kinonagare.com :: resource for aikido » Ending war

“We Are Looting the Past and Future to Feed the Present”

admin — Sun, 29 May 2011 19:23:56 +0000

Leading Climatologist on Fukushima

‘We Are Looting the Past and Future to Feed the Present’

By Katrin Elger and Christian Schwägerl

Leading German climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber talks to SPIEGEL about the lessons of the Fukushima disaster, the future of nuclear energy in Germany and why our society needs to be transformed. “We consume as much oil in one year as was created in 5.3 million years,” he warns.

For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the “i” symbol.

SPIEGEL: Who or what is to blame for the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima?

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: The earthquake was merely the trigger. The crazy logic we apply in dealing with technical risks is to blame. We only protect ourselves against hazards to the extent that it’s economically feasible at a given time, and to the extent to which they can be controlled within the normal operations of a company. But the Richter scale has no upper limit. Why is a Japanese nuclear power plant only designed to withstand a magnitude 8.2 earthquake, not to mention tsunamis?

SPIEGEL: Presumably because otherwise electricity from nuclear power would have been too expensive.

Schellnhuber: The entire affluence-based economic model of the postwar era, be it in Japan or here in Germany, is based on the idea that cheap energy and rising material consumption are supposed to make us happier and happier. This is why nuclear power plants are now being built in areas that are highly active geologically, and why we consume as much oil in one year as was created in 5.3 million years. We are looting both the past and the future to feed the excess of the present. It’s the dictatorship of the here and now.

SPIEGEL: What’s your alternative?

Schellnhuber: We have to stop constantly ignoring the things that are truly harmful to our society. This includes nuclear accidents, but also the prospect of the Earth becoming between 6 and 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer by the year 2200. Only when we have taken the possibility of maximum losses fully into account can we decide whether we even want a specific technology.

SPIEGEL: Up until now, you haven’t been one of the vocal opponents of nuclear power.

Schellnhuber: But neither was I a supporter of nuclear power. My position was: Let’s take advantage of the cost benefits of the existing nuclear plants to quickly develop renewable energy systems. It was my hope that something good would emerge from something bad.

SPIEGEL: How do you feel about the government’s plans to temporarily shut down seven nuclear power plants in Germany?

Schellnhuber: It’s the right thing to do. Something resembling what happened in Japan could also happen in Germany if one of the countless possible chains of unfortunate events were to occur. It’s the unavoidability of the improbable. But the way the government approached the issue was not very beneficial for Germany’s political culture.

SPIEGEL: Why?

Schellnhuber: Last year they decided that German power plants are safe. This allows for only two possible conclusions: Either the full truth wasn’t recognized at the time, in which case it was bad policy, or they are reacting in a purely opportunistic fashion now, against their better judgment. That’s even worse policy.

SPIEGEL: Are you worried that the government’s new anti-nuclear course will lead to higher CO2 emissions because more coal will be burned once again?

Schellnhuber: Actually, I’m convinced that this is precisely what Chancellor Angela Merkel will not allow. Now everyone is starting to realize that society’s entire fossil-nuclear operating system has no future and that massive investments have to be made in renewable sources of energy.

SPIEGEL: Do you feel that the government’s abrupt change of course in relation to its energy policy is adequate?

Schellnhuber: No. It can only be the beginning of a deep-seated shift. The German Advisory Council on Global Change, which I chair, will soon unveil a master plan for a transformation of society. Precisely because of Fukushima, we believe that a new basis of our coexistence is needed.

SPIEGEL: What does that mean?

Schellnhuber: We need a social contract for the 21st century that seals the common desire to create a sustainable industrial metabolism. We must resolve, once and for all, to leave our descendants more than a legacy of nuclear hazards and climate change. This requires empathy across space and time. To promote this, the rights of future generations should be enshrined in the German constitution.

SPIEGEL: And specifically?

Schellnhuber: For example, we have to stabilize energy consumption at a reasonable level. If we would finally start exploiting the full potential for energy efficiency in Germany, we could get by with at least 30 percent less energy input — without being materially worse off.

SPIEGEL: How do you intend to convince society of the need for an upper limit to energy consumption?

Schellnhuber: It can only be achieved with cultural change. To that end, society needs to have an entirely different discussion than before. This sort of change is one of the most difficult things I can imagine.

SPIEGEL: Belt-tightening hasn’t exactly been popular in the past.

Schellnhuber: All it costs is a few percentage points of economic output to turn away from the dangerous path that would otherwise lead to more nuclear accidents and unchecked climate change. Green investments would only delay the growth of affluence between now and the year 2100 by six to nine months. Is that really too high a price to pay?

SPIEGEL: Why is it that your messages haven’t been all that well received until now?

Schellnhuber: I’m neither a psychologist nor a sociologist. But my life experiences have shown that the love of convenience and ignorance are man’s biggest character flaws. It’s a potentially deadly mixture.

Interview conducted by Katrin Elger and Christian Schwägerl.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,752474,00.html

……………..

Diktatur des Jetzt

Von Elger, Katrin und Schwägerl, Christian

Der Physiker und Klimaforscher Hans Joachim Schellnhuber über die Ursachen des Reaktorunfalls und eine Obergrenze für den Energieverbrauch

Schellnhuber, 60, leitet das Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung und berät die Bundesregierung in Umweltfragen.

SPIEGEL: Wer oder was ist schuld an der Nuklearkatastrophe von Fukushima?

Schellnhuber: Das Erdbeben war nur der Auslöser. Schuld ist die verrückte Logik im Umgang mit technischen Risiken. Wir wappnen uns gegen Gefahren nur so weit, wie es sich ökonomisch gerade noch rechnet und wie es im Normalbetrieb der Gesellschaft zu bewältigen ist. Aber die Richterskala ist nach oben offen. Warum ist ein japanisches Kernkraftwerk dann nur auf ein Beben der Stärke 8,2 ausgelegt – von Tsunamis ganz zu schweigen?

SPIEGEL: Vermutlich weil Atomstrom sonst zu teuer geworden wäre?

Schellnhuber: Das ganze Wohlstandsmodell der Nachkriegszeit, ob in Japan oder bei uns, beruht darauf, dass uns billige Energie und steigender Materialumsatz immer glücklicher machen sollen. Deshalb entstehen Kernkraftwerke in geologisch superaktiven Gebieten, und deshalb verbrennen wir in einem Jahr so viel Öl, wie in 5,3 Millionen Jahren entstanden ist. Wir plündern zugleich die Vergangenheit und die Zukunft für den Überfluss der Gegenwart – das ist die Diktatur des Jetzt.

SPIEGEL: Was ist Ihre Alternative?

Schellnhuber: Wir müssen aufhören, die Dinge, die unserer Gesellschaft wirklich weh tun, permanent auszublenden. Das betrifft atomare Unfälle, aber auch die Aussicht, dass sich die Erde bis zum Jahr 2200 um sechs bis acht Grad aufheizt, wenn wir weitermachen wie bisher. Erst wenn wir die Perspektive größtmöglicher Schadensfälle schonungslos eingeblendet haben, können wir entscheiden, ob wir eine bestimmte Technologie überhaupt haben wollen.

SPIEGEL: Sie gehörten bisher nicht zu den ausgewiesenen Atomkraftgegnern.

Schellnhuber: Aber auch nicht zu den Atomkraftbefürwortern. Meine Position war: Lasst uns die Kostenvorteile der bestehenden Atomanlagen nutzen, um erneuerbare Energiesysteme rasch auszubauen. Aus etwas Schlechtem sollte etwas Gutes wachsen, das war meine Hoffnung.

SPIEGEL: Was halten Sie davon, dass die Regierung nun gleich sieben Kernkraftwerke in Deutschland vorübergehend abschalten will?

Schellnhuber: In der Sache ist das richtig. Was in Japan geschehen ist, könnte ähnlich auch in Deutschland passieren, wenn es zu einer der unzähligen möglichen Verkettungen unglücklicher Umstände käme. Das ist die Unvermeidbarkeit des Unwahrscheinlichen. Wie die Regierung aber vorgegangen ist, war für die politische Kultur nicht besonders gut.

SPIEGEL: Warum?

Schellnhuber: Man hat im vergangenen Jahr entschieden, dass deutsche Kraftwerke sicher sind. Dies lässt nur zwei Schlussfolgerungen zu: Entweder man hat damals nicht die ganze Wahrheit erkannt. Dann war das schlechte Politik. Oder man reagiert jetzt rein opportunistisch wider bessere Einsicht. Dann ist das noch schlechtere Politik.

SPIEGEL: Haben Sie Angst, dass der neue Anti-Atom-Kurs zu höheren CO2-Emissionen führt, weil wieder mehr Kohle verbrannt wird?

Schellnhuber: Ich bin eigentlich überzeugt, dass Bundeskanzlerin Merkel genau das nicht zulassen wird. Es dämmert doch nun allen, dass das ganze bisherige fossil-nukleare Betriebssystem der Gesellschaft keine Zukunft hat und massive Investitionen in regenerative Energien erfolgen müssen.

SPIEGEL: Finden Sie den abrupten Kurswechsel der Bundesregierung in der Energiepolitik ausreichend?

Schellnhuber: Nein, das kann nur der Beginn eines tiefgreifenden Wandels sein. Der Wissenschaftliche Beirat der Bundesregierung für Globale Umweltveränderungen, dem ich vorstehe, wird demnächst einen Masterplan für die gesellschaftliche Transformation vorstellen. Gerade im Licht von Fukushima halten wir eine neue Grundlage unseres Zusammenlebens für nötig.

SPIEGEL: Was heißt das?

Schellnhuber: Wir brauchen einen Gesellschaftsvertrag für das 21. Jahrhundert, der den gemeinsamen Willen besiegelt, einen nachhaltigen industriellen Stoffwechsel zu schaffen. Wir müssen ein für alle Mal beschließen, unseren Nachkommen mehr als nur Atomgefahren und Klimawandel zu hinterlassen. Das bedeutet Mitgefühl über Raum und Zeit hinweg. Um das zu befördern, sollten die Rechte künftiger Generationen im Grundgesetz verankert werden.

SPIEGEL: Und konkret?

Schellnhuber: Beispielsweise müssen wir den Energieverbrauch auf einem sinnvollen Niveau stabilisieren. Wenn wir in Deutschland endlich richtig anfangen würden, die Potentiale für Energieeffizienz auszuschöpfen, dann könnten wir mit mindestens 30 Prozent weniger Energieeinsatz auskommen – ohne dass es uns materiell schlechter ginge.

SPIEGEL: Wie wollen Sie der Gesellschaft eine Obergrenze beim Energieverbrauch vermitteln?

Schellnhuber: Das geht nur mit einem kulturellen Wandel. Dazu müsste die Gesellschaft ganz anders diskutieren als bisher. Ein solcher Wandel ist mit das Schwerste, was ich mir vorstellen kann.

SPIEGEL: Den Gürtel enger zu schnallen ist bisher nicht eben populär.

Schellnhuber: Es kostet uns nur wenige Prozentpunkte Wirtschaftsleistung, vom gefährlichen Pfad abzuweichen, der sonst zu neuen Atomunglücken und ungebremstem Klimawandel führt. Der Wohlstandszuwachs bis 2100 würde sich durch die grünen Investitionen nur um sechs bis neun Monate verzögern. Ist dieser Preis tatsächlich zu hoch?

SPIEGEL: Warum kommen Ihre Botschaften bisher nicht richtig an?

Schellnhuber: Ich bin weder Psychologe noch Soziologe. Aber meine Selbst- und Alltagserfahrung zeigt, dass Bequemlichkeit und Ignoranz die größten Charaktermängel des Menschen sind. Das ist eine potentiell tödliche Mixtur.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-77531589.html

Karma Singh

admin — Tue, 17 May 2011 18:00:25 +0000

http://karma-singh-health-blog.com/

Chilean Economist Manfred Max-Neef on Barefoot Economics, Poverty and Why The U.S. is Becoming an “Underdeveloping Nation”

admin — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:03:57 +0000

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/26/chilean_economist_manfred_max_neef_on

He won the Right Livelihood Award in 1983, two years after the publication of his book Outside Looking In: Experiences in Barefoot Economics. “Economists study and analyze poverty in their nice offices, have all the statistics, make all the models, and are convinced that they know everything that you can know about poverty. But they don’t understand poverty,” Max-Neef says

mankind is one family; aiki is one half bun and one half bu

admin — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:57:34 +0000

aikido’s purpose is as bu, as shin-no-bu, to show the way beyond war…

admin — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:49:54 +0000

finding our ten-mei

admin — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:29:05 +0000

Interview with John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=83B1AF93091799E7CEB88C5C459A530B
Video Information

In this video, the Health Ranger interviews John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Hoodwinked and The Secret History of the American Empire. Here, Perkins discusses his history as an economic hit man, how the U.S. controls and manipulates the economics of developing nations, how U.S. agents organize revolutions or assassinations of world leaders, and how U.S. corporations actually run the whole show.

ending war / ten-mei

admin — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:25:55 +0000

Facing the horror of needless Afghan War

ending war

admin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 07:02:24 +0000

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/29/killing_reconciliation_military_raids_backing_of

Ending war

admin — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:33:32 +0000

Some of the last words of Rachel Corrie to her parents:

admin — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:00:28 +0000

some of the last words of Rachel Corrie to her parents:

“I’m witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I’m really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don’t think it’s an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you decided to have me. This is not what I meant when I looked at Capital Lake and said: “This is the wide world and I’m coming to it.” I did not mean that I was coming into a world where I could live a comfortable life and possibly, with no effort at all, exist in complete unawareness of my participation in genocide. More big explosions somewhere in the distance outside. When I come back from Palestine, I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work. Coming here is one of the better things I’ve ever done. So when I sound crazy, or if the Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is largely responsible.”
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/rachel/

Ending war

admin — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:43:12 +0000

Chris Hedges, former war correspondent for the New York Times and author of “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning,” testifies at the Truth Commission on Conscience in War at The Riverside Church on March 21, 2010. http://www.conscienceinwar.org

Freud on war

admin — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:56:34 +0000

2A year later the war broke out and robbed the world of its beauties. It destroyed not only the beauty of the countrysides through which it passed and the works of art which it met with on its path but it also shattered our pride in the achievements of our civilization, our admiration for many philosophers and artists and our hopes of a final triumph over the differences between nations and races. It tarnished the lofty impartiality of our science, it revealed our instincts in all their nakedness and let loose the evil spirits within us which we thought had been tamed for ever by centuries of continuous education by the noblest minds.”