今個星期嘅題目係《不如我哋唔好再自欺欺人》，其實係直譯我幾個月前睇到嘅一篇The New Yorker嘅文章，作者Jonathan Franzen，日期2019年9月8日[1]。呢篇文章究竟講啲咩呢，我首先讀一段：

Today, the scientific evidence verges on irrefutable. If you’re younger than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilization of life on earth—massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought. If you’re under thirty, you’re all but guaranteed to witness it.

（翻譯）今時今日，科學研究唔可以否認嘅事實係：如果你係後生過六十歲，你會有好大嘅機會見證大規模農作物失收、世界末日般嘅火災、經濟體系崩潰、嚴重水災、數以百萬計嘅難民因為極端氣候引發嘅高溫同旱災而逃離家園。如果你後生過三十歲，可以寫包單一定會見證到上述嘅現象。

If you care about the planet, and about the people and animals who live on it, there are two ways to think about this. You can keep on hoping that catastrophe is preventable, and feel ever more frustrated or enraged by the world’s inaction. Or you can accept that disaster is coming, and begin to rethink what it means to have hope.

（翻譯）如果你關心呢個地球，同埋賴以為生嘅人類同埋動物，有兩個思考方向：你可以一路希望你一個災難係可以避免嘅，然之後因為世界嘅不作為而覺得沮喪憤怒；另一個方向係你可以接受呢一個災難無論如何都會降臨，而開始反思究竟何謂「希望」。

喺我繼續介紹呢篇文章之前，我有責任提醒大家呢篇文嘅作者係一位小說家，而唔係一位環境或氣候學家。Vox（唔係Fox，好重要）嘅Sigal Samuel係短短三日之後出咗一篇評論[2]，指出Franzen嘅呢一篇文章得罪咗好多人。首先，正正係因為佢只係一位作家，而唔係一位科學家，而佢竟然可以係The New Yorker佔一個珍貴嘅篇幅講氣候變化。而佢係一位社會地位高嘅白人，篇幅點解唔選擇俾一啲受壓逼嘅族群例如非白人嘅女性？第二，好多人指出佢提到嘅科學論據係錯嘅。極端氣候並唔係無可避免。而Franzen嘅講法：「All-out war on climate change made sense only as long as it was winnable.」呢一種諗法令人覺得消極叫人唔好all-in，因為佢話有其他都值得做嘅嘢（下文會講）。第三：佢對提到嘅政策The Green New Deal認識有錯。第四：佢話當我哋覺得極端氣候係可以避免嘅時侯，我哋就會落入一種心理就係投票選出主張環保嘅候選人、少搭私家車、飛機等等就盡咗責任。我喺文章最後會擺晒兩篇文章嘅連結，你哋有興趣記得兩邊都睇哂呀。

我覺得呢篇文章仍然值得分享嘅原因係以下呢一段節錄：

Our resources aren’t infinite… Every billion dollars spent on high-speed trains, which may or may not be suitable for North America, is a billion not banked for disaster preparedness, reparations to inundated countries, or future humanitarian relief.

（翻譯）我哋嘅資源唔係無窮無盡嘅。每用係唔知北美洲啱唔啱用嘅高速列車嘅十億，就係冇用喺預備災難降臨嘅時候需要用到嘅人道救援。（我諗呢度可以翻譯成既係不要明日大嶼，要明日援助啲friend。其實另外一本書《Inconspicuous Consumption》by Tatiana Schlossberg都有講到好多我哋以為幫到環境嘅事，都唔係真係幫到好多）

All-out war on climate change made sense only as long as it was winnable. Once you accept that we’ve lost it, other kinds of action take on greater meaning.

（翻譯）只有氣候變化真係可以避免，我哋全副all in阻止氣候變化先至有意義。當我地接受已經打輸咗，其他行動就會變得有意義。（呢度就係點解佢俾人圍攻嘅原因）

但係我同意嘅係下面：

Preparing for fires and floods and refugees is a directly pertinent example. But the impending catastrophe heightens the urgency of almost any world-improving action. In times of increasing chaos, people seek protection in tribalism and armed force, rather than in the rule of law, and our best defense against this kind of dystopia is to maintain functioning democracies, functioning legal systems, functioning communities.

大意係，為未來一定會發生嘅火災同水災做準備就係一個有意義嘅行動。當世界越來越亂，人就會下意識保護自己嘅族群，甚至使用武力，而唔係用法治。我哋對抗呢一種末日，就係需要維持民主、法律制度同埋社群嘅正常運行。

In this respect, any movement toward a more just and civil society can now be considered a meaningful climate action. Securing fair elections is a climate action. Combatting extreme wealth inequality is a climate action. Shutting down the hate machines on social media is a climate action. Instituting humane immigration policy, advocating for racial and gender equality, promoting respect for laws and their enforcement, supporting a free and independent press, ridding the country of assault weapons—these are all meaningful climate actions. To survive rising temperatures, every system, whether of the natural world or of the human world, will need to be as strong and healthy as we can make it.

（翻譯）佢指出一個無論極端氣候可否避免我哋都要面對嘅現實，就係受災嘅永遠都係一啲被欺壓嘅族群同埋國家。而任何一種可以推動我哋嘅世界同社會更公平、文明嘅行動，就係有意義嘅氣候行動。保護公平嘅選舉、對抗貧富懸殊、係社交媒體上面停止充滿仇恨嘅言論、設立人道嘅移民政策、宣揚種族性別平等、鼓勵守法同埋尊重法律（呢度好重要嘅一點係作者身處一個民主社會）、支持獨立自由媒體、監察質詢擁有武器嘅國家等等，全部都係有意義嘅氣候行動。

當睇到呢度，我想同大家介紹下近年開始多人提倡嘅intersectional environmentalism。聽落好似好fancy、好學術。呢個字最近因為BLM而開始多人關注[3]。到底講緊乜？就係你一路聽咗咁多集嘅podcast喇！！哈哈 其實呢個term嘅意思就係保護環境並唔係exclusive一小撮人嘅問題，而係inclusive跨國界、族群、行業、範疇嘅議題。例如我哋製造好多垃圾嘅原因係我哋受資本主義影響，覺得錢就可以買到產品，抌咗佢都唔覺得有問題。原因係我哋係privileged嘅一群，而我哋買緊嘅係由剝奪、欺壓嘅落後國家嘅工人而得嚟嘅產品。因為佢哋需要錢，所以逼住要以超低價供應勞力，同埋開放國家嘅天然資源俾我哋予取予求，產生好多環境污染。而好似我哋買開嘅快時裝、電子產品、首飾、食物等等就係建基呢啲不公義之上。所以intersectional environmentalism講嘅係所有所有嘅不公義都係互相牽連，環境、農業、人權、性別平等、時裝、製造業、廢棄、美容、政治、經濟、飲食業、潮流文化，所有都相互影響。亦都係點解我一直講緊嘅唔係單單減廢，而係有意識、追求公義嘅生活。

呢啲都聽落係老生常談嘅大道理，但係呢篇文章提醒我，我唔同意我哋唔應該盡力減廢，但係我哋亦都要對社會世界不公義嘅議題更加vocal。最後，我好希望大家正視聽，唔好再講什麼保護環境。當然我哋有責任去保護環境，但係不能否認地球有佢嘅生態平衡機制，當溫度太高自然有辦法返去equilibrium。而最後受害嘅係人類同埋其他生物。除咗一小部分極度privileged嘅人，其餘大部分人都會身受其害。所以要令自私嘅人類take action，我哋要講明要保護嘅係humanity同埋其他生物，而唔係個planet。

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending

[2] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/11/20857956/jonathan-franzen-climate-change-new-yorker 

[3] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=intersectional%20environmentalism