Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

自動翻譯
  • Generally, if someone harms you,

    一般來說,如果有人傷害了你。

  • the law will hold them liable for their actions.

    法律將要求他們為自己的行為負責。

  • But who would you take to court over storms, floods and droughts?

    但是,你會因為風暴、洪水和乾旱將誰告上法庭?

  • This episode will show the ways in which the law

    本集將展示法律的方式

  • is helping us all deal with this increasing problem.

    正在幫助我們大家處理這個日益嚴重的問題。

  • The Peruvian farmer taking on a German energy giant over pollution...

    祕魯農民因汙染問題與德國能源巨頭交涉...

  • And how the world around us might get a whole load more legal protection...

    以及我們周圍的世界如何可能得到更多的法律保護......

  • Humans have been polluting the world for a long time.

    長期以來,人類一直在汙染世界。

  • So, how can you take action about something like climate change?

    那麼,你怎樣才能對氣候變化這樣的事情采取行動呢?

  • Who would you blame?

    你會責備誰呢?

  • It's not any one person, company, country, or government's fault...

    這不是任何一個人、公司、國家或政府的錯......。

  • ...or is it?

    ...或者是嗎?

  • This is Saúl Luciano Lliuya.

    這是薩烏爾-盧西亞諾-廖亞。

  • He's a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide,

    他是一名祕魯農民和登山向導。

  • and for years he has watched a glacier, in nearby Huaraz,

    多年來,他一直在附近的瓦拉斯觀看冰川。

  • melt due to climate change.

    氣候變化導致的融化。

  • So, he decided to do something

    是以,他決定做一些事情

  • and chose to sue a German energy company, RWE.

    並選擇起訴一家德國能源公司--RWE。

  • He's asking for around €17,000

    他要價約17,000歐元

  • to help him cope with climate change.

    以幫助他應對氣候變化。

  • It's a number based on the share of manmade emissions

    這是一個基於人工排放份額的數字

  • he claims RWE is responsible for.

    他聲稱RWE公司應對此負責。

  • RWE say there's no direct link

    RWE說沒有直接聯繫

  • between them and the melting glaciers.

    他們和融化的冰川之間。

  • His hope is that his case would make it easier

    他希望他的案子能讓人更容易接受

  • for thousands or even millions of others like him

    為成千上萬甚至數百萬像他一樣的人

  • to do the same to protect their homes.

    以此來保護他們的家園。

  • And that could mean energy companies are forced

    而這可能意味著能源公司被迫

  • to change the way they do business,

    改變他們做生意的方式。

  • or risk losing billions of dollars in court.

    或者冒著在法庭上損失數十億美元的風險。

  • RWE say there's no direct link

    RWE說沒有直接聯繫

  • between emissions in Germany and melting glaciers in Peru.

    德國的排放和祕魯的冰川融化之間。

  • Noah Walker-Crawford, from the University of Manchester,

    諾亞-沃克-克勞福德,來自曼徹斯特大學。

  • has worked with Saúl's case.

    曾參與過薩烏爾的案件。

  • He explained why Saúl is taking action.

    他解釋了為什麼薩烏爾要採取行動。

  • Saúl can see the impacts of climate change in Peru

    薩烏爾可以看到祕魯氣候變化的影響

  • every day with melting glaciers,

    每天都有融化的冰川。

  • but he feels like it's not him

    但他覺得那不是他

  • or it's not Peruvians who have caused this problem,

    或者說,造成這個問題的不是祕魯人。

  • but it's rather big companies in other parts of the world,

    但在世界其他地方是相當大的公司。

  • who've caused climate change through their pollution,

    他們通過汙染造成了氣候變化。

  • and that's why he's taking this German company, RWE, to court,

    這就是為什麼他要把這家德國公司RWE告上法庭。

  • arguing that they've made a big contribution to climate change,

    辯稱他們對氣候變化做出了很大貢獻。

  • which has caused big impacts in Peru.

    這在祕魯造成了很大的影響。

  • Saúl argues that RWE and other companies

    Saúl認為,RWE和其他公司

  • have caused climate change, which is affecting him:

    造成了氣候變化,這對他有影響。

  • the melting glaciers are partly their fault.

    冰川融化在一定程度上是他們的錯。

  • What kind of laws is he using?

    他使用的是什麼樣的法律?

  • To try and hold RWE responsible,

    試圖追究RWE的責任。

  • what Saúl is doing with his lawyers

    薩烏爾和他的律師在做什麼

  • is basically applying neighbourhood law.

    基本上是應用鄰里關係法。

  • So, they're using the kind of law you'd use

    所以,他們使用的是你會使用的那種法律

  • to resolve conflicts between different neighbours.

    以解決不同鄰居之間的衝突。

  • So, basically Saúl is saying to RWE:

    是以,基本上Saúl是在對RWE說。

  • 'You're my neighbour in a global context,

    '在全球範圍內,你是我的鄰居。

  • because you're causing me harm or risk of harm via

    因為你通過......給我帶來傷害或傷害的風險。

  • through climate change, and as a neighbour,

    通過氣候變化,以及作為一個鄰居。

  •   you need to take responsibility for this harm you're causing me.'

    你需要對你給我造成的這種傷害負責。

  • Saúl is using similar law to the kind used

    薩烏爾使用的是類似的法律。

  • to solve arguments between neighbours

    解決鄰里之間的爭執 --

  • just in a global way, rather than locally.

    只是在全球範圍內,而不是在在地。

  • So, why could this one case be important?

    那麼,為什麼這一個案子會很重要呢?

  • So, this lawsuit is obviously only against one company

    是以,這起訴訟顯然只針對一家公司

  • and it's over a small amount of money, around $20,000,

    而且是在一個小的金額上,大約20,000美元。

  • which is small change for a big company like RWE.

    這對像RWE這樣的大公司來說是個小變化。

  • But what this is really about is about setting a precedent.

    但這真正的目的是要建立一個先例。

  • So, about developing legal tools

    那麼,關於開發法律工具

  • to hold big greenhouse gas emitters, big companies, responsible.

    讓大的溫室氣體排放者、大公司負責。

  • And so if Saúl wins this case against RWE,

    是以,如果Saúl贏得對RWE的這個案子。

  • other people who are affected by climate change

    其他受氣候變化影響的人

  • could use a similar legal approach

    可以採用類似的法律方法

  • to sue lots of other companies in lots of other countries.

    在很多其他國家起訴很多其他公司。

  • This case could set a precedent:

    這個案子可能會成為一個先例。

  • other people would copy Saúl and take on many other companies.

    其他人會模仿Saúl,並對許多其他公司下手。

  • So, what could I do, if I had a case like this?

    那麼,如果我遇到這樣的情況,我可以做什麼?

  • If you want to take action on climate change,

    如果你想對氣候變化採取行動。

  • if you want to go to court,

    如果你想上法庭。

  • that's a very difficult and complicated approach,

    這是一個非常困難和複雜的方法。

  • because it costs a lot of money and it takes a long time.

    因為這要花很多錢,而且需要很長的時間。

  • And actually what we really need is political solutions on climate change,

    而實際上我們真正需要的是關於氣候變化的政治解決方案。

  • because the solution isn't going to be that everyone

    因為解決方案不會是每個人都

  • who's affected will take a big energy company to court.

    受影響的人將把一家大型能源公司告上法庭。

  • And what these kinds of lawsuits do, like Saúl's lawsuit,

    而這類訴訟的作用,如薩烏爾的訴訟。

  • is that they put pressure on politicians to find long term solutions.

    是他們對政治家施加壓力,以找到長期的解決方案。

  • Going to court takes a lot of time and money in a case like this.

    在這樣的情況下,上法庭需要大量的時間和金錢。

  • Noah wants political solutions to climate change.

    諾亞希望通過政治手段解決氣候變化問題。

  • Saúl's case shows an interesting approach:

    薩烏爾的案例顯示了一種有趣的方法。

  • he's trying to get money he thinks he's owed for damages to his life.

    他試圖獲得他認為自己應得的生活損失費。

  • But what if you just want to protect the environment itself?

    但如果你只是想保護環境本身呢?

  • Laws are agreements between people or groups of people.

    法律是人們或群體之間的協議。

  • By living in a society, I've agreed

    通過生活在一個社會中,我已經同意了

  • that if I break the rules, I get punished.

    如果我違反規則,我就會受到懲罰。

  • We've seen that lawyers are using laws which give rights to people

    我們已經看到,律師正在利用賦予人們權利的法律

  • to protect the environment.

    以保護環境。

  • But that's complicated.

    但這很複雜。

  • What if I want help with a problem like melting ice caps?

    如果我想幫助解決像冰蓋融化這樣的問題怎麼辦?

  • It's hard to say exactly who's being harmed

    很難說到底誰受到了傷害

  • and how much they're being harmed,

    以及他們受到的傷害有多大。

  • so that makes it hard for lawyers to take action.

    是以,這使得律師很難採取行動。

  • Could that all be about to change?

    這一切是否會發生變化?

  • We spoke to lawyer Philippe Sands,

    我們採訪了律師Philippe Sands。

  • who's part of a group that wants the international community

    他是一個希望國際社會

  • to set up a new crime called 'ecocide'.

    確立了一種新的罪行,稱為 "生態滅絕"。

  • It would sit alongside things like war crimes

    它將與戰爭罪等事項並列

  • and crimes against humanity.

    和危害人類罪。

  • It would directly protect the environment.

    它將直接保護環境。

  • He explained more.

    他解釋了更多。

  • And our definition of 'ecocide' is unlawful or wanton acts,

    而我們對'生態滅絕'的定義是非法或肆意的行為。

  • which a person commits in the knowledge

    一個人在明知的情況下犯下的罪行

  • that there is a substantial likelihood

    有很大的可能性

  • of severe damage to the environment,

    對環境的嚴重破壞。

  • which is also widespread or long-term.

    這也是廣泛的或長期的。

  • So, the heart of it is severe damage to the environment.

    所以,它的核心是對環境的嚴重破壞。

  • 'Ecocide' would be breaking the law in a way that meant

    '生態滅絕'將是以一種意味著違反法律的方式

  • doing something that seriously damages the environment.

    做一些嚴重破壞環境的事情。

  • Why aren't our current laws good enough?

    為什麼我們目前的法律還不夠好?

  • The law tends to lag behind. It follows; it doesn't lead.

    法律往往是落後的。它緊隨其後;它並不上司。

  • And environmental consciousness is a new thing.

    而環境意識是一個新事物。

  • So, we're living today with the laws of the past

    所以,我們今天生活在過去的法律中

  • and this project, defining the crime of 'ecocide',

    和這個項目,定義了 "生態滅絕 "的罪行。

  • is about updating our laws to the current situation.

    是關於更新我們的法律以適應當前形勢。

  • It takes time for laws to be written.

    法律的制定需要時間。

  • Environmental awareness is relatively new;

    環境意識是相對較新的。

  • the law needs to catch up.

    法律需要跟上。

  • So, does he think 'ecocide' will become law?

    那麼,他是否認為'生態滅絕'會成為法律?

  • It will now be for states, for governments,

    現在它將是為國家、為政府服務的。

  • to decide what to do with it.

    以決定如何處理它。

  • If five or six governments decide they want to run with this idea,

    如果有五、六個政府決定要用這個想法來運作。

  • I think it is likely to take off. My sense is that

    我認為它很可能會起飛。我的感覺是,

  • there will be governments who want to run with this idea,

    會有政府想用這個想法來運作。

  • so I'm quietly optimistic.

    所以我默默地感到樂觀。

  • International laws need governments to agree to them.

    國際法需要各國政府的同意。

  • If six or seven governments agree, it might be possible.

    如果六個或七個政府同意,這也許是可能的。

  • So, what could stop 'ecocide' becoming a crime?

    那麼,什麼可以阻止 "生態滅絕 "成為一種犯罪?

  • There will be a number of countries

    將有一些國家

  • and a number of corporations, who will be very worried that,

    和一些公司,他們會非常擔心,。

  •   if a crime of ecocide becomes part of international law,

    如果生態滅絕罪成為國際法的一部分。

  • they will be targeted.

    他們將成為目標。

  • And so the objections will come, I suspect,

    是以,我懷疑反對意見將會到來。

  • from countries and corporations who benefit the most

    來自受益最大的國家和公司

  • from widespread and severe damage to the environment.

    從對環境的廣泛和嚴重破壞。

  • Companies and countries who damage the environment most

    破壞環境最多的公司和國家

  • might oppose it becoming international law.

    可能會反對它成為國際法。

  • So, we've seen how some people can take on the people

    是以,我們已經看到了一些人是如何對人民下手的

  • they think are behind climate change,

    他們認為氣候變化的背後。

  • in an effort to get widespread change.

    以期獲得廣泛的改變。

  • And if the crime of 'ecocide' enters international law,

    而如果 "生態滅絕 "的罪行進入國際法。

  • courts could have whole new powers

    法院可以擁有全新的權力

  • to protect us and our world.

    以保護我們和我們的世界。

Generally, if someone harms you,

一般來說,如果有人傷害了你。

字幕與單字
自動翻譯

影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

A2 初級 中文 法律 氣候 變化 公司 生態 滅絕

我怎樣才能得到幫助?- BBC學習英語 (How can I get help? - BBC Learning English)

  • 25 4
    林宜悉 發佈於 2021 年 10 月 20 日
影片單字