SCAV Press Translation Ce n`est pas la planète qu`il faut sauver. C

SCAV Press Translation
Ce n’est pas la planète qu’il faut sauver. C’est nous…
The planet doesn’t need saving. We do (// Earth isn’t to be saved. We are.)
Au fil des dernières années,
Over the past few years // In the last few years
se sont multipliées les campagnes médiatiques pour "sauver la planète".
(awareness/media) campaigns meant to ‘save the planet’ have proliferated
(/multiplied).
Pour sauver la planète, préférons le vélo à l’auto sur les petits trajets, optons pour
des ampoules basse consommation, recyclons nos déchets.
To save the planet, you’d better bike than drive on short distances, pick lowenergy lightbulbs & recycle your waste.
Pour sauver la planète, lavons-nous moins souvent et nos vêtements aussi.
To save the planet, you should (/ought to) shower less (often), and wash your
clothes less as well.
Pour sauver la planète, consommons local, sortons du capitalisme. Etc.
To save the planet, let’s eat local, get out of (/move away from) capitalism (/leave
capitalism behind), and so on, so forth.
A lire tous ces slogans, j’ai envie de dire une chose.
Reading these slogans (/mottos) makes me want to say (just) one thing.
Ceux qui les ont écrits se trompent.
Those behind them are (seriously) mistaken (/got it all wrong).
Ce n’est pas la planète qu’il faut sauver, mais bien l’humanité.
The planet isn’t to save, mankind is. (// Earth doesn’t need saving, mankind
does.)
Et, plus précisément, si on enlève l’hypocrisie, notre style de vie très confortable.
And hypocrisy aside, our very comfortable (/comfy) lifestyle (more) especially.
Même si certains considèrent que nous sommes entrés dans une nouvelle ère
géologique, l’anthropocène,
Even though some consider man to have entered a new geological era
(/epoch/age)
–the Anthropocene—
marquée par la capacité de l’homme à bouleverser son écosystème, à le polluer,
à détruire massivement des espèces,
characterized by (/defined by) man’s ability to disrupt (/to alter) his ecosystem, to
pollute it, and cause species to go extinct on a massive scale,
la planète n’en a cure.
the planet doesn’t care (much for it) (/doesn’t give a hoot /doesn’t mind)
Pour la simple raison qu’elle a connu des révolutions bien plus profondes, des
changements climatiques drastiques, des glaciations incroyables,
Simply/Mainly because it has gone through (/has experienced/ has encountered)
far more radical (/profound) revolutions, much more drastic climate changes, as
well as incredible ice ages (/glaciations),
et qu’elle s’en est toujours remise.
and (it) has always survived (/made it through /made it out /always got back on its
feet)
SCAV Q1
UN on wrong track with plans to limit global warming to 2C, says top scientist.
James Hansen, former head of Nasa’s Goddard Center and the man who raised
awareness of climate change in a key Senate hearing back in 1988 said that the UN
meeting was on the wrong track by seeking a 2C maximum rise in temperatures.
“What I am hearing is that the heads of state are planning to clap each other on the
back and say this is a very successful conference. If that is what happens, we are
screwing the next generation, because we are doing the same as before.
“We hear the same old thing as Kyoto [in 1997]. We are asking each country to cap
emissions, or reduce emissions. In science when you do a well conducted experiment
you expect to get the same result. So why are we talking about doing the same again?
This is half-arsed and half-baked.” (! inadequate & poorly planned ! too little, too
late)
Hansen, who was speaking at a climate summit for the first time, said the planet was out of energy balance. “There is more
warming in the pipeline that will take us into real danger. We are on the edge of handing our children a climate system that is
out of control, and that could mean losing half our coastal cities.”
The scientist said that it was historical emissions that were to blame for heating the planet to its current point. “For that the US is
responsible for 25%, and the EU about 25%, China only 10%. Per capita, the UK, US and Germany are by far the most
responsible. China [per capita] is by an order of magnitude smaller,” he said.
Hansen said the solution was to get two or three large countries to impose an escalating price on carbon. “The problem is fossil
fuels are cheap and as long as they remain so they will be burned. They do not include the effects of warming and air pollution
on human health.
“Studies show that if you added $10 a tonne to the price you would reduce [fossil fuel] energy use by 20% in 10 years, and 50%
in 20 years. This is the only viable international approach. You cannot ask 190 countries to individually limit their emissions. The
price of fossil fuels must be honest. That just needs a few of the major players. It would rapidly move us off fossil fuels.
“It’s not too complicated. It’s not that the problem cannot be solved but that it is not being solved. We need an honest, simple
rising carbon fee.”
QUESTION 1 : How does James Hansen analyze the current COP21 conference ?
[ Agro-Veto 6 points ] (answer using your own words in 100 words +/-10%)
! they’re making the exact same mistakes, over & over again
! they’re not heading the right way. A much simpler solution exists.
! a few major polluters should be the focus of attention, only
The United Nations are heading the wrong way, former NASA scientist James
Hansen says, because they’re resorting to the same old solutions that have
consistently failed, when a simple, ‘honest’ & pragmatic one is staring them right
in the face.
Climate efforts should focus less on securing a global agreement, than on
targetting some specific countries (the US & EU member states first among
which).
And it should be less about capping everyone’s emissions, than about
raising carbon prices of said countries, specifically. These are historically to
blame for the current state of things, and should be the ones paying the bill for it,
primarily.
105 words.
QUESTION 2 : ‘People have looked at climate change as if it were a fiction, as if
pretending that climate change wasn’t real would somehow make it go away.’ Discuss.
Illustrate your argument with one or two well-picked examples.
[ Agro-Veto 8 points ] (answer using your own words in 200 words +/-10%)
! People often tend to turn a blind eye to environmental problems,
making as if these didn’t exist.
! They refuse to face facts, and look reality in the eye
! Probably because they feel they can’t make much of a difference individually
! Action must come from above –at governmental levels– they think perhaps.
! Changing your lightbulbs or buying a hybrid car just won’t do. So why bother?