To bail or not to bail …....

Saul Landau
Progresso Weekly
November 27 - December 3, 2008

Saul Landau, an internationally-known scholar, author, commentator, and filmmaker on foreign and domestic policy issues. Landau's most widely praised achievements are the over forty films he has produced on social, political and historical issues, and worldwide human rights, for which he won the Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award, the George Polk Award for Investigative Reporting, and the First Amendment Award, as well as an Emmy for "Paul Jacobs and the Nuclear Gang." Landau has written over ten books, short stories and poems. He received an Edgar Allen Poe Award for Assassination on Embassy Row, a report on the 1976 murders of Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier and his colleague, Ronni Moffitt.

He is a senior Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Saul Landau is the author of A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD (Counterpunch A/K) whose more than 40 films are available on DVD from http://roundworldproductions.com/Site/Films_by_Saul_Landau_on_DVD.html.

To bail, or not to bail: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageously low gas mileage,
Or to take measures against a sea of warming vehicles,
And by opposing end them?
They have not born the whips and scorns of time,
Auto conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

The “Heartbeat of America” has suffered a major myocardial infarction. In one year, Chevrolet --as American as apple pie -- has slashed 25,000 jobs and closed a dozen of its U.S. factories. General Motors’ auto parts manufacturer, Delphi, went into declared bankruptcy -- another 14 factories and 25,000 more jobs gone by 2010. Don’t worry, however, GM’s competitors, Ford and Chrysler, also announced major bad health news. By 2012, Ford will eliminate at least 55,000 jobs.

The once haughty CEOs of the auto industry strutted through the Halls of Congress giving orders. Now they beg, in vain, for bail out money -- although it’s not clear what they would do with it. Wired.com reported that GM North America president Troy Clarke emailed 29,000 employees: “Your elected officials must hear from all of us now on why this support is critical. ... This level of economic devastation far exceeds the $25 billion of government support that our industry needs to bridge this current period.” (Nov. 12, 2008) Reuters reported that GM dealers received a letter from GM sales chief, Mark LaNeve, encouraging them to do something about “the deepest crisis our industry has ever faced.”

Even the United Auto Workers Union conceded billions of dollars in hard-won gains to keep the factories open. They let the companies cut the retired auto workers’ health benefits. But the workers don’t accuse the UAW of selling out. They understand that the cars they made do not compete with Toyota and Honda. The trendy SUVs, Hummers and other heavy gas drinkers slowly rust away on auto dealers’ lots -- many of which have already shut down. The Big Three’s real gold mine was the phenomenal growth of sports utility vehicles (SUVs) during the 1990s, rising from 7 percent of the total car and truck market at the beginning of the decade to roughly 20 percent by the end. (Mark Brenner and Jane Slaughter, Labor Notes, www.alternet.org, Nov. 19, 2008)

The elite economists and members of the business and chattering classes wring their hands in despair. The U.S. economy has revolved around the car for almost a century. Think of the millions of miles of highways built for it and its big brother, the truck. Think of the infinite number of parking garages and lots. Think of how each house has at least a one, if not a three car garage. How will we get to work, take the kids to school, shop, get away from the house and family, or -- for teenagers -- find a place to have sex?

As Congress debates what to do to save the car industry, few Members consider the incompatibility of life ruled by the automobile and the continuation of life itself. Indeed, if China, India, Brazil and other “developing” countries continue to produce cars, along with the Western, Japanese and Korean factories, the earth’s climate will become less hospitable for human beings -- even if the techno geniuses figure out how to use fuels more harmonious with Nature than gasoline. Think of what the manufacture of cars entail -- the amount of metals, chemicals, plastics and other less than healthy products! Think of the waste on concrete, steel and other material to build endless garages and ribbons of highway.

The car and the city never got along unless one believes rush hour in the major capitals of the world make cities hot. Then there’s pollution, stench and frustration, not to mention the amount of resources cities must spend to meet the needs of the auto. Delphi’s CEO Steve Miller signaled what was at stake: “I want you to view what is happening at Delphi as a flash point, a test case, for all the economic and social trends that are on a collision course in our country and around the globe.” (Brenner and Slaughter)

Some of my friends have already converted their cars’ engines to burn used McDonald’s grease; others await the electric versions run off power generated by the sun or wind. None of them, however, can conceive of living without their cars.

How does one confront the reality of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”? Unless we change our ways, he warned and keeps warning, the environment cannot sustain our species. Gore’s alerts focus on the mantra of continuous and unthinking growth.

The city itself presents a basic challenge. Stare at the skylines of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco or Detroit! Skyscrapers that require heating and cooling 24/7, 365 days a year -- buildings in which nothing gets produced! Tens of thousand or millions of cars enter and leave underground or above ground garages each weekday -- for which the drivers pay do their vehicles occupy a space. The cars’ occupants often produce nothing tangible. From their offices, they send out millions of emails relating to businesses that often produce nothing you can touch, invoices, statements about stock and bond sales. At lunch hour, many race to their cars to meet a friend or lover for a meal -- or drive to a motel for a “nooner.” Then, back into the car, back into the garage and back into the artificially cooled or heated office to manufacture more data on the computer.

The late afternoon rush hour often begins before 4 p.m. and endures until 7. Drivers or passengers allow the frustrations of their unproductive day to simmer or sometimes boil inside of them.

The car has also become an instrument used by temporarily psychotic drivers: road rage. Others have developed a highly unnatural relationship between themselves and their mobile pieces of metal and plastic -- some give them pet names! Think of the car as an instrument people use to kill each other or themselves. Or, think of the car as the weirdest way ever invented to transport people. Vast social entities -- cities like Los Angeles -- virtually require inhabitants to own at least one such vehicle.

Don’t think of the manufacturing process in which over nearly a century workers have sacrificed their physical and mental health over smoky, noisy, fast moving assembly lines. How can one conceive of life without the ubiquitous car? Indeed, even more remote: what will we do with the cities replete with non-productive skyscrapers and garages? Fanatic “deep ecologists” have even hinted at a Khmer Rouge (of Cambodia during the late 1970s) solution -- without the killing fields -- and call for the gradual extinction of cities and other technology deemed destructive to Nature.

What does President Obama think? He will confront demands to save, at any cost, the auto industry and the millions of jobs connected to it. He might start his era of change by reversing the old slogan: “What’s bad for GM is good for America -- and the rest of the world.”

Then, he might think of constructing public transportation -- jobs for millions -- in a scientific and efficient manner, much the same way he ran his presidential campaign.

美國農業陷入雙重困境

郎秀雲
《毛澤東鄧小平理論研究》
2008年第3期

作者是復旦大學社會科學基礎部副教授、博士

美國從傳統農業到現代農業的變遷是在十分獨特的歷史和自然條件下發展和完成的。美國不僅地域遼闊、土地富饒，還具有大陸殖民開發的獨特歷史條件。對於農業發展中非常關鍵的土地問題，美國有著與眾不同的解決方式。由於在西進運動中奪取了印第安人的大片土地，美國國土面積從1776年獨立時的36.9萬平方英里擴大到1853年的302.6萬平方英里，是原來的8倍多。1862年國會通過並頒布了《宅地法》，移民只要交10美元手續費，便可佔用不超過160英畝的荒地，且耕作5年後即成為自己的財產，從此確立了美國家庭農場經營的基本形式。基於地廣人稀的特點，美國農業的現代化以機械化為突破口。1840年以後，播種機、脫粒機、飼草收割機開始進行商業性生產，此後，各地廣泛採用了聯合收割機、拖掛式撒肥機、翻耕播種聯合機。1914年，美國已有拖拉機1.7萬台，20世紀30年代，拖拉機耕地已在美國普及。到1959年，美國的小麥、玉米等主要農業作物的耕、播、收割、脫粒、清洗已是100%的機械化。此後，為了適應家庭農場多樣化和大型化發展的市場需求，美國不斷推出小型多功能的多品種農機和大功率、高度自動化的大型農機。二戰之後，為提高農業的土地產出率，美國農業的化學化、良種化進程迅速推進。1970年農用化學品的使用量是1930年的11.5倍，1990年化肥的使用量為1946年的6.1倍。從1960年起，除草劑的使用迅速增加。為適應不同地區氣候和土質的不同要求，20世紀70年代前後，美國培育出許多雜交品種，並開始利用遺傳生物工程方法、核輻射技術和航天工程技術，改造優化種子的遺傳基因，使農產品產量與品質大幅度提高。隨著計算機技術和生物技術的發展，計算機、轉基因、衛星遙感等高新技術廣泛應用，美國農業生產更趨於工廠化、自動化、區域化和專業化，現代化水平始終走在世界前列。2000年，全美農業經濟活動人口為304萬，農場217.2萬個，平均每個農場的土地面積為175.6公頃，平均每個農場的勞動力僅1.4人，一個勞動力可以養活146人。每個農業經濟活動人口經營土地125.4公頃，為世界之最。美國玉米、大豆、奶類的總產量在世界上連續幾十年遙遙領先。2000年和2001年，美國平均每公頃穀物的產量分別是5974公斤和5728公斤，比世界平均產量高出96%和88%。美國是世界上玉米、小麥、稻米、大豆、棉花等主要作物單位面積產量最高的國家之一。

美國農業的成就令人讚歎，但在驚羨於美國農業的高勞動生產率、高土地生產率和高商品率的同時，應該看到其高投入、高消耗、高污染、高補貼、高風險的特點。

高投入。現代農業以大量的資本投入量、顯著的人員節約量為特徵。在傳統農業向現代農業的轉變中，首要的轉變就是資本對勞動的替代，即勞動和土地相對份額的不斷下降和資本份額的相應上升。美國農業發展進程中，資本對勞動的替代是驚人的。據統計，1910—1960年，美國農業土地投入在總投入中的比重大體不變，但勞動投入減少了45個百分點，資本投入上升了44個百分點。美國向來重視農業投資。每生產1美元農產品需8美元投資，而鋼鐵工業只需0.5美元。與1940年相比，1978年美國對每個農業工人的投資增加了30多倍。20世紀80年代，每年農業財政投資為350億美元，是政府對工業投資的1.2倍；20世紀90年代，每年農業投資增至500多億美元，在聯邦政府預算中僅次於國防開支，位居第二位。

高消耗。美國農業是典型的「能源集約農業」，是「一種把不能消費、不能更新的能源變為可供消費的食物和纖維的轉化系統」，以能源集約代替人的勞動力，而不再利用可再生的人力和畜力。這種農業，從投入到產出再到加工、儲運、銷售，整個過程都是靠無機的礦物資源特別是石油來支撐的。美國每年生產3000億公斤糧食，要消耗6000萬—7000萬噸石油、800萬噸鋼鐵，同時還要消耗大量的磷、鉀等肥料資源。1981年，美國氮、磷、鉀三種主要化肥的年消耗量高達2370萬噸。美國農業能量的收入和投入之比為1︰15。1990年以前的30年，美國糧食單產提高77%，而能耗卻增加了6倍；1990年之前近20年，糧食增產1倍，而農業消耗能量增加了3倍。中國、印尼、緬甸等亞洲國家傳統的農業生產方式，用0.05—0.1卡的熱量可以生產1卡熱量的食物；而美國則需0.2—0.5卡的熱量才能生產1卡熱量的玉米、大豆、花生等等。

高污染。美國農業過分依賴化肥和農藥，導致土壤惡化和環境污染。美國31個州存在化肥污染地下水的問題，衣阿華州大泉盆地在1958—1983年的25年間，地下水中的硝酸鹽濃度增加了3倍。美國現在每年使用的殺蟲劑和除草劑在4.5億—5億磅之間，最先進的過濾系統也無法完全把它從飲用水中排除乾淨。大面積的連年單作，加之長期的機械耕作，平均每年有31億噸土壤流失，每生產一蒲式耳的玉米就要流失一蒲式耳的表土。美國中西部一帶農田的表土，早年深達6英尺，是世界上罕有的肥沃土壤，目前表土只剩下6寸。據專家估計，每年因為土壤流失造成的直接和間接經濟損失超過400億美元。到2001年底，攔耐寥狼質疵婊鑭?792.4萬公頃，占現有耕地的20%。

高補貼。自南北戰爭以來，美國對農業實行高額補貼，被納入農業補貼範圍的農產品包括玉米、高粱、大麥、燕麥、水稻、大豆、油料、棉花、奶類、花生、糖類、羊毛和馬海毛、蜂蜜、蘋果、干豆類等大約20種，幾乎涵蓋了所有大宗農產品。2001年，美國對農業的補貼花費是953億美元，占農場農業總收入的11%，占農場農業淨收入的42%。平均每個農戶每年能從政府那裡得到1萬多美元補貼。而在由國會通過、小布什總統簽署的「2002年農業安全和農村投資法案」中，計劃在2002—2011年向農業提供1900億美元的巨額補貼，比原有的《農業法》所確定的撥款額度增加了近80%。

高風險。傳統農業使用了眾多的本地品種，現代農業中的糧食革命放棄了培育當地品種，改用少數高產品種，在作物和家畜方面都是如此。由於高產雜交品種的排擠，很多自然種子資源終止了幾千年的遺傳連續性，它們藉以保持種質互換的很多野生親緣已經不復存在，人類有可能在短短一代人的時間裡失去食物系統進化的關鍵性環節。由於新品種的單一性，一旦受到病原體的危害，可能會全軍覆沒，災難將是全球性的。1970年美國玉米葉枯病，使15%的玉米產區顆粒無收，原因就是所有種子都是來自一個易感葉枯病的品種。自20世紀90年代以來，轉基因農業技術在美國廣泛使用，轉基因產品的出口已經佔了美國農業和食品出口的35%，年出口額達120億美元。轉基因技術損害了生物基因的多樣性，可能造成不可預見的生態災難。20世紀中葉以後，一系列危害食品安全的食品污染事件接連發生，瘋牛病和二惡英污染就是其中最著名的例子。

美國農業實質上是資本、技術和能源密集型農業，即採用現代化的設施及農業機械裝備，依賴大量地投入化學肥料、農藥、殺蟲劑、除草劑，用高投入換取高產出，這在一定程度上違反了作為自然再生產和經濟再生產相結合的農業本性，不可避免地造成環境污染、水土流失、病蟲害持抗性增加、品種資源單一化等一系列問題。尤其嚴重的是能量的「投入產出比」隨著投入的增加反而下降。這種農業模式陷入了經濟和生態的雙重困境：資本替代土地的結果是大量的能源消耗、巨額投入和沉重的財政負擔，並造成環境污染和生態災難；資本替代勞動力的結果是提高了勞動生產率，但導致了失業、貧困和兩極分化。

Will Population Control Solve the Climate Crisis?

Simon Butler
Green Left Weekly
November 8, 2008

At best, population control schemes focus on treating a symptom of an irrational, polluting social and economic system rather than the causes. In China, for instance, such measures haven’t solved that country’s environmental problems.

At worst, populationist theories shift the blame for climate change onto the poorest and most vulnerable people in the Third World.

They do not address the reasons why environmental damage, or even instances of overpopulation, happen in the first place and they divert attention away from the main challenge facing the climate movement — the urgent need to construct a new economy based on environmentally sustainable technologies and the rising of living standards globally.

For at least 200 years, “overpopulation” has been used to explain a host of social problems such as poverty, famine, unemployment and — more recently — environmental destruction.

Between 1798-1826, the conservative English economist and clergyman Thomas Malthus published six editions of his influential Essay on the Principle of Population, which argued that population growth inevitably outstrips food production.

Malthus’ argument was that the English working class was poor because they were too numerous, not because they were exploited. He opposed welfare or higher wages because, he said, that would allow the poor to survive, and breed, compounding “overpopulation” and leading to more poverty.

Malthus was wrong about food production. In the last two centuries, food production has grown faster than population — his theories nevertheless gained wide acceptance among the English elite of the day because they provided a convenient excuse to blame the poor for their own predicament.

In the 1960s, Malthus’ anti-human ideas were resuscitated by a new generation of conservative theorists who argued that the people of the global South remained hungry because there were too many to feed. US environmentalist Paul Erlich, in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, argued for population control measures in the Third World to, he said, avert an ecological crisis.

Populationists like Erlich usually don’t question the unequal allocation of resources on a global scale. Nor do they admit that high birth rates in the Third World are largely a response to dire poverty.

Instead, they look at the world’s resources as though they were dividing up a pie: reduce the world’s population and those remaining will each get a bigger slice. They fail to address the question of power and, therefore, unequal access to global resources.

Most environmentalists who believe that population control is necessary would still reject the most extreme forms of the populationist argument.

But the fact remains that the real driver of climate change is not population growth but a market economy locked into burning fossil fuels for energy. The corporations that profit most from taking the lion’s share of global resources are the same polluting industries that, today, are resisting the necessary shift away from carbon-based economies.

Populationists tend to downplay the question of power. As renowned US ecologist Barry Commoner commented, populationist solutions to environmental destruction are “equivalent to attempting to save a leaking ship by lightening the load by forcing passengers overboard”.

He went on to ask the question that populationists tend to ignore: “One is constrained to ask if there is not something wrong with the ship”.

The world is not experiencing runaway population growth. Global population is growing, but the rate of growth is slowing. It peaked in the 1960s and has been in decline ever since. Global population grew by 140% between 1950 and 2000. Experts predict a further rise of 50% between 2000 and 2050, and just 11% in the 50 years after that.

The simplistic view that population control is the main way to reverse runaway climate change can obscure debate over other measures. These include: the rapid replacement of fossil fuel-generated energy with renewables; improvements in energy efficiency; and the introduction of sustainable agricultural methods.

In rich countries such as Australia, we need to campaign for environmental outcomes that sharply reduce Third World poverty, including cancelling debt owed to First World nations.

It is well documented — including in the wealthy countries — that birth rates fall as living standards rise. Furthermore, the greater economic independence women have, and the more control women have over their own bodies, the fewer children they have. Development, along with women’s emancipation, is the best contraception.

It is undeniable that parts of the world are overcrowded, and that land degradation through over-logging, erosion, over-hunting, over-fishing and poor waste disposal are massive problems in the countries of the global South.

These social, economic and environment problems are interlinked, and point to the real causes of overpopulation and environmental destruction of the Third World — extreme poverty. Liberty and justice and rights for the poor, especially women, have to be our concern.

世界自然基金會 : 我們將需要兩個地球來維持我們目前的生活方式

世界自然基金會 (WWF)
2008-10-29

瑞士，格蘭德 －人類對地球自然資源需求不斷增加，超出了地球承載力的近1/3，這使全球正走向生態信貸短缺的未來。

這是最新一期 WWF(世界自然基金會)地球生命力報告中發出的警告，除了全球自然資源和生物多樣性的持續減少，越來越多的國家正陷入永久或季節性缺水的狀況。

WWF全球總幹事詹姆士.李普（James Leape）說：「全球正關注的是高估金融資產所導致的後果，但如今整個人類社會要面對的卻是生態信貸的短缺，這是由於人類低估環境資產而造成的，而環境 資產卻是所有生命和繁榮的基礎。我們大多數人都在利用或者逐漸透支異地的生態資本，來維持現有的生活方式和經濟增長。如果我們對於地球的需求繼續以同一速 度增加，到21世紀30年代中期，我們將需要兩個地球來維持我們目前的生活方式。」

這份由WWF、ZSL(倫敦動物學會)和GFN(全球生態足跡網絡)共同合作的報告顯示，全球3/4以上的人口目前生活在生態負債國家，這些國家的國民消費量已經超出了其國家的生物承載能力。

該報告每兩年出版一次，自1998年以來已廣泛認同為評估地球生命力的準確報告。2008年，該報告首次新增了衡量全球、各國和個人的水足跡，現有的衡量標準有人類對自然資源需求的生態足跡，以及衡量自然狀況的生命地球指數。

由ZSL彙編的生命地球指數顯示，1970年以來測量的1686類物種中5000個種群，已經減少了近30%。這些對自然的巨大破壞主是要由熱帶地區的濫砍濫伐和農地開墾，以及建壩、調水、過度放牧、污染、和過度捕撈、破壞性捕撈所造成的。

ZSL 編輯Jonathan Loh說：「我們在生態方面採取的方式與金融機構在經濟方面採取的方式相同，都在尋求速成，而不適當考慮後果，這樣的全球生態危機帶來的後果比目前經濟崩潰更為嚴重。」

由化石燃料以及土地污染所產生的碳排放量在人類足跡中比例最大，並成為氣候變化的主要誘因。經過全面分析，環球足跡網絡得出地球的生態足跡，也就是生 產我們消費的所有資源和消納我們產出的所有廢棄物所需的全球（平均）生物生產土地面積（包括陸地和海洋），為人均2.7全球公頃。而現有人均生態承載力的 最高限僅為2.1全球公頃。

GFN執行理事Mathis Wackernagel博士說：「持續的生態赤字將導致嚴重的經濟後果，資源局限性和生態系統崩潰將引發大規模的物價上漲，隨之投資價值下降，而食品和能源價格也會暴漲。」

美國和中國的國家生態足跡最大，它們的生態足跡總額分別達約21％的全球生物承載力，但美國公民的人均生態足跡量是9.4全球公頃，而中國公民人均量 是2.1全球公頃。生物承載力在全球的分佈不均，美國、巴西、俄羅斯、中國、印度、加拿大、阿根廷和澳大利亞八國擁有全球超過一半的生物承載力。其中三個 國家的人口和消費模式使其成為生態負債國，生態足跡大於其國家生物承載力，這三個國家是美國（生態足跡是國家生物承載力的1.8倍）、中國（生態足跡是國 家生物承載力的2.3倍）和印度（生態足跡是國家生物承載力的2.2倍）。

雖然中國的人均生態足跡比歐盟低得多，但中國和歐盟消費資源的速度都是其生物承載力生產速度的2倍以上。2005年，中國的足跡貿易的逆差為 1.65億全球公頃，比德國或玻利維亞的總生物承載力還要大。2005年，中國進口和出口足跡分別占國際貿易總足跡的9%和6%，而在1961年，相應數 值分別為5%和不到1%，可謂增加迅猛。

2008年的報告中首次計算了水足跡。新的水足跡度量標準顯示出商品形式的水的意義所在，例如，生產一件棉質的T恤需要2900升水。人均每年消費 124萬升水（約一個奧運會游泳池一半的水量），從美國人均每年消費248萬升水到也門人均每年消費61.9萬升水，消費水量因國家而異。由於氣候變化， 約50個國家目前正承受著中度或重度的缺水壓力，常年或季節性缺水的人口數量預計也會增加。

報告還提出了一些關鍵的「可持續性楔形」概念，如果結合這些概念，可以穩定生態環境並扭轉日益惡化的生態環境，避免陷入生態負債的狀況，避免給全球支 持系統帶來持久損害。針對氣候變化這一重大挑戰，報告顯示了一系列有效的、可再生的、低排放的「楔形」方法，可滿足2050年前預期的能源需求，還能削減 60%至80%的碳排放量。考慮將生態系統方法納入到消費、發展和貿易中會極大地有助於保護世界重要的生物資源。

***** ***** *****

WWF 中文網站編者按：

報告及包括視頻在內的多媒體資料可在 wwf.extranet.largeblue.net 上找到，密碼：mA1aGb73

全球生態足跡正以不斷加快的速度惡化。2006年WWF地球生命力報告顯示，當年的生態足跡超出了2003年的25%（2008年地球生命力報告 ——生態足跡超過2005年的30%），2050年左右人類將需要兩個星球（2008年地球生命力報告——2030年人類將需要兩個星球）。

相關連接：

2008地球生命力報告專題網站 http://www.wwfchina.org/aboutwwf/miniwebsite/2008LPR/

點擊下載《地球生命力報告》中文 http://www.wwfchina.org/wwfpress/publication/policy/ChineseLPR2008.pdf

點擊下載《地球生命力報告》英文 http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf