1.

V sklopu kampanje 1 milijon podnebnih slub razlikujete med zelenimi in

podnebnimi delovnimi mesti. Ali lahko obrazloite namen takega razlikovanja
in njegov politini in ekonomski pomen?
Zelena delovna mesta lahko pomenijo veliko razlinih nujnih delovnih mest kot so slube v
gozdarstvu, v preievalnih obratih in slube za dobrobit ivali. Podnebna delovna mesta
pa pomenijo zelo specifina zelena delovna mesta, katera neposredno zmanjajo koliino
izpustov emisij toplogrednih plinov, ki segrevajo nae podnebje. Takno razlikovanje
uveljavljamo iz dveh razlogov, sprva zato, ker podnebna delovna mesta potrebujemo takoj
in se elimo osredotoiti na tista, ki bi pripomogla k prepreevanju onesnaevanja in ne
samo osveala ljudi o perei tematiki, in drugotno, e vam nekdo zgolj ree elimo ve
zelenih delovnih mest, lahko ljudje povsem upravieno reejo, naj imamo potem tudi ve
delovnih mest v bolnicah in vzgojno-izobraevalnih ustanovah. To so za nas zelo dobri
razlogi.
Green jobs can mean many things, from jobs in the forestry to jobs in animal welfare to
jobs in sewage plants. All of these jobs are necessary, but climate jobs means a very
specific kind of green job it means, jobs that directly reduce the amount of green house
gas emissions that are warming the climate. We make the distinction for two reasons, one
is that we have to have the climate jobs now and we want to concentrate on the jobs that
are going to make a difference to climate not jobs like climate awareness, the other reason
is that if you merely say we want more green jobs people can quite rightly say, well let's
have more hospital jobs instead, let's have more jobs in child care and those are very
good reasons. (most of all, jobs building renewable energy)
2. Ena kritika kampanje, in njenih tiskanih ter elektronskih propagandnih
materialov, je njihova preprostost. Analiza problema, predstavljena v vai
knjiici, se celovito premika od toke A do B: oddajamo na milijone ton CO2
in drugih kodljivih izpustov, imamo trume ljudi, ki se ukvarjajo z razlinimi
kodljivimi industrijami in storitvami, e pa se zdrueni zaveemo nekaterim
dokaj preprostim korakom, ki jih predlagate, lahko drastino zmanjamo
izpust emisij in hkrati ustvarjamo nova delovna mesta. Vse vae ideje in
predlogi se zdijo zelo verjetni in lahko dosegljivi, in e je temu res tako, kaj je
tisto, ki ljudi zadruje v sindikatu in drugih aktivistinih krogih in jim
prepreuje, da dejansko izvajajo takno prakso v najkrajem monem asu?
Te ideje so torej trenutno precej iroke v sindikalnih krogih, krogih aktivistov in med
verskimi in drugimi skupinami v Veliki Britaniji, na Norvekem in v Juni Afriki ter drugod.
Temeljna teava pri izvajanju takih nartov je varevanje ali neoliberalizem oziroma
gospodarski sistem, ki se imenuje tudi "trickle-down" ekonomija (denar bo sasoma e
prikapljal med rajo z bogatega vrha). Teavno je predvsem tudi to, da nae ideje zahtevajo
izredno velike vladne nalobe v zelo velik projekt javnega sektorja, in e jim to uspe je la
celotna neoliberalna miselnost in praksa zadnjih trideset letih po zlu. Sprejetje tako velikih
sprememb pa bi ljudi pahnilo v razmiljanje o ukrepih tudi na drugih podrojih, kot denimo
olstvo, pokojninski sistem in zdravstvo. Mislim, da je na vrhu kapitalistinega sistema zelo
veliko ljudi (politini voditelj, podjetniki in drugi poslovnei), ki si resnino elijo sprememb

na podroju onesnaevanja in vedo, kakne ukrepe je potrebno sprejeti, ampak hkrati

elijo obdrati tudi neoliberalno ekonomijo in varevalno politiko.
Well, these ideas are quite wide now in Britain and Norway and South Africa in trade union
circles in activists circles among faith groups and so on, the central difficulty in actually
implementing them is austerity, what is also called neoliberalism also called trickle-down
economics. The central difficulty is that this requires very large investments by
governments in what is a very big public sector project and if they do that, then the whole
neoliberal project of thirty years is gone. After they've done that everybody will say: well if
we can do it for the atmosphere, why can't we do it for the schools, for my pension, and
then everybody will say well we can, so I think that's the difficulty, I think they're very many
people at the top of the capitalist system (political leaders, corporate heads) who really
want to do something and know what needs to be done but also want to hang on to
neoliberal economics and austerity. (fundamental difficulty)
3. Jonathan, delali ste za kampanjo preko vae pripadnosti akademskem
sindikatu. V katerih pogledih bi se lahko tako akademiki, strokovno osebje,
ole in univerze poistovetile s kampanjo 1 milijon podnebnih slub, saj se ne
zdi, da se neposredno dotikajo vpraanj povezanih z njihovim delovnim
mestom in delovnimi okoliinami. Z drugimi besedami, e bi Vas akademik
vpraal: kaj imam jaz od tega, kaj bi odgovorili?
Meni, kot akademiku, je pomemben ta problem na enak nain, kot je pomemben za
tesarja, za 10-letno deklico, za olno ... Tukaj gre za ivljenje na Zemlji in potrebno se je
zavedati, da smo vsi skupaj v taki situaciji in bomo tudi skupaj trpeli posledice. Zdi se mi
odloilnega pomena, da sindikati aktivno sodelujejo v reevanju problema, vendar je
potrebno poudariti, da gre tukaj za vse/celotno lovetvo. Izpostaviti je treba tudi, da ko so
bili sindikati svetovno vzpostavljeni, so bili vzpostavljeni s strani ljudi, ki so eleli, da so leti/sindikati del vejega projekta, projekta za neodvisnost, socialno demokracijo,
komunizem ali esar drugega. Sindikalisti so vedno mislili, da so imeli mesto v pravdi za
mir in v elji po socialni ureditvi drave, da so ti argumenti pomembni za njih, ker so
pomembni za vse nas, in ne zgolj za neko doloeno delovno mesto. Oseba, ki je
akademik, je tudi nekdo z otroki, s partnerjem, moem ali eno, in skoraj vsak akademik, ki
ga poznam v Veliki Britaniji, pozna nekoga, ki obupno potrebuje slubo.
It's important to me as an academic in the same way it matters to a carpenter and in the
same way it matters to a 10-year old girl, woodpecker This is about life on earth. We are
all in this together, suffer the consequences together. It is of decisive importance that
unions do something about it but it is for all humanity. But the other thing to say is that
when unions were built all over the world they were built by people who wanted trade
unions as part of a larger project, a project for independence, social democracy,
communism or whatever it was and trade unions have always thought that we had a place
in arguing for peace, that we have a place in wanting a welfare state, that these arguments
matter to us because they matter to all of us not because they matter to any particular job.
Somebody who is an academic is also somebody with a husband, wife or a partner, with
children, almost every academic I know in Britain knows somebody who desperately

needs a job.
4. Nancy, moram vas vpraati podobno vpraanje, sodelujete v aktivistini
skupini Stari stari za podnebne ukrepe. e bi vas kdo od starih starev
vpraal: kaj pridobim z aktivnim vkljuevanjem v okoljevarstvena gibanja; kaj
bi nanje odgovorili?
Mislim, da je kampanja Stari stari za podnebne ukrepe, ki so jo zaeli udoviti Norveani
in je sedaj e postala mednarodno uveljavljena, ena tistih, ki je dejansko odvisna od
ljubezni, predvsem od ljubezni do otrok sedanjosti, otrok prihodnosti, od obutka vsakega
od nas kot oskrbnika/skrbnika za prihajajoe generacije, pa tudi od ljubezni do tega
naega lepega planeta, na katerem ivimo, ki se bo kmalu zelo drastino spremenil, e ne
bomo ukrepali. Ta kampanja je odvisna od ljubezni v smislu veliko ire vrste ljubezni do
doma in obudovanja do vrst ustvarjalnosti in veselja, kar soljudje lahko postanejo, e si
pustijo misliti, da so argumenti za boj proti podnebnim spremembam zelo pomembni. Moje
sanje so videti stare stare hoditi v prvih vrstah vsake demonstracije, saj so kljub vsemu
njihova ivljenja kraja, kot ivljenja ostalih, kar pa bi ob monih vladnih prepovedih
protestiranja resnino vrglo slabo lu na vlado.
I think that the Grandparents campaign, which has now gone international, started as far
as I know by the wonderful Norwegians, but many other people picked it up (australians
and so forth) is a campaign that actually depends on love and it depends on love of
children, children of the future, that sense of each of us as a steward/guardian for other
generations to come, but also love of this very beautiful planet that we live on which is
going to change very drastically unless we do something and so in a sense it's (it is of
course about the immediate love of grandchildren and children of the future) a much
broader kind of love for the place that we are and admiration for the kind of creativity and
joy fellow human beings can be, celebrate if they allow themselves to think that these
arguments are enormously important. My dream is grandparents being at the front of every
demonstration because after all their lives are going to be shorter than other peoples' so if
the cops (guns?) come down on them, it's going to look really bad for the cops.
5. Zavedamo se razpotij med aktivisti, ko pride do vpraanja o istem premogu
in jedrski energiji. Nekateri vidijo ta dva vira kot moni nain pridobivanja
elektrine energije brez izpustov toplogrednih emisij in brez nadaljnjega
prispevanja h globalnemu segrevanju. Drugi obema nasprotujejo, vasih tudi
z naslova ekolokih vpraanj, ki presegajo podnebne spremembe. Kaken je
va osebni pogled na isti premog, jedrsko energijo in njune potencialne
monosti uporabe?

(Nancy) Kot razumem, imamo e sedaj monosti za pridobivanje sonne, morske in vetrne
energije ter vso potrebno tehnologijo, da naredimo nujno potrebne spremembe. Dananja
paradigma je preprost sodoben kapitalizem, v katerem pa reitve za globalno segrevanje
ni. Zamisel o tehnoloki reitvi, ki se opira na nekaj nedokazanega (udene reitve) in je
skoraj nemogoa, je nekako neizrekljiva zakaj bi se poglabljali v nove in zapletene
reitve, e imamo bolj preproste in dostopne e pod nosom? Tu je potrebno tudi vedeti, da
je v ozadju velik interes lobistov istega premoga. Enako velja tudi za jedrsko energijo,
zgleden primer so pogodbe za elektrarne v Veliki Britaniji, iz katerih je razviden
preobseen in neopraviljiv asovni obseg del, denar in naloba, potrebna za izgradnjo
takih objektov. Predlog nae kampanje, ki je razdeljen na ve korakov, je zelo dober primer
monih reitev problemov v preprosti obliki s pomojo tehnologije, ki jo e imamo. (Jon) V
okviru kampanje imamo kompromis, s katerim si elimo poskus uporabe istega premoga
in njegovih rezultatov. Tehnologija istega premoga je prisotna e ve kot 20 let in je do
sedaj e nikjer niso poskusili v njenem polnem obsegu, in to je po mojem mnenju zato, ker
ljudje, ki so ga izumili dvomijo v njegovo delovanje/funkcionalnost.
(Nancy) As I understand it we have the technology now, the solar, wind or wave power, to
do what we need to do very urgently. The idea of having a technological fix which relies on
something unproven (a silver bullet solution) and frankly implausible is kind of
unspeakable why would one go there if you can resolve it more easily? In this respect
you have to think of the best interest behind clean coal lobby. The same applies to nuclear
power, if you look at the contracts for power stations in Britain, it is absurd, the time scale,
the money, the investment, it is implausible, but it is about a contemporary capitalism
which will not solve the problem and is much simpler. You talked about earlier about the
campaign and it's steps, it's a very simple proposition and it's doable with the technology
we have. (Jon) within the campaign we have a compromise that we want them to try clean
coal and see if it works. It's important because the technology has been present for 20
years and it yet hasn't been tried full scale anywhere in the world, and that's in my opinion
because the people who invented it doubt if it works.
6. Dva glavna naina, s katerimi predlagate pridobitev denarja za
prestrukturiranje gospodarstva, storitev in infrastrukture, odmaknjene od
fosilnih goriv in odpadkov, je s posojanjem denarja iz Bank of England in
poveanjem davkov. Predlagate, da e bi bil najbogateji odstotek
prebivalstva obdaven za samo 1 funt na vsakih 200 v njihovi lasti, bi se lahko
zbralo 12 bilijonov funtov. Takna davna stopnja (0,5%) je izjemno nizka, ki
pa kljub temu proizvaja veliko koliino gotovine. Za primerjavo, ocenjuje se,
da National Health Service potrebuje samo 8 milijard za delovanje in
ohranjanje ravni svojih storitev. Moje vpraanje je torej sledee, zakaj se
takno zbiranje sredstev e ne izvaja?

e bi se tak davek dejansko uveljavil, potem bi se del pridobljenih sredstev namenil tudi za
olstvo in druge javne ustanove, in bi s tako prakso postopoma uvajali v celoti drug
politini sistem, ki bi bil odmaknjen od zdajnjega neoliberalizma s svojimi krutimi praksami
ustvarjanja neenakosti in privilegiranja bogatih. Kot vemo, pa danes Britanijo vodijo v
skladu z interesi ljudi z velikim bogastvom. Na nek nain je torej ta moni zdrs sistema
glavni razlog za vladno prepreevanje uveljavljanja taknega davka.
If you made that tax then you would actually add a little fraction of that pound to the
schools and with that produce another political system, from the neoliberal system that we
are now living under, which is ruthless in creating inequality and privileging those who are
very wealthy. So, in a way it is about that kind of slippage which seems to be the reason
for preventing the tax to be instated. Britain is run in accordance to the interest of people
with great wealth.
7. Knjiica kampanje 1 milijon podnebnih slub poda zgledne primere
avtomobilskih tovarn v ZDA, ki so med drugo svetovno vojno proizvodnjo
avtomobilov prestrukturirale na proizvodnjo oroja v manj kot treh mesecih.
To dokazuje, da je tam, kjer je volja do sprememb, tudi pot. e pomislimo na
vso kodo, ki so jih podnebne spremembe e pustile na ivljenjih ljudi in
infrastrukturi, zakaj sedaj ne vidimo enakega odlonega ukrepanja in
vplivanja na prednostne naloge gospodarstva, kot smo ga lahko videli v asu
druge svetovne vojne?
Druga svetovna vojna/reevanje druge svetovne vojne je potekala/o v smislu narodnih in
irih politinih interesov namesto dobika posameznikov. Kar se danes dogaja je, da
ljudje, ki plaujejo ceno, na primer velik dele civilnega prebivalstva v Pekingu, ki ne more
dihati, ali ljudje iz Bangladea in pacifikih otokov, ki se utapljajo, niso tisti odloilni ljudje,
ki so najbogateji v Veliki Britaniji ter Ameriki in kupujejo visoke parcele na Novi Zelandiji,
ki naj bi bile je med najbolj varnimi kraji na svetu. Prav tako so v ZDA sindikati in poslovni
voditelji med drugo svetovno vojno sodelovali v oboroevanju in s tem naredili vse, kar so
mogli, saj so poslovnei verjeli, da e bi Amerika zmagala vojno, bi ameriko poslovanje
prevladalo svetu, sindikalisti pa so verjeli, da bi z njihovo zmago lahko porazili naciste.
Oboji so na koncu imeli prav.
One of the things about WWII is that it was constructed in terms of national and wider
political interests instead of individual gain. What is happening here is that the people who
are paying the price, for example the huge civilian population of Beijing who can't breathe
or the people of Bangladesh and Pacific islands who are drowning, but not the people who
are the richest in Britain or America who are buying the high ground in New Zealand as the
place which is safest in the world (and has hobbits :)). The other thing to say is that in the
US during WWII the unions and the business leaders cooperated in the armaments drive
and both did everything they could because the business people believed that if America
won the
WWII American business would dominate the world and the union people
believed if they won the WWII they would stop the Nazis. Both of them were right.

8. Analize in tevilke, navedene za kampanjo 1 milijon podnebnih slub, se

izrecno sklicujejo na situacijo v Zdruenem kraljestvu. Kampanja, ki temelji na
koaliciji razlinih sindikatov, je bila pred kratkim podprta s strani novega
vodje delavske opozicije, Jeremyja Corbyna. Ali lahko komentirata, kaj
njegova podpora dejansko pomeni za vao kampanjo?
To pomeni bodisi veliko bodisi skoraj ni. Razplet je odvisen od ve dejavnikov, eden
izmed njih je vpraanje ali bo Corbyn dejansko postal novoizvoljeni predsednik vlade, in e
bo takrat e vedno vodja delavske stranke, ki ga trenutno podpira, in hkrati je odvisno tudi
od nas, e bomo vzpostavili dovolj veliko kampanjo/propagando znotraj delavske stranke,
saj je njegova/Corbynova podpora naemu gibanju obsegala zgolj eno poved v celem
manifestu. Kadar pride politina stranka na oblast nekatere stvari postanejo osrednja
problematika in nekatere se pozabijo, zato pa je tako pomembno, da vzpostavimo dovolj
mono kampanjo/propagando znotraj delavske stranke, da bo veina pripadnikov verjela v
nae predloge, in da le-ti predstavljajo glavni razlog za njihovo politino vkljuitev.
It means either a great deal or not very much. First of all weather or not Corbyn becomes
prime minister and if he is still head of the labour party that is backing him by the time he
becomes one but also it depends on weather we built a big enough campaign inside the
labour party, because what he's done is endorsed our campaign in one sentence in a
manifesto. But when a political party comes into power some things are central and some
things fall by the side and we need to build a big enough campaign inside the labour party
that for most of the people in it will believe that our goals are their central thing that they're
running for election on.
9. Corbyn prejema veliko kritik na raun svojih politinih pogledov, in to
navkljub iroki podpori, ki jo ima, e posebej zunaj parlamentarnega dela
stranke. Kaj, po vaem mnenju, motivira takne vrste napadov in
diskreditiranj, ki prihajajo tudi iz njegove lastne stranke, in zavzema ljudi, ki
se vidijo, e e ne na levi politini strani, pa vsaj na sredini leve?
To, kar se dogaja, je neverjetno grdo in mediji so res hudobni do njega. Mora razumeti,
da je neenakost v zadnjih 30 letih postala tako globoka in zahrbtna, da bi mu vsakdo, ki
meni, da pozna/obvlada/razume prakse gospodarstva privilegijev, obrnil hrbet. Rad bi tudi
dodal, da obstaja precej rednih kolumnistov za The Guardian, ki so eleli objaviti pozitivne
objave/naklonjene lanke o njem, vendar jim je bilo to onemogoeno, ker jim je urednik to
preprosto prepovedal. To v bistvu daje obutek, da je vsa elita proti Corbynu, zanimivo pa
je koliko malo vode drijo te akterji. Po mojih prejnjih izkunjah, ko smo doiveli velik
napad na rudarje med rudarsko stavko, je to premaknilo javno mnenje na politino desno,
v tem primeru pa takni napadi na Corbyna sploh niso uperili javnega mnenja proti njem.
Mislim, da je presenetljivo, da je bil Corbyn izvoljen z 60-odstotno veino lanov delavske
stranke, pri katerih je bila povprena starost 41 let, kar pomeni, da je bila veina teh ljudi
ista skupina, ki je prej glasovala za Tonyja Blaira in Gordona Branda. Tu vidimo, da gre za
premike v celotni populaciji, in ne le zgolj v mentaliteti. Mislim, da se v trenutkih socialne
krize pokaejo osebne stance posameznikov, kar pa sem preprian, da poznate tudi iz

slovenske zgodovine, kjer, politino gledano, na koncu nihe ni konal tam, kjer bi
priakoval. To ne pomeni, da je levica neobstojea, pomeni le, da ob pojavitvi novih
trendov ljudje ponavadi konajo na razlinih koncih.
It is unbelievably ugly and the media are really vicious towards him. You have to
understand that the inequality over the last 30 years has actually been so deep and
insidious that anyone who feels that they have a purchase on privileged economy is not
going to support him. I would also like to add that there are quite a lot of regular columnists
for The Guardian that wanted to publish positive pieces about Corbyn, but were unable to
because the editor simply would not allow them. This essentially produces a feeling that all
the opinion makers are against Corbyn. The startling thing is how little purchase this has
had / in my previous experience when there was the big attack on the miners during the
miner strike, this shifted the public opinion to the right. The attacks on Corbyn have not
shifted the public opinion against him at all. I think the startling thing is that Corbyn was
elected by a vote of 60% of the members of the labour party and the medium age of the
voters was 41, most of the people who voted for him were people who had previously
voted for Tony Blair and Gordon Brand. This is a population that is shifting and the older
people in the population like the younger people are shifting./ I think in moments of social
crisis you find out who is where you will know this from Slovenian history where nobody
ended up where you thought they would end up. This does not mean the left is non
existing it just means when new things come along people tend to end up in different
places.
10. Vsaj eno protislovje v kampanji 1 milijon podnebnih slub se nanaa na
nekatere zahteve sindikatov in delavskih gibanj. Delavska gibanja in sindikati
so se namre skozi zgodovino zavzemali tudi za zmanjanje delovnika od 12
do 10 ur dela na dan, in kasneje od 10 do 8 ur na dan, dananjo normo. Vai
izrauni za realizacijo 1 milijon podnebnih slub v Veliki Britaniji temeljijo na
8-urnem delovniku, kar pomeni 40-urni delovni teden, ampak zakaj se ustaviti
pri e ustaljenih normah? Eden od ukrepov francoskih socialistov, ko so e
bili na oblasti, je bil zmanjati delovni teden, vedska je trenutno v fazi
eksperimentiranja na istem obmoju. Mnogi ljudje so brez dela, medtem pa se
zdi,
da
ostali
delajo
veliko
ve
za
veliko
manj.
Ali ne bi bilo mogoe poveati zaposlovanja in dati nadaljnjo teo na vrsto
kulturnih, socialnih in ekonomskih sprememb, ki bi pomagale pri zaustavitvi
globalnega segrevanja, ravno s kampanjo za ve podnebnih delovnih mest,
vendar z manjimi delovnimi obremenitvami za vse zaposlene, ne glede na to,
kje in kdaj so zaposleni?
V sklopu kampanje se bojujemo za 8-urni ali 7-urni delovnik, odvisno od tega, kakna
je sedanja kultura v doloeni vrsti posla/dela/slube. Osebno sem absolutno v prid
delitvi dela in tevila ur dela, ampak e bi to vkljuili v sklop zahtev, ki jih trenutno
predlagamo kot del kampanje v Veliki Britaniji, bi to pomenilo rei ljudem, da se
bojujemo za zahteve v katere dejansko ne verjamemo in dvomimo v njihov uspeh.

Med vsemi dravami srednje in zahodne Evrope pa je prav Britanija tista, ki sta jo
neoliberalizem in varevalni ukrepi najbolj prizadela, saj je to drava, v kateri si je
najteje predstavljati mono uveljavo 30-urnega delovnega tedna. Moramo biti previdni,
da ne storimo to, kar levica in okoljevarstveniki pogosto ponejo, tj. pripravijo sklop
zahtev, ki dejansko niso zahteve, ampak bolj za izjava o tem, kaj bi radi dosegli (neko
utopino stanje), vendar pa nimajo nikogar, ki misli, da bojo s temi zahtevami kaj
pridobili in niti nihe ne verjame v njihovo politino zmago v naslednjih 5 letih. Tisto, kar
mi elimo je sestaviti niz zahtev, za katerega vsi mislijo, da ga dejansko nameravamo
izvesti, in da ne predlagamo zgolj nekega alternativnega programa, saj so izmed
osrednjih vrednot nae kampanje ravno spremembe delovnih pogojev in zmanjevanje
brezposelnosti. Tudi prej omenjene avtomobilske tovarne v ZDA, ali prav tako v
stalinistini Rusiji in nacistini Nemiji, so dejansko pripomogle k ustvarjanju zaposlitev
s polnim delovnim asom, danes pa vemo, da so v veini primerov ljudje obupani
zaradi situacije na trgu dela in si elijo slub s polnim delovnim asom. Na drugi strani
pa imamo kopico ljudi, ki so preobremenjeni z delom in si elijo druganih pogojev.
First, we're campaigning for some 8-hour and some 7-hour working days depending on
what the current culture is in that kind of job. I am absolutely in favour of sharing the
work around and sharing the number of hours around, but to put that into the set of
demands that we are putting forward now in Britain would be to say to people that we
have a set of demands that we don't think are actually going to be achieved. Amongst
all the countries of central and western Europe Britain is the one that is most affected
by neoliberalism and inequality, because it is the country where it is hardest to think
about a 30-hour working week. We need to be careful that we don't do something that
the left or the environmental movement often does, which is to draw up a set of
demands that are not actually demands but more a statement of what they would like
to have (the utopian situation) but have no people or anybody who thinks that they are
going to get them/ win this in the next 5 years. What we want is to make this a set of
demands that everyone thinks we really mean and not an alternative programme. This
is plausible, because if there are people who can set up wind turbines and work a 40hour week I think that's great and would like to let them do it. The urgency is also
working against these other kinds of coarse expectations which at the end of the day
we would like to see realised. Also, what they did in those car factories in the US, or for
that matter Stalinist Russia and the Nazi Germany, is create full time employment and
in most cases people are desperate for work and full time employment, and yet the
people with work wish the work would be completely different and not as much. /So you
would define full employment as the added value to the 1 million climate jobs
campaign?/ Oh, it is one of the central values.

11. Medtem ko ta intervju poteka, se v Parizu odvija podnebna konferenca

Zdruenih narodov, udeleila se je bo tudi Evropska unija in 195 drugih drav.
Kakna je vaa ocena in mnenje o takih konferencah?
(Nancy) Pred priblino 3 tedni sem bila na predavanju v Oxfordu, kjer je lord Nicholas
Stern, ki je bil pravzaprav najpomembneji britanski predstavnik na tem predavanju in
lovek, ki je dejansko mednarodno izpostavil konkretne nevarnosti podnebnih
sprememb, dejal, da je ta konferenca (v Parizu) obsojena na propad. Onesnaenost je
globalni problem, ki ga bo treba reevati na globalnem nivoju, ampak ta konferenca je
namenjena pridobitvi sporazuma, s katerim se bo izpust emisij le e poveal. / Na
kaken nain? / Najbogateje drave, ki proizvedejo manjino emisij na svetu, se bodo
zavezale, da bodo zmanjale izpust svojih emisij za priblino 1 % na leto. Na drugi
strani pa bodo drave, ki proizvedejo za priblino 2/3 svetovnih emisij, poveale izpust
svojih emisij za bistveno ve kot 1 % letno do leta 2030. Matematika/izraun je
preprosta, sporazum, ki bo rezultat te konference (v Parizu), ne bo ustalil koliino
emisij, ampak jih mono poveal. To je recept za katastrofo in prikrivajo nam dejstva,
da bodo drave, v primerjavi s trenutnim stanjem, dejansko le koliinsko zmanjale rast
svojega obiajnega onesnaevanja, kar pomeni, da bodo namesto potrojenih koliin
emisij v okolje spuale zgolj dvojno koliino teh strupenih plinov. Nekateri bodo
zmanjali intenzivnost ogljika, kar pomeni proizvedena koliina dima za vsako
pridobljeno enoto energije. V ZDA se e zadnjih 100 let intenzivnost ogljika letno
zmanjuje, podobno vidimo tudi v Sloveniji in v vsaki drugi dravi, saj je takno
zmanjanje pogojeno s produktivnostjo. Torej e enkrat poudarjam, obljuba konference
in sodelujoih drav za zmanjanje intenzivnosti ogljika je dejansko obljuba za
poveanje emisij in to se mi zdi nespodobno. Govorimo o hipotetinem dogovoru o
razumni in trajnostni rasti, ki bi obsegala 2-odstotno poveanje emisij CO2 na letni
ravni, medtem ko pa ti sporazumi, ki se bodo vzpostavili/potrdili/uveljavili na pariki
konferenci, uveljavljajo pogoje, ki povzroajo povianje globalne temperature med 3 in
4 stopinjami Celzija. Zdaj se sooamo s porastom temperature za 1 stopinjo in e lahko
vidimo neverjetno vrsto uinkov v vseh mogoih krajih, kjer so vremenski pojavi postali
bolj ekstremni, dezertifikacija je postala bolj ekstremna, deevje je bolj ekstremno,
nevihte so bolj intenzivne, orkani in tajfuni pa so huji. Takno poslabanje nam
omogoa uvid v veliko slabo situacijo, ki bi lahko nastala s porastom za 3 ali 4 stopinje
in imela izredno velik vpliv na ljudi. / Ali ni bil na cilj v preteklosti nino poveanje
svetovne temperature, zdaj pa smo se nenadoma vsi sprijaznili z 2 stopinjama?/ Ne,
saj dokler znanstveniki niso potrdili, kaj se dogaja s svetom, smo e lahko beleili
dolgorono poveanje za priblino 1,0 stopinj Celzija. / Zagotovo lahko potem na
podlagi teh dejstev poteno, ampak nerado reemo, da je bila vsaj ena bitka za
podnebne spremembe izgubljena, e e ne cela vojna? / Kakrna koli potencialna
sprememba v smislu boja za okolje mora potekati celostno in zavzeti vse dele
lovekovega ivljenja. Izgubili smo nekaj e bitk in manje segrevanje podnebja e
beleimo, vendar ne moremo rei, da obstaja monost, da bomo enkrat na tisti toki,
kjer bi lahko rekli, da smo v celoti zgubili bitko, ker je vedno lahko e slabe. Na tem

mestu je pomembno izpostaviti, da 3- ali 4-stopinjsko poveanje temperature ozraja

ne pomeni tirikrat toliko kot 1-stopinjsko poveanje, vendar je to 16- ali 40-krat toliko,
saj gre tu za multiplikacijski uinek. Znanstveniki se zavedajo dejstva, da moramo
upotevati tudi doloen dele naravnega segrevanja Zemlje se dogaja, prav tako pa so
ugotovili, da ko se Zemlja bolj obutno segreje, pride do veliko posledic, ki se
manifestirajo na razline naine, med drugim tudi zelo hitro in opazno poveanje
hitrosti.
This is a global problem and it will have to be solved by a global summit, but this
conference is dedicated to producing an agreement that will very substantially increase
emissions. /In what way?/ The richest countries that make the minority of the world's
emissions are promising to decrease their emissions by about 1% per year. The
countries that are producing about 2/3 of the world's emissions are promising to
increase their emissions by much more than 1% per year between now and 2030. The
math is simple, the agreement that comes out of Paris will be an agreement not to hold
any amount of emissions steady, but to massively increase them. This is a recipe for
disaster, and this is being concealed because many countries are said to be making
cuts compared to business as usual, which means that instead of tripling their
emissions they are going to double them. Some are going to make cuts in carbon
intensity, which is the amount of fume you use for each bit of energy you get. The US
has cut carbon intensity every year for a 100 years, and so did Slovenia, every country
does it because this comes with productivity. So again, a promise to cut carbon
intensity is a promise to increase emissions, it's obscene. (Nancy) I was at a talk in
Oxford about 3 weeks ago, where lord Nicholas Stern who was actually the most
important of the British representatives in this talk and the man who actually flagged up
internationally I suppose the threats of climate change where he said that this
conference (in Paris) is going to fail. What we are talking about as the reasonable and
sustainable place is a 2% increase in CO2 and these agreements that are going to
come together and be solidified in this Paris agreement are going to produce an
increase in global temperature between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius. Now we are dealing
with 1.0 and we can already see unbelievable kinds of effects in all kinds of places
where everything is actually more extreme, the desertification is more extreme, the
rains are more extreme, the storms are more intense, the hurricanes and the typhoons
are worse, so we are seeing at a very small proportion of what might be 3 or 4 degrees,
what would be a huge effect on what happens to people. /wasn't there a time when the
goal was to have a 0 increase in the world's temperature, now suddenly we have all
acquiesced to 2 degrees?/ No, by the time the scientists recognised what was
happening we already had a long term increase at about 1.0 degrees centigrade,
because this occurrence is a sequential thing which will rise up and we already have
enough warming in the deep ocean. /Surely then on the basis of these facts we can
honestly but reluctantly say that at least a battle for climate change has been lost if not
the whole war if we still see this 1 degree rise?/ there is something on what this is all
predicated on and that is the acute change. We've lost some battles and there is some
warming already in the system. There is no one point in which we finally lose the battle

because it can always be worse. It is important to recognise that a 3 or a 4 degree

increase is not four times as much as a 1 degree, it's 16 or 40 times as much, there's a
multiplier effect. The scientists know that some natural warming of the earth is going
on, and when the earth warms that there are a lot of feedback effects and the speed
increases very fast.
12. Kateri so najpomembneji ukrepi, ki bi jih lahko izven sindikata, politine
stranke, in drave tukaj in zdaj zaeli uveljavljati posamezniki ali ohlapne
simpatizerske/afinitetne skupine?
Treba si je priznati, da kot posameznik v resnici teko kaj stori, saj je obvarovanje
planeta stvar ljubezni, ta pa nikoli ni bila individualen pojav. Pridruite se
simpatizerskim/afinitetnim skupinam, kot pripadnik simpatizerske/afinitetne skupine
lahko organizirate demonstracije in tako neposredno ukrepate, ali pa politinim
strankam, pojdite na Novo Zelandijo, v Juno Afriko, na Norveko ali kamorkoli, kjer
lahko sodelujete v aktivnih gibanjih proti podnebnim spremembam. Ne zdi se mi ni
narobe z dvigovanjem individualne zavesti, kar je v bistvu tisto, s imer se Stari stari
za podnebne ukrepe ukvarjamo, in hkrati se mi zdi, da karkoli osvea ljudi o
problematiki je zadostno. So pa takna gibanja nesmiselna, kadar udeleenim dajejo
obutek, da to kar pono zadoa, in da mislijo, da so z recikliranjem asopisa
dolgorono prispevali k varovanju okolja. elja po spremembi mora biti bolj kolektivna,
zato pa se mi masovne demonstracije zdijo kljunega pomena.
Videti ve tiso Francozov, kako so prili na demonstracije v London, protestirati proti
zakonu o izrednih razmerah, ki jim prepoveduje organiziranje demonstracij v Franciji, in
stali skladno v dolgi vrsti in vpili, da so proti temu, in da morajo storiti ve. To so za nas
zelo pomembna dejanja, ki jih lahko naveemo na to, kar je Jonathan hotel povedati
prej, in sicer to, da se moramo nujno e naprej boriti, saj dogovori, sklenjeni na
konferenci v Parizu, ne bodo dovolj, e sam lord Nicholas Stern pravi, da ne bodo
dovolj.
Join the affinity groups, the union, the political parties, go to New Zealand, South
Africa, Norway or to the places where people have these movements. There is nothing
wrong with raising individual awareness, which is what Grandparents for climate
change are concerned about, essentially anything that makes people aware has got to
be good, but not if it allows you to think that that is enough or that you can sign off
because you recycled your newspapers. This has to be more collective and having
these big demonstrations this last weekend is extremely important.
Having more than 10,000 of French people come and stand against the emergency act
that forbids them to demonstrate, so they stood in this huge line saying that they are
against this and that they have to do more. These are very important acts and I think
understanding what Jonathan was trying to say, which is that we must continue to fight,
because what ever is going to happen in the conference in Paris won't be enough, if
lord Nicholas Stern says it is not going to be enough, believe me that it won't be. As an
individual you can't do anything really and that needs to be recognised. This is a matter
of acts of love, and those were never individual. As a loose affinity group you could

demonstrate and take direct action.

13. Oba sta, e nam dovolite taken opis/izraz, revolucionarna socialista.

Kampanja 1 milijon podnebnih slub ima elemente New Deal programa v ZDA,
poziva National Climate Service na podoben nain, kot je laburistina vlada
zaela National Health Service, hkrati pa tudi opozarja na nain, skladno s
katerim si bomo morali urediti nae ivljenje in poziva k nacionalizaciji
nekaterih vej industrije in storitev, kot na primer javni prevoz. Vendar pa se
vse, na kar kampanja poziva, lahko dosee v okviru kapitalistine paradigme.
Kakne so prednosti tega?
Ko smo si zastavljali nao kampanjo, smo se dogovarjali z 20 ljudi, od tega je bilo pet
predstavnikov razlinih sindikatov, dva predstavnika dokaj velikih politinih strank in
dva predstavnika manjih strank. Predlogi, ki smo jih imeli na teh sreanjih, so bili
sporazum med nami/navzoimi, ki pa so potem prerasli v kampanjo, v katero so
vkljueni revolucionarni socialdemokrati, kot sva Nancy in jaz, vendar pa smo tej v
kampanji v manjini in se veina ne opredeljuje na ta nain. Menim, da je tako tudi
prav, saj edino takna kampanja lahko dejansko odraa mnenje ire drube. e elite
spremeniti svet, morate prepriati veino. Prav takna strategija se je za nas
obrestovala v preteklosti, ker pred desetimi leti je bilo potrebno zgolj izobraevati ljudi o
obsegu potrebnih sprememb, kaj je bilo mogoe dosei in kaj lahko doseemo s
tehnologijo, da so razumeli, da je doseganje tega potrebna revolucija, ki pa ni nujno
politina. Ljudje so se zavedali, da je taka sprememba v porabi dobrin, ravnanju z
odpadki in varstvom okolja revolucionarna. e bi ljudje razumeli, da je treba nujno
spremeniti nain ravnanja z naim planetom, bi potem tudi razumeli uporabo te besede
(revolucija) brez kakrne koli politine konotacije.
When we set out to build the campaign sat down with 20 people, representing 5
different unions and 2 fairly large political parties and 2 rather smaller ones. The
proposals we had were an agreement between us which now results in a campaign
having revolutionary socialist in it, like Nancy and I are, but we are a minority in this
campaign, the majority are not that way. I believe that is how it actually should be
because it reflects the way the wider society is. To change the world you have to
persuade the majority. And this strategy has worked for us because 10 years ago you
just had to educate people about the scale of the changes needed and what was
possible and why it was going to work technologically and they understood that
achieving all that is going to take a revolution, not necessarily a political one, but such
a change in consumption, waste management and protecting the environment is
revolutionary. If people understand the urgency to change in the ways we treat our
environment then they also understand the use of that word (revolution) without any
political connotation.

14. Negativne uinke podnebnih sprememb je e mo utiti. V nedavnem lanku,

ki sta ga skupaj napisala, se sklicujeta na drugo plat podnebnih sprememb, o
kateri je bilo do sedaj premalo medijskih poroanj. Nanaam se na
sklicevanje na vojne v Iraku, Siriji in Afganistanu kot podnebne vojne. Ali bi
lahko bolj poglobili ta koncept?
e si s soutnim pogledom ogledamo le nekatere izmed bolj obupanih delov naega
planeta, lahko razumemo, da je e nastalo veliko konfliktov in vojn, ki se dejansko
dogajajo, kot posledica podnebnih sprememb. Stanje je obupno, ljudje so postali
begunci, dogajajo se vojne, ljudje se pobijajo med seboj za majhne koliine trave in
vseh vrst stvari, skratka scenarij, ki bi bil e pred tiridesetimi leti popolnoma nemogo.
Ob pogledu na situacijo s takne perspektive postane jasno, da je to, kar se dogaja v
teh stranih vojnah na Blinjem vzhodu, v bistvu manjinski interes do fosilnih goriv. Te
manjine pa so pravzaprav iste drave in isti ljudje, ki noejo priti v Pariz, da sklenili
pogodbo, ki bi nam omogoil spremembe na podroju celotnega gospodarskega
sistema, odmaknjenega od ekonomije fosilnih goriv in ogljikovih emisij. To so,
paradoksalno, podnebne vojne, saj vztrajajo pri uporabi fosilnih goriv, kar pa me zame
v bistvu zlobno. V Siriji je, tik pred letom 2011, zelo velika koliina ljudi (25% celotnega
prebivalstva) zapustila dravo zaradi sue, ki jim je onemogoala preivetje. Hkrati pa
je e sama situacija z begunci, kar je zagotovo v Sloveniji poznana situacija/velika
problematika, njihov poloaj, obupanost in vse storjene krivice, da bi jih le zadrali v
Turiji, velika in opazna posledica podnebnih sprememb. Begunci so ljudje, tako kot ti
in jaz, le da so oni al imeli takno smolo, da so iveli tam, kjer so se podnebne
spremembe e zautile in se selijo tja, kjer taknih posledic e ni. Moramo pa se
zavedati, da, e ne bomo ukrepali, bo Velika Britanija postala samo e bolj mokra in
Sredozemlje, tam kjer se navsezadnje nahaja tudi Slovenija, bo vedno bolj suno. Zdaj
govorimo e o spremembah na ravni svetovnih vremenskih sistemov, katerih posledice
so neizmerljive in neskonno grozne, vendar niso neustavljive. e spremenimo
ravnovesje geografsko-ekonomskih moi, se bo med manjimi in vejimi silami vnela
vojna za povrnitev ravnovesja moi v njihovo korist, zaradi tega pa podnebne
spremembe v prihodnosti predstavljajo le e ve vojne. Napadi v Siriji in nedavni v
Parizu so nekaj, kar se bo v bodoe e dogajalo in presenetljivo je, da se je francoska
vlada odzvala s takojnjo prepovedjo demonstracij proti podnebnim spremembam
temu reemo podnebne vojne. / V Sloveniji se veina prebivalstva ne uti globalno
povezanega, ravno nasprotno, saj je nedavna javnomnenjska raziskava pokazala, da
79 % prebivalstva odobrava ine ograje, nedavno speljane vzdol hrvake meje.
Najmoneja mnenja proti ograji, ki jih lahko sliite v javnih medijih pa so, da to lahko
koduje pse in je slabo za turizem. Vai komentarji? / Mislim, da bomo morali samo
poakati, da bo teh 79 % slovenskega prebivalstva primorano prebeati v Italijo ali
vico, in hkrati se mi zdijo mnenja javnosti proti ograji resnina, a nepomembna.
Mislim, da je to odlien primer le nekaterih posledic, ki jih te podnebne vojne imajo,
vidimo pa, da so pomembne tudi pri oblikovanju/sproanju vse ve konfliktov med
ljudmi, ustvarjanju vse ve vojn in beguncev ter tako preusmerjajo pozornost
svetovnega prebivalstva od kode, ki jo delamo na tem planetu in posameznikov, ki

profitirajo od tega.
If we can think emphatically and if we can look across the most desperate parts of
our planet now we can understand that a great deal of what is actually happening is
because the climate change has already taken place. The situation is desperate,
people have become refugees, the wars are happening, people fight over grass and
over all kinds of things which wouldn't have been the case 40 years ago, but if you
turn it around you understand that what is happening in these terrible wars that are
happening in the Middle East right now is that people are fighting over fossil fuels.
Those are actually the same countries and the same people that are refusing to
come to Paris to make some kind of sane agreement that would allow us to change
our whole economic system away from fossil fuel and carbon economies. In this
sense, they are climate wars paradoxically because they want to persist in use of
fossil fuels and that to me is fundamentally evil. In Syria, just before 2011, a very
large amount of people (25% of the whole population) left the country because of
the drought in Syria. And as you can really see in Slovenia, the situation with the
refugees and their desperation and all the injustices that are done to them to keep
them in Turkey. These are people just like you and me, they just happened to have
the bad luck to be in some place where climate is changing and it's changing
differentially in various places, Britain is going to be even wetter and the
Mediterranean is going to become much drier. These are global weather systems
that are changing and the consequences are incalculable and endlessly ugly and
can be stopped. If you change the balance of geographical and economic power the
small powers and the big powers will go to war to return the balance of power in
their favour, so climate change is going to mean a great deal of war. The attacks
occurring in Syria and the recent one in Paris are something that is going to keep
reoccurring and the astonishing thing is that the French government reacted
immediately by forbidding any demonstrations about climate change that's called
a climate war. /in Slovenia the majority of the population doesn't feel this global
connectedness, quite the opposite because the recent opinion poll showed that
79% of the population approves of the razor wire fence that was put along the
Croatian border. The strongest opposition you can hear in the public media against
the fence is that it harms dogs and it's bad for tourism. Your comments?/ You wait
until that 79% want to get to Italy of Switzerland, and those oppositions you are
stating are probably true as well, which on the other hand does not really give them
any relevance. I think this is a perfect example of some consequences these
climate wars have, in creating more and more conflicts between people, more wars,
more refugees, and so creating a perfect diversion for the global population to
overlook the damage we are doing to the planet and the people that are profiting
from it.

15. George Orwell je neko zapisal, da bi bilo potrebnih le dvajset let, za razvoj
preostanka sveta na raven razvitosti Velike Britanije. Vse, kar ta naloga
zahteva je vloek istega truda in napora, kot smo mu bili pria po drugi
svetovni vojni. Kje se kampanje proti podnebnim spremembam in za
enakopraven in pravien globalni razvoj sekajo?
To je zelo preprosta oblika reitve in ni nobenega razloga, da te ljudje v revnejih
dravah, kot so Afrika in Banglade, ne bi imeli enakega ivljenjskega standarda.
Dokler bi celotna energija prihajala iz obnovljivih virov in bi drave upravljale vlade, ki bi
skrbele za to, da zaposlujejo ljudi, ne vidim nobenega razloga, zakaj ne bi mogli iveti v
veliko bolj dostojnem svetu. Potem, ko je George Orwell to rekel, je Japonski in Juni
Koreji to dejansko uspelo izvesti v dvajsetih letih, in to le z malo volje, velikimi
kapitalskim nalobami in poveanju zaposlovanja. Pomembno je tudi izpostaviti, da se
ni od tega ne bo zgodilo brez mnoinega gibanja, le-to pa mora imeti tudi aktivno
podporo delavcev in malih kmetov v Afriki, Indiji in na Kitajskem. Sprememb ne
moremo dosei brez njih, hkrati pa tudi evropski delavci ne bodo imeli elje po
sodelovanju, e jih bodo mediji preprievali, da so begunci in imigranti tisti, ki ogroajo
monosti zaposlitve v njihovih dravah. Pri tem ne gre za rtvovanje na eni ali na drugi
strani, ampak zato, da imajo vsi dovolj in skrbijo drug za drugega.
It's very simple and there is no reason for people in poorer countries, such as Africa
and Bangladesh, to not have the same standard of living as long as the energy is
coming from sustainable sources, this would not be a problem. If energy is coming from
sustainable sources and if we have governments that are concerned to employ people
then they can be in the services, in the health system they can be in the schools and
there is no reason why we cannot have a much more decent world. After George
Orwell said that, Japan did it in 20 years and so did South Korea and the achieved that
with massive capital investments and everybody being employed. It is also important to
say that none of this is going to happen without a mass movement, and that mass
movement has to have the active support of workers and small farmers in Africa, India
and China, we won't do it without them, those people are not going to do that if they're
being told to keep them poor any more than workers in Europe are not going to
contribute to change if they are told that their jobs are threatened by the refugees or
the possible immigrants. It is not about sacrifice on any side, it is about everybody
having enough and taking care of each other.