Breaking News 實時新聞 | | Forum 論壇 | | UK News 英國新聞 | | USA News 美國新聞 | | World News 世界新聞 | | Political News 政治新聞 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新聞 | | War & Terrorism News 戰爭與恐怖主義的新聞 | | Sports News 體育新聞 | | Multimedia 多媒體 | | Set Homepage 設為首頁

Translate: 翻譯：

Monday, October 13th, 2008 星期一，二零零八年10月13日

TNI印軍 | The |的 Schumacher lectures舒馬赫講座 are traditionally held in Bristol but have now branched out so that Schumacher North, based in Leeds, also organises the series.傳統上是在布里斯托爾舉行，但現在已經支，這樣，舒馬赫北，總部設在利茲，還舉辦了系列。 They occupy a day, with three people delivering lectures and a final panel.他們佔據了一天， 3人提供講座和最後的小組。 My companions for this day were Anne Pettifor, well known for her leadership of the Jubilee 2000 Debt campaign and Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation.我的同伴這一天被安妮Pettifor ，眾所周知，她領導的2000年大慶債務運動和安德魯西姆斯的新經濟學基金會。 My contribution was written in mid-September 2008; the continuation of the financial crisis makes it, I think, all the more pertinent.我的貢獻是寫在9月中旬2008年的持續的金融危機使，我想，更貼切。

Please first let me congratulate the organisers of Schumacher North for their initiative in bringing this lecture series and other activities of the Schumacher Society to Leeds.請首先請允許我祝賀的組織者舒馬赫北的倡議，使這一系列講座和其他活動的舒馬赫社會利茲。 It’s an honour to be here and especially to share the platform with two brilliant people whom I greatly admire.這是一種榮幸地在這裡，特別是共用平台的兩個輝煌的人我非常欽佩。 I also want to thank the organisers for the privilege of honouring the memory of Dr Schumacher, a man far ahead of his time who bequeathed to us a lasting legacy.我還要感謝主辦單位的特權履行的記憶舒馬赫博士，一名男子遠遠超過他的時候誰給我們留下永久的印記。 It’sa challenge to be worthy of that heritage in a lecture bearing his name.這是一個挑戰，不辜負這種遺產的演講中同時他的名字。

But I intend to try.但是，我打算嘗試。 My talk today will concern the stage I’ve arrived at in a kind of reflexion in progress—I don’t mean a book, although it may well become that as well—but an effort to make sense of the fast moving events in our battered world and an attempt to think about them in a more unified way.今天我的談話將關注的階段我已經抵達的一種反思中進步，我的意思並不是一本書，雖然它很可能成為，作為良好的，但為了使意義上的快速移動的事件在我們的毆打的世界，並企圖想在一個更加統一的方式。

Philosophically speaking, the thing-in-itself, the isolated object whether it’s an electron, a human cell, an organism, a single word —even a human being—makes sense only in the context of its relationships, its place in its physical, linguistic or social environment .哲學上說，事情本身，孤立的對象，無論是電子，一個人體細胞，一個有機體，一個字，甚至一個人，才有意義，在其關係，其在其物理，語言或社會環境。 Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “There is no such thing as society”.撒切爾夫人曾經說： “沒有這樣的東西隨著社會的。 ” She thus perfectly embodied the foundations of the neo-liberal ideological programme which should, ideally, prevent us from even thinking about ourselves and others in our natural and social context.因此，她完美地體現了基礎的新自由主義意識形態的方案，其中應，最好阻止我們甚至思考自己和別人在我們的自然和社會環境。 We must be taught to believe that we are not citizens or members of a social body but discrete, individual consumers.我們必須學會相信，我們是不是公民或成員的社會團體，但分立，個人消費者等。 We are entirely responsible for our own destinies and if we fall by the wayside for whatever reason—illness, job loss, accident, failure, whatever—it’s our own fault.我們完全負責我們自己的命運，如果我們秋天在一邊不管出於什麼原因疾病，失去工作，事故，故障，不管，這是我們自己的錯。 We should have foreseen the case and planned for it.我們應該預見到的情況和計劃的。 We have no responsibility for other people either.我們沒有責任或者其他人。 Solidarity is a banished word.團結是一個流放字。 Nor are we accountable for the state of the planet—homo sapiens is the only important species and humans are isolated if not immune from natural, physical laws.我們也不負責的狀況行星智人是唯一重要物種和人類是孤立的，如果不能免受自然的，物理定律。 That’s the essence of the neo-liberal spirit: “You’re on your own” as Barack Obama has been saying to Americans to encapsulate the philosophy of his opponents.這是本質的新自由主義的精神： “你自己”作為奧巴馬一直對美國人說概括的哲學他的對手。

If you are well-schooled in neo-liberalism, you will never join a social movement, never engage in a struggle against an unjust action of the government, never contribute to an effort to protect the natural world because not only will you make a fool of yourself, not only will your effort fail, but even if successful it will lead eventually to oppression, even totalitarianism, as Thatcher’s mentor Professor Friedrich von Hayek argued.如果您是良好的教育，新自由主義，你絕不會加入一個社會運動，從來沒有進行鬥爭的一個不公正的行動的政府，從來沒有作出貢獻，努力保護自然世界，因為不僅你一個傻瓜自己，不僅將您的努力失敗了，但即使成功，將最終導致壓迫，甚至極權主義，作為撒切爾的導師教授弗里德里希馮哈耶克主張。 And, as he also taught, economic freedom is superior to every other kind of freedom, whether political, religious or intellectual.而且，他還教，經濟自由是每一個優於其他類型的自由，無論是政治，宗教或知識。

I believe to the contrary that our only hope lies in understanding everything we confront today as a link in an ever-more-complex chain, as an element in a system.我認為恰恰相反，我們唯一的希望是在了解一切我們今天作為一個環節日益複雜的鏈條，作為一個要素的制度。 The danger with this approach of course is to become lost and frustrated in the syndrome of “Everything is connected to everything”.危險的這種做法，當然是要成為損失和挫折綜合徵“一切都連接到的一切。 ” That’s true, everything is connected to everything, but we still have an enormous task ahead in trying to identify the priority connections, to understand how they work together and what we can do to change them, because they definitely do need changing.這是真的，一切的一切聯繫，但我們仍然有一個巨大的任務，試圖確定優先連接，以了解它們如何一起工作，我們能做些什麼來改變他們，因為他們絕對需要改變。 I will argue that the present connections are dysfunctional, they have become perverse: they form a system that worsens the human condition and irrevocably damages the planet.我會認為，目前的連接功能失調，它們已成為有害的：他們組成一個系統，惡化人類生存條件和不可逆轉地損害了地球。 But there is hope, because what has been constructed by humans can also be dismantled by them.但有希望，因為已經建造的人類也可以拆除它們。

All this may sound rather vague so let’s get down to specifics.這一切聽起來可能比較含糊，以便讓我們到的細節。 To make matters more concrete, I’d like to talk now about the most obvious crises we face collectively today, why they are all linked and why the solutions to them must be linked as well.為了使問題更具體，我想現在談的最明顯的危機，我們今天面臨著集體，為什麼他們都聯繫在一起，為什麼解決這些問題必須聯繫在一起的。

The first of these crises is social—the crisis of mass poverty and growing inequality within individual countries and between the rich and poor countries.第一次危機是社會危機大規模的貧困和日益加劇的不平等在各個國家之間以及富國和窮國。 The second is the financial crisis that Wall Street, the City and the public authorities refused to see coming because they were living in bubble-land.第二個方面是金融危機，華爾街，紐約市和公共當局拒絕看到未來，因為他們生活在泡沫的土地。 It began with the subprime affair in the United States but has spread inexorably like a lava flow in the US and elsewhere, threatening to plunge the global economy into a prolonged period of stagnation as severe as the Great Depression.它始於優的事在美國，而且已經蔓延像一個無情的火山熔岩流在美國和其他國家，威脅要暴跌全球經濟陷入長期停滯時期一樣嚴重的大蕭條。 Every day while I was writing this lecture at home, a new financial institution went down the drain or on the block and the end is not yet in sight.每天，當我在寫這本講座在家裡，一個新的金融機構走下流失或阻止和結束尚未在望。 The third crisis, most ominous of all, is that of climate change and species destruction.第三次危機，最可怕的是，是，氣候變化和物種毀滅。 It is accelerating faster than most scientists, much less governments, thought possible, causing many to ask if we have not already entered the era of the runaway greenhouse effect.這是加快速度比大多數科學家，更別說政府，認為有可能，造成了許多要求，如果我們尚未進入的時代失控的溫室效應。

Each of these crises—social, financial, environmental—is negatively linked to the others, they intensify each other with negative feedback; they lead to worst-case scenarios.所有這些危機，社會，財政，環境不利與其他一些國家，他們加強彼此負反饋;它們導致的最壞情況。 Let us take just a few examples of these perverse interactions.讓我們採取剛才幾個例子，這些有害的相互作用。

The poverty-inequality crisis is a good place to start.貧困不平等的危機是一個良好的開端。 This crisis is well documented; no one seriously denies the numbers.這場危機是有據可查的，沒有人認真地否認了號碼。 The World Bank recently recognised that it had grossly underestimated—by about 400 million—the numbers of the very poor, and even then its figures stop at the year 2005 and don’t include recent upheavals in food and energy costs that have swelled the ranks of the impoverished.世界銀行最近承認，它已嚴重低估，約有400萬的數量非常貧困，即使這樣的數字停留在2005年不包括最近的動盪食品和能源成本已經腫脹的行列貧困。 Even more important, however, is the fact that for the first time in human history, there is no excuse for mass poverty and deprivation.更重要的是，然而，一個事實，即第一次在人類歷史上，沒有任何藉口，大規模的貧困和匱乏。 Taking this assertion seriously already helps to point us towards a solution.考慮到這一論斷已經嚴重一點有助於我們建立一個解決辦法。

Most scholars and institutions concerned with such issues focus on poverty per se but I think it’s more useful and enlightening to focus on wealth.大多數學者和有關機構等問題重點貧困本身，而是我認為這是更為有用和有啟發性側重於財富。 It may not be obvious to everyone that the world is actually awash in money.它可能不是每個人都有目共睹的，世界實際上是充斥著金錢。 Most of it is still in North America and Europe but the numbers of the seriously rich on other continents are catching up fast.大部分仍然是在北美和歐洲，但數量嚴重豐富的其他各大洲都迅速趕上來。 Those who have the money know very well how to keep it and, with their hired help, the battalions of lawyers, accountants and lobbyists, they are busy salting away their profits in tax havens, finding loopholes and protected investments, lobbying fiercely in parliaments and ministries against regulations on banks and financial markets.這些誰的錢非常清楚地知道如何保持它，並在其租用的幫助下，營的律師，會計師和遊說，他們正忙著醃製了他們的利潤在避稅地，尋找漏洞和保護投資，在激烈的遊說議會和部委規章對銀行和金融市場。 As you can see, I began by talking about poverty but I am already touching on the links with the financial crisis.正如你所看到的，我開始談論貧窮，但我已經談到與金融危機。

How many of you knew that ten million people, according to the latest Merrill-Lynch World Wealth Report, together boast investable, liquid funds of more than $40 trillion?有多少你知道， 1000萬人，根據最新美林全球財富報告，同時擁有投資，流動資金超過四十○萬點零億美元？ That’s 40.000 billion or 40 followed by 12 zeroes.這是40.000億美元或40其次12個零。 This wealth is above and beyond the value of their houses, cars, yachts, wine or art collections and so on and it is equivalent to about three times the GDP of either the United States or Europe.這財富是超越的價值，他們的房屋，汽車，遊艇，葡萄酒或藝術收藏，等等，這是相當於3倍的國內生產總值的美國或歐洲。 You might like another simple calculation.您可能會喜歡另一種簡單的計算方法。 Assume that you have one billion dollars, which is the cut-off point for the latest Forbes magazine list of 1125 truly rich individuals in the world.假設您有一個10億美元，這是切點最新的福布斯雜誌1125年名單真正豐富的個人世界。 If despite your billion you are such a dim-witted investor that you get only a five percent return on your fortune, you will still have to spend $137.000 every day of the year in sheer consumption or you will automatically become richer.如果您億美元，儘管你是這樣一個暗淡聰明的投資者，你只有百分之五的回報你的財富，你將需要花一百三十七點○○○美元每天在今年純粹的消費，或者您將自動成為富裕起來。 My point is that cash is abundant and there’s no shortage of available wealth.我的意思是，現金充裕並沒有短缺，現有的財富。

We also know a great deal about inequality.我們也知道了大量的不平等。 The UN World Institute for Development Economic Research, WIDER , estimates total world household assets at about $125 trillion.聯合國世界發展經濟研究所， 經濟學 ，估計佔世界家庭資產約為1.25萬億美元。 This is about three times world GDP and unsurprisingly, the top two percent of the world captures more than half of that wealth.這是3倍左右世界國內生產總值和勿庸置疑，前兩個佔世界捕捉一半以上的財富。 The top 10 percent, which certainly includes many of us here, hold 85 percent, while the bottom half of humanity is obliged to stumble along with barely 1 percent.頂端百分之十，其中當然包括我們許多人在這裡，持有百分之八十五，而底部一半的人類必須與失敗幾乎百分之一。 All you need to be classed in the top half of humanity is a meagre $2200 in total assets—that includes your house, your land or items like your car or your refrigerator—hardly a princely sum.所有您需要被歸類在頂端一半的人類是一個貧乏的二千二美元總資產，包括你的房子，你的土地或項目，如你的車或你的冰箱幾乎沒有一個王侯的款項。 If all household assets were divided equally—impossible and probably not even desirable to achieve—everyone on earth could have a share of $26.000.如果所有的家庭資產平分，不可能的，而且可能甚至不理想的實現，地球上每個人都可以分享二十六點零零零美元。 So again, money as such isn’t the problem.再次，金錢本身不是問題。

In all the countries where 90 percent of the world’s population lives, inequalities have increased especially since the 1980s.在所有的國家，百分之九十的世界人口生活，不平等增加尤其是自20世紀80年代。 At this point in the argument, the neo-liberals usually jump in to remind us that rising tides lifting all boats.在這一點上的觀點，在新自由主義者通常上升提醒我們，增加潮汐取消了所有的船隻。 They admit that inequalities have grown, but still argue that the poor are better off than they were.他們承認，不平等現象有所增長，但仍認為，窮人更比他們。 It seems almost rude to remind them in turn that falling tides have the opposite effect, they swamp and strand the more fragile boats and that is where the tide of the financial crisis is now taking us.看來幾乎粗魯，提醒他們反過來說，屬於潮汐產生相反的效果，他們沼澤和鏈更加脆弱的船隻，這是在潮流的金融危機正在我們。

The real point, however, is not the absolute numbers but the fact that inequality makes the economy and also the natural environment worse for everyone, rich or poor.真正的點，不過，不是絕對數字，但事實上的不平等使經濟和自然環境的惡化為每個人，不論貧富。 Two experienced academics, Tony Addison and Giovanni Andrea Cornia, put it this way: “Inequality has risen in many countries over the last two decades [and] little progress can be made in poverty reduction when inequality is high and rising….Contrary to earlier theories of development, high inequality tends to reduce economic growth and therefore poverty reduction through growth.”兩名經驗豐富的學者，英國艾迪生和喬瓦安德烈Cornia ，這樣說： “不平等有上升趨勢，許多國家在過去二十年裡， [和]沒有能夠取得進展在減少貧困時，不平等高，上升... 。與早先理論的發展，高度的不平等往往會降低經濟增長和減貧因此，通過增長。 “

Although it’s true that economic growth has reduced poverty, particularly in China, one must also ask “At what cost?” China has now overtaken the United States in greenhouse gas emissions and frighteningly has hardly even begun its transition to the automobile society.雖然這是事實，經濟增長，減少貧困，尤其是在中國，還必須問“在什麼費用？ ”中國現在已經取代美國在溫室氣體排放量和令人震驚的幾乎甚至已開始過渡到汽車社會。 China also requires at least 10 times as much energy as the more mature industrial societies to produce a unit of GDP .中國還需要至少10倍，能源作為更成熟的工業社會產生單位國內生產總值。

Growth certainly isn’t the answer ecologically, but even economically it fails the test because the benefits accrue almost entirely to the top of society.生長肯定不是答案生態，但即使在經濟上失敗的考驗，因為好處幾乎完全上方的社會。 That is Cornia and Addison’s main point.這是Cornia和艾迪的要點。

We have also learned in the past few months that it is entirely possible to push tens of millions of poor people off the ledge where they had just gained a foothold and send them back into the depths of poverty.我們還了解到在過去幾個月中，這是完全有可能推動數以千萬計的貧困人口從知識在他們剛剛站穩腳跟並將其發送到深處的貧困。 Food riots, most of them urban, in at least thirty different countries have revealed another scary new phenomenon: the worldwide food crisis.糧食騷亂，其中大部分是城市，至少在30種不同國家發現另一個可怕的新的現象：在全球糧食危機。 Until now, food shortages and famines tended to be local, but so many societies have accepted neo-liberal trade mantras and become dependent on world markets for their basic daily staples that today a sudden spurt in prices is felt from Haiti to Egypt to Bangladesh.到現在為止，糧食短缺和飢荒往往是地方，但許多社會都接受的新自由主義貿易咒語，並成為依賴於世界市場的基本日常主食，今天突然噴出的價格是認為從海地到埃及，孟加拉國。

The neo-liberal institutions like the World Bank, the WTO and the European Commission continue to pretend that poverty reduction will result from more growth and more trade.新自由主義的機構，如世界銀行， 世界貿易組織和歐洲委員會繼續假裝減貧將產生更多的經濟增長和更多的貿易。 They fail to mention that both growth and trade will reinforce the environmental crisis.他們不能不提到這兩個增長和貿易將加強環境危機。 The food and energy crises have in turn strong links to the financial crisis, since speculation has been an important factor in both.在食品和能源危機反過來又緊密聯繫的金融危機，因為投機一直是一個重要的因素，兩者兼而有之。 Food and energy are also intimately linked to the climate crisis as one can see instantly when one thinks of carbon-loaded fossil fuels or of agro-fuels taking vast amounts of land away from food production.食品和能源也是密切相關的氣候危機，人們可以看到一個即時時認為，碳載入化石燃料或農用燃料採取了大量的土地以外的糧食生產。

At this point in the discussion, especially when one is speaking to concerned, engaged, decent people like those likely to be found at a Schumacher lecture, someone will raise two highly pertinent questions.在這一點上的討論，尤其是當一個發言關注，參與，體面的人喜歡那些可能會發現在舒馬赫演講，有人會提出兩個高度相關的問題。 The first is this: “ Isn’t there a point where people with huge fortunes say ‘enough is enough’ and start sharing?” Some do—Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are oft- cited examples.第一次是這樣的： “這不是有一個地方的人巨大的財富說： '夠了' ，並開始分享？ ”有些國家，比爾蓋茨和沃倫巴菲特都經常引用的例子。 But as a class, I’m sorry to say that the answer is no.但作為一個階級，我很抱歉地說，答案是否定的。 We know a lot about poverty lines but there is no such thing as a wealth line and the word “ enough “ is not part of the vocabulary of this class.我們知道了很多關於貧困線，但沒有這樣的東西線和財富改為“足夠”不是一部分的詞彙這一類。 You needn’t believe me.你不必相信我。 Listen to the expert who said “All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in every age of the world to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” That was not Karl Marx but Adam Smith, in his classic 1776 treatise on capitalism, the Wealth of Nations.聽誰的專家說： “所有為自己和任何其他人似乎在每一個時代的世界一直是邪惡的準則當家作主的人類。 ”這不是卡爾馬克思，但亞當斯密，在他1776年的經典論文資本主義國家財富。 Little has changed since then.幾乎沒有變化從那時起。

The second question is “But why don’t the neo-liberal institutions, like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the European Commission and the US government recognise that their policies have failed?第二個問題是“為什麼不新自由主義的機構，如世界銀行，國際貨幣基金組織，世界貿易組織，歐洲委員會和美國政府認識到，它們的政策已經失敗了嗎？ Why do they keep on pushing them wherever and whenever they can?” The answer is not just that institutions are always loath to admit their mistakes, especially when these have killed and ruined so many millions.為什麼他們繼續推動他們無論何時何地，他們可以？ “答案是不只是機構總是不願意承認自己的錯誤，特別是當這些死亡和破壞，使數百萬。 It is also that these policies have not failed.這也是這些政策並沒有失敗。

To the contrary, they have produced exactly the results they were intended to produce.相反，它們產生的結果正是他們的目的是要生產。 They have made a tiny fraction of international society rich beyond imagining, they have kept many dependent countries dependent in a new, less visible sort of colonial relationship and they have made so-called free trade, privatisation and unfettered capitalism the rule in countries that previously wanted little or nothing to do with them.他們已作出的一小部分國際社會的豐富的想像之外，他們一直依賴國家的許多依賴於一個新的，不太明顯，排序的殖民關係，並已作出的所謂自由貿易，私有化和不受約束的資本主義法治的國家，以前想很少或幾乎沒有與他們無關。 Furthermore, they have imposed their policies with relatively little organised protest because their ideology has been expertly produced, packaged and delivered.此外，他們實行的政策相對較少舉辦的抗議，因為他們的意識形態已經熟練地製作，包裝和交付。 Ideology can alas have a far stronger influence than facts.不幸的思想可以有一個更強大的影響力遠遠超過事實。 This is why we must fight on the practical front, of course, but also — I happen to believe primarily — fight the battle of ideas.這就是我們為什麼必須進行鬥爭的實際方面，當然還有-我相信主要-作戰的思想。

In any event, the massive funds belonging to rich people who already have most of the material goods they need or want are generally devoted to more or less speculative investments.在任何情況下，大量資金屬於富人誰已經大部分物資需要或想一般用於或多或少投機性投資。 Hedge funds, for example, are estimated to be sitting on about three trillion dollars, even today when so many investments have suffered melt-down.對沖基金，例如，據估計，坐在約3萬億美元，即使在今天當如此眾多的投資遭受了熔體下來。 The financial institutions have been frantically innovating, particularly over the last decade.各金融機構已瘋狂地創新，尤其是在過去十年。 The entire incentive structure of the banking and finance industry has become perverse: the large institutions know perfectly well that they are “too big to fail”, consequently they also know that no matter how risky their actions, they will be bailed out by the public purse and has become all too plain.整個獎勵結構的銀行和金融產業已成為有害：大型機構都非常清楚，他們是“大失敗” ，因此他們也知道，不管多麼危險的行動，他們將被保釋外出的市民錢包，並已成為所有太簡單了。 Beforehand, top management takes the money and runs.事前，高層管理人員需要的資金和運行。

Between the years 2000 and 2006, average annual profits of the financial sector in Great Britain averaged 20 percent—that is, two or three times the profit rate of other sectors of the economy.在2000年和2006年，平均每年的利潤，財政部門在大不列顛平均百分之二十，也就是說，兩次或三次收益率的其他經濟部門。 Huge bonuses, especially in the US and the UK, went to a handful of people, intensifying inequalities, whereas millions further down the ladder have lost their jobs and often their homes.巨額獎金，特別是在美國和英國，去了幾個人，強化不平等，而進一步下跌數以百萬計的階梯失去了工作，而且往往他們的家園。 Such profits were themselves clearly not sustainable because at some point, financial gain must be based not just on speculation but on the real economy.這些利潤是自己顯然不是可持續的，因為在某些時候，財政收益的基礎必須是不只是猜測，但對實際經濟。

Now that the bailouts are coming thick and fast, we have before us a singular example of socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street, in which the profits are grabbed by the usual suspects and the losses, tremendous losses, are billed to taxpayers.現在，救助來厚，速度快，擺在我們面前的一個獨特的例子，社會主義的豐富，以及連接和華爾街，其中利潤抓住了犯罪嫌疑人和平常的損失，巨大損失，結算給納稅人。 The United States has in effect nationalised these institutions and their debts—without getting anything from the financial industry in exchange.美國已在國有化的影響，這些機構和它們的債務，沒有得到任何來自金融業的交流。

As the sub-prime crisis has continued to ooze like a giant oil spill over the whole economy, speculators have searched for alternative profitable areas and created the food-price bubble trouble in which we now find ourselves.隨著次貸危機繼續軟泥就像一個巨大的石油洩漏事件對整個經濟，投機者尋找替代有利可圖的領域，並建立了食品價格的泡沫問題我們現在所處。 What happens then?會怎麼樣呢？ The resource-poor, the world’s hungry, grab whatever they can, they chop down trees, kill animals and overexploit what little land they may have.在資源貧乏，世界飢餓，抓不管他們可以，他們砍樹木，殺死動物和過度的少量土地，他們可能有。 Poverty is bad news for nature.貧困是壞消息的性質。 But so is wealth.但是，就是財富。 Even though there are far fewer of them, the rich cause much greater environmental damage with their dinosaurian ecological footprints.即使有少得多，其中，富國造成更大的環境破壞與恐龍生態足跡。 People who use the population argument to explain the multiple crises and who see in population control the solution are missing a crucial point—it’s not so much the number of people, although numbers are important, as their relative weight.人們誰使用人口的論點來解釋多重危機，誰看到人口控制的解決方案缺少一個關鍵的時刻，它不是這麼多的人的數目，但數目是重要的，因為它們的相對比重。

Furthermore, as we have repeatedly witnessed, the frequency and the fury of storms provoked by global warming hit the poor and the poorer regions of the globe hardest.此外，我們已多次看到，頻率和憤怒的風暴所挑起全球變暖打擊窮人和貧困地區的全球最大。 There is worse to come.還有更糟糕的是未來。 We have not even begun to comprehend the perils of climate change, including vastly increased numbers of environmental refugees who will crowd the planet due to droughts, flooding and crop failures.我們甚至還沒有開始理解的危險的氣候變化，包括數量大大增加的環境難民將人群誰地球由於旱災，水災和農作物歉收。 The Pentagon is already working on how to stem this tide by countering by whatever means necessary the refugees frantic efforts to reach more favourable lands.美國國防部已經著手對如何制止這種反潮流的一切必要手段的難民瘋狂的努力，達成更有利的土地。 Government planning for this perfectly predictable phenomenon is limited to increased surveillance and security responses, not attempts to make outmigration less necessary.政府規劃，這完全可預見的現象是有限的，以加強監督和安全對策，而不是企圖使外流不到必要的。 And yet the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] which is probably the most respected scientific body in the world, has already warned us that in Africa, the yields of rain-fed agriculture are likely to be reduced by 50 percent, deserts will gain ground, species destruction has already reached such proportions that we are in the midst of the sixth geological extinction of the planet’s four and a half billion-year history.然而，聯合國政府間氣候變化專門委員會[警監]這可能是最受人尊敬的科學機構在世界上，已經告誡我們，在非洲，產量的雨水灌溉的農業很可能是減少了百分之五十，將沙漠獲得地面，物種的破壞已經達到這種地步，我們正處於第六地質滅絕這個星球上的四個半億年的歷史。 The fifth extinction was the one that put paid to the dinosaurs.第五滅絕是一個把支付給恐龍。

I could go on drawing out relationships between the poverty, financial and ecological crises but I’m sure you need no more.我可以繼續掏之間的關係，貧困，財政和生態危機，但我相信你不再需要。 The question is what we can do about all this and by “we” , I mean people everywhere who understand that the triple crisis is real and urgent.現在的問題是我們能做些什麼有關這一切的“我們” ，我的意思是誰各地人民理解，這三重危機是真實的和緊迫的。

Knowing that I will doubtless offend a great many people here, let me say straight away that there is an exit strategy, a genuine solution exists, but it is not in my view the one that many well-meaning environmentalists have long advocated.知道，我無疑將得罪了許多人在這裡，請允許我說馬上有一個退出戰略，真正解決存在的，但它並不是我認為的一個，許多善意的環保人士長期以來一直主張。 I’m sorry, but the time has passed for telling people to change their behaviour and their lightbulbs; that if enough people do this, then together “we” can save the planet.我很抱歉，但時間已經過去了告訴人們改變他們的行為和他們的燈泡; ，如果足夠多的人做到這一點，然後一起“我們”可以拯救地球。 I’m sorry, but “we” can’t.我很抱歉，但“我們”不能。 Obviously I’m not suggesting that people shouldn’t change their behaviour and their lightbulbs—but even if the entire population of Europe does so—a most unlikely scenario—it’s not going to be enough.顯然，我不認為人們不應當改變他們的行為和他們的燈泡，但即使在整個歐洲人口這樣做一個最不可能的情況，也不會是不夠的。 I agree as well with proposals for localisation and scaling down, but we have also got to scale up.我同意並提出建議本地化和縮小，但我們也得到擴大。

We need large-scale solutions, sophisticated, industrial solutions and huge involvement of governments in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions drastically enough to save our future.我們需要大規模的解決方案，技術先進，工業解決方案和巨大的參與政府，以減少溫室氣體排放量急劇足以拯救我們的未來。 In other words, we must have the courage to challenge not just our political leadership but the entire neo-liberal, unregulated, privatised, capitalist economic system in place in order to provoke and promote a quantitative and qualitative leap in the scale of environmental action.換句話說，我們必須有勇氣挑戰不只是我們的政治領導人，而且對整個新自由主義的，不受管制，私有化，資本主義經濟制度，以刺激和促進定量和定性的飛躍規模的環境行動。 Dare I say it here?我敢說在這裡？ Sometimes big can be beautiful and right now is one of those times.有時，大可美麗和現在的問題是其中的一個時代。

Since I believe that individual and local solutions are necessary but tragically insufficient to address the seriousness and the urgency of the ecological crisis, I will use the rest of my time to discuss the twin problems of how to deal with governments and with the capitalist corporate production and financial system.自從我認為，個人和地方的解決方案是必要的，但不幸的不足以解決的嚴重性和緊迫性的生態危機，我將利用剩餘的時間來討論這兩個問題如何處理政府與企業的資本主義生產和金融體系。 The dilemma I wrestle with is this: Can we save the planet while international capitalism remains the dominant system, with its focus on profit, share-holder value, predatory resource capture and with no-holds-barred finance capital making more and more decisions?我的困境與摔跤是這樣的：我們能拯救地球，而國際資本主義仍然佔主導地位的制度，把重點放在利潤，股東價值，掠奪資源的採集和無持有限制金融資本使越來越多的決定？ Can we rescue our natural home when confronted with a powerful caste that does not know the meaning of “enough” and is allergic to the kind of fundamental change a New Ecological Economic Order requires?我們能不能拯救我們的自然家園時，面對的是一個強大的種姓，不知道什麼是“足夠” ，是過敏的一種根本性的變化一種新的生態經濟秩序的需要？ Can we move forward when governments basically work for the interests of that class?我們能否向前邁進時，政府工作的基本利益，是一流的？

On bad days I reply No: We can’t save the planet.在壞幾天，我沒有回答：我們不能拯救地球。 It’s impossible to reverse the climate crisis under capitalism.這是不可能的，以扭轉氣候危機下的資本主義。 But that is a despairing answer and if true, it means there is virtually no hope.但是，這是一個絕望的答案，如果報導屬實，這意味著幾乎沒有希望。 No hope, because I do not see how even the most convinced, most determined people could replace, much less overthrow capitalism fast enough to carry out the necessary systemic change before a runaway climate effect takes hold—always assuming it hasn’t done so already.沒有希望，因為我不知道如何即使是最相信，最有決心的人可以取代，更推翻資本主義的速度不夠快進行必要的制度變革面前失控氣候效應掌握，總是假定它沒有這樣做。 First of all, there are not that many convinced and determined people prepared to act against the dominant economic system and there is nothing that resembles in the smallest degree an avant-garde revolutionary party that might lead them even if they existed.首先，有沒有那麼多的確信和堅定的人準備採取行動對佔主導地位的經濟體制和有沒有類似的最小程度的前衛革命黨有可能導致他們，即使他們的存在。 There is no one-size-fits-all replacement solution for capitalism.有沒有一個一刀切的替代解決方案資本主義。 Considering the historical record and role of such parties and such solutions, I consider this an unmistakably good thing.考慮到歷史記錄和作用等政黨和這種解決辦法，我認為這是一個明白無誤一件好事。

. 。

But there are other obstacles to once-for-all revolutionary change.但也有其他障礙，一旦為所有的革命性變革。 Nobody knows, figuratively speaking, who the Tsar is that we would have to overthrow today and nobody has a clue where to find the Winter Palace we would have to storm.沒有人知道，形象地講，誰是皇帝的是，我們將不得不推翻今天沒有人知道在哪裡可以找到冬宮，我們將不得不風暴。 We know the Winter Palace isn’t on Wall Street which was up and running again a few days after 11 September and is now taking full advantage of the bailouts.我們知道冬宮不是在華爾街這是啟動和運行再次幾天後9月11日，現在充分利用救助。 The US is only one of many world capitalist centres.美國是唯一世界上許多資本主義的中心。 Even if we were to win in one place, the nomadic money-moguls would simply mount their camels and head for another.即使我們贏在一個地方，游牧洗錢巨頭將其簡單地裝入駱駝和另一頭。 The worlds of 1917 and of 2007 are utterly different, so we must try to move beyond this revolutionary impasse, this dead-end and find a new synthesis.世界的1917年和2007年完全不同，所以我們必須超越這個革命性的僵局，這死胡同，並找到一種新的合成。

The question we face is not so much what to do — I think that is reasonably clear and I’m about to spell it out—but whether we will have the intelligence and the strength to seize the great opportunity with which we are now presented.這個問題我們所面臨的與其說是做什麼-我認為這是相當清楚，我的拼寫出來，但我們是否將擁有智慧和力量，抓住這個大好機會，我們現。 Perhaps the words “great opportunity” strike you as wildly optimistic considering the long and dire preamble you’ve just listened to.也許用“巨大的機會”嚴打你樂觀考慮到長期和可怕的序言您剛剛聽。 However, I am now going to argue that not only are individual solutions insufficient but that the remedies offered by Kyoto, Bali, Bonn or whatever timid future agreements may be negotiated are tragically inadequate, Once more—I cannot stress this enough—the scale is crucial.不過，我現在認為，不僅是個人的解決辦法，但不足的補救措施所提供的京都，巴厘，波恩或任何膽怯的未來協定談判可能會是可悲的不足，一旦更不能強調這一點不夠，規模至關重要的。 And the great opportunity is to be found in the financial crisis itself.和巨大的機會可能是在金融危機本身。 Properly targeted and used, it could open the door to the quantitative and qualitative leap we must make.正確配置和使用，它可以打開大門的數量和質量的飛躍，我們必須。

Some progressive people will reject the solution I propose, but I would then ask them what alternative they offer.一些進步人士將拒絕解決，我建議，但我會問他們什麼替代它們提供的。 The ecological crisis is of a different nature from the financial and poverty crises in the sense that once climate change is underway, as it is now, it is irreversible and we haven’t time for theoretically perfect solutions.生態危機是性質不同的金融和貧困的危機感，一旦氣候變化正在進行，因為它是現在，這是不可逆轉的，我們沒有時間進行理論上完美的解決方案。 With politics you can sometimes turn back and start over, but not where nature is concerned.與政治有時你可以回頭，並開始了，但不是自然的問題。 So you can accuse me if you like of suggesting a way to give capitalism a new lease on life and I will plead guilty.因此，你可以指責我，如果你想暗示的方式向資本主義的一個新的生命，我會認罪。

Let’s take first the slightly easier question “How can we deal with governments?” at least in the more or less democratic countries.讓我們先稍微輕鬆的問題“我們怎樣才能處理政府？ ”至少在或多或少的民主國家。 China is another matter.中國又是另一回事。 People are generally way ahead of their governments in recognising the emergency.人們普遍前進的道路他們的政府認識到緊急情況。 The political issue is not simply to “throw the rascals out” because they would be replaced by other rascals just as bad, just as beholden to the corporations, their lobbies and the financial markets.政治問題不是簡單的“壞蛋趕下台，扔了” ，因為它們將取代其他壞蛋趕下台一樣糟糕，就像依賴於企業，其大堂和金融市場。 The trick is to convince politicians that ecological transformation and environmental practices can pay off politically.訣竅是說服政治家，生態改造和環境方面的做法可以還清政治。

This means that citizens, activists and experts, whether they like it or not, have got to work with local, regional and national politicians and governments; help them to find like-minded partners and formulate ambitious projects they can undertake on the broadest possible scale.這意味著，公民，活動家和專家，他們是否喜歡還是不喜歡，必須與地方，區域和國家的政治家和政府幫助他們找到志同道合的合作夥伴，並制定雄心勃勃的項目，他們可以進行盡可能廣泛的規模。 Citizens, activists and experts must furthermore help these politicians and governments to become shining ecological examples with the electorate by publicising their efforts and their successes.公民，活動家和專家必須進一步幫助這些政治家和政府，成為光輝的範例生態與選民的宣傳他們的努力和成就。 Could the Schumacher Society become a kind of nexus for an ongoing forum of best-standards/best practice, bringing together political decision makers at every level with citizens groups and experts to discuss and carry out the best public-sector initiatives?舒馬赫可能會成為一種關係的一個持續的論壇best-standards/best實踐，匯集政治決策者在每一級與公民團體和專家討論並進行最佳的公共部門的舉措？ Politicians must be convinced that these policies will not just work but also be highly popular with their constituencies.政治家必須確信，這些政策將不只是工作，而且也極受歡迎的選區。

Now let’s take the more difficult question of confronting the economic system as a whole.現在，讓我們採取更困難的問題面對經濟體制作為一個整體。 In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond examines several historical cases of social extinction due to over-exploitation of the environment.在他的書中崩潰，賈里德戴蒙德研究一些歷史案件的社會滅絕由於過度開採環境。 He identifies several common characteristics.他列出幾個共同特點。 One of these is the isolation of the elites, giving them the capacity to keep on consuming way above ecologically sustainable limits long after the crisis has already struck the poorer, more vulnerable members of society.其中之一是孤立的精英，使他們的能力，不斷消耗大大高於生態可持續限制在危機結束後很久已經擊中了窮，較脆弱的社會成員。 That is where we are now globally, not just in isolated places like Easter Island or Greenland.這就是我們現在正在全球範圍內，不僅在偏僻的地方像復活節島或格陵蘭。

So how can we realistically combat the ecological footprints of our dinosaur elites, recognising that we don’t have the option of shouting “Off with their heads” in some imagined, world-wide revolution.因此，我們如何能夠切實打擊生態足跡的恐龍精英，認識到我們沒有選擇，高喊“砍掉他們的頭”在一些想像，世界各地的革命。 Nor can we force them to change both themselves and the system that serves them so well, whereas we know that we must change that system because it is raping the planet and its inherent logic is to keep on doing so.我們也不能強迫他們改變自己和本系統，可他們這麼好，而我們知道，我們必須改變這種制度，因為這是強姦地球和其內在的邏輯是繼續這樣做。

I can see only one way out: the coming together of people, business and government in a new incarnation of the Keynesian war economy strategy.我可以看到出路只有一條：在今後的人民一道，企業和政府在新的化身的凱恩斯主義的經濟戰略戰爭。 I was born in the United States in 1934 and I remember well when the US switched massively to a war economy, converting all the rubber plants in my native city [Akron, Ohio] to production not for private cars and trucks but for the military.我是出生在美國於1934年，我記得當時美國轉向大規模的戰爭經濟，轉換所有的橡膠廠在我的故鄉[俄亥俄州阿克倫]生產而不是私人小汽車和卡車，但軍事。 There was huge citizen involvement and support.有巨大的公民參與和支持。 Thousands of factories, research labs, housing projects, military bases, day care centres, and schools were built or expanded during the war.成千上萬的工廠，研究實驗室，住房項目，基地，日間護理中心，與學校建立或擴大了在戰爭期間。 Public transport was improved and worked overtime to move millions of men and women to Army bases or new defence jobs.公共交通是改善和加班將數以百萬計的男子和婦女在陸軍基地或新的防禦工作。

Yes, there were still worker-management conflicts and yes, big corporations rather than small business got most of the government contracts but on the whole the workers were well paid, African-Americans and women began making a few modest gains and the whole war effort finally pulled the United States out of the Depression—it was Keynesianism on a huge scale.是的，還有工人，管理衝突和肯定的，大企業，而不是小企業獲得的大部分政府合同，但總體上工人工資，非洲裔和婦女開始進行一些溫和上漲和整個戰爭的努力最終退出美國走出蕭條這是凱恩斯主義的一個巨大的規模。 There was also an elite group of businessmen called “Dollar-a-Year Men” on loan from their companies to the government, who were charged with making sure that military production and quality targets were met.還有一個精英組的商人所謂的“美元一年度男人”的貸款，他們的公司向政府，誰被指控犯有保證軍事生產和質量目標得到滿足。 They had enormous prestige—my godfather was one and I was doubtless insufferable bragging to my little school friends about him.他們擁有巨大的威望，我乾爹是一個和我無疑是難以忍受吹噓為我的小同學對他的。

Why am I going back over this ancient history?為什麼我會回到這個古老的歷史？ Because I think we have a similar opportunity today.因為我認為我們也有類似今天的機會。 The US and the world economy are heading downhill fast and the fallout for ordinary people in terms of jobs, housing, consumption and future welfare is going to be grave.美國和世界經濟正在走向下坡速度快，影響普通百姓而言，就業，住房，消費和未來的福利將是嚴重的。 If this diagnosis is right, then some new economic tools will have to be used to combat recession and stagnation, simply because the old ones have already been pushed to their limits and have little or nothing left to give.如果這個診斷是正確的，然後一些新的經濟工具將被用來對付衰退和停滯，只是因為舊的已經被推到了極限，並很少或幾乎沒有離開給。

The way Central Banks and Treasuries usually try to solve financial recession or depression is through standard remedies like interest rate cuts, currency devaluations or incurring new debt—but the United States has reached the end of its leash on that score.該方式銀行和中央國債通常試圖解決金融衰退或蕭條是通過標準的補救措施一樣降低利率，貨幣貶值或承擔新的債務，但美國已經結束的皮帶上評分。 Interest rates are already extremely low—although not in Europe, where the European Central Bank and its hidebound president are ideologically committed to the same sorts of monetary policies that prolonged the Great Depression in the 1930s.利率已經非常低，雖然沒有在歐洲，歐洲中央銀行和保守思想總統致力於同各種各樣的貨幣政策，長期大蕭條的1930年。 The dollar is already weak, which makes US exports cheaper, but it can’t be devalued much further without risk.美元已弱，這使得美國出口產品更便宜，但不能進一步貶值風險。 Deficit spending is already beyond belief.赤字開支已經是難以置信的。 With the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve in effect took on their bad debt and added hugely to the liabilities of the United States Treasury.隨著救助的Fannie Mae和Freddie Mac ，聯邦儲備委員會在上影響了他們的不良債務和增加巨大的負債的美國財政部。 It risks doing so again.它的風險這樣做了。 Households too are over-indebted and are losing more equity every day as the value of their dwellings deteriorates.家庭也過度負債和正在失去更多的股權每天的價值，他們的住所惡化。

Since the traditional tools are worn out, the only new tool I can think of to pull the world out economic ruin and social chaos is a new Keynesianism, not military this time, but environmental; a push for massive investment in energy conversion, eco-friendly industry, new materials, efficient public transport; the green construction industry and so on.由於傳統的工具是破舊的，唯一的新工具，我能想到的撤出了在世界經濟崩潰和社會動亂是一個新的凱恩斯主義，而不是軍事這個時間，但環境;推進大規模投資能源轉換，生態友好產業，新材料，高效的公共交通工具;的綠色建築行業等等。

Stringent standards for new buildings must become the norm; older ones can be “retro-fitted” on easy financial terms; families and commercial property-owners can receive financial incentives for installing green roofs and solar panels and sell excess energy to the grid.嚴格的標準，新建築物必須成為規範;舊的可以是“逆向裝配”的簡單的財務條款;家庭和商業財產的所有者可以得到財政獎勵安裝綠色屋頂和太陽能電池板和出售多餘的能量發車。 Research and development can be oriented towards alternative energies and strong, ultra-light materials for airplanes and vehicles.研究與發展可以面向替代能源和強有力的，超輕型材料，飛機和車輛。 Technically speaking, we already know how to do such things, although some clean solutions are still more costly than dirty ones.從技術上講，我們已經知道如何做這些事情，但也有一些乾淨的解決方案，更是昂貴的臟的。 Mass-produced, they would become less so.大規模生產，他們將變得不那麼做。

All these new, eco-friendly industries, products and processes would have huge export value and could quickly become the world standard.所有這些新的環保產業，產品和工藝將產生巨大的出口值可能很快成為世界標準。 I am trying to describe a scenario that can be sold to the elites because I don’t think they will embrace genuine environmental values and conversion if there’s nothing in it for them.我想描述的情況，可以出售的精英，因為我不認為他們會接受真正的環境價值觀和轉換，如果沒有什麼在為他們。 But this approach is not merely a cynical attempt to get the elites to move in their own interests.但是，這種做法不僅是一個玩世不恭地企圖讓精英將在自己的利益。 There are also plenty of advantages in such an economy for working people.也有許多優勢在這樣一個經濟的勞動人民。 A huge ecological conversion is a job for a high-tech, high-skills, high-productivity, high-employment society.巨大的生態轉換是一個工作，一個高技術，高技能，高生產率，高就業的社會。 It would be supported, I believe, by the entire population because it would mean not just a better, cleaner, healthier, more climate-friendly environment, but also full employment, better wages, and new skills, as well as a humanitarian purpose and an ethical justification—just like World War II.這將是支持的，我相信，通過全體人民，因為這不僅意味著一個更美好，更清潔，更健康，更氣候友好的環境，而且還充分就業，更好的工資和新的技能，以及人道主義的宗旨和一個道德理由，就像第二次世界大戰。

How could one finance such a huge effort?人們怎能金融如此巨大的努力？ It would have to involve targeted government spending in the traditional Keynesian sense and governments are bound to complain that they haven’t the means to carry out such a policy.

The financial crisis provides the ideal opportunity both to finance the conversion and to get the runaway global financial system under control.

At present, taxes almost always stop at national borders. The secret is to take taxes up to the European level and to the international one through currency and other financial transaction taxes. People who oppose such schemes pretend they are not feasible because one would need to obtain the consent of every national jurisdiction in the world, but that is not correct. In fact, currency and other transaction taxes would require nothing more than political determination, the cooperation of the Central Bank and a few lines of software. For the currency transaction tax first proposed by James Tobin in the 1970s and now considerably refined, the tax base is the currency itself, not the place it’s traded. Thus the European Central Bank could easily collect the taxes on any transactions involving euros, the Bank of England the same for the pound, the Fed for the dollar and so on. Since currency trades now amount to $3.2 trillion dollars every day, a tax of one basis point, that is, a levy of one per thousand could raise a tidy sum for ecological conversion and poverty reduction. Britain already imposes a tax on stock market transactions but other European countries do not and should imitate Britain.

Carbon taxes are another much mooted and equally feasible idea. So is a unitary profits tax on transnational corporations, which would require knowing the total sales of the company, the total taxes paid, the sales realised in each jurisdiction and the tax paid in each jurisdiction. If, for example, a TNC reported that in country X, a particularly low-tax jurisdiction, it made 5 percent of its sales yet paid 50 percent of its taxes, the authorities would find it a bit fishy. I’m presenting an extremely crude summary here but believe me, there are experts—bankers, corporate lawyers, fiscal experts and accountants—who know exactly how to do such things. Perhaps to encourage more local consumption, one could also think about taxing the miles travelled by the food we eat and the clothes we wear.

We would not forget the poor countries of the South which are the major terrain of the poverty crisis. Debt cancellation for poor countries that the G-8 has been promising for a decade must finally happen but against the requirement that these countries also contribute to the planetary environmental effort through re-forestation, soil conservation, species protection and the like. They would also be required to involve their own people in democratic decision-making and the funds would be carefully monitored by independent auditors.

Tax havens that allow affluent individuals and corporations to avoid paying their fair share of the conversion should be shut down: it would be cheaper to pay the inhabitants of the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein and the rest a living wage for twenty years. Plenty of cash would remain for eco-investments, job-creation and poverty relief.

In exchange for their bailouts, the banks and investment houses have to accept regulation—not just regulations to insure transparency and eliminate the incentives for stupid behaviour but also more stringent ones forcing them to participate in the ecological offensive. They should be obliged to devote X percent of their loan portfolios to eco-projects at below market interest rates—which they could make up by charging much higher rates on loans to dirty or otherwise anti-ecological projects. Low or no-cost financing for home conversion projects should be another compulsory priority for banks. This could give a huge spurt to the construction industry.

Nobody is asking for the moon here. Banks would still make loans, finance investments and earn a fair return for their services. Taxes on currency transactions at one basis point are not going to ruin anyone. Unitary profits taxes on large corporations would simply return us to the era when the companies paid their taxes because they couldn’t avoid them. The point is that a Keynesian taxation and redistribution system would be invested, nationally and internationally, both ecologically and socially, in education, health care, clean, green energy, efficient water distribution, communications technology, public transport, and various other things the world needs and that we already know how to do. These measures would, in turn go a very long way to creating opportunities for far more people to participate in the new green economy through jobs, life-long education, more social protection and reduced inequality. Getting the present financial crisis-producing, free-flowing, unregulated financial system under public and citizen control is the prerequisite for solving both the environmental and the poverty crises.

In other words, it’sa Public Relations dream. Whichever political parties understand this can win on such a programme without anyone having to bring down the entire capitalist system as a prior condition for saving the planet.

A Keynesian ecological programme would furthermore bring many constituencies together in a common cause. As matters now stand, politically speaking, no single interest group can solve the problem that concerns it most. By this I mean that, by themselves, ecologists can’t save the environment; farmers alone can’t save family farms; trade unions alone can’t save well-paid jobs in industry and so on. Broad alliances are the only way to go, the only strategy that pays. The Global Justice Movement, as international social activists call it, has begun to have some success in working democratically and making alliances with partners who come from different constituencies but are basically on the same wavelength.

Now we must go beyond this stage and attempt something more difficult: to forge alliances also with people we don’t necessarily agree with on quite major questions—for example, with business. This can only be accomplished by recognising that disagreements, even conflicts, can be fruitful and positive so long as the areas where it is possible to agree are sought out, identified and built upon. We must find where the circles of our concerns overlap. At least one of those overlaps ought to be saving our common home. I don’t see any other way of generating citizen enthusiasm, involvement and the qualitative and quantitative leap in scale that is now required.

I haven’t time to elaborate on all the technical details concerning the content and the financing of necessary environmental investments. What I can do is guarantee you that the conversion to a green economy is technically feasible. The schemes for new taxes have been thought through; the industrial prototypes already exist; the machinery is ready to hum into action the moment people can make their politicians accept the challenge. Getting the financial system under control and taxing international capital at quite ridiculously low rates in order to redistribute it institutionally and internationally would be enormously popular. We could seriously attack climate change and eliminate the worst of world poverty within a decade. We are talking politics, not technical aspects here and trying to figure out a way to tame the raging beast, the crisis-producing, free-flowing, unregulated financial system and putting it under public and citizen control.

Capitalism is not sane in the sense that most people understand sanity. We humans normally think about our future, that of our children and the future of our countries and the world. The market, on the contrary, operates in the eternal present which, by definition, cannot even entertain the notion of the future and therefore excludes safeguards against future, looming destruction unless these safeguards are imposed upon it by law.

We need law, for sure, and political forces with the backbone to propose and to vote the law into existence, but we also need to think about human motivation. Remember the prestigious Dollar-a-Year Men of the 1940s and imagine what might happen if we could transpose them into the world of 21st century capitalism. A significant number of contemporary captains of capitalism, all of them with bloated, unimaginable salaries, might be brought to believe that money is all very well, but is there nothing more? Why not found an extremely exclusive Order of the Earth Defenders, or the Environmental Knights or the Carbon Conquerors who alone, in recognition of their special contributions to the national and international environmental conversion effort. They would have the right to display a highly visible emblem on a banner in front of their homes; a fanion on their cars, a green and gold rosette in their buttonholes like the French Legion d’Honneur or a Congressional Medal of Ecological Honour. They would belong to the small assembly of the anointed; those who provide the means and have the honour of saving the earth. Becoming a member ought to appeal to their competitive spirit.

In conclusion, let me say that myth has always been the driving force of every great human achievement, from Greek democracy to the Renaissance to the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions. So must it be in the coming age of Ecological Stewardship. To save the planet, we must change, quickly and profoundly, the way the majority thinks and feels and acts, and we must start with the social forces we have right here and right now, and no others. It’s no use wishing they were different ones or stronger, or wiser. We must play the hand history deals us.

For such a change, we will need six “Ms”, starting with Money, Management and Media. But even more important than these three “Ms”, we must try to create a new sense of Mission and Motivation and Myth at the noblest level. “Myth” in this sense has nothing to do with story-telling or lies. It is the grand narrative that empowers us to believe that we can accomplish what we must accomplish. It speaks to the deepest motivations of human consciousness and inspires the desire for honour and for a life’s work which transcends death. The elites already have Money, Management, Media. On our side, we have Mission, Motivation and Myth. If we can bring together all these, the future will take care of itself.

And wouldn’t that be nicer than having another war?

Have Your Say: Solutions for a Sustainable World
Please read our posting guidelines before posting .
Alternatively you can discuss this report here .

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Related News

• Government to miss poverty targets
• Capitalism breeds wars and recession
• Federal Reserve could be given more power
• Planet Burns While G8 Fiddles
• Ending Poverty in a Carbon Constrained World

This entry was posted on Monday, October 13th, 2008 at 8:07 pm and is filed under Contributions & Guests . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response , or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS

LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS

Activism & Protest News | Business News | Civil & Human Rights News | Environmental News | Media News | Globalisation News | Web Development News

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative-Energy Art Barack Obama BBC Big-Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CCTV Censorship CIA Climate-Change Cover-Up Cults Culture Database-State David-Hicks David-Ray-Griffin Debt Democrats Demos Drugs Education Entertainment Environmental News EU False-Flag FBI Fraud Free-Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health-News History ID-Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel John McCain Law Marches Media News MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons New World Order NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police-State Propaganda Reviews RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Science & Technology News Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spy Spying Stephen-Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony-Blair Torture TV UK-News UN USA- USA-News Video Voting war War & Terrorism News Warfare White-House Wolfowitz World-News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version

About | DVD Store | Opinion | Reviews | Special Guests | Webmasters