Atom:
Wolf Gyurival - nem eloszor - teljesen egyet kell ertenem: a teljes
uzemanyag ciklust tekintve az atomeromuvek embereletben mert
kockazata sokkal (egyes esetekben nagysagrendekkel) kisebb, mint a
hagyomanyos tuzeloanyagu eromuveke. Ez eleg regota ismert, csak nem
mindenki ismeri el.
Egy 10 evvel ezelotti disszertacioban (szerenysegem tiltja, hogy a
szerzojet megnevezzem) mar szerepel egy varos kozepere helyezett olaj-
gaz tuzelesu es egy nuklearis futomu osszehasonlitasa. Ugyancsak
embereletben merve a hagyomanyos futomu kockazata 4 (!)
nagysagrenddel nagyobb. (megj.: ez nem eredmeny, csak alkalmazasi
pelda volt es eppen a banyaszatot nem vette figyelembe)
Ehhez kapcsolodoan:
Uveghaz. Radics Robi jo szandekat nem vitatva, nem tartom
celszerunek, sot, lehetsegesnek sem az altala javasolt fejkvota
rendszert (pl. 115 kg/fo/ev CO2 kibocsatatas engedelyezeset). Nem
azonos a kulonbozo orszagok helyzete, az egyikben sokat kell futeni
(pl. Skandinavia), a masikban esetleg semmit, de talan meg
legkondicionalni sem kell (pl. Kanari szk.). Kulonbozo lehet a
vizenergia rendelkezesre allasa (pl. Norvegia<-->Hollandia). Persze a
jelenlegi szint befagyasztasat, vagy aranyos csokkenteset sem tartom
jonak. AZ pont azt az igazsagtalansagot konzervalna, ami nem jo.
Talan a kibocsatasi jogok kereskedelme? Amikor a kezdeti kvotakban
reszben a status quo, reszben az adottsagok, reszben a fejkvota
rendszer jelenhetne meg?
Vizenergia:
Akar az uveghazhatasrol is eszembe juthatott volna, mint igen hatasos
eszkoz a CO2 ellen, de nem arrol jutot eszembe. Kiegesziteskent
Nlaca_laca velemenyehez:
Nagy leptekkel menetelunk "Europa fele", persze nemi kepzavarral.
Ekozben varjuk a Duna-Rajna-Majna csatornara 100 milliardokat (ez nem
koltoi tulzas es DEM-ben ertendo) fordito Europa (=NSzK)
egyutterzeset, netan segitseget egy olyan ugyben, amellyel kb. 3/4-
ere csokkentettuk a viziut hasznalhatosagat (atlagosan evi 3 honapig
nem hajozhato a Duna Domosnel). Realis ez?
Udvozlettel Gacs Ivan
|
TRADE ON THE FAST TRACK -- WHAT'S THE HURRY?
>
> There were plenty of bad reasons why Congress turned down President Clinton's
> "fast track" trade bill -- the normal "do anything to humiliate Clinton" stuf
f,
> payoffs from protectionists and labor, isolationists who fear trade because
> they fear the world.
>
> But there were good reasons, too, strengthened by the fact that NAFTA, the fr
ee
> trade agreement with Mexico, has failed to fulfill the grandiose promises mad
e
> for it on either side of the border. Since NAFTA Americans are beginning to
> hear the pro-trade drumbeat -- globalization is inevitable, we'll be left in
> the competitive dust, trade grows the economy, trade creates jobs -- as so mu
ch
> bunkum.
>
> To start with, trade just doesn't look like a problem to the average American
.
> We already get apples from Chile and cars from Japan. We send corn to Africa
,
> jets to the Middle East. Our computers and sneakers travel to Asia before th
ey
> reach us. Our music and movies play all over the globe. What more do we nee
d?
>
> If there's any trade problem we've heard about, it's the Nike story, the Asia
n
> workers paid a pittance for long hours of stifling work putting together shoe
s
> that inexplicably cost us $100 a pair. And we know about the maquiladoras, t
he
> shiny new factories on the Mexican side of the border, built by Sony, Black &
> Decker, GM, Ford, which pay not $5 an hour, but $5 a DAY, and which pour out
> toxic brews that would never be permitted if the pipes and smokestacks were
> just a few miles north.
>
> Those factories are becoming the symbol of free trade. People whose minds ar
e
> not trapped in business logic take one look at them and sense something wrong
.
> Those who look more closely -- including the labor and environment advocates
> who bombarded Congress to defeat "fast track" -- see them as evidence of a
> systemic perversity, which they call "race to the bottom." Far from being an
> economic boon, they argue, "free trade" as currently structured will bring
> economic ruin, especially to the nations that currently enjoy high social and
> environmental standards.
>
> Economists, trained at an early age to chant "trade is always, always, always
> good," can't seem to see this perversity, but anyone else can. If a company
> finds a place where it is not taxed to support schools or sewage treatment,
> where it can dump any kind of gunk without penalty, where desperate people wi
ll
> work for peanuts, it will go there. If it doesn't, its competitors will.
> That's the market's inevitable tendency to reward those who put costs off ont
o
> someone else -- in this case onto workers, families, communities, and the
> environment.
>
> A nation can put those costs back where they belong by requiring business to
> pay decent wages, keep workplaces safe, support local infrastructure, and cle
an
> up its messes. That helps not only the society, but the market itself, by
> forcing prices to include very real costs. But the nation can't then allow
> imports of cheap products, undermining the companies that comply with the
> rules. It has to ban those products or put tariffs on them. The "free trade
"
> the world is hurtling toward, the kind that Bill Clinton is promoting,
> undercuts our ability to do exactly that.
>
> Under the new trade regime, Venezuela and Brazil have challenged part of the
> U.S. Clean Air Act that forbids the import of more-polluting gasoline mixture
s
> from their refineries. The U.S. is contesting Europe's ban on beef fed
> artificial hormones. Numerous countries object to the U.S. requirement that
> shrimp be caught in nets that do not destroy endangered sea turtles.
> Meanwhile, in any kind of business that can move, American workers are losing
> jobs and communities losing companies.
>
> That's just the start of the race to the bottom.
>
> So far Bill Clinton has addressed this major problem with minor gestures. To
> get NAFTA passed he created a North American Development Bank to clean up the
> border. At the moment it has $450 million, with a promise of maybe $3 billio
n
> someday. That sounds like a lot unless you know that a sewage treatment plan
t
> for just one Mexican town (Naco, Sonora, just across the border from Naco,
> Arizona) will cost $830 million. The region needs at least $8 billion for
> drinking water, sewage treatment, and garbage pickup for all its residents.
> Providing it through the NADB or any other public handout means that U.S. and
> Mexican taxpayers must cover what ought to come from property taxes on
> maquiladoras.
>
> It's no wonder that taxpayers, workers, and environmentalists are beginning t
o
> equate fast track with pulling a fast one. The knee-jerk response of
> economists, politicians and companies is to call such people protectionists.
> They are, but not in the sense that they are trying to protect special
> privileges (though that happens in the debate as well). The abiding critics
of
> fast track are trying to protect the society, the environment, and therefore
> the economy, which cannot function without clean air, clean water, public
> infrastructure, operational communities, secure families, and educated
> children.
>
> There are plenty of protectionist barriers that ought to be weeded out of the
> global trade regime. But not at the cost of a race to the bottom. Trade is
> not always, always, always good. There are ways of enhancing its good while
> preserving the public welfare and the ability of market prices to tell the
> whole truth. The mindless abolition of any regulation that any industry in a
ny
> country finds annoying is not one of them.
>
> If Bill Clinton learns anything from his present humiliation, let's hope he
> learns that.
>
> (Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
> Dartmouth College.)
|
