Name: 結構性變革與綠色新政，與安-佩蒂福合作。 (Structural Change and the Green New Deal with Ann Pettifor)
Uploaded: 2020-12-18T21:01:03.000Z
Duration: 6 min 57 s

基礎被動語態

Oh, Theo Green new deal was launched If you like into the climate breakdown debate, because the greens, on the whole tend to talk about individual behavior change and about community change about recycling and reusing on DSO, the responsibility, in a sense, was being passed on to individuals onto communities, and they did not talk enough about the need for structural change on the green.

哦，西奧綠色新政推出如果你喜歡進入氣候分解辯論，因為綠色，總體上傾向於談論個人行為的變化和關於社區的變化關於回收和再利用的DSO，責任，在某種意義上，被傳遞給個人到社區，他們沒有足夠的談論綠色的結構性變化的必要性。

程度副詞

New Deal is about structural change, not just structural change in the use off fossil fuels.

新政是關於結構性變化，而不僅僅是化石燃料使用的結構性變化。

轉承詞

In other words, how we have to just stop using fossil fuels and now, because it's almost too late already.

換句話說，我們必須停止使用化石燃料，而現在，因為幾乎已經太晚了。

But secondly, how the financial and economic system is tightly integrated in to the ecosystem on DTA help you understand what I mean by that we have a deregulated financial system.

但是第二，在DTA上，金融和經濟體系如何緊密結合到生態系統中，幫助你理解我說的我們有一個放松管制的金融體系是什麼意思。

Essentially, of course, if you speak to bankers and financiers, they'll complain about endless regulations.

當然，從本質上講，如果你跟銀行家和金融家說話，他們會抱怨無盡的監管。

But in effect, the system is a deregulated is beyond the reach.

但實際上，這個制度是一個放松管制的是可望而不可及的。

If you like off sovereign governments, the financial system operates in what I like to call the stratosphere, but it's beyond the boundaries, the political and economic boundaries of nation states.

如果你喜歡離開主權政府，金融系統的運作 我喜歡稱之為平流層，但它超越了民族國家的邊界，政治和經濟邊界。

Which is why JPMorgan Chase, for example, in the three years after the Paris climate agreement lent $196 billion to coal, gas and oil companies around the world, not in just one country.

這也是為什麼摩根大通在巴黎氣候協議簽訂後的三年裡，向全球的煤炭、天然氣和石油公司貸款1960億美元，而不僅僅是在一個國家。

Compare that to Exxon that it invested only $3 billion a year for three years after the Paris climate agreement.

相比之下，埃克森公司在巴黎氣候協議簽訂後的三年裡，每年只投入30億美元。

And you can see the banks play a very big part in providing the oxygen that fires up global warming.

你可以看到，銀行在提供氧氣方面起了很大的作用，使全球變暖的問題更加嚴重。

The back turn in a position to create credit almost effortlessly on almost without government intervention, without central bank guidance as to where that credit is aimed at and for what purpose is being used and, above all, how it's going to be repaid.

在幾乎沒有政府幹預的情況下，在沒有中央銀行指導的情況下，幾乎不費吹灰之力就能創造出信貸，信貸的目標是什麼，用於什麼目的，最重要的是，如何償還。

The finance sector, both the traditional finance sector but also the shadow banking sector because we now have a banking sector that operates in the shadows, are able to create credit if you like ad infinitum and they have done.

金融部門，既包括傳統的金融部門，也包括影子銀行部門，因為我們現在有一個在暗中運作的銀行部門，如果你願意的話，他們能夠無限量地創造信貸，而且他們已經做到了。

And if you don't believe me or you have to look at are the EMFs numbers on the level of global debt, because debt is, of course, just the other side of credit.

如果你不相信我，或者你要看的是EMFs關於全球債務水準的數據，因為債務當然只是信貸的另一面。

So they spewed out enormous amounts of credit on that credit.

所以他們在這個信用上噴出了鉅額的信用。

In turn, fuels consumption on production on that in turn, fuels emissions.

反過來，助長了生產上的消費，反過來，又助長了排放。

And so what we argued when we were drafting the green New Deal that unless you can think of the system as a system and not as the ecosystem, is this bit of it, which we have to hug and look after, but really as something that's deeply integrated into the financial system.

所以我們在起草綠色新政的時候就認為，除非你能把這個系統當成一個體系，而不是生態系統，否則就是它的這一點，我們要抱團，要照顧，但實際上是作為一個與金融體系深度融合的東西。

So in order to address the question of emissions, Andi ecosystem, we have to first and foremost address the financial system on the economic system.

所以要解決排放的問題，安迪生態圈，我們首先要解決經濟體系上的金融體系。

What is the metaphor that I think the most helpfully guide us through this?

我認為最能幫助指導我們完成這個任務的比喻是什麼？

Do you think, what, what sort of scary we're talking about?

你覺得，我們在說什麼，什麼樣的可怕？

And you can we reach beyond our current mindset to get there or what?

而你我們能不能超越我們現在的心態去達到這個目的還是什麼？

We're really asking ourselves or something which is really too much for us to handle.

我們真的是在自問自答，或者說有些事情真的是我們無法處理的。

Have we unleashed forces that we now can't control the scale of this crisis unprecedented?

我們釋放出的力量，現在已經無法控制這場危機的規模了嗎？

We're talking here about the survival of our civilization.

我們在這裡談論的是我們文明的生存。

There is going to be a catastrophic crisis on.

將會有一場災難性的危機，在。

Of course, if it happens in Bangladesh or in Mozambique, nobody will take any notice.

當然，如果發生在孟加拉國或莫三鼻克，沒有人會注意到。

But if New York City was to endure something worse than Hurricane Sandy.

但如果紐約市要忍受比颶風桑迪更糟糕的事情。

And if Wall Street would be flooded on disappear, I can assure you that tomorrow we'll do some.

如果華爾街會被淹沒在消失，我可以向你保證，明天我們會做一些。

People forget that it was only a year 18 months ago that Cape Town, which is a city on the sea, ran out of water on.

人們忘記了，就在一年前的18個月，開普敦這個靠海的城市，才在上缺水。

You know, of course, Cape Town is a long way away and didn't affect us, but it ran out of water.

當然，你知道，開普敦離我們很遠，並沒有影響到我們，但它沒有水了。

James Meeks got a wonderful piece in this week's London Review of Books about ST Albans.

James Meeks在本週的《倫敦書評》上發表了一篇關於ST Albans的精彩文章。

You know what some Corbyn's is now sort of suburban city.

你知道有些科爾賓的現在算是郊區城市。

It's now place from where city workers commute to get into the city of London.

現在，這裡是城市工作者通勤的地方，從這裡進入倫敦市區。

What happens of London runs out of water.

It seems to me we could have that kind of crisis, which would bomb trigger us into action straight away.

在我看來，我們可能會出現那種危機，這會直接轟炸式地觸發我們的行動。

Another possibility, I am afraid to say, is war.

We now have trade wars happening, which we haven't had for a very long time.

我們現在發生的貿易戰，已經很久沒有發生了。

And we all know trade wars lead to real wars.

而我們都知道貿易戰會導致真正的戰爭。

There are very big political tensions out.

We have a very incompetent American president with enormous power and with access to nuclear weapons.

我們有一個非常無能的美國總統，擁有巨大的權力，並能獲得核武器。

I don't wanna be too alarmist about this, but I want us to be thinking that the people in charge of the nuclear weapons today are a bit bonkers, some of them really on.

我不想太過危言聳聽，但我希望我們能想到，今天負責核武器的人有點瘋狂，其中一些人真的在。

Then thirdly, there is the very, very, very riel chance of another global financial crisis.

然後第三，有非常非常多的機會發生另一場全球金融危機。

I mean, the IMF two days ago is kind of has pressed the panic button.

我的意思是，IMF兩天前是那種已經按下了恐慌按鈕。

And for the IMF to do that is extraordinary.

而國際貨幣基金組織能做到這一點，是非常了不起的。

Really eso It's not just little old me saying this.

真的嗎？ 這不是我一個人說的。

The's big institutions are really scared.

The global system is now massively imbalanced.

Huge amounts of debt, not enough income, huge amounts of debt, lots of austerity.

鉅額的債務，收入不足，鉅額的債務，大量的緊縮。

Europe, you know, held down, held back, if you like by austerity.

歐洲，你知道，被緊縮政策拖住了，拖住了，如果你願意的話。

And Keynes famously once said, you can't balance the nation's budget by cutting the nation's income.

而凱恩斯有句名言：你不能通過削減國家的收入來平衡國家的預算。

But for the last 11 years, we've let the finance sector run wild, you know, on Decree eight, credit and expand.

但在過去的11年裡，我們讓金融業肆意妄為，你知道，在八號令、信貸和擴張。

We've encouraged with Q and so on and so forth.

And we now have more death than we had before the last crisis.

而我們現在的死亡人數比上次危機前更多。

While at the same time fiscal policies have repressed incomes very deliberately and that's caused massive imbalances.

而與此同時，財政政策卻非常刻意地壓制了收入，這就造成了大規模的不平衡。

When you have imbalances like that, you get crisis.

當你有這樣的不平衡，你就會有危機。