Philip Hafstad
A complete failure for humanity? A death penalty for millions of people?
This is how many NGOs as well as national governments express their feelings after the failed negotiations here in Copenhagen. The discussions have been intense these last days and finally all countries agreed to a very weak paper, far away from something that the earth really needs. The paper that has been signed does not mention any targets in terms of numbers, and experts estimate that the signed paper will increase the Earth’s temperature to 3 degrees Celsius, a big difference from the 2 degrees target. United States and China has not been willing to compromise their stance towards the climate change issue and many are now blaming these two polluting giants as the major block from a more substantial paper here in Copenhagen.
We are of course very disappointed that these historical negotiations did not lead to any legally binding commitment and as youth, we cannot be anything else than worried for our future. During our time in Copenhagen we have learnt that negotiations in the UN is not simple, and the process that took place here in Copenhagen is slow and inefficient.
On the positive side, we have had a very interesting time in Copenhagen. Although we were restricted from the negotiations at the Bella Center during the last days we have meet with many interesting people, especially other youth and students from all over the world. We have made progress and connections with youth from Australia, United States, Europe and Asia, we have created a mutual awareness that we together as youth will suffer from the consequences of this week’s failed negotiations. Even though we are not satisfied with the outcome from the negotiations, we are very happy that we have created such a network around the globe with other youth and we know that at least we stand united.
During the time here in Copenhagen we have listened to leaders such as Al Gore, Hugo Chavez and Desmond Tutu, we have been inspired by some nations’ commitment to tackle climate change and have been disappointed by others that have failed us. We have listened to inspiring talks and have become more aware about climate change. Now we hope that we can use our knowledge and contacts to continue to spread awareness about tackling climate change and how we can act together for fighting for peoples’ survival.
Again, reblogged from Marina Tse’s facebook note.
She has many lovely photos and lots of other deeper personal insights, please add her as a friend and read the rest here.
One comment on this bog - It’s funny that at the end of my 10-day meditation, i did come to the same conclusion as what you said —behind the façade of “nation,” “society,” be it developing or developed, they are made of people, and being people, we all feel happy when we are loved, or when we serve others”
One thing which became very clear during meditation, be it our “addiction to oil” or to any particular living styles while clearly knowing the cost it comes at—ultimately, it is all about your ability to face death, to face the reality of our existence - that all that rises must past away. During meditation, you are literally struggling with your mind - it says: go this way, you say ” no, go this way” - there is so much pain, and yet at the end, you feel literally, lighter…and that’ s when i realised how most of my life, i have followed my mind’s will. Of course, i could only be angry at someone else….
Serena
理論上我的無聊會議紀錄還有兩三篇，但我想先跳過。
從哥本哈根回來，最經常遇到的問題就是：你對會議結果失
望嗎？
(呵，結果……如果哥本哈根協議(Copenhagen Accord)算是結果的話。)
而通常問我這個問題的人都是自己覺得失望。
所以，還是先回答一下。
為什麼我沒資格失望
從兩件事說起
第一個是從NGO那裡聽來的。
話說會議將結束前的某一天，大部分plenary都是閉門會議，能進場的NGO都是和政府官員溝通過用party的身分入場的。會議氣氛緊張不在話下，其中中國首席談判代表蘇偉有一段6分多鐘的發言，明顯超出了會議3分鐘發言的時間限制，更重要的是那6分鐘裡他到底在講什麼在場很多人都迷糊了(至今還沒有人告訴我他到底在說甚麼)。
據說，蘇偉在那兩天幾乎沒睡過。
(請別忘記這是一個六十多歲的老人。)
另一件事刊登在明報，是小道消息。話說某次閉門會議，蘇偉很激動地斥責發展中國家，而當時主持會議的溫家寶(大陸網民暱稱他為溫寶寶，我覺得太親暱了)總理及時叫翻譯員不要翻譯。
我不是要告訴你中國談判代表團吃了多少苦受了多少委屈，我知道美英意法俄印……所有國家的談判官員都承受莫大壓力，更不用說那些面對亡國之災的小島國代表們。我只是想讓你有個概念：所謂談判，有時就是會發展成勾心鬥角鬥智鬥力比國力比手腕的局，但局裡面的，是人。
所謂“局”，用王力雄的話來說，就是雙方都知道哪條路不該走卻又在相互牽制的情況下不得已走向了那條不歸路。局開始了，就像開是流動的沙漏，是剩下結束時間的問題。
結束時間，就是局的毀滅。
身分
扯了一大堆，差點忘了要回正題。
我沒有失望的資格，也沒有批評的資格，因為我知道如果談判桌前的是我結果可能不會改變。
的確，我也相信人在任何一個情況下都有選擇的自由，但這個自由在constraint越多的情況下選擇就越少。更何況，當你做得不是你一個人的選擇，而是背後有一個叫國家的團體；當你所考慮的利益不是你的得失，而是國家利益；所謂的選擇，也很可能不過是一個理論上的存在。
國家利益
這是不得不說一下國家利益。
飛哥本哈根之前，S一直問自己也問別人的問題，就是What is national interest?
(她現在在閉關冥想，不知她找到答案沒。)
每次想這個問題就不期然想起Allen v Gold Reefs: the amendment of Articles should be made “bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole”. (So what is “the company as a whole”? In fact, what does it really mean by “separate legal personality”?)
把國家的面具撕開，“國”最基本的組成部份，是人。但所謂國家利益，似乎與人民利益有所不同。
我不善於思考，不想也沒能力告訴你一些很哲學很有深度的論調。只是覺得有時候在無法理解以“國家”為單位的國際形勢時，可以回到“人”的層面。
做為一個人
我喜歡引用一位日本首談判代表的一段話。
這次峰會日本的立場是在有條件的情況下減排。所謂有條件，就是其他國家也要行動。
日本做為發達國家，減排是義務，你大可批評他們不厚道，但這位談判代表說得有道理：如果所有國家不減排，只有日本有這擔子，我們無法向納稅人交代。
明白了嗎？當但判桌前的各國代表都覺得有義務向自己國家的納稅人交代，你在大肆批評之前有必要先問一問自己。
投訴香港人環保意識薄弱商人浪費政府被動之前，先問一下自己：我做了多少？我還願意付出多少？
同理，如果政府有天向高炭物品徵收炭污染稅(以香港政府的思維和能力這個可能性與2012普選差不多)，在抱怨物價騰飛之前想一想其他國家的人民也會抱怨政府為環保徵稅。
就氣候變化峰會的發展來說，我們固然氣憤發達國家不想負責任(不肯答應減排目標，答應了又不做)，並企圖用政治手段讓發展中國家背他們歷史的債，還有他們阻撓談判進度的黑鍋。但如果我是美國人，我也可能會支持政府立場，也可能支持國會不要在其他國家沒有行動時通過法案讓美國採取積極的減排行動，也可能受到油公司的宣傳策略影響反對美國積極減排。
只是可能。但至少我不想看到自己的政府在國際上出醜，或屈服於巨大壓力。
我不能否認我常不自覺地帶著有色眼鏡看世間，我明白我所謂的獨立思考受到立場利益等等多重因素左右，而我也知道大部分人和我一樣。
我們都只是人。
所以，我只能一直問自己：如果我是他……
為什麼我還握著希望
如之前所說的，政府必須對納稅人負責。有點常識(我已經放棄了政治智慧這個詞了)的政府都懂得要聽一聽民意。
不要跟我說有多少民調指出香港人覺得什麼重要，覺得政府需要怎麼做。絕大部分的人認為氣候變化是重要議題贊同政府應對氣候變化這不代表甚麼，因為大部分人也都會認為自己的收入很重要，但當問題變成你願意犧牲多少收入來支持應對氣候變化的工作分歧就出現了。
所以，你已經知道我要說什麼了。
你可以做的比你想像中要多得多。
你不一定要去遊行示威，不一定要成為素食者，不一定要餐餐有機食物(雖然我對有機食品對環境的利弊有保留)；但在買衣服時你考慮的可以不只是價錢牌子，還有耐不耐穿、需不需要；買菜時你可以考慮來源地，還有運輸過程中的炭排量 (所以當你看到這是空運日本神戶牛排是希望你看到的不只是美食和虛榮還有養殖和運輸過程中對環境的破壞)……
小至出門關燈大至裝修設計，你都有自己的選擇。都是老生常談了……
政府政策上的支持是必要的。我想說的只是當政府沒做事時，做為“個人”我們不是被動的。
題外話
最後，小小地借題發揮一下。
請別再說Save the Earth，那可真是我見過最狂妄的口號。地球有自我調節功能，只是不一定會一直調節在一個適合人類居住的環境，另一種環境可能會產生完全不同的生物組合，不一定包括人類。
