資本主義能夠阻止氣候災難嗎？

李民騏
譯者：龔權
《綠葉》雜誌
2008年第12期
新浪博客 : http://blog.sina.com.cn/greenleafxp
英文原載 1： Climate Change, Limits to Growth, and the Imperative for Socialism, Monthly Review, July-August 2008

作者為美國馬薩諸塞大學經濟學博士。2003-2006年任加拿大約克大學政治學系助理教授。2006年至今任美國猶他大學經濟系助理教授。新著 The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World-Economy近期將由英國Pluto Press出版。

摘要：氣溫再升高約兩攝氏度，人類就將陷入氣候災難。阻止災難，單靠節能減排的技術改造作用有限，必須壓縮全球經濟規模，但資本主義的本性就是無止境的擴張。要麼終結資本主義，要麼陷入氣候災難！人類必須拋棄資本主義，代以全球民主計劃經濟，在確保人類基本需求下，收縮經濟。

一、氣候災難日益臨近
聯合國政府間氣候變化專門委員會（IPCC）2007年評估報告證實，人類活動確實對工業革命之後的全球變暖負有主要責任，使用化石燃料和土地開發等方式所產生的二氧化碳等溫室氣體，是全球變暖的直接原因。委員會所發佈的一些新的證據顯示，氣候變遷越來越快，其潛在影響很可能比委員會報告的預期嚴重得多。沿照現行的經濟和社會發展趨勢，世界正走向前所未有的氣候災難。

有證據顯示，北冰洋最快有可能在2013年就進入無冰之夏，這大約比委員會計算模型的預期提早了近一個世紀。當北冰洋冰塊在夏季完全融化時，格陵蘭島冰原的解體也將不可避免。海平面將因此在本世紀內上升五米以上，全球50個最大城市中有一半將受到威脅，上億人口將淪為環境難民。

如今全球氣溫比工業革命以前約高0.8攝氏度，與過去100萬年間地球最高平均氣溫相比，相差也不足一度，同時還每十年上升0.2攝氏度。以大氣中已存在的二氧化碳濃度計算，另外還有0.6攝氏度的長期變暖效應。隨著北冰洋冰原可能在夏季消融，北冰洋將吸收而非反射太陽輻射，這也將導致再升溫0.3攝氏度。考慮到所有這些因素，全球氣溫即將比工業革命前高兩攝氏度，這被廣泛認為是氣候轉變的臨界值。

兩攝氏度的升溫，有可能導致非洲、澳大利亞、南歐和美國西部出現大範圍的乾旱和沙漠化，亞洲和南美的冰川剝蝕，兩極大規模的冰蓋瓦解，以及15%-40% 的動植物滅絕。更糟糕的是，這還將引發劇烈的氣候反饋，如危險的海洋酸化，大量的凍土融化，甲烷釋放，以及海洋土壤碳循環系統的瓦解。氣候變遷將因此有可能陷入人類無法控制的境地。

世界頂級地球系統科學家詹姆斯·拉夫洛克（James Lovelock）認為，如果全球氣溫上升接近三攝氏度（與前工業革命時期相比），且大氣中二氧化碳濃度超過500ppm（百萬分之五百），那麼地球上的海洋及熱帶雨林都將淨排放溫室氣體。隨之，全球平均氣溫將持續升高六攝氏度，海平面上升至少25米，90%的物種滅絕，地球上大部分地區不再適合人類居住，人類數量有可能減少80%。

戈達德太空研究所(GISS)負責人、世界權威氣候學家詹姆斯·漢森（James Hansen）主張，為了避免海平面上升、格陵蘭島與南極冰原的融化以及大規模物種滅絕，全世界應致力於將氣溫限制在不高過2000年一攝氏度的水平。根據現有的委員會模型，這意味著大氣中二氧化碳濃度不能超過450ppm。然而，在最近的研究中漢森又指出，委員會模型沒有考慮到多種潛在的氣候反饋。地質氣候學證據顯示，「如果人類還想維持一個與文明發展、生物適應的環境相似的星球」，那麼大氣中二氧化碳濃度必須降低到350ppm左右。而現在的二氧化碳濃度為387ppm，並以每年2ppm的速度上升。

由此可見，人類的生存和文明已危如累卵。

形勢如此嚴峻。許多人將他們的希望寄托在對全球資本主義系統的生態改造之上，堅信扭轉氣候變暖趨勢只是個技術問題，在現存社會制度內能夠完成這一目標。

然而一個緊迫且不能迴避的政治問題在於：現存的社會制度——全球各種形式的資本主義——果真能夠有效地解決全球氣候變遷的危機和避免最災難性的後果嗎？

如果不能，那麼另外一種替代性的社會經濟制度的最低要求是什麼呢？它必須擁有制度能力來防止這種危機，甚至，在這種危機無法避免時，足以幫助人類渡過災難。

二、追逐增長：資本主義的天性
眾所周知，資本主義是一種以追逐利潤和積累資本為根本目標的經濟系統，個人資本家、公司和國家均參與激烈的市場競爭。為了在競爭中生存、成功以及追逐更大的利潤，資本家、公司與民族國家都不得不不停地、無限地擴大生產和積累資本。因此，在資本主義制度條件下，除了經濟危機時期，經濟產出總趨於增長。

理論上說，如果能耗強度降低很快以至於抵消了經濟增長，那麼能源消耗水平並不必然增加。但是在資本主義運行方式下，這不僅難以實現，甚至會引起相反的結果，因為任何能耗強度的降低都將使能源產品更便宜，廉價能源產品反過來又鼓勵人們消耗更多的能源。因此，能耗強度的降低（比如能源效率提高）會導致更快的資本積累（經濟增長），而幾乎不會減少能源消耗絕對量。

事實正是如此，資本主義經濟增長一直伴隨著能源消耗的增加，也就是溫室氣體排放的增加。自1973年始，雖然世界經濟相對疲軟，能源消費卻以每年2%的速度增長。按這樣的速度，從現在起到2050年，世界能源消費將增長130%。以這樣的趨勢發展，如果希望將二氧化碳的排放量保持在一個合適的水平，那麼世界能源消費的排放量就必須大幅度降低，否則經濟產出的規模就必須明顯縮減。

降低能耗、減少排放的技術改造，前景如何呢？
三、穩定氣候的技術局限
為了防止或減緩進一步的全球變暖，必須大幅減少溫室氣體，尤其是因燃燒化石燃料所產生的二氧化碳的排放。二氧化碳排放量決定於能源消耗排放強度（每單位能源消耗排放量）、經濟產出能耗強度（每單位產出能耗）以及經濟產出水平（以GDP衡量），即：二氧化碳排放量＝經濟產出×能耗強度×排放強度。

化石燃料首先用於發電，其次就是直接應用於工業、交通、農業、服務業以及日常生活等領域。
全球發電量的四分之三依賴於化石燃料。減少發電造成的二氧化碳排放量，有三種技術可能：碳收集和儲藏，核電能，可再生能源發電（如地熱能，風能，太陽能，潮汐能，波浪能，海洋環流，等等）。

如果發電過程中釋放的碳可以被回收且儲藏於地底而非排放到大氣中的話，那麼排放量就可以降低。碳收集儲藏有可能實質性地增加發電成本、降低能源效率（因為碳回收和儲藏的過程也消耗能源）。用於儲藏大量的碳的防漏設施，現在還缺乏足夠的質量保證，同時這項技術的可行性仍未被證實，所以不能在現存的發電廠中應用。這意味著，在最理想的情況下，碳收集和儲藏技術在全球發電廠中的大規模應用至少還需要幾十年。

核能發電的前景也不明朗。安全隱患自不待言。德國能源觀察組（The German Energy Watch Group）指出，世界上被探明了的鈾儲量對現在的需求水平最多可支持70年，2020年之後鈾的供應就將出現短缺。另外，因為核電廠的規劃和建造耗時都很長，這意味著最近10-20年間即將退出使用的全世界一半的核電廠將很難被替代。

利用可再生能源發電也並非萬靈藥。「可再生發電」裝備和廠房，需要工業部門用化石燃料和非可再生性礦產建造。與傳統電力相比，可再生性能源發電成本依然很高。風能與太陽能——兩種最重要的可再生性能源——都具有不穩定和間歇性的特點，不適合作為基本電力供應，難以取代傳統能源的地位。

除了生物質能燃料，可再生能源只能用於發電，而不能直接用於他途。

化石燃料初級消費中，目前用於發電的只佔三分之一，其他三分之二用作交通、工業、農業、服務業和居住領域的液態、氣態和固態的燃料。

在化石燃料最終消費總量中，約有40%用於交通行業，24%用於工業，23%用於農業、服務業以及居住領域，還有13%用作化學工業原料。

電力顯然不能代替化石燃料作為化學工業原料。電力也很難代替化石燃料使用於航海、航空、貨運、高溫作業等行業，不易為工業中的重型機械、建築業和農業供電。雖然將電力客車代替汽油車技術上可能可行，但還不成熟，要成為主流技術有可能還需要幾十年。

再說，三個單位的煤才能發一個單位的電，因此將交通、工業和其他行業都電力化，只會增加而非減少二氧化碳排量。為了穩定氣候，除非在發電過程中去碳（即將碳回收、核電和可再生能源發電取代傳統的化石燃料發電），否則將這些行業電力化沒什麼意義。

生物質能燃料是惟一液化和氣化的可再生能源2。然而由於受到土地和水的限制，生物質能燃料也只可能滿足世界對液態和氣態燃料需求的很小一部分。更為糟糕的是，最近研究發現：如果考慮到土地開發過程以及土壤流失的釋放量，生物質能燃料其實比傳統的化石燃料釋放出更多的溫室氣體。

即使克服了以上所有的經濟和技術上的難題，全球發電方式的轉型可能得需要幾十年，而將全球所有工業和交通運輸行業的基礎設施電力化更需要再多出幾十年的時間。屆時，全球性的生態危機已經無可挽救了。

既然技術改造難以短時期內全面見效，那麼要想阻止氣候變暖，全球經濟規模就必須收縮。

四、經濟收縮：穩定氣候的基礎
委員會報告認為，為了將全球變暖限制在2.4和2.0攝氏度（與前工業時代相比）之內，相應地大氣中的二氧化碳等價物——包括二氧化碳和其他所有的溫室氣體的影響——的濃度要穩定在490ppm和445ppm。這就要求全球二氧化碳排放量在2000-2015年間到達頂峰，然後逐步回落，到2050年比 2010年下降50%和85%。

不過，這一預測未能將一些最新的研究進展考慮進去。北冰洋夏季冰原現在有可能消失，北冰洋將吸收更多的熱量，因此二氧化碳濃度達到490ppm很可能導致全球氣溫上升2.7攝氏度，而不止報告所提出的2.4攝氏度，從而將全球氣溫帶向升高3攝氏度的關口。據詹姆斯·拉夫洛克預計，這將無異於人類的集體自殺。即使全球氣溫只上升兩攝氏度，一些主要的生態災難仍將不可避免，並引發危險的氣候反饋。如果目標真是穩定氣候以及創造一個足夠安全的界限，全球排放量還需要更為巨幅的下降。

從2000年開始，全球二氧化碳的排放量以每年3%的速度遞增。按照這種趨勢，2010年全球二氧化碳排放量將比2000年高34%。這意味著，如果要將二氧化碳等價物濃度穩定在490ppm和445ppm，到2050年全球排放量需要比2010年的水平下降63%和89%，而不是50%和85%。
下面針對445ppm與490ppm這兩個不同的要求，設計兩套關於排放量減少與經濟增長的組合方案。

表一顯示的是，為了到2050年將二氧化碳濃度穩定在490ppm，所需要的能耗強度、排放強度和經濟增長在此期間應有的組合。在這些方案中，對能耗強度、排放強度下降的估算都是盡量樂觀的。如前所述，雖然在許多領域，用電力直接替代化石燃料在技術上存在著很大困難，甚至不可能，但是，所有方案都假設到2050年50%的化石燃料的最終消費將被電力化。

同時，雖然碳回收、核能和可再生電力均存在種種限制，在各種方案中，我們仍樂觀地假設，50%、75%甚至100%的化石燃料發電量到2050年將實現去碳化（年均排放強度相應降低1%、1.7%和2.7%）。

能耗強度到2050年將下降33%、45%和55%（年均能耗強度相應降低1%、1.5%和2%）。隨著能耗強度下降33%，世界平均能源效率將達到現在發達資本主義國家平均水平。如果下降45%或55%，將可與今天西歐國家的能源效率水平相當。

發達國家的能源效率水平之所以較高，不僅因為有高級技術的支持，還因為其能源密集型的產業被大規模地轉移到全球「外圍國家」。因此，外圍國家能否達到發達國的能源效率水平，還是個大問題。表一各方案並沒有將這一障礙考慮在內。

另外，各方案中的三個因素：排放強度、能耗強度和經濟增長，並不必然是互相獨立的。比方說，碳回收技術會改變排放強度，但同時可能對改善能耗強度或經濟增長的潛力產生負面影響，反之亦然。但在各方案中，這些問題都被樂觀地忽略不計了。

給定排放強度和能耗強度的降低，我們便可以計算出和排放量降低目標相契合的經濟增長的最大速度。例如，在方案一當中，假設50%的化石燃料發電量將在 2050年前被去碳化（意味著排放強度以年均1%的速度遞減），同時能耗強度在2010-2050年間也以年均1%的速度降低。與之對應，為了將排放量降低63%，此間平均經濟增長速度必須不能超過負0.4%，即經濟必須收縮。同樣的，在第九個方案中，假設100%的化石燃料發電可以在2050年前去碳化（意味著排放強度以年均2.7%的速度降低），能耗強度以2%的年均速度遞減，那麼2010-2050年間平均經濟增長速度也不能超過2.3%。

由表一可以清楚地看到，在所有假設方案中，排放強度和能耗強度的降低量比全球資本主義經濟歷史上任何時期（即委員會所說的正常時期）都要多，所有的方案都是以以往歷史水平三至九倍的速度改善，因此這些假設都是非常樂觀的。但是即便如此，在其中多數方案中，世界經濟的增長仍將在事實上陷入停頓。在其中一個方案中，世界經濟則需要絕對緊縮。再加上世界人口約每年增加百分之一，只有最為樂觀的方案才能得出人均GDP正增長的結果。

下面來看第二套方案。

表二是為達到排放量減少89%的要求而設計的方案。其餘假設均與表一相同。結果表明在所有方案中全球經濟都必須緊縮。在方案一到三（與歷史上全球資本主義的表現相比，這些假設的排放強度和能耗強度的降低情況都極為樂觀），為了達到排放量減少的目標，世界經濟必須在2010年之後縮減三分之二到四分之三。

表一和表二兩套方案證明，經濟停頓或緊縮是阻止氣候災難的惟一選擇。但是無止境地擴張，是資本主義的天性和命根所在，經濟停頓或緊縮，無異於讓資本主義滅亡。因此，只要局限在資本主義框架內，任何樂觀的技術改進都無助於實現氣候穩定。

五、與虎謀皮：指望資本約束其擴張天性
是本文作者過於悲觀了嗎？或者資本主義的「活力」、「創新性」、「適應性」以及「彈性」等等被錯誤地低估了？主流環境運動的代表人物，如萊斯特·布朗（Lester R.Brown）3和艾默裡·洛文斯（Amory Lovins）4均曾試圖說服我們：奇妙的技術將拯救人類。在他們看來，經濟擴張、利潤追逐、資本積累，與生態的可持續的發展之間並沒有本質的衝突。

如前所述，全球能源系統實現去碳化，還存在許多技術難題。布朗和洛文斯則極度誇大了技術革新的潛能。但是即便許多高效的可再生能源技術迅即出現了，其應用也將被資本主義內在的對技術擴散的障礙所延遲。新的技術是「知識產權」，那些不能承擔使用費用的國家和人民將不被允許使用。

再者，與新奇的消費品比如手機和手提電腦不同——這類消費品可以在現有生產線中製造，而世界能源系統的去碳化則要求對世界經濟基礎設施進行徹底更新。這意味著去碳化的步伐，即使在最理想的情況下，也只能遵從資本運轉的法則，只能跟隨在長期固定資產的折舊更新之後。考慮到很多廠房設備和其他長期固定資產將在未來的半個世紀甚至是更長的時間內繼續存在，表一和表二所假設的去碳化效率可謂是極端樂觀的。

從純粹技術角度看，解決氣候變暖危機最簡單直接的辦法就是立即停止一切的經濟增長，有秩序地縮小這個世界的物質消費規模，直到溫室氣體的排放量降低到合理的程度。很明顯，這可以通過現有的技術來完成。如果所有的去碳技術都被盡快推廣至全世界，即使世界經濟規模減小很多，也依舊會擁有滿足全世界人口最基本的物質文化需求的生產能力（表二中方案一和三將大致與上世紀60年代的物質生活水平持平）。


然而，在資本主義經濟體系中，只要生產資料和剩餘價值仍然被各個資本家控制，那麼巨大的誘惑和壓力將促使和迫使他們將相當大比例的剩餘價值轉化為資本積累。除非剩餘價值被整個社會所控制，否則資本積累將不可中止，即經濟增長不可能中止。

不僅如此。存在著巨大的收入不平等和財富分配不均的資本主義，無法做到既有秩序地減少經濟總量，又同時滿足全球幾十億人口的基本生活需要。對於資本主義來說，經濟增長本來就不只是追逐的目標，同時還是用以減輕其社會痼疾的不可或缺的藥方。

主流環境主義者將他們的願望（或信仰）一方面寄托於科技奇跡，另一方面寄托於對當權者的道德勸說。然而，只要資本主義系統完整無損，資本主義的運動定律就將照常運作，個人願望再強烈，也無法改變或對抗資本擴張的本性！那些徹底的環境主義者遲早要在可持續發展和資本主義之間做出選擇。

氣候災難已是全球共識。指望資本會因此進行自我約束，將其擴張邏輯服從於避免氣候災難的人類共同目標，有可能嗎？

《京都議定書》要求發達資本主義國家在1990-2012年間將二氧化碳排放量減少5%，結果卻不降反升。1990-2005年間，日本增加了16%；歐盟區自上世紀90年代中期起趨向於增加；英國保持一個平穩的趨勢，主要是因為英國大規模地從使用煤炭轉向北海的天然氣；至於美國，乾脆拒絕簽署議定書，其排放量增加了22%。

諷刺的是，俄國是自上世紀90年代以來惟一一個大量降低了二氧化碳排放量的大經濟體。由於眾所周知的原因，在這一時期，俄國經濟產出和人口都有所下降。從1990-2005年，俄國的二氧化碳排放量減少三分之一，年均減少2.7%。

世界經濟只有經歷三倍於俄國90年代的經濟崩潰那樣規模的收縮，到2050年全球排放量才會下降約三分之二，這不過僅僅將大氣中二氧化碳等價物的濃度穩定在大約490ppm的水平。如前所述，這仍然不足以達到必需的水平。

除了發達國家，自1990年起，中國、印度、巴西等新興工業國的排放量也開始大幅增長，並呈後來居上之勢。

對資本積累的追求如此狂熱，氣候穩定還有什麼指望呢？有什麼靈丹妙藥保證資本主義系統可以與氣候穩定共存呢？

指望資本主義改變積累本性，停止經濟擴張，無異於與虎謀皮。要麼終結資本主義，要麼陷入氣候災難！這就是人類今天面臨的選擇。

六、全球民主計劃：阻止氣候災難的惟一選擇
2007年6月14日，《金融時報》刊登了捷克總統瓦茨拉夫·克勞斯的一篇古怪的文章：《危險的並非氣候而是自由》。

我們生活在奇怪的年代，一個異常溫暖的冬天就足以讓環境運動者和他們的追隨者們提出激進的對策去對付天氣……全球暖化的癔病成為真理與宣傳言論對戰的最重要的例子。反對這個「已經建立的真理」是需要勇氣的。……我認為對自由、民主、市場經濟和繁榮造成最大威脅的，恰恰是野心勃勃的環境主義者而非共產主義。這種意識形態試圖用一種中央的（如今是全球的）計劃控制代替人類的自由及自發演進。

接著，這個自詡為自由捍衛者的捷克總統（他顯然是弗裡德裡希·哈耶克的信徒）威脅道，科學家「有義務聲明他們的政治和價值立場，以及這究竟多大程度上影響了他們所選擇和理解的科學證據」。

我們得承認，當全球資產階級已就氣候變化達成政治共識、認為環境問題不能再被忽視的時候，克勞斯敢於將阻止氣候災難與「自由」對立起來，也是需要番勇氣的。

只有一個極端的資本主義的辯護士和社會主義的反對者才能做出如此古怪的論斷。不過，從另一個角度看，克勞斯比任何主流的環境主義者都更接近真理：人類確實需要一個全球性的中央計劃才能克服現在氣候變暖的危機，如果這一中央的基礎是一個自覺的、理性的、善於合作的民主機制的話。

在新體制下，全球能源應用方式要根據可再生能源的要求進行根本性的改造。絕大部分的經濟基礎設施都將逐步更換；農業依據可持續發展的要求進行重組，擺脫對化肥的依賴；重組交通系統，可再生電力將在鐵路和公共交通中扮演重要角色；世界經濟規模將根據溫室氣體排放量降低目標的要求而縮小。所有這一切都要在不損害全人類基本需求的條件下完成。

在全球性的民主中央計劃經濟體制內，經濟收縮並不可怕。經濟收縮，首先用以取締軍火、私人游泳池、大多數的私人汽車、各種奢侈品、廣告，等等領域，而人類最基本的需求，食物、醫療、公共交通、文化教育等，則是資源配置的首選。

古巴，資源短缺並遭受長期封鎖，卻成為全球公認的真正實現了可持續發展的國家。全球範圍，再加上民主計劃體制，所能取得的成就肯定會比古巴大得多。


1 本文原名「氣候變遷、成長的極限和全球社會主義的未來」，以英文發表於美國《每月評論》（Monthly Review）2008年7/8月合號。允許本刊轉載。正文與註釋都有所刪節。

2 雖然有許多對氫經濟的討論，但氫本身並不是初級能源的原料，不存在天然儲藏的氫可被開發。氫作為燃料是由水產生，這個過程需要能量投入。因此，氫只是能量儲藏的機制（正如電池一樣），其環境影響決定於製造它的能源。

3 萊斯特·布朗，地球政策研究所負責人，著有《B模式——拯救地球延續文明》、《生態經濟：有利於地球的經濟構想》等。——譯者注。

4 艾默裡·洛文斯，美國洛基山研究所負責人，著有《自然資本論——關於下一次工業革命》、《企業與環境》等。——譯者注。

Declaration on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Saul Landau, Cindy Sheehan, Nelson P. Valdés, Cynthia McKinney
December 10, 2008

Saul Landau, an internationally-known scholar, author, commentator, and filmmaker on foreign and domestic policy issues. His 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 and a senior fellow of the Transnational Institute. His latest book is A Bush and Botox World. His latest film is We don't play golf here! And other stories of globalisation .

Cindy Sheehan is an American anti-war activist, whose son, Casey, was killed during his service in the Iraq War in 2004. She attracted international attention in August 2005 for her extended demonstration at a camp outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, garnering her both support and criticism. In 2008, she ran against Congress Speaker Nancy Pelosi in California, because Pelosi did not introduce articles of impeachment against President Bush, but came second to Pelosi in the election.

Nelson P. Valdés is Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of New Mexico, specializing in Latin America . He is a director of the Cuba-L Direct Projec and has written extensively on Cuban history and politics.

Cynthia McKinney is a former United States Representative and the 2008 Green Party nominee for President of the United States. McKinney served as a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993–2003 and 2005–2007, first representing Georgia's 11th Congressional District and then Georgia's 4th Congressional District. She is the first African-American woman to have represented Georgia in the House.

On the morning of December 10, 2008 Cindy Sheehan, Nelson Valdes, Saul Landau, and Cynthia McKinney signed a declaration as the U.S. delegates to an international conference assessing sixty years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sponsored by the Network of Networks in Defense of Humanity held in Havana Cuba. Here is our declaration:

We celebrate sixty years of failure. Human rights have been converted from a noble goal into an instrument of foreign policy used by rich and powerful nations against the poorest and weakest people of the world.

In 2008, almost three billion people throughout the world suffer the most basic privations.

After sixty years of empty human rights rhetoric, we demand that governments focus their attention on fulfilling the promises of 1948. We write this document on the parchment of environment, which everyone shares, and has warned us all to drastically change the ways in which mass production and consumption take place.

1. The United States is a member of the commonwealth of nations;

2. Benefits accrue to those who cooperate with the global community and view other countries as potential partners for the upliftment of humankind;

3. Unfortunately, the leadership of the United States Government has consistently been a disappointment to those of us who value the tenets and the possibilities for humankind embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

4. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the rights of self-determination, the rights of women, the indigenous, and the rights of association, expression, and resistance to protect and preserve these precious rights;

5. Poverty, severe income inequality on one hand and greed and over-consumption by a few, on the other hand, deny for far too many on the planet universal application of the Universal Declaration;

6. Climate change, unsustainable agriculture, unbridled militarism, terrorism with impunity, nuclear proliferation represent threats to our planet and threats to humankind;

7. The current implosion of the engine of U.S. imperialism and global capitalism contains the seeds of a new global order in which the rights of humankind and the Universal Declaration can find universal application;

8. The incoming Barack Obama Administration has a unique opportunity to make a clean break with the policies of the past, including installation of dictatorships, campaigns of invasion, terror, and slander, torture, and occupation, and can build bridges of peace and justice with dignity and respect to Africa, Latin America, and Europe;

9. Therefore, we call on the President-elect to put the United States on a clear course of global fraternity by

* a) invoking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

* b) rejecting torture and terror and demonstrating this by closing and vacating Guantanamo and ceding to Cuba its rightful patrimony,

* c) ending the U.S. embargo,

* d) releasing the Cuban Five, and

* e) extraditing Luis Posada Cariles;

10. While this list is not exhaustive, it represents a much'needed down payment on hope and change.

11. We will disseminate this document through our respective networks.

Signed: Saul Landau, Cindy Sheehan, Nelson Valdés, Cynthia McKinney

--
"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses, p. 60

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. -- Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time

Evo Morales on addressing climate change: `Save the planet from capitalism'

Evo Morales Aym
President of Bolivia

November 28, 2008 -- Sisters and brothers, today our Mother Earth is ill. From the beginning of the 21st century we have lived the hottest years of the last thousand years. Global warming is generating abrupt changes in the weather: the retreat of glaciers and the decrease of the polar ice caps; the increase of the sea level and the flooding of coastal areas, where approximately 60% of the world population live; the increase in the processes of desertification and the decrease of fresh water sources; a higher frequency in natural disasters that the communities of the earth suffer[1]; the extinction of animal and plant species; and the spread of diseases in areas that before were free from those diseases.

One of the most tragic consequences of the climate change is that some nations and territories are the condemned to disappear by the increase of the sea level.

Everything began with the industrial revolution in 1750, which gave birth to the capitalist system. In two and a half centuries, the so called “developed” countries have consumed a large part of the fossil fuels created over five million centuries.

Capitalism
Competition and the thirst for profit without limits of the capitalist system are destroying the planet. Under Capitalism we are not human beings but consumers. Under Capitalism Mother Earth does not exist, instead there are raw materials. Capitalism is the source of the asymmetries and imbalances in the world. It generates luxury, ostentation and waste for a few, while millions in the world die from hunger in the world. In the hands of capitalism everything becomes a commodity: the water, the soil, the human genome, the ancestral cultures, justice, ethics, death … and life itself. Everything, absolutely everything, can be bought and sold and under capitalism. And even “climate change” itself has become a business.

“Climate change” has placed all humankind before a great choice: to continue in the ways of capitalism and death, or to start down the path of harmony with nature and respect for life.

In the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the developed countries and economies in transition committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5% below the 1990 levels, through the implementation of different mechanisms among which market mechanisms predominate.

Until 2006, greenhouse effect gases, far from being reduced, have increased by 9.1% in relation to the 1990 levels, demonstrating also in this way the breach of commitments by the developed countries.

The market mechanisms applied in the developing countries[2] have not accomplished a significant reduction of greenhouse effect gas emissions.

Just as well as the market is incapable of regulating global financial and productive system, the market is unable to regulate greenhouse effect gas emissions and will only generate a big business for financial agents and major corporations.

The Earth is much more important than the stock exchanges of Wall Street and the world
While the United States and the European Union allocate $4,100 billion to save the bankers from a financial crisis that they themselves have caused, programs on climate change get 313 times less, that is to say, only $13 billion.

The resources for climate change are unfairly distributed. More resources are directed to reduce emissions (mitigation) and less to reduce the effects of climate change that all the countries suffer (adaptation)[3]. The vast majority of resources flow to those countries that have contaminated the most, and not to the countries where we have preserved the environment most. Around 80% of the Clean Development Mechanism projects are concentrated in four emerging countries.

Capitalist logic promotes a paradox in which the sectors that have contributed the most to deterioration of the environment are those that benefit the most from climate change programs.
At the same time, technology transfer and the financing for clean and sustainable development of the countries of the South have remained just speeches.

The next summit on climate change in Copenhagen must allow us to make a leap forward if we want to save Mother Earth and humanity. For that purpose the following proposals for the process from Poznan to Copenhagen:

Attack the structural causes of climate change
1) Debate the structural causes of climate change. As long as we do not change the capitalist system for a system based in complementarity, solidarity and harmony between the people and nature, the measures that we adopt will be palliatives that will limited and precarious in character. For us, what has failed is the model of “living better”, of unlimited development, industrialisation without frontiers, of modernity that deprecates history, of increasing accumulation of goods at the expense of others and nature. For that reason we promote the idea of Living Well, in harmony with other human beings and with our Mother Earth.

2) Developed countries need to control their patterns of consumption -- of luxury and waste -- especially the excessive consumption of fossil fuels. Subsidies of fossil fuel, that reach $150-250 billion[4], must be progressively eliminated. It is fundamental to develop alternative forms of power, such as solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric both at small and medium scales.

3) Agrofuels are not an alternative, because they put the production of foodstuffs for transport before the production of food for human beings. Agrofuels expand the agricultural frontier destroying forests and biodiversity, generate monocropping, promote land concentration, deteriorate soils, exhaust water sources, contribute to rises in food prices and, in many cases, result in more consumption of more energy than is produced.

Substantial commitments to emissions reduction that are met
4) Strict fulfilment by 2012 of the commitments[5] of the developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least by 5% below the 1990 levels. It is unacceptable that the countries that polluted the planet throughout the course of history make statements about larger reductions in the future while not complying with their present commitments.

5) Establish new minimum commitments for the developed countries of greenhouse gas emission reduction of 40% by 2020 and 90% by for 2050, taking as a starting point 1990 emission levels. These minimum commitments must be met internally in developed countries and not through flexible market mechanisms that allow for the purchase of certified emissions reduction certificates to continue polluting in their own country. Likewise, monitoring mechanisms must be established for the measuring, reporting and verifying that are transparent and accessible to the public, to guarantee the compliance of commitments.

6) Developing countries not responsible for the historical pollution must preserve the necessary space to implement an alternative and sustainable form of development that does not repeat the mistakes of savage industrialisation that has brought us to the current situation. To ensure this process, developing countries need, as a prerequisite, finance and technology transfer.

Address ecological debt
7) Acknowledging the historical ecological debt that they owe to the planet, developed countries must create an Integral Financial Mechanism to support developing countries in: implementation of their plans and programs for adaptation to and mitigation of climate change; the innovation, development and transfer of technology; in the preservation and improvement of the sinks and reservoirs; response actions to the serious natural disasters caused by climate change; and the carrying out of sustainable and eco-friendly development plans.

8) This Integral Financial Mechanism, in order to be effective, must count on a contribution of at least 1% of the GDP in developed countries[6] and other contributions from taxes on oil and gas, financial transactions, sea and air transport, and the profits of transnational companies.

9) Contributions from developed countries must be additional to Official Development Assistance (ODA), bilateral aid or aid channelled through organisms not part of the United Nations. Any finance outside the UNFCCC cannot be considered as the fulfilment of developed country’s commitments under the convention.

10) Finance has to be directed to the plans or national programs of the different states and not to projects that follow market logic.

11) Financing must not be concentrated just in some developed countries but has to give priority to the countries that have contributed less to greenhouse gas emissions, those that preserve nature and are suffering the impact of climate change.

12) The Integral Financial Mechanism must be under the coverage of the United Nations, not under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other intermediaries such as the World Bank and regional development banks; its management must be collective, transparent and non-bureaucratic. Its decisions must be made by all member countries, especially by developing countries, and not by the donors or bureaucratic administrators.

Technology transfer to developing countries
13) Innovation and technology related to climate changes must be within the public domain, not under any private monopolistic patent regime that obstructs and makes technology transfer more expensive to developing countries.

14) Products that are the fruit of public financing for technology innovation and development of have to be placed within the public domain and not under a private regime of patents[7], so that they can be freely accessed by developing countries.

15) Encourage and improve the system of voluntary and compulsory licenses so that all countries can access products already patented quickly and free of cost. Developed countries cannot treat patents and intellectual property rights as something “sacred” that has to be preserved at any cost. The regime of flexibilities available for the intellectual property rights in the cases of serious problems for public health has to be adapted and substantially enlarged to heal Mother Earth.

16) Recover and promote indigenous peoples' practices in harmony with nature which have proven to be sustainable through centuries.

Adaptation and mitigation with the participation of all the people
17) Promote mitigation actions, programs and plans with the participation of local communities and indigenous people in the framework of full respect for and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The best mechanism to confront the challenge of climate change are not market mechanisms, but conscious, motivated and well organised human beings endowed with an identity of their own.

18) The reduction of the emissions from deforestation and forest degradation must be based on a mechanism of direct compensation from developed to developing countries, through a sovereign implementation that ensures broad participation of local communities, and a mechanism for monitoring, reporting and verifying that is transparent and public.

A UN for the environment and climate change
19) We need a World Environment and Climate Change Organisation to which multilateral trade and financial organisations are subordinated, so as to promote a different model of development that environmentally friendly and resolves the profound problems of impoverishment. This organisation must have effective follow-up, verification and sanctioning mechanisms to ensure that the present and future agreements are complied with.

20) It is fundamental to structurally transform the World Trade Organiation, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the international economic system as a whole, in order to guarantee fair and complementary trade, as well as financing without conditions for sustainable development that avoids the waste of natural resources and fossil fuels in the production processes, trade and product transport.

In this negotiation process towards Copenhagen, it is fundamental to guarantee the participation of our people as active stakeholders at a national, regional and worldwide level, especially taking into account those sectors most affected, such as indigenous peoples who have always promoted the defense of Mother Earth.

Humankind is capable of saving the Earth if we recover the principles of solidarity, complementarity and harmony with nature in contraposition to the reign of competition, profits and rampant consumption of natural resources.

Notes
[1] Due to the “Niña” phenomenon, that becomes more frequent as a result of the climate change, Bolivia has lost 4% of its GDP in 2007.
[2] Known as the Clean Development Mechanism
[3] At the present there is only one adaptation fund with approximately $500 million for more than 150 developing countries. According to the UNFCCC secretary, $171 billion is required for adaptation and $380 billionis required for mitigation.
[4] Stern report
[5] Kyoto Protocol, Art. 3.
[6] The Stern Review has suggested one percent of global GDP, which represents less than $700 billion per year.
[7] According to UNCTAD (1998), public financing in developing countries contributes with 40% of the resources for innovation and development of technology.

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