PEOPLE OF WEALTH STAND UP FOR GREATER EQUALITY

The other day a friend sent me a brochure put out by an organization called
Responsible Wealth.  I could hardly believe the name.  Reading on, I could
hardly believe what it stands for.

"We are business leaders and wealthy individuals, among the top five percent of
income earners and asset holders in the US," the brochure leads off.  "We are
concerned about the rise in power of large corporations and the growing gap
between the rich and everyone else."

Twenty years ago, says the brochure, the richest one percent of the U.S.
population owned 19 percent of all private wealth.  Now the top one percent
owns almost 40 percent -- more than the bottom 92 percent of us combined.

The Reagan regime of the 1980s cut the taxes of corporations and the wealthy
and promised that their gains would trickle down into investments and jobs. 
The money trickled up instead, says Responsible Wealth, in speculative stock
market winnings, obscene compensation to corporate executives, and political
contributions that increased further the privileges of the wealthy.

Between 1983 and 1989 the assets of the richest 500 families in America rose
from $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion.  If they had paid just one-third of that
gain in taxes, they still would have gotten richer and there would have been NO
government deficit -- a deficit that is now being resolved by cutting benefits
to the poor and middle class.

The folks behind Responsible Wealth see themselves as beneficiaries of a game
with unfair rules.  "We recognize that assets play an essential role in
building wealth and prosperity.  However, we believe there is an overemphasis
on the rights and rewards of private capital.  Those of us with large amounts
of capital are able to pass on fortunes from generation to generation and
multiply our wealth through passive investing, while around us one in four
children are born into poverty, and many have little hope of improving their
financial situation."

"We believe that in a healthy economy workers should earn fair compensation and
all citizens should have the opportunity to earn, save, and be economically
secure.  We believe that civil rights and economic rights are inseparable; we
will never have one without the other."

"We believe that economic inequality and the scapegoating of welfare recipients
and immigrants are dividing our nation and undermining our collective sense of
community.  By continuing to separate ourselves economically, we are
contributing to a society in which people at one end of the spectrum are walled
off in gated communities, while many at the other end are behind bars."

What does Responsible Wealth propose to do?  In essence, lobby for policies
that we who are not rich never expect to hear the rich promote.

The burden of responsibility for the deficit, says the brochure, should be
placed on the wealthiest, who benefited most from the policy changes that
created it.  That means -- what an amazing idea! -- tax increases for the rich.

We need dramatic campaign finance reform, it says, to return control of our
democracy to the voters, not the campaign contributors.

The media should say more about the harm to our society and the damage to our
economy caused by widening inequality, Responsible Wealth believes.  So the
organization is creating teams of speakers and educators and starting
letter-writing campaigns, print ads, and meetings with government and corporate
officials.

Are these folks for real? I wondered, so I called them up.  They're not yet
willing to have their names released to the public, but when they do, you will
recognize some of them.  Responsible Wealth has over 130 members and is going
for 250 by the end of this year.  Next month they're having their first
national conference in New York.

"As people with wealth," says their first newsletter, "we feel a responsibility
to speak out against the rules that have been written to benefit us and to
speak in favor of policies that benefit the long-term common good of all." 
They quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Philanthropy is commendable, but it must
not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic
injustice that make philanthropy necessary."

I'd guess that most non-rich Americans, which means most Americans, are not
interested in absolute equality.  We accept that some of us are born into, luck
into, or manage to earn wealth and others are born into or fall into poverty. 
Our financial circumstances may or may not reflect our fault or merit.  We
don't want to demean or envy or fear each other because of them.  We do want to
hold each other responsible not for what we've been given, but for what we do
with it.  And we want a game with unbiased rules, with no child born into utter
hopelessness.

It's wonderful to know that some of the most privileged are on our side.

If you'd like more information about Responsible Wealth, you can contact United
for a Fair Economy, 37 Temple Place, Fifth Floor, Boston MA 02111 (617-423-2148
or ).

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

Az illegalis C varians es az illegalis szerzodesbontas (a birosag
ertekelese szerint mindketto jogi szempontbol illegalis) kozott pont
kornyezetvedelmi es termeszetvedelmi szempontbol van nagy kulobseg.
A birosag ertheto okokbol nem menthette fel Magyarorszagot az elso
szerzodesbontas jogi kovetkezmenyei alol, meg ha szerettek is volna,
mert ok sem allnak a torvenyek folott, de vannak olyan nemzetkozi
megallapodasok, amelyek a kornyezetvedelem erdekeben kotelezik az
alairo es ratifikalo feleket.

A jelen helyzet fenntartasa nem jo, mert a szlovak fel meg azokat
a vizmegosztasi megallapodasokat sem tartja be, amelyeket alair, az
pedig nem is remelheto, hogy az eredeti elovilag visszaallitasahoz
szukseges mennyisegu vizrol mondjanak le -- amig nem kotelezik oket
erre. Liptak Bela javaslata arra iranyul, hogy a vizcsap magyar kezbe
keruljon. A szlovakok megtarthatjak az eromuvet es aramot is termel-
hetnek vele, az elovilag szamara nem szukseges *tobblet* vizzel.

Erdekes Liptak Bela azon felvetese, hogy a Duna vizienergiaja kozos,
igy az energia hasznositasaval termelt aram is az. Azt nem konnyu
kiszamolni, hogy ha az egesz bosi eromuvet a szlovakok epitettek,
akkor az ott termelt energianak mekkora resze illeti a magyarokat,
de az teny, hogy a Duna teljes vizienergiaja momentan el van lopva.

Korkerdes: Ti mit tartanatok jo kompromisszumnak?

Udv///Laci

A kertunkben nehany kobmeter diofa level gyult ossze. A "hagyomany| szerint
el szoktak egetni, mert a tobbi noveny (fu) nemszereti a diofa avart.

Mit csinaljak a sok falevelel? (Nem szeretnem elegetni.) Lehet komposztalni?
A diofa komposzt jo tragyazasra?

Valaszotokat koszonom!

Lantos Peter

Kedves KORNYESZ-bongeszok!

Eloszor is koszi az infokat polietilen ujrahasznositasa ugyeben. Most mar
csak az a kerdesem, hogy kicsiny hazank jobb idoket megelt vegyipari gyarai
eljutottak-e arra technologiai szintre, hogy a PE-t ujrahasznositsak, vagy
ez meg mindig csak a Nyugat privilegiuma. Ha van ilyen ceg hazankban,
tudassatok velem is. Elore is koszi!!


Balint Tamas

THE GREENHOUSE PROBLEM AS SEEN BY EUROPE AND THE U.S.

Sajnos Europa fejlodo felenek nincs modja arra hogy a fenti cimu
cikkbeli CO2 kibocsatasat az ott leirt modon csokkentse, illetve
ez esetben tartosan az amerikai es a nyugat europai eletszinvonal alatt
kellene elnunk, ugy hogy az aranyok (GDP/fo) csak rosszabbak 
lesznek a jelenleginel.
Ma : jolet merteke=GDP/fo=energia felhasznalas/fo=CO2 kibocsatas/fo.
Kis eltereseket megengedve (es hagyjuk az energia felhasznalas
hatekonysagat).
Az USA mindenutt visszael gazdasagi erofolenyevel, felelte elolunk
a felhasznalhato "kornyezet egysegeket" (emissziok, asvanyi kincsek).
Termeszetesen mindezt olyan jol es hatekonyan tette, hogy gazdagsaga
mara mar utolerhetetlen, folenyet tartositani tudja.
Ahogy nem reszesultunk a kornyezeti javak felhasznalasa miatt 
"karteritesben", ugyanugy nem kapunk az ebbol elert gazdagsag
miatti nagyobb merteku K+F tevekenyseg eredmenyeibol sem,
ezek inkabb tovabbi kizsakmanyolasunkat segitik.
Persze amikor a "nemzetkozi helyzet fokozodik" akkor mindig ujabb
es ujabb engedmenyeket kaphatunk, de a vilag ketteszakadasa
sem lehetetlen.
Szoval nem csak a tomegkozlekedes es a benzinar szol az oreg 
kontinens mellett.

Hajra USA!