Dorothée Menzner：Common but Differentiated Responsibility
|
– Democratic Energy politics in a time of climate change and nuclear hazard
共同但有区别责任原则 ——气候变化及核安全危机背景下的民主能源政策 多罗泰·明茨纳 能源是社会发展的重要要素。化石能源是现代工业社会成型的基础，而核能利用也在近60年内为社会发展做出了极大贡献。当今世界上存在的问题，诸如和平、发展等，均和能源问题存有较为密切的联系，气候变化亦不例外。因此，国际统一的能源政策的形成，对气候变化、能源纠纷、核污染等关乎人类存续的问题的解决，具有重大意义。本文旨在就该政策的形成进行探讨。在共同担有区别责任原则基础上，我们应当改变对化石燃料的依赖，肩负起应对气候变化、保证全球范围内的分配公平、保育自然环境的责任，以保证后代享有安全、健康的生活环境。 Honoured Government representatives, Honourable Members of Parliament, honoured NGO representatives, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, Energy is a requirement for life on earth. Access to energy supplies is a requirement for life in a modern civilisation and for social inclusion. For centuries, the generation of energy from fossil fuels has been the basis of industrialisation and the requirements for it. Not until the exploitation of vast deposits of fossil fuels and the Industrial Revolution in Britain in the late 18th century could the first capitalist business structures take shape. The exploitation of fossil fuels as energy resources has done more than anything else to define our planet and its society, with all its wealth as well as all its poverty, over the past 200 years. It has made the world what it is today. For six decades, moreover, nuclear power has also been lauded as a cornerstone of social prosperity, and the message communicated to the world is that nuclear power can solve energy and resource problems for a long time to come. Fossil fuels and nuclear power have been sources of great prosperity in many countries but also of great poverty. Through the economic policies of a handful of states, they have ultimately contributed to the division of the global population into what are termed industrialised, newly industrialised and developing countries. No one would dispute that we must overcome this division of the world if all of us on earth are to live in lasting peace and solidarity. Energy and resources, then, play a major role, if not indeed the leading role, in the creation of global social problems as well as in their resolution. Energy and resource policies play the same role when it comes to the equally significant problem of climate change. The question we are therefore asking today is about how to shape a common international energy policy so that these two problems which are crucial to the existence of mankind can be resolved. Before this question can be answered, however, we must put a name to the problems.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), which is the only globally recognised authority on climate change, considers it very likely that the global temperature will rise by an average of at least 2°C by 2100 because of man-made factors, namely the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. The effects of global warming will take widely diverse forms in different parts of the world, as we are already observing today. In what are known as the developing countries, its impact will be seen in far greater humanitarian problems and disasters than elsewhere, whether through water shortages and drought or through the melting away of glaciers that serve hundreds of thousands of people as sources of drinking water.
Fossil resources and uranium deposits are scattered unevenly across the globe, and for this reason the governments and arms industries of some industrialised nations have been using energy resources to wage war on developing and newly industrialised countries. Access to energy resources is now one of the main reasons why wars are fought in the world. In addition, we are observing how financially powerful economies and their corporate giants are securing more and more mining and extraction licences in the world’s undeveloped regions, with the local population often suffering as a result.
The names of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Mayak, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima symbolise the worst effects of the use of nuclear power. And the civilian use of nuclear power is but one side of the coin, the other being nuclear weapons. Sadly, we are already familiar with the devastating impact of a nuclear MCA, or maximum credible accident. Not a single state in the world has yet come up with a sound and responsible strategy for the disposal of nuclear waste. The heaps of highly radioactive nuclear waste are growing higher and higher throughout the world. Some are dumped in the sea, and others are left to give off constant radiation in open-air sites. When uranium is mined in developing countries, vast tracts of land inhabited by indigenous populations are irradiated and ruined for decades to come. Despite all of this, new reactors are still being planned and built across the globe. In the light of these three key problems of climate change, resource wars and nuclear contamination, it is clear how important and urgent a global rethink on energy policy has become. These three problems in the generation of energy from fossil fuels and nuclear fission also make it clear that these energy sources are in no way likely, in either the short or the long term, to contribute to worldwide peace, justice between peoples or sustainable management of the planet’s resources. The initiative of the UN Member States that culminated in the Kyoto Protocol was the first attempt to take account of the problem of climate change. The importance of international cooperation on climate change cannot be overemphasised. This makes it all the more regrettable that attempts to arrive at a new international climate agreement repeatedly fail for the most diverse reasons. With regard to the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, we consider that the industrialised nations have the most ground to make up. The reluctance of some of those states, whose economic activity makes them absolutely duty-bound to exercise such responsibility, is regrettable, and indeed the impact of their reluctance on international efforts to tackle climate change is devastating. As long as higher priority is attached to the interests of national vehicle manufacturers, oil companies and the like in countries with the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases than to tackling climate change, international efforts will be doomed to failure. And as long as the populations of those countries do not rethink their lifestyles and become greener, they will also hamper these international efforts. It is not all bad news, however. The ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ that served as the basis for the exemption of numerous states from reduction targets have nevertheless led to encouraging developments in some of those very countries. Their governments have the opportunity to do many things better and more environmentally than the industrialised nations have done in the past and thereby achieve greater social justice for the benefit of their populations. Although China, with its rapidly growing population, has an ever-increasing energy requirement, renewables are already a major part of its energy mix. China has now become one of the largest players in the global renewables market. The economic pressure exerted on the European market by Chinese manufacturers of solar systems is clearly perceptible in Germany. Such developments, which are setting an example for many other countries, must be accompanied by support in the form of judicious rules in the sphere of industrial policy. Environmental and energy policies throughout the world must move towards sustainability and renewable resources. This, however, means abandoning nuclear power in the short term and coal-fired power generation in the medium term. Sadly, the inescapable truth is that, throughout the world, this process is not moving forward but is actually regressing. We in The Left Party are seriously concerned, not only by the increasing emission of CO2from the combustion of coal and oil but also by the development of nuclear power in spite of the lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima. I had the honour to visit Japan a year after the reactor disaster in Fukushima to make a documentary film there about the local people and the impact of the nuclear accident. What the people living next to the exclusion area in Japan were reporting should warn the entire world against nuclear power. It is doubly horrific when people can never begin to clear up a vast area of a country devastated by an earthquake and a tsunami because the area is an irradiated exclusion zone. What those people reported confirms in many respects our own experience of the nuclear industry in Germany. Although most people in Japan express support for the abandonment of nuclear power, the government has now disregarded their wishes and is gradually recommissioning nuclear reactors. There was a similar process back home in Germany two years ago, when the government that is still in office sought to extend the lifespan of the German nuclear reactors by a good many years. The great majority of the population were opposed to the extension, but the nuclear industry and lobbyists exerted such heavy pressure that the government went ahead against the popular will. There was a massive wave of protest, but it took the public pressure in the wake of the Fukushima disasters to persuade the German Federal Government to change its mind. How can it be that, in spite of the constant danger of a nuclear disaster that might drive tens of thousands of people from their homes and claim just as many lives, nuclear power is still being so enthusiastically praised and so vigorously developed? It cannot be for the sake of the environment, because the carbon footprint of nuclear power is just as bad as that of the most efficient use of fossil fuels. Uranium is a finite resource, and cleaning up uranium spoil heaps costs billions, as we are discovering in my own country. In the event of a disaster, no nuclear-plant operator can foot the bill, as we saw in the case of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which has now been nationalised. The storage of radioactive waste is an unresolved issue and will continue to be a burden on many generations after ours and on their budgets. The international nuclear industry, especially the companies based in Europe – whether they be the French state enterprise AREVA or the German energy groups – are making billions in profits at the expense of the population in many parts of the world, including China. The wheelings and dealings of the European nuclear industry are extensive and global. When the European Communities – the forerunner of the European Union – were first established, the Member States concluded the Euratom Treaty, which established a globally unique subsidisation programme for the nuclear industry. Even today, EU Member States whose constitutions prohibit the use of nuclear power and those, like Germany, which are abandoning nuclear power still have to pay their share of the bill resulting from that treaty. It is utter nonsense and irresponsible. We in The Left Party regard the abolition of that instrument as a priority aim. All liability for the damage and the legacy of nuclear power falls on the taxpayer, not on those who profit from it. Nuclear power has always been unable to pay its way without subsidisation. It has never been a good deal for the general public – quite the reverse. For this reason, we view China’s ambition to develop nuclear power and the current construction of 28 new nuclear reactors with deep concern and incomprehension. As far as The Left Party is concerned, international cooperation and a common environmental and energy policy means avoiding the repetition of past mistakes. It also means, however – and I am sorry to have to say this – speaking up if our own mistakes are being repeated elsewhere. This is why we are campaigning internationally for the quickest possible abandonment of nuclear power and the development of energy from renewable sources. What must an alternative energy policy achieve? Germany is regarded worldwide as a trailblazer in the transition to renewables. From my own point of view, I have some reservations about this. The fact is that, given the latent environmentalist potential of German society to accelerate the pursuit of the green agenda, we could actually surpass the targets laid down in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change far sooner. I am firmly convinced that Germany’s obligation to do this also derives from the fact that it is one of the world’s CO2emitters. Nevertheless, I am often asked, particularly at international events like the present forum, why Germany is so insistent on speed in the transition to renewable energy. People ask me whether such a policy is not an unreasonable for our national economy, bad for business and far too expensive for our citizens. My answer is that the exact opposite is true. The great opportunity presented by a transition to renewables is the chance to democratise the entire energy sector. In Germany we have an oligopoly of energy groups that have had the market divided up among themselves for decades. As a result, with virtually no oversight, electricity prices and the power mix have been determined purely on the basis of the profit motive. Every year, up to 800,000 households have their energy supplies cut off for a shorter or longer period of time because they can no longer afford to pay their bills. This has nothing to do with the development of renewables but purely with the profit-driven price policies of the major energy suppliers. As a result, many people sit in the cold and dark in winter. A few weeks ago, four people died in Germany for this very reason. We in The Left Party argue that energy supply should be given the status of a service of general public interest, with responsibility for it being transferred to the public sector. In this respect, we see the transition to renewables as a great opportunity, for the German Renewable Energy Sources Act gave priority over all other energy forms to energy fed into the grid from renewable sources and prescribed the payment of a feed-in tariff. This has enabled thousands of people to install solar systems on their roofs or to form energy cooperatives to run wind farms and has promoted the establishment of municipal utilities focusing on renewable energy. In this way, people are becoming their own energy suppliers. Numerous small businesses in these fields are gradually reducing the market shares of the energy giants, thereby making energy supply progressively more democratic. They are also influencing energy pricing. The cost of generating power is virtually zero once a wind turbine or solar system has been installed. The more energy from renewables we feed into our grid, the cheaper it will be for everyone. At the same time, many studies produced by environmentalist associations have demonstrated that, even in the medium term, the cost of investing in renewables will be far lower than the cost of nuclear waste storage or the costs arising from climate change. Accordingly, it is not investment in renewable energy sources that is uneconomical but failure to invest in them. The German Government, however, and especially the Liberal coalition partner, are attempting, with growing success, to halt this process in order to buy time for the wealthy energy industry. They want the energy giants themselves to enter the renewables market with large-scale multimillion projects. To protect company profits, they want to enable coal-fired power stations to remain connected to the grid for longer or even to try again to extend the lifespan of nuclear facilities. It is therefore our duty to point out at every opportunity that the decentralised supply of renewable energy from as many generators as possible and from small community businesses is the only way to achieve a socially and environmentally beneficial system of energy supply. The energy transition, however, confronts us with problems too. Renewable sources generate fluctuating volumes of electricity for the grid. In the medium term, such an energy system will need large storage capacities that we do not yet possess. For this reason, investment in renewables will focus increasingly on research into forms of storage technology. It will also become important for neighbouring countries to form energy communities in which each member gives exactly as much as it takes. All of us bear responsibility for tackling climate change, ensuring fair global distribution and preserving and protecting the environment. We must discharge these responsibilities today, so that future generations inherit a safe and healthy planet. This is a global responsibility. For that reason, it must be clearly understood that the most drastic changes are needed where the greatest mistakes have been made. But it should also be clear that these mistakes must not be repeated, so that others are not led into the same blind alley. We must follow this path together and support each other in a spirit of international solidarity wherever it is possible. If we manage to free ourselves in this way from dependence on fossil fuels, so that natural resources and the environment can be sustainably protected, we shall have taken a significant step towards a socially and environmentally beneficial future for all of us. Thank you very much for your attention. |
责任编辑：dongzelaw
我来说两句
已有0评论 点击全部查看
