A Nemcsok Janos vezette kuldottseg altal Szlovakianak felajanlott
kompromisszumos(!) javaslat szerint szo lehet a nagymarosi helyett
ket kisebb vizlepcso felepiteserol.                    Udv///Laci

A Kozep- és Kelet-Europai Bankfigyelo Halozat magyar
orszag-koordinatort
keres. A Halozat az olyan nemzetkozi penzintezetek tevekenyseget
figyeli (kornyezeti szempontbol), mint a Vilagbank, Europai
Ujjaepitesi es Fejlesztesi Bank (EBRD) és Europai Befektetesi Bank
(EIB). A szervezetnek 10 ország tagja a kozep-kelet-europai
regiobol.

Mik a koordinátor fo feladatai?
- információkat gyujt a nemzetkozi penzintezetek magyarorszagi
tevékenységérol,
- a megszerzett informaciot atadja az erdekelt civil szervezeteknek,
terjeszti azt a sajto koreben,
- rendszeresen hirlevelet keszít tevekenysegerol,
- folyamatosan informalja a regionalis koordinatort orszagos szinten
vegzett munkajarol.

Mik a  koordinatorsag  feltetelei? 
- egyetemi vagy foiskolai vegzettseg
- kozgazdasagtudomanyi és kornyezettudomanyi alapismeretek
- jo angol (es termeszetesen magyar) nyelvtudas
- magyar allampolgarsag
- lelkesedes, ratermettseg
- nagy elonyt jelent a civil szektorban való jartassag,
sajtokapcsolatok.


Az allas 1998. januar 1.-tol toltheto be. 
A jelentkezesi hatarido: 1997. december 20. A palyazok oneletrajzukat
az
Okoszolgálat irodájába Szemanik Enikonek vagy Feiler Jozsefnek
cimezve
kuldhetik el. 
Cim: 1054 Budapest Vadasz u. 29., tel/fax: 111-7855. 

Tovabbi felvilagositas kerheto Szemanik Enikotol a 301-4521-es
telefonon,
vagy a  vagy a 
drotposta cimen.

> -----------------------------------------------------------
Jozsef Feiler
Regional Coordinator, CEE Bankwatch Network
c/o ETK, Budapest
Vadasz u. 29.
H-1054, HUNGARY
Tel/fax: +361 311 78 55
e-mail: 
http://www.zpok.hu/mirror/bankwatch
Public E-mail Conference: 
> ------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, News administrator wrote:

> 
> Atom:
> Wolf Gyurival - nem eloszor - teljesen egyet kell ertenem: a teljes
> uzemanyag ciklust tekintve az atomeromuvek embereletben mert
> kockazata sokkal (egyes esetekben nagysagrendekkel) kisebb, mint a
> hagyomanyos tuzeloanyagu eromuveke. Ez eleg regota ismert, csak nem
> mindenki ismeri el.
> Egy 10 evvel ezelotti disszertacioban (szerenysegem tiltja, hogy a
> szerzojet megnevezzem) mar szerepel egy varos kozepere helyezett olaj-
> gaz tuzelesu es egy nuklearis futomu osszehasonlitasa. Ugyancsak
> embereletben merve a hagyomanyos futomu kockazata 4 (!)
> nagysagrenddel nagyobb. (megj.: ez nem eredmeny, csak alkalmazasi
> pelda volt es eppen a banyaszatot nem vette figyelembe)
  
Tisztelettel kerdem, hogy a fontebb idezett kivalo munka tartalmazta-e az
esetleges havaria-szituaciók (ugymint magleolvadas, primer kori serulesek 
kontra kazanrobbanas,
terrorista merenylet, stb), az uzemanyag szallitasa, helyi deponalasa,
netan a muvek felszamolasahoz kapcsolo kockazatok osszehasonlito 
elemzeset, vagy pl. a varos kozepen emittalt radioaktiv nemesgazoket,
stb.,stb..Mindenestre nem
hemzsegnek az ilyen futomuvek meg ott sem, ahol nagy kultuszuk volt egy
idoben: Kanada, Szovjetunio-Oroszorszag. 

                                         Kobor Jozsef

WHY DO THESE IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE BLAME SOCIETY FOR THEIR PROBLEMS?


	A few weeks ago I wrote a column about population growth and poverty. 
In response came a letter that took my breath away.  It says, in part:

	"I was born into a very poor family.  I'm the oldest of seven, and my
mother also had five miscarriages.  Since she was ill most of the time and my
father was in and out of jail, we lived on "relief" (as it was then called) in
a roach-infested 4-room cold-water apartment.  I basically raised my brothers
and sisters from the time I was seven.

	"I was seduced when I was 15 by a 21-year-old man -- the first man who
had ever made me feel special.  Though I was a straight-A student, I had to
leave school when I became pregnant.  He did marry me and support me (somewhat,
through criminal activities).  We had three children by the time I was 18.  I
won scholarships to go to school at night (while working full time during the
day), ultimately earning an MBA.  After 14 years of misery I could take the
kids and leave him.  

	He fathered many illegitimate children.  Some of them have fallen into
the same pattern of unwed parenthood, poverty, and crime.  The same thing has
happened to some of my brothers and sisters.  One sister has six children by
five different men and has lived on welfare her entire life.  The violence,
depravity, and suffering she and her children have gone through is beyond most
people's ability to comprehend.

	"I'm now a manager at AT&T, and my current husband and I recently were
able to buy a lovely home.  My children suffered some ill effects from growing
up in a bad neighborhood, but I was able to shield them from a lot. 

	"My current husband was raised in a loving and comfortable environment. 
I won't say his childhood was perfect, but it was idyllic in comparison to
mine.  I read your article to him and asked him what he thought.  'Why do these
irresponsible people blame society for their problems?' was his response.

	"I was stunned -- this from a good, kind, caring man!  I pointed out
that I was one of those 'irresponsible' people.  But then I realized he can't
understand, because he's never experienced these terrible circumstances.  He
can't even stand to hear my stories.

	"It seems the more you need help, the easier it is for the fortunate to
blame you and legislate against you, believing they've 'earned' their
situation, so the same must go for you.  We cheerfully spend billions on
military defense against 'enemies,' but we begrudge every dollar spent
defending our own children from evil forces much closer to home.  I wonder if
this kind of thinking is at the heart of the public's inability to understand
or enact programs that could end poverty?

	"Sincerely,  Rose M. Berkowitz"

	I asked Ms. Berkowitz if I could make her letter public.  And I asked
her, "Could society have helped you?  Can we help those who are still caught in
the poverty cycle?"

	She answered with a bit about specific programs.  "For example, we need
long-term shelters for battered women and their children, where they can stay
until they have been counseled, educated, outfitted for a good job and helped
to find safe and decent housing.  There are local programs already in place
throughout the country.  These could be studied and the best ideas applied on a
nationwide basis."

	But she most wants to work on the impasse she felt with her current
husband: the difficulty of reaching across barrier of different experience. 
She wants us to take up the challenge of communicating, emphathizing,
understanding.  

	"Well-off people may feel justified in having a conniption because they
can't find the right new outfit or they may get drunk because they have to
postpone their vacation.  But they can't understand how a poor father can lash
out in frustration because he can't find a job, or how an abused teenage girl
can turn to drugs or sex for solace.

	"If people could understand, they would see how to take action.  There
are two things to understand, the cycle of low self-esteem, poverty and abuse
on one side and the cycle of self-righteousness, materialism and indifference
on the other.

	Then she makes a suggestion so crashingly obvious I can't imagine why
we haven't done it long ago: "Why not ask those who need help how they want to
be helped, rather than imposing uninformed ideas?  Why not get people like me,
who have lived in poverty and who have gotten out, to provide input to social
programs?"

	I can't imagine why not, unless we are afraid of looking poverty in the
eye, learning the names and stories of the people caught in it, and seeking
sincerely to help them, or at least to stop labeling them all "irresponsible." 
Poverty isn't catching.  We won't get it by coming close.  Quite the contrary,
if we continue to keep our distance, poverty will touch us anyway, through its
waves of violence, misery, and unplanned, unloved, uneducated, abused, damaged
children. 

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)

Modest Targets Seen as Likely Outcome in Kyoto

Observers believe that a target for industrial 
nations to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 
1990 levels, perhaps followed by relatively small 
emissions reductions, is the likely outcome at 
the Kyoto climate conference next month, 
according to a survey released by the Global 
Environmental Change Report on 20 November.

The survey, which was sent electronically to 
thousands of people worldwide who subscribe to 
various climate-related publications, lists, or 
newsgroups, asked recipients their opinion of the 
most likely outcomes for the Kyoto conference in 
terms of targets and time-tables. The survey 
provided a matrix of possible replies, ranging 
from stabilization to 20% reductions by 2005, 
2010, and 2015.

Of those responding to the survey, 31% felt that 
stabilization at 1990 levels was the only target 
negotiators would agree to in Kyoto, while 
another 29% believed that the likely outcome of 
the talks would be stabilization followed by some 
degree of reductions. About 15% of respondents 
suggested that only reduction targets (no 
stabilization) would be negotiated, while nearly 
13% believed that the meeting would end without 
any commitments. A number of those who felt that 
negotiators would agree to a target expressed 
concern that loopholes would make the targets 
meaningless, or else that countries would simply 
fail to abide by them.

Roughly following the lines of the US proposal, 
33% of survey respondents believed that 
stabilization at 1990 levels by 2010 would be 
negotiated in Kyoto. Of these, 58% felt that this 
would be the only target, 30% felt that 
stabilization would be followed by a 5% reduction 
in 2015, 9% felt it would be followed by a 10% 
reduction in 2015, and less than 3% believed it 
would be followed by a 15% reduction in 2015.

Nearly 16% of the survey respondents felt that 
the negotiations would result in a target of 
stabilization at 1990 levels by 2005. Of these, 
36% believed that this would be followed with a 
5% reduction in 2010 and a 10% reduction in 2015. 
Another 17% felt that stabilization would be 
followed by a 5% cut in 2015, and the balance 
proposed various other reduction scenarios. 

Observers apparently hold little hope for the EU 
proposal for 15% reductions by 2010. Less than 1% 
of respondents felt that the negotiators would 
agree to such reductions by 2010, and only 6.5% 
believed that they would agree to a 15% reduction 
even by 2015. Finally, less than 2% of the 
respondents believed that a 20% reduction target 
would be negotiated for the time period covered 
by the survey (2005-2015). 

However, respondents did feel that the EU is 
fairly likely to make a unilateral commitment to 
reduce emissions if the Kyoto conference fails to 
reach agreement on binding targets. More than 35% 
of the respondents felt that the EU might make 
such a commitment, while an additional 27% felt 
that one or more EU member countries might set a 
unilateral target.

Fifteen percent of respondents pegged Germany as 
the most likely of the EU countries to make a 
unilateral commitment, followed by The 
Netherlands and the UK (nearly 10% each), and 
Denmark (6.1%). Nearly 7% of respondents felt 
that the Scandinavian countries in general would 
be likely to make such a commitment. 
Surprisingly, nearly 12% of respondents felt that 
Japan might make a unilateral commitment, and 
nearly 6% felt that the US would. However, more 
than 7% of respondents felt that no country would 
be likely to take on unilateral commitments. 

The survey also asked respondents which key 
factors (from a list provided) they believed 
would have "a substantial impact" on the outcome 
of the negotiations at Kyoto. Fifty-five percent 
felt that a new US proposal would have an impact, 
45% felt that industry representatives would, and 
almost 24% felt that environmental organizations 
would. Only 13% felt that new scientific evidence 
would influence the negotiations, and only 6% 
felt that a change in Australia's position would 
have an impact. Respondents also wrote in 
possibilities including developing nations' 
willingness to accept new commitments, leadership 
from Japan, a new European position, and 
increasing public awareness as factors that could 
potentially influence the negotiations. 

Lelani Arris, Editor
Global Environmental Change Report