Greenlanders have been master survivors and have little to fear from global warming, writes Fiona Harvey. The real disruptions will be felt in sub-Saharan Africa, south-east Asia and southern Europe.
“Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic, are where we see the first and clearest signs of rapidly increasing temperatures and their effects on the natural world.”
Denmark has a special interest in climate change, in part because of its sense of responsibility – some would say guilt – towards Greenland, a Danish colony since the early 18th century. Although Greenland this summer took an important step towards independence, taking responsibility for judicial affairs, policing and natural resources, the Danish government must continue to fund the country’s social services, on which many of the citizens rely.
The Jakobshavn glacier is on Greenland’s west coast, where most of the country’s settlements lie. Though hardly lush, the west coast has patches of greenery where grasses and tiny Arctic flowers grow. Much of the east coast is even more inhospitable, with little more than ice and rocks. Near the settlement of Tasiilaq, on the east coast, I walked through a sheltered, snow-covered valley where, in the past, the Danes tried repeatedly to grow potatoes. They failed, and turned instead to converting the locals to Christianity, a more realistic goal.
Life for the Inuit communities, before air travel opened up the country and the cold war brought a little wealth in the form of air bases and listening posts, was so harsh it seems incredible that human beings could cling on here. Agriculture and livestock husbandry were out of the question, so Greenlanders subsisted on a diet of mainly fish and seals, and learnt to use every part of each creature. With no trees, they relied on driftwood to build their boats. Half the year was spent in darkness, mainly in communal turf houses dug into the thin soil, lit only by blubber lamps. With no means of softening the hides of the animals they killed, Inuit women chewed sealskins for much of the winter, their saliva curing the hides and readying them for use. Early visitors reported that the women’s teeth were worn down to the gums from an early age.
Little wonder that Greenlanders had no votive relationship with their gods. They had a creation myth, but did not bother to pray to the undersea goddess from whose hair mankind was combed. Why would they? It must have been self-evident that they were on their own.
Today, Greenland’s problems are of a different kind. This is a poor country, with high unemployment. People here feel that the Danish government has always treated them with disdain, only taking an interest when it seemed that Greenland’s mineral wealth might become accessible. There are high rates of alcoholism and other social problems. The children score poorly on school tests relative to their contemporaries in Denmark and there are limited prospects for the young.
Jimmy Hymøller, a schoolteacher, told us how he was trying to change things by encouraging parents to take a more active part in their children’s education, which many felt unable to do before. Most Danes you meet in Greenland have a similar sense of purpose – a new wave of secular missionaries bent on trying to reverse the mistakes of their forebears.
Lars Olsen, a fisherman, took our photographer, a local businessman called Tom Ostermann and me on his boat to where he fishes for halibut. The small craft crunched easily over the smaller lumps of ice – merely the size of household furniture – and wove a path deftly among the larger bergs. Danger precluded him from taking us near the really big ice closer to the glacier edge, the pieces that rose into the sky taller than office blocks.
Close up, the ice looks harmless and stable, stately as a galleon and twice the size. Bubbles rise to the surface in a steady stream from the nine-tenths of its bulk that is submerged. But in their voyage to the open sea, icebergs can turn over dozens of times, unpredictably, as the melting above and below the waterline suddenly shifts their centre of gravity. And floating beside an iceberg, it is impossible to judge whether an overhang is stable or riven with fissures that will suddenly sheer. “It’s wise not to get too near,” Ola Johannessen, the ice expert, warned me – though, later, I found out that he had a propensity for landing on bergs in helicopters.
In his 30 years as a fisherman in these waters, Olsen has seen his catches decline drastically. “I get fewer fish on my lines now – and the ones I do get are smaller,” he told us. He catches halibut by laying down several lines, many metres in length, with hooks every foot or so, and leaving them in place overnight. “I have to lay more lines and don’t get as much. And the price of the fish is not good.” He blames the reduced catches squarely on overfishing. “They should not allow so many fishermen. They should not give so many licences.” Would his children follow him into fishing? Certainly not, he replied. His son was an economist.
Inuit people, though, even those with town jobs in the schools, hospitals and fish factories, carry on fishing and hunting. Every house in the settlements has what look like washing lines on the roof, hung with drying fish. We met one teacher who had taken the children from his class to live on a small island for the summer, to teach them traditional skills such as catching and curing fish.
Hunting is the way of life for the Inuit, and staying in Greenland leaves little room for squeamishness. On the first night of my first visit, accompanied by Jacqueline McGlade from the European Environment Agency, we had a delicious soup with small squarish pieces I took for vegetables. No, our host explained, it was the skin of a narwhal, one of the rarest mammals in the world – the Inuit are allowed to hunt a certain number each year. Later, I ate whale steaks – tasty, with a rich gamey flavour. Seal was on the menu, too, and we visited a factory where the fur was stripped from baby seals, leaving holes where the flippers had been. These would become hats, slippers, waistcoats and scarves for sale in the airport shop.
Hunting, like fishing, is under threat. Hunters we met complained that the season was growing shorter as the ice had become treacherous. Whereas before, it froze firm enough all winter to take dogsleds and skidoos, now it has thinned and breaks up easily, making sledding impossible for months. Ice fishing has also become impossible for much of the winter in some traditional hunting grounds.
And then there’s the problem that some of the Greenlanders’ traditional quarry are rapidly dying out. At a small settlement near Tasiilaq, I saw a polar bear that had recently been killed along with its cub. The flayed skin was stretched out to dry on a wooden frame. It stank a little, with the last remnants of flesh and blood oozing on to the ground, but the fur was silky to the touch. The skin itself is black, to attract sunlight and keep the bear warm. But the claws were the most striking thing – more than 23 centimetres long, curved and deadly. It was easy to see why the Inuit call them Nanuk: mighty hunter worthy of respect.
There are only about 20,000 polar bears left in the world. Their number has declined as their habitat has shrunk. Polar bears hunt seals from ice floes, swimming between them. There have been reports of bears drowning – a previously unheard-of event – because the distance between floes on to which they can climb is too great. Some have probably starved. There is an increasing problem of bears straying into villages in search of food. Other Arctic mammals are also suffering. A US Geological Survey expedition in September spotted a large group of walrus carcasses, more than 100, on an Arctic shore. They were almost certainly corpses from a bigger group seen a few days earlier congregating on the ice. Examination of the carcasses, mostly calves and yearlings, indicated they had been trampled to death by other walruses, stampeding to find a place on the crowded shore.
Much though environmental groups would protest, the harsh truth is that human beings – even Greenlanders – can live without polar bears and walruses. Their demise would simply lengthen the long and ignoble list of species our kind has made extinct. Besides, Greenland’s ice will take a very long time to melt completely – a thousand years, according to the best estimates. The loss of the Greenlandic way of life long before this would also be mourned, but not by many. If this were merely an Arctic problem, politicians would not be visiting Ilulissat.
The real threat of climate change is not that the ice will melt (though when it does, we are in trouble because the departure of reflective ice leaves dark sea that absorbs more of the sun’s heat, increasing the rate of global warming in another feedback loop). The real disruptions of climate change will be felt far from here: in sub-Saharan Africa, where the heat will become unbearable; in south-east Asia, where rising sea levels will claim more and more land and typhoons will destroy towns and villages; in southern Europe, where drought will render the land unsuitable for agriculture.
The biggest threat of all is to the world’s social and political stability – the famines, droughts, floods and storms of a warming world could cause prolonged conflict, mass migration on a scale we shudder to imagine, and a counter-reaction to that migration from the lucky northern countries.
It’s just that Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic, are where we see the first and clearest signs of rapidly increasing temperatures and their effects on the natural world. Greenlanders, in fact, are often ambivalent about warming. In the south, a few people are successfully growing potatoes – a century after the Danes gave up – and even more surprising crops such as tomatoes. They are also raising cattle. In the in-flight magazine of Air Greenland, I couldn’t help but notice that global warming was referred to as “climate improvement”.
Greenlanders have been the world’s master survivors, stubbornly carving a life for thousands of years out of the most inhospitable desert on the planet. They have little to fear from warming. Tom Ostermann told us: “I have no concerns that the people of Greenland will survive and will be OK. We have always been able to adapt. We are more concerned about places like Holland, for when the sea level increases. It’s those places where people have to be worried.” He leaned forward in his boat, smiling mischievously, and added: “One up to the Eskimo.”
Fiona Harvey is the Financial Times environment correspondent
http://www.ft.com/home/uk
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009.
Homepage image by Ramon Stoppelenburg
除非其他申明,本网站及其内容受知识共享组织的“署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎"2.0 英国:英格兰和威尔士协议和 2.5 中国大陆协议的保护。
Unless otherwise stated, this work is under Creative Commons' Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License and 2.5 China License.
参与讨论 COMMENTS
参与讨论
颜敏 (作者系中南大学公共管理学院讲师)
几天后就要召开的哥本哈根会议,被视为当今世界解决全球气候变暖问题最后的努力。一段时间以来,各国展开了频繁的“环境外交”。几周前,巴西、印度尼西亚和韩国都在谈判桌上摆出了减排温室气体的“硬数字”。几天前,美国宣布2020年温室气体比2005年减排17%,几乎同时,中国宣布2020年将单位GDP碳排放比2005年减少40%~45%。这些外交承诺,似乎为哥本哈根会议取得实质性成果带来了希望。但是,这种希望到底有多大呢?
地球环境严重恶化、全球气候加剧变暖,已不容置疑,而环保全球化也是越来越普遍的事实,传统的民族国家主权受到越来越多的削弱和限制也就不可避免。那么,在此情形下,民族国家是应极力抗拒这种趋势,使各国的争斗更趋激烈,甚至搁置、放弃应对气候问题的努力,以致可能丧失挽救地球环境的最后机会,还是迎头而上,坦然接受这种“削弱和限制”,同时化被动为主动,率先对传统制度开展更为大胆的改革、创新,推行更加环保的生产方式和生活方式,树立真正负责任的环保的形象,以此领导各国开展协调一致的集体行动,最终不但成为世界大国,而且造福于人类后代子孙?
答案是明显的:谁能带领大家共度时艰,谁就最有资格成为领袖。日本明白这一点,所以一直走在世界环保的最前沿;德国明白这一点,所以德国环保已成为各国纷纷学习的榜样。如今美国也作了几乎180度的大转弯,这也是诺贝尔和平奖授予奥巴马的一个重要原因。毫无疑问,我们正处于世界历史的转折点上,而谁转得最快,谁就赢得最多。
(The author is a lecturer at the School of Public Administration, Zhongnan University)
The Copenhagen summit due to open in a few days is seen as the last push to solving the problem of global warming. For some time now, there is frequent ‘environmental diplomacy’ between countries. On the negotiating tables several weeks ago, Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea put forward ‘hard figures’ for reducing greenhouse gases. A few days ago, the US announced that by 2020, there will be a reduction of 17% less than the 2005 emission. Almost at the same time, China announced that by 2020, for each unit of GDP, carbon emission will be reduced by 40-45% less than the 2005 emission. These diplomatic promises seem to bring hope of substantive achievement at the Copenhagen summit. But really how promising is this?
That the earth’s environment is seriously worsening and global climate is rapidly warming are beyond doubt. Global environmental protectionism is also becoming a universal fact, and it is inevitable that the sovereignty of traditional nation states will be weakened and constrained. In this situation, should nation states strive to resist this trend, accelerating conflicts between nations, and even stall or give up efforts in tackling the climate problem, thus probably losing the last chance to save the world’s environment? Or should they face it directly, and calmly accept this ‘weakness and constraint’, while at the same time turning from a passive to an active position, taking on a brave lead role in the reform and innovation of the traditional system, thus establishing a responsible role model towards environmental protection, carry out an even more environmentally sound production method and life-style, and from this leading various countries in the coordination of collective actions? Ultimately, not only will they become one of the world’s great nations, they will also benefit human-kind and future generations.
The answer is clear: whoever can lead us beyond the current crisis will be best qualified as leader. Japan understands this and has been the front runner in global environmental protection. Germany understands this and has already become a model to other countries. Now the US has also made almost a 180-degree turn, and this is an important reason for awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace prize. Without a doubt, we are at world history’s turning point, and whoever turns faster will win more.
Commented translated by smc.
当然,有人会说,做领头人是需要实力的,日本、德国、美国都是工业发达国家。但是,工业发达国家意味着它们的历史包袱最重:它们巨型、昂贵的生产技术和设备已经不适应生态时代的需要,它们的奢侈、浪费的生活方式也积重难返……而新兴国家也有后发优势:譬如,我们可以最快、最直接地利用和开发最新、最先进的环境友善技术和生产方式,我们的生活方式还部分保有节俭、勤劳的传统。
况且,经过几十年的赶超,我们不是已经创造了令世人瞩目的“中国奇迹”吗?中国已经度过了工业化的起飞阶段,已具备经济转型的成熟条件,并且已经到了转型的关口。现在,应抓住时机,顺势而上,巨大的国力总量加上明显的后发优势,使我们完全可以后来居上,成为能源气候时代(托马斯·弗里德曼语)新的世界大国、强国。
当然,还会有人说,这种想法太天真,如今的世界还是由各民族国家构成,民族国家怎么能削弱自己的主权?然而,历史证明,没有世界眼光,任何一个国家都不可能成为真正的大国;不关注人类整体的历史和未来,任何一个国家都没有资格成为世界的领袖。昔日的罗马帝国离不开它的万民法,昔日的大英帝国就建立在全球贸易之上,20世纪的美国如果固守孤立主义就不可能赢得二战之后的霸主地位。相反,大清帝国本来比世界上很多国家都富足强大,却因闭关锁国而最终衰落下去。但要成功走向世界,首先要心怀世界,视通未来,而不是患得患失,只盯着自己那一亩三分地的收获。
Certainly, someone would say that being a leader requires strength. Japan, Germany and America are all industrial developed countries. However, to be industrialized countries means they have to take the heaviest historic burdens. Their large and expensive production technology and equipments no longer meet the ecological needs of nowadays. Their extravagent and wasteful lifestyles could hardly change either. Nevertheless, the developing countries have some potential advantages. For example, we could quickly and directly develop and utilize the most novel and advanced eco-friendly technologies and productions. Besides, to some degrees, we still keep the tradition of living a frugal and hardworking life.
Moreover, after decades of development, haven't we created the 'Chinese miracle' that attracted the worldwide attention? China has passed the take-off stage of industralization. It has well equiped itself to economic transformation and already arrived the strategic pass. Currently, we should seize the opportunity and follow the trend. The strong nation power with enormous potentials would enable us catch up from behind and become the new nation with strength in the 'energy-climate era' (words of Thomas Friedman).
Of course, someone would also say that the idea is too naive. Today's world is still constituted by nation states. Thus, how can nation-state countries undermine their sovereignty? However, the history has proved that without a global perspective, no country could become a truly powerful state. Without caring about the history and future of mankind as a whole, no country is qualified to be the world leader. The old Roman Empire relied on the ius gentium. The past British Empire was established through global trade. The 20th century America cannot win the hegemony after the second world war if it abode by the isolationism. On the contrary, although the Qing Dynasty was more powerful and richer than many other countries at that time, it eventually declined due to its closed-door policy. Therefore, if we want to be successful, we have to at first harbor the world and predict the future instead of being worried about personal gains and losses or only considering about the immediate interest.
几十年来,中国在建设社会主义、振兴民族的旗帜下,一直奉行现代化赶超战略,如今,经济总量已跃居世界前列,但是毋庸讳言,这个过程也给中国的自然生态环境造成了难以弥补的伤害。
自然环境的危机不可避免地影响到居民健康。2007年春,我国卫生部的调查报告指出,不断恶化的大气和水体质量应该为全国急剧上升的癌症暴发率负责:自2005年来,城市地区癌症患病率上升了19%,农村地区上升了23%。
贝克等人的风险社会理论认为,现代风险是由过度生产而产生的,是人类活动本身而不是如传统风险那般由自然界造成,它虽然隐而不见但具有选择性,社会边缘人、弱势群体往往是风险最喜欢光顾的对象。
经济发展的成本由谁负担?收益由谁享受?环境保护的收益由谁享受?环保保护的负担由谁负担?试问上文列举的疾病,是平均分布在所有居民身上,而不论其社会地位、经济收入、居住环境等方面的差异吗?试问水体污染、空气污染、土壤沙化盐碱化、森林退化等是平等地损害每个人的利益吗?不是有些人甚至从中获利了吗?依靠“低环境、资源权优势”,这种发展是绝对不可持续的。
用罗尔斯的话说,就是任何人都应享有平等的自由权,但任何分配方式的调整或改革,都必须有益于最低受惠者,否则,这个制度就不是正义的。用帕累托的话说,就是任何改变都不应该损害各方的现有利益。因此,所谓经济发展与环境保护的矛盾,是某些利益集团为了牟取私利、巩固权力而有意建构起来的虚假问题。如今,已经到了这个时刻:进一步发展经济之前必须首先解决经济民主和环境正义的问题。在这个意义上,保护环境,实现环境正义,是促进社会稳定、和谐的一条根本途径。
In the past several decades, China has been pursuing the forging ahead strategy of modernization by holding socialist construction and rejuvenation of the country. Today, China’s economic aggregate has leaped into the front ranks of the world, but there is no doubt that this process also brought about irreparable harm to China’s ecological environment.
Environmental crisis inevitably affected the health of residents. In Spring 2007, an official report from Chinese Ministry of Health announced that deteriorating air and water quality should be responsible for the sharply increasing rate of cancer. Since 2005, prevalence rate of cancer has increased 19% in urban areas, and 23% in rural regions.
Baker and other scholars’ risk society theory argued that modern risk is created by overproduction, or in other words, by human activities while traditional risk was created by nature. Modern risk is invisible but selective. People living on the edge of the society, disadvantaged groups are the most likely to be vulnerable by risk.
Who is responsible for the cost of economic development? Who enjoys economic gain? Who enjoys benefits of environmental protection? And who is responsible for environmental protection? Take the disease mentioned above for example, is cancer evenly disposed to all the residents regardless of social status, financial reward or living condition? Are people’s interests equally harmed by water pollution, air pollution, desertification, salinization, and deforestation, etc? Do some people even gain from these issues? The developmental model which relies on “ “ is absolutely unsustainable.
As stated by Rawls, “every one should have equal rights of freedom, but any adjustment or reformation of distribution must be favourable to the lowest beneficiary. Otherwise, the system is unjust. Just as what Pareto argued, “any change is not supposed to harm current interests of all sides.” Accordingly, the so-called conflict between economic development and environmental protection is a false issue which is intentionally constructed by certain interest groups who aim to get own profits and consolidate power. Today, we reach the moment when the problems of economic democracy and environmental justice must be solved before further development of economy. In this way, environmental protection and realization of environmental justice are basic path to promote social stability and harmony.
Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated.
我们建议你在评论后署名, 以便其他浏览者能更好地与你交流。你没有必要使用真名,但你的署名将会协助我们维护网站的信息交流畅通。
We suggest you add your name to your comments so that other readers can respond to you more easily. You don’t have to use your real name, but providing a name will help make communication clearer for other forum participants.