Tuesday, February 5, 2008

【陈志武 于建嵘】给农民土地永佃权?

2008-02-06 南方周末
  给农民自由处置土地、抵押土地的权利,这才是真正给农民改善生活。

编者按

“地者,政之本也,是故地可正政也。”学界关于中国现行工地制度的研究和争论近期成为热点。2008年1月13日,耶鲁大学教授陈志武与中国社会科学院教授于建嵘在北京针对这一问题进行了交流。陈志武教授主要从资本化的角度来探讨中国农村土地制度存在的问题,于建嵘教授则是从法律规定方面来解释目前中国农村土地存在的制度缺失。他们强烈建议给农民土地永佃权。学者的建议或只代表个人意见,但其解决中国现实问题的热忱值得肯定,其观点可供政策制订者可供政策制订者、研究者参考。


陈志武,美国耶鲁大学管理学院金融学终身教授。主要研究方向包括制度与市场发展、金融与文化、资本市场、证券投资管理、公司治理等。对中国三农问题特别是农村土地制度也有深入的研究。


于建嵘,中国社会科学院农村发展研究所社会问题研究中心主任,教授,兼任华中师范大学中国农村问题研究中心博士生导师。主要研究方向:社会冲突与治理。

土地集体所有为浪费、腐败、污染提供了最大的便利


于建嵘:中国农村土地制度存在非常严重的问题,这些问题不解决,势必影响中国三农问题的解决及中国的社会稳定和发展。

首先是农村土地所有权主体不明确。依据我国宪法、民法、土地管理法和农业法的相关规定,农村集体土地所有权体现为三级制的“农民集体所有”——即“村农民集体所有”、“乡(镇)农民集体所有”和“村内两个以上的集体经济组织中的农民集体所有”。也就是说,农村集体土地所有权的法定主体是三个层级的“农民集体”。然而,现行法律并没有明确规定“农民集体”作为土地所有权主体的构成要素和运行原则;没有明确产权代表和执行主体的界限和地位;没有解决“农民集体”与农民个人的利益关系。事实上,“农民集体”不是法律上的“组织”,而是全体农民的集合,是一个抽象的、没有法律人格意义、不能具体行使对土地有效监督和管理的集合群体。它是传统公有制理论在政治经济上的表述,不是法律关系的主体。

陈志武:农村土地集体所有是历史的产物。1950年代,通过合作化和人民公社运动,土地从私有变成了所谓的集体所有,农民个人实际上因此失去了土地。本质上,农村土地集体所有在人民公社时期就是劳役农民的一种制度,它使农民失去了维护自己权利的财产基础。

于建嵘:比集体所有还严重的是,国家对农民集体土地所有权实行的严格限制。这些限制既有对土地所有权的转让、抵押、出租等方面的禁止或限制;也有为节约用地而要求的各种用地定额、控制指标和审批手续;还有为了土地使用符合生态环保等需要而必须执行的国家土地利用统一布局。

陈志武:表面上,似乎通过土地公有以及行政部门的统一规划、安排能有利于土地的有效使用,有利于环境,就好像计划经济总应该比无序的市场经济更好一样,但结果正好相反。土地公有反而为浪费、为环境污染提供了最大的方便。曾经出现只要能贿赂当权者,就能方便地以低价得到大量土地。土地价格低,使用起来自然就不会太在意,不会追求最大效率地使用这些土地。就好比许多城市的住宅小区,私人的房间一般都干净、舒适,而走廊等公共空间则既脏又乱。私人的有人爱护,而公家的则没人负责。土地同样如此,如果土地真的被农民视为自己的,他们一定会去保护、去珍惜;如果还像现在这样,糟蹋起来就无人心痛了。

只要土地制度不变,农民的利益就会继续受侵犯


于建嵘:直接影响集体土地所有权正常行使的,还是对农村集体土地所有权的处分权和使用权的转让所进行的限制。

一方面,国家严禁土地所有权买卖、出租、抵押或者以其他形式转让,使农村集体土地所有权处于一种完全无价格衡量的“虚拟财产”状态。农村集体土地所有人——“农民集体”只能是象征意义的所有者,而不能将其所有的土地量化确定为具体的财产,更不能进行社会财产交换。

另一方面,国家控制了农村集体土地的最终处分权。比如,一块农地如果要向一个经济组织转移,其土地所有权必须先转给国家,然后再由国家将其转让给需要用地的组织。国家为了公共利益需要,可以依法征用集体所有的土地,将之转化为国有。

而且,国家征用土地的补贴是由国家确定的,它是一种非强制性的市场价格,不能体现所有人的意志,更不用说真实体现土地价值了。这种具有强制性、垄断性的行政占用方式,把农民排斥在土地增值收益分配之外,农民既不能决定土地卖与不卖,也不能与买方平等谈判价格,而社会强势阶层则可借国家之名侵吞农民的土地权益,造成大量农民成为无地、无业和无社会保障的三无人员,激化社会矛盾。

陈志武:因此,只要现行土地制度不改变,农民的利益就会继续受到侵犯。许多人说,如果让农民获得土地的决定权,农村的问题会很多。那是对的,但问题再多,也比现在的局面对农民更有利。农民至少在转让过程中还有发言权,可以和权贵面对面讨价还价,在许多情况下农民的所得不至于像现在这样少。让农村获得土地支配权的制度收益是,农民会更富有;其制度成本是,掌权者少了捞钱、捞权的基础。

有人担心,“如果有农民直接拿地卖了换酒,那不是更糟?”不要以为,现在那些实际掌握土地处置权的官员会比农民自己更懂得怎样安置土地对自己更好。官员的动机、用意再好,他们不能也不该代替农民自己判断。我就不相信把农村土地交给县领导、乡领导、村领导以后,这些人做的选择对农民更有利。事实上,这些年那么多农地被征用,农民不仅没从中分到多少利益,而且眼睁睁地看着自己的家园一去不复返,这些地方的农民在集体所有制下不是照样变得一无所有?那么,土地的公有到底保护了谁的利益?

我们必须承认一个基本前提,就是任何人比别人都更知道什么对自己最好,人对属于自己的东西最在乎,最愿意想尽办法去保护,这是再自然不过的人的本性。任何自认为可以代替农民做选择的人,只是在为剥夺农民的选择自由找借口。在我湖南老家,我所了解的农民没有一个人会在拥有土地后轻易出卖土地。土地对农民来说是命根子,如果土地归农民所有了,农民会更愿意在地上投入更多的钱,保持土质。最重要的是,如何赋予农民更多的机会、更大的空间、更多的能力把土地非农用的资本价值发挥出来。

当务之急是限制政府在征用农村土地上的权力

于建嵘:学界和政界在中国农地制度存在的问题性质及解决方案上分歧巨大。目前,为解决农民失地失业问题的措施主要有两个:其一是强化政府管理,严控征地规模,禁止随意修改规划,滥征耕地;其二是改进征地补偿方式,提高对失地农民的补偿,妥善安排好失地农民的生计等等。也有学者提到了保障农民对土地的长期使用权,把政策规定、合同约定的农民的土地承包经营权法定为农民长期而有保障的具有物权性质的土地财产权。

不过,这些措施对我国农村土地制度中存在的官权强制侵蚀民权这一本质问题缺乏清醒认识。如果不限制国家和官员对农村土地拥有的无限权力,不能让农民有能力维护自己的土地权益,靠执政者的内省和自制是很难从根本上解决问题的。目前的当务之急是要限制各级政府特别是具有利益驱动的基层政府在征用农村土地上的权力,赋予农民维护自己权益的能力。

为此,就必须改变农村现存的土地制度,明确农民的权利。先从法律上把土地还给农民,然后再考虑用市场手段来解决农地征用问题,探索建立农地交易方面的制度。只有农民拥有了土地的长期使用权,才能改变目前土地征用过程中价格偏低的状况,才能保证农民在进入城市非农部门时能够支付转岗培训和社会保障的成本。

陈志武:是这样的。让农民获得土地支配权,这是解决所有农村、农地问题的起点,也是农村其他制度设计与演变的起点。只有把土地还给农民,让官员、开发商向农民要地,农民才是主人,随后的农村制度演变才能以农民作为主人的地位为起点。目前农地用于非农开发本身不是问题,而哪些农地用于非农、多少农地用于非农、以什么价格投入非农、农地转让给非农的价格怎样确定等等,这些决定权掌握在谁手里才是真正的问题所在。它们理所当然应该掌握在农民手里。

我还要特别强调,农地的价值前景主要来自非农用途,而非农用。理解这一点,无论对解决农民的收入增长,还是解决“三农”问题,都十分重要。现在,许多人一提到农地,更多地还是从种粮食的角度来看土地的价值,于是虽然有人也主张农地可抵押、可转让,却要限定土地的用途只能是农用。除了中国农业社会传统的影响之外,还是没有从根本上认识到农业发展的极限。土地的农用价值十分有限,靠农业不可能从本质上增加农民的收入。道理很简单,不管中国有多少人,未来的收入增加多少,从生物学和医学的研究看,一个人每天需要摄入3000卡路里热量,也就是三四顿饭,这是人的生理极限了,跟有钱没钱没关系。这个生理极限决定了农村发展的极限,它是不会因为经济发展而改变的,而这限定了土地的农用价值。

大家既然想让农民生活可以更快地改善,那么就不要限定农民在获得土地永佃权之后该如何使用土地。如果这样,最终又会把农民收入增长的空间压死了。在我看来,农民既然拥有了土地的长期使用权,他们就必须有转让和改变用途的自由,如果加上任何转让和使用上的限制,就等于让农民重新受制于官权力。

给农民土地永佃权

于建嵘:现在有一种非常流行的观点,如果不限制,农民就会随意处置自己的土地,比如卖了或抵押给银行或他人,最终成为流民,而给社会造成很大的危害。

陈志武:这需要学习美国等发达国家,政府在给城市人提供基本社会保障的同时,也给农民提供基本的生存保障。如果有这样一个安全保障体系,就可以让中国农民更放心地将土地使用权资本化,或做抵押贷款,或干脆就把地卖掉进城,创业或投资获得新的机会。

研究资本化的人都知道一个基本原理:任何一个东西,土地也好,矿藏资源也好,如果其产权不可以自由转让,不可以做抵押借贷的话,即使很值钱也只是财富,却不可能变成资本。换句话说,只有土地财富的使用权具体化到个人,而且这个使用权可以自由抵押或流转,这种财富才能变成“活”的、能以钱生钱的资本。

现在的物权法,还有其他有关土地使用的法律,依然有“土地使用权可以转让,但不能用作抵押”的规定,使土地不能被资本化。这样的安排,荒唐,它逼着人在两条绝路之中选其一:要么务农,要么百分之百丧失土地使用权,而不能有其他选择。而合理的是,农民即使不务农,也不一定把土地卖掉,如果他想进城生活工作,他可以把土地的使用权拿到银行做抵押借贷,以此获得进城谋生的资本,不至于两手空空,那岂不是更好?即使进城谋生不成功,至少还有土地在自己手里。

给农民自由处置土地、抵押土地的权利,这才是真正给农民改善生活。对这一点,以前有很多的误解。曾有一些历史教科书说,农民在某个时代因为把自己的土地拿去抵押借贷,结果最终失去了土地,受苦受难。因此,为了让今天新一代的中国农民不再重蹈覆辙,所以就不主张、不允许任何形式的抵押。这是典型的因噎废食的制度。土地的兼并收购真的是过去农民贫困、国家改朝换代的根源吗?实际情况并不是这样,反倒是土地拥有越集中的沿海省份,农民的生活越富有。关于这一点,经济史学家已经做了很多研究。退一步讲,城里人没有土地,不是照样生活得比农民好吗?给农民土地永佃权以及土地转让与使用的选择自由,总比农民的土地使用权受到限制要好!

于建嵘:问题是这种选择在中国依然面临障碍。如你刚才所讲,即使农民有土地使用权,但它是农用地,在没有价格的地方,他照样变不成资产,农民照样没有足够的钱去城市生活。也就是说,农村土地如何成为金融资产也是一个问题,这在发达地区及城市周边有可能,那在偏远地区还能做到吗?

陈志武:并不是说农民真正可以支配土地了,就会立即富有了,而是说,获得永佃权并可以自由转让抵押之后,农民的处境总比现在好,有土地使用的选择自由、抵押自由总比没有的好,我更强调的是由农民自己判断、选择。

农民的财富起点低,这是事实,但如果还继续限制他们对土地使用的选择空间,那么,他们的个人发展机会也被堵死了,农民就永远贫穷了!虽然,并非所有农民都适合进城,也并不是所有人都会去创业,但至少要给那些想这样做、想进入城市的人以机会,而现在的土地制度安排却把他们卡死,七八亿农民不管你能力有多高,因为土地不可转让、抵押,都难做到这一点。

如果农民获得了支配土地使用的权利,是不是所有的农民都会选择抵押或卖掉土地进城?我相信,绝大多数农民都会作出对自己最有利的判断。在美国和其他土地可以自由流转的国家,也并不是所有的农民都选择卖地进城。我们必须看到,世界上没有哪个国家是在土地使用权受到严格限制下发展起来的

对农民的土地使用自由不加限制

于建嵘:土地转让不应受限制,土地用途也不应限制,许多人对后一点是不同意的,因为农地非农化被认为会影响“粮食安全”。事实上,即便世界上许多农地私有化的国家,农地的转让也并非完全自由。

以法国为例,为保护耕地,法律规定私有农地要用于农业,不准弃耕、劣耕、搞建筑。为此,法国政府设立农地整治公司。农民卖自己的土地时,必须通知农地整治公司。如果农地整治公司认为买卖不合理,它就会提出收购农民的地。举个例子,比如我要把地卖给城里人,而他并非用于农业生产,那么土地公司就会提出由它把地买下。如果出现价格分歧,比如说我卖给城里人的是十万块一亩,公司提出来的是八万块,就必须诉诸第三方评估,如果评估之后,还不能达成协议,那么政府公司可以向法院起诉,要求法院认定土地价格。到了这一步,农民要卖就只能卖给政府公司,但农民即使到最后也可以选择不卖土地。法国这种限制制度,是不是赋予农民土地永佃权以及转让、使用自由之后人们担心的问题?

陈志武:我不赞成在中国实行类似制度,因为这样的安排也是变相剥夺了拥有土地财产权的农民的利益,为什么非得平白无故地给政府实际的最后选择权?如果只有在权力同意的情况之下,我才可以把土地出售给第三方,这就是“合法地”窃走了拥有这个土地财产权的人的利益。

这里,我想强调三点。第一,我们看到,对城市人,他们最大的个人财富是其人力资本,也就是他们的一双手、大脑和经验技能,而对农民来说,土地是其最主要的财富。城市人可以自由换工作,等于是他们的最主要的个人资本——人力资本的使用不受到限制,可以利益最大化地自由调动自己最重要的资本。如果限制农民最主要的财富——土地的使用范围或转让权,等于是限制了农民用其最主要的资本创造财富的空间。为什么农民要为“粮食安全”付出代价、发展空间受到限制,而城里人却不用为了“能源安全”而在就业上受到限制、只能做石油工人呢?为什么“粮食安全”成了压在农民身上的枷锁,而城里人能在创业、就业天空中自由飞翔呢?

第二,法国也好,美国等其他发达国家也好,都是在发达以后才开始对城市的土地使用进行规划,但在当初的发展过程中并非如此。

第三,法国、美国有对政府权力进行制约的民主制度架构,其政府运作的农地整治公司的权力不会无约束地膨胀、滥用。而中国没有那么幸运,如果中国采用了法国那种安排,等于是把农民土地的大部分讨价还价权益送回到官僚或当权者的手里,最终并没有把农民真正地解放出来。把农民从官权网中解放出来的一个最基础的第一步,就是把土地使用权百分之百、没有保留地还给农民

在美国,地方政府、立法机构的确能为了“公众利益”征用土地。但这有几个前提,首先,政府必须跟每块地的私人一个一个地谈判。如果农民不同意,政府无权强制拆迁,必须诉诸法院,到最后往往以政府付出很高的卖价而结束。其次,它的地方立法机构和地方官员都是选举产生的,如果任何官员或议员乱来,以某种站不住脚的“公众利益”推出征地的法律或政策,那么他就别指望能连任或升级,而且,新的地方立法机构可能会推出新法律,把上一届损人利益的法规、政策否定掉。所以,当一个国家有对权力的制约机制时,即使政府可以为了正当的公众利益而对某些土地的使用权做出限制或安排,但只要同时有合理补偿的保证,并且征地是公平谈判的结果,那么,给政府以这些征地使用权力,是可以接受的。

农民不应为“粮食安全”埋单

于建嵘:也就是说,你认为西方某些国家的经验,也不一定适合中国,因为它不一定符合中国现阶段的情况。那么如何打消一些人的顾虑,特别是对粮食安全等方面的担心?

陈志武:对粮食安全的担忧是过了头。我们还没走出“备战备荒”的思维,事实上,今天各国通过全球贸易已经是你中有我、我中有你,人均耕地面积、农业不是中国的优势,为什么不能依靠粮食进口呢?如果我们因为战争而总担忧对进口粮食的依赖,那其他国家为什么还敢依赖中国的进口商品过日子呢?其次,我们不能因为对“粮食安全”的担心而把8亿中国农民永远捆在农地上、永远限制他们的收入增长空间,为了发生战争那一点点概率,牺牲他们的永久利益。

现代社会的经济增长跟土地的关系越来越弱。比如,像香港、日本、韩国等可耕种土地都极少,但为什么这些国家(地区)的经济照样非常好?现实是,人均GDP跟人均耕地面积基本是负相关的。以中国的30多个省市为例,人均耕地面积越多的省,其人均GDP普遍更低。其中一个很重要的原因,就是耕地面积可以人为地增加。想象一下,如果有必要,一亩地可以盖成31层楼,将面积增加30倍,通过温室控制,可以把这31层楼都改造成适合植物生长的气候和环境,这样,我们就有了31亩耕地。再利用温室技术提高粮食生长的频率,一年不只是生产两季粮食,而是生产多季,其产出恐怕100倍也不止。所以,单纯为了粮食安全,我们也不必去限制土地的非农使用,不必去压制农民的收入空间。

于建嵘:你认为现在技术的力量已经使经济的发展、土地的价值发生了变化。这一点在理论上讲得过去,但在目前的情况下是否可行则是需要认真讨论的。或者说,通过建楼和用温室来满足粮食需求是否经济,也还需要考虑。

陈志武:当然要考虑到具体的成本与收益。但我们可以这样去理解,至少在正常年代里,中国可以靠进口粮食满足国内生产的不足,放开农民的手脚,不必强制农民为所谓的“粮食安全”埋单;如果发生战争,自然可以很快地靠人工制造的温室楼房来补充生产粮食。

在这里,我要强调的是,随着现代生产技术的发展,每一个人为了生存所需要的耕地面积已大大减少,人的生存与土地面积的直接关系已越来越弱。实际上,有一些研究估算,在人类靠打猎谋生的原始时期,养活一个人平均可能需要超过10平方公里的土地,人吃动物,那些动物又要吃别的动物和植物,这样,沿食物链追下去,为养活一个人就需要大量的土地。后来,农业发展了,在同一地方能重复种植,一个人活下去所需要的土地一下子缩小到了一两平方公里左右。在人类开始养家禽后,人均生存所需的面积更是降到半平方公里不到。随着农业技术的进一步发展,人均生存所需要的耕地面积缩小到一两亩地。今天的温室技术、建筑技术使人均活下去所需要的土地更加出奇地低,所以,每一亩地的农用边际价值越来越低,低到快可以忽略的程度。在这种生产与技术能力下,没必要死盯着土地的农用价值不放。如果土地做非农用的价值更高,为什么还要硬把农民的土地只往农用上推呢?

于建嵘:当前农村的土地状况十分复杂,永佃权也是制度改革,做得不好,可能产生更多的社会冲突,这当然需要国家权力发挥作用,但国家权力如何发挥作用,或者说其权力限度和村民的自主性问题也是值得注意的。

(本文来源:南方周末 作者:陈志武 于建嵘)

http://news.163.com/08/0206/09/440QCI4A000121EP.html

Sunday, February 3, 2008

How Democracy Produced a Monster



Artist: Andrea Dezsö

February 3, 2008
NY Times OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By IAN KERSHAW
Sheffield, England

COULD something like it happen again? That is invariably the first question that comes to mind when recalling that Hitler was given power in Germany 75 years ago last week. With the world now facing such great tensions and instability, the question seems more obvious than ever.

Hitler came to power in a democracy with a highly liberal Constitution, and in part by using democratic freedoms to undermine and then destroy democracy itself. That democracy, established in 1919, was a product of defeat in world war and revolution and was never accepted by most of the German elites, notably the military, large landholders and big industry.

Troubled by irreconcilable political, social and cultural divisions from the beginning, the new democracy survived serious threats to its existence in the early postwar years and found a semblance of stability from 1924 to 1928, only to be submerged by the collapse of the economy after the Wall Street crash of 1929.

The Nazis’ spectacular surge in popular support (2.6 percent of the vote in the 1928 legislative elections, 18.3 percent in 1930, 37.4 percent in July 1932) reflected the anger, frustration and resentment — but also hope — that Hitler was able to tap among millions of Germans. Democracy had failed them, they felt. Their country was divided, impoverished and humiliated. Scapegoats were needed.

It was easy to turn hatred against Jews, who could be made to represent the imagined external threat to Germany by both international capitalism and Bolshevism. Internally, Jews were associated with the political left — Socialist and Communist — which was made responsible by Hitler and his followers for Germany’s plight.

Increasingly, Hitler seemed to a good third of the German electorate the only hope to putting the country back on its feet, restoring pride and bringing about national salvation. By 1930 it was effectively impossible to rule Germany without Nazi backing. But while Nazi electoral gains could block democracy, they were insufficient to bring Hitler to power.

From 1930 onwards, therefore, the German state was locked in stalemate. Democratic forms remained. But democracy itself was in effect dead, or at least dying. The anti-democratic elites tried to broker solutions, but failed on account of Hitler’s intransigence. Ultimately, because he could find no other authoritarian solution, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as head of government, or chancellor, on Jan. 30, 1933. What followed led to disaster for Germany, for Europe and for the world.

These distant events still have echoes today. In Europe, in the wake of increased immigration, most countries have experienced some revival of neo-fascist, racist movements. Not so long ago, Serbian nationalism, inflamed by President Slobodan Milosevic, set off war and ethnic cleansing within the continent.

Today, too, skillful politicians around the globe have proved adept at manipulating populist sentiment and using democratic structures to erect forms of personalized, authoritarian rule. President Vladimir Putin has gradually moved Russia, a country increasingly flexing its muscles internationally again, in that direction. Venezuela, under President Hugo Chávez, has also showed distinct authoritarian tendencies, though these have been at least partly blocked through his defeat in the December referendum to change its Constitution.

In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe has turned democracy into personal rule, ruining his country in the process. In Pakistan, democracy largely provides a facade for military rule, even if President Pervez Musharraf has now put aside his uniform. Most worryingly, perhaps, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used populist support in a pluralist system to push Iran into a hazardous foreign policy, though he does remain formally subordinate to the “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

None of these examples, however, poses a close parallel to what happened in Germany in 1933. Neo-fascist movements in Europe can certainly terrorize minorities. And they have had success in stirring such resentment about immigrants that mainstream political parties have taken account of the swell of feeling.

However, short of some unforeseeable eventualities like major war or, perhaps less unlikely, another meltdown of the economic system, neo-fascist movements will remain on the fringes of politics. And none of these parties, unappealing though their internal policies are, can today conceive of preparing for a war of conquest with the ultimate aim of a grasp at world power.

Elsewhere, there are — and always will be — nasty forms of authoritarianism (some supported by democratic governments). But neither in their acquisition of power nor in their use of it do modern authoritarian rulers much resemble Hitler. International organizations and institutions that did not exist in interwar Europe — the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund — also provide some barriers to the sort of calamity that engulfed Germany.

Moreover, democracies under pressure can still pose obstacles to creeping authoritarianism. Vladimir Putin looks as if he will indeed step down as president and not risk a breach of the Constitution (though effective power will probably remain in his own hands), while Hugo Chávez has been forced (maybe temporarily) to give up his ambitions to become a president for life. Even once Hitler had been appointed chancellor, it took the Reichstag fire, a month later, to begin the destruction of the last vestiges of democracy and pave the way to his full control.

Mercifully, what happened in Germany in 1933, and its aftermath, will remain a uniquely terrible episode in history. What took place then reminds us even so of the illusory assumption that democracy will always be a favored choice of a population torn apart by war, facing enormous privations and burning with resentment at national humiliation through perceived foreign interference. It also reminds us — if such a reminder is necessary — of the need for international cooperation to restrain potential “mad dogs” in world politics before they are dangerous enough to bite.

Ian Kershaw, a professor of modern history at Sheffield University, is the author of the forthcoming “Hitler, the Germans and the Final Solution.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03kershaw.html?pagewanted=print

Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love 【KRISTOF】

NY Times OP-ED COLUMNIST

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: February 3, 2008

At a New York or Los Angeles cocktail party, few would dare make a pejorative comment about Barack Obama’s race or Hillary Clinton’s sex. Yet it would be easy to get away with deriding Mike Huckabee’s religious faith.

Liberals believe deeply in tolerance and over the last century have led the battles against prejudices of all kinds, but we have a blind spot about Christian evangelicals. They constitute one of the few minorities that, on the American coasts or university campuses, it remains fashionable to mock.

Scorning people for their faith is intrinsically repugnant, and in this case it also betrays a profound misunderstanding of how far evangelicals have moved over the last decade. Today, conservative Christian churches do superb work on poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria and genocide in Darfur.

Bleeding-heart liberals could accomplish far more if they reached out to build common cause with bleeding-heart conservatives. And the Democratic presidential candidate (particularly if it’s Mr. Obama, to whom evangelicals have been startlingly receptive) has a real chance this year of winning large numbers of evangelical voters.

“Evangelicals are going to vote this year in part on climate change, on Darfur, on poverty,” said Jim Wallis, the author of a new book, “The Great Awakening,” which argues that the age of the religious right has passed and that issues of social justice are rising to the top of the agenda. Mr. Wallis says that about half of white evangelical votes will be in play this year.

A recent CBS News poll found that the single issue that white evangelicals most believed they should be involved in was fighting poverty. The traditional issue of abortion was a distant second, and genocide was third.

Look, I don’t agree with evangelicals on theology or on their typically conservative views on taxes, health care or Iraq. Self-righteous zealots like Pat Robertson have been a plague upon our country, and their initial smugness about AIDS (which Jerry Falwell described as “God’s judgment against promiscuity”) constituted far grosser immorality than anything that ever happened in a bathhouse. Moralizing blowhards showed more compassion for embryonic stem cells than for the poor or the sick, and as recently as the 1990s, evangelicals were mostly a constituency against foreign aid.

Yet that has turned almost 180 degrees. Today, many evangelicals are powerful internationalists and humanitarians — and liberals haven’t awakened to the transformation. The new face of evangelicals is somebody like the Rev. Rick Warren, the California pastor who wrote “The Purpose Driven Life.”

Mr. Warren acknowledges that for most of his life he wasn’t much concerned with issues of poverty or disease. But on a visit to South Africa in 2003, he came across a tiny church operating from a dilapidated tent — yet sheltering 25 children orphaned by AIDS.

“I realized they were doing more for the poor than my entire megachurch,” Mr. Warren said, with cheerful exaggeration. “It was like a knife in the heart.” So Mr. Warren mobilized his vast Saddleback Church to fight AIDS, malaria and poverty in 68 countries. Since then, more than 7,500 members of his church have paid their own way to volunteer in poor countries — and once they see the poverty, they immediately want to do more.

“Almost all of my work is in the third world,” Mr. Warren said. “I couldn’t care less about politics, the culture wars. My only interest is to get people to care about Darfurs and Rwandas.”

Helene Gayle, the head of CARE, said evangelicals “have made some incredible contributions” in the struggle against global poverty. “We don’t give them credit for the changes they’ve made,” she added. Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense, said, “Many evangelical leaders have been key to taking the climate issue across the cultural divide.”

It’s certainly fair to criticize Catholic leaders and other conservative Christians for their hostility toward condoms, a policy that has gravely undermined the fight against AIDS in Africa. But while robust criticism is fair, scorn is not.

In parts of Africa where bandits and warlords shoot or rape anything that moves, you often find that the only groups still operating are Doctors Without Borders and religious aid workers: crazy doctors and crazy Christians. In the town of Rutshuru in war-ravaged Congo, I found starving children, raped widows and shellshocked survivors. And there was a determined Catholic nun from Poland, serenely running a church clinic.

Unlike the religious right windbags, she was passionately “pro-life” even for those already born — and brave souls like her are increasingly representative of religious conservatives. We can disagree sharply with their politics, but to mock them underscores our own ignorance and prejudice.




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03kristof.html?em&ex=1202187600&en=2cfd097c329edbb3&ei=5087%0A

Motivated by a Tax, Irish Spurn Plastic Bags



Reusable cloth shopping bags, like this one at a Superquinn grocery checkout in Dublin, have replaced those stretchy, crinkly plastic shopping bags, which are subject to a 33-cent tax per bag.

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 2, 2008

DUBLIN — There is something missing from this otherwise typical bustling cityscape. There are taxis and buses. There are hip bars and pollution. Every other person is talking into a cellphone. But there are no plastic shopping bags, the ubiquitous symbol of urban life.

In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.

Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.

“When my roommate brings one in the flat it annoys the hell out of me,” said Edel Egan, a photographer, carrying groceries last week in a red backpack.

Drowning in a sea of plastic bags, countries from China to Australia, cities from San Francisco to New York have in the past year adopted a flurry of laws and regulations to address the problem, so far with mixed success. The New York City Council, for example, in the face of stiff resistance from business interests, passed a measure requiring only that stores that hand out plastic bags take them back for recycling.

But in the parking lot of a Superquinn Market, Ireland’s largest grocery chain, it is clear that the country is well into the post-plastic-bag era. “I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,” said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the car, rather than buy a bag.”

Gerry McCartney, 50, a data processor, has also switched to cloth. “The tax is not so much, but it completely changed a very bad habit,” he said. “Now you never see plastic.”

In January almost 42 billion plastic bags were used worldwide, according to reusablebags.com; the figure increases by more than half a million bags every minute. A vast majority are not reused, ending up as waste — in landfills or as litter. Because plastic bags are light and compressible, they constitute only 2 percent of landfill, but since most are not biodegradable, they will remain there.

In a few countries, including Germany, grocers have long charged a nominal fee for plastic bags, and cloth carrier bags are common. But they are the exception.

In the past few months, several countries have announced plans to eliminate the bags. Bangladesh and some African nations have sought to ban them because they clog fragile sewerage systems, creating a health hazard. Starting this summer, China will prohibit sellers from handing out free plastic shopping bags, but the price they should charge is not specified, and there is little capacity for enforcement. Australia says it wants to end free plastic bags by the end of the year, but has not decided how.

Efforts to tax plastic bags have failed in many places because of heated opposition from manufacturers as well as from merchants, who have said a tax would be bad for business. In Britain, Los Angeles and San Francisco, proposed taxes failed to gain political approval, though San Francisco passed a ban last year. Some countries, like Italy, have settled for voluntary participation.

But there were no plastic bag makers in Ireland (most bags here came from China), and a forceful environment minister gave reluctant shopkeepers little wiggle room, making it illegal for them to pay for the bags on behalf of customers. The government collects the tax, which finances environmental enforcement and cleanup programs.

Furthermore, the environment minister told shopkeepers that if they changed from plastic to paper, he would tax those bags, too.

While paper bags, which degrade, are in some ways better for the environment, studies suggest that more greenhouse gases are released in their manufacture and transportation than in the production of plastic bags.

Today, Ireland’s retailers are great promoters of taxing the bags. “I spent many months arguing against this tax with the minister; I thought customers wouldn’t accept it,” said Senator Feargal Quinn, founder of the Superquinn chain. “But I have become a big, big enthusiast.”

Mr. Quinn is also president of EuroCommerce, a group representing six million European retailers. In that capacity, he has encouraged a plastic bag tax in other countries. But members are not buying it. “They say: ‘Oh, no, no. It wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t be acceptable in our country,’ ” Mr. Quinn said.

As nations fail to act decisively, some environmentally conscious chains have moved in with their own policies. Whole Foods Market announced in January that its stores would no longer offer disposable plastic bags, using recycled paper or cloth instead, and many chains are starting to charge customers for plastic bags.

But such ad hoc efforts are unlikely to have the impact of a national tax. Mr. Quinn said that when his Superquinn stores tried a decade ago to charge 1 cent for plastic bags, customers rebelled. He found himself standing at the cash register buying bags for customers with change from his own pocket to prevent them from going elsewhere.

After five years of the plastic bag tax, Ireland has changed the image of cloth bags, a feat advocates hope to achieve in the United States. Vincent Cobb, the president of reusablebags.com, who founded the company four years ago to promote the issue, said: “Using cloth bags has been seen as an extreme act of a crazed environmentalist. We want it to be seen as something a smart, progressive person would carry.”

Some things worked to Ireland’s advantage. Almost all markets are part of chains that are highly computerized, with cash registers that already collect a national sales tax, so adding the bag tax involved a minimum of reprogramming, and there was little room for evasion.

The country also has a young, flexible population that has proved to be a good testing ground for innovation, from cellphone services to nonsmoking laws. Despite these favorable conditions, Ireland still ended up raising the bag tax 50 percent, after officials noted that consumption was rising slightly.

Ireland has moved on with the tax concept, proposing similar taxes on customers for A.T.M. receipts and chewing gum. (The sidewalks of Dublin are dotted with old wads.) The gum tax has been avoided for the time being because the chewing gum giant Wrigley agreed to create a public cleanup fund as an alternative. This year, the government plans to ban conventional light bulbs, making only low-energy, long-life fluorescent bulbs available.




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html?em&ex=1202187600&en=a0cb9e6b4946bd27&ei=5087%0A