proposing are a guarantee that
temperatures will rise a "Dantesque" 3.9 degrees, as Bill McKibben puts
it.

Matthew Stilwell of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable
Development--one of the most influential advisers in these talks--says
the negotiations are not really about averting climate change but are a
pitched battle over a profoundly valuable resource: the right to the
sky. There is a limited amount of carbon that can be emitted into the
atmosphere. If the rich countries fail to radically cut their emissions,
then they are actively gobbling up the already insufficient share
available to the South. What is at stake, Stilwell argues, is nothing
less than "the importance of sharing the sky."

Europe, he says, fully understands how much money will be made from
carbon trading, since it has been using the mechanism for years.
Developing countries, on the other hand, have never dealt with carbon
restrictions, so many governments don't really grasp what they are
losing. Contrasting the value of the carbon market--$1.2 trillion a
year, according to leading British economist Nicholas Stern--with the
paltry $10 billion on the table for developing countries, Stilwell says
that rich countries are trying to exchange "beads and blankets for
Manhattan." He adds: "This is a colonial moment. That's why no stone has
been left unturned in getting heads of state here to sign off on this
kind of deal.... Then there's no going back. You've carved up the last
remaining unowned resource and allocated it to the wealthy."

For months now NGOs have gotten behind a message that the goal of
Copenhagen is to "seal the deal." Everywhere we look in the Bella
Center, clocks are going "tck tck tck." But any old deal isn't good
enough, especially because the only deal on offer won't solve the
climate crisis and might make things much worse, taking current
inequalities between North and South and locking them in indefinitely.
Augustine Njamnshi of Pan African Climate Justice Alliance puts the 2
degree proposal in harsh terms: "You cannot say you are proposing a
'solution' to climate change if your solution will see millions of
Africans die and if the poor not the polluters keep paying for climate
change."

Stilwell says that the wrong kind of deal would "lock in the wrong
approach all the way to 2020"--well past the deadline for peak
emissions. But he insists that it's not too late to avert this
worst-case scenario. "I'd rather wait six months or a year and get it
right because the science is growing, the political will is growing, the
understanding of civil society and affected communities is growing, and
they'll be ready to hold their leaders to account to the right kind of a
deal."

At the start of these negotiations the mere notion of delay was
environmental heresy. But now many are seeing the value of slowing down
and getting it right. Most significant, after describing what 2 degrees
would mean for Africa, Archbishop Tutu pronounced that it is "better to
have no deal than to have a bad deal." That may well be the best we can
hope for in Copenhagen. It would be a political disaster for some heads
of state--but it could be one last chance to avert the real disaster for
everyone else.

|

« Blackmail | トップページ | White Christmas »

コメント

COP15のフォローがされていないようなので一人NGOを立ち上げ下記の会を開催することにしました。

<コペンハーゲンCOP15報告会のご案内>

ツバル政府代表のあの涙はなんだったのか?
ツバルは本当に沈むのか?
温暖化はお金で解決するのか?

COP15にツバル政府を代表して参加した日本人遠藤秀一さんの報告を開催します。
遠藤さんはツバルオーバービューというNPOを運営し、マングローブ植林やエコツアー
活動を展開しています。
詳しくは下記のウェッブをご参照下さい。
http://www.tuvalu-overview.tv/

日時 2010年1月13日(水) 午後4時から1時間半ほど
場所 キイトス茶房  
  新宿区箪笥町25番地 野吾ビル2階 03-5206-6657
 (大江戸線「牛込神楽坂駅」A1出口より徒歩1分、東西線「神楽坂駅」矢来口より5分、
JR「飯田橋駅」西口改札口より12分)
参加費 喫茶店を貸し切りますので、飲み物込みでお一人1500円です。
参加希望者は下記までメールをください。定員25名で締め切ります。
thinkingislands@gmail.com

投稿: 島女 | 2010年1月10日 08時07分

コメントを書く



(ウェブ上には掲載しません)


コメントは記事投稿者が公開するまで表示されません。



トラックバック

この記事のトラックバックURL:
http://app.cocolog-nifty.com/t/trackback/209267/47100871

この記事へのトラックバック一覧です: A Courage to say No:

» 試験制度の勝者に社会を支配する資格はない [日本を守るのに右も左もない]
民主党小沢幹事長と検察との間で、国家の支配権を巡り闘いが続いているようだ。 以下、【佐藤優の眼光紙背】「特捜検察と小沢一郎」からの引用。 ... [続きを読む]

受信: 2009年12月24日 19時21分

« Blackmail | トップページ | White Christmas »