は し が き
本書は、過去に金星堂から出版された日本と現代世界の諸問題を論じた三つ の テ キ ス ト （ Global Challenges 『 人 と 地 球 を 考 え る 』 1991、 GlobalPerspectives 『地球社会の未来を考える』1996、Issues of Global Concern 『地球的問題群の背景を考える』2002）に続く第 4 弾である。ピーティー氏の現代地球社会を巡る諸問題に対する関心は相変わらずで、これまでと同様に主として環境問題にあり、これが本書でも再び取り上げられているが、熱帯雨林を守る方法や地球温暖化を阻止する方策が京都議定書以後の最新状況を踏まえてより具体的に議論されている。全地球共通のその他の課題である食糧、人口、エネルギーなども、最新の資料と知見に基づいて問題の概要と核心が分かりやすく論じられており、読者がこれらの問題を英文でしっかり読みながら自分で考える力を涵養できるように書かれている。本書の啓蒙的側面は明らかで、たとえば「捕鯨をめぐる論争」では、シーシェパードなど一連の環境保護団体の日本の捕鯨船への抗議活動やＩＷＣ商業捕鯨禁止の背景や日本側の事情も詳しく述べられている。著者自身の調査研究と思索が一体化されており、読み応えのあるエッセイになっている。
本書の内容は、1 章「情報と誤報」、2 章「熱帯雨林を守る方法」、3 章「幸福とは」、4 章「新製品への熱狂的傾倒」、5 章「騒音対策」、6 章「捕鯨論争」、
7 章「食糧問題」、8 章「低賃金長時間労働」、9 章「日本の人口問題」、10章「21世紀の貧困問題」、11章「京都議定書後の地球温暖化対策」、12章「原子力を巡るエネルギー問題」である。どれもこの地球上に住む者一人ひとりが幸せに人生を送るためには看過できない重要な問題であることに変わりはない。
英文をじっくり読み込んで著者の論点を理解した上で、それらの問題を自分で考えてみて欲しい。タスクは、これを十分考慮して、「内容理解」を始め、「語彙増強」、「ディスカッションのためのテーマ」、「英作文のための課題」から成っており、英文読解は勿論のこと、各章で取り上げたテーマを読者自身がさらに興味を抱いて勉強できるようにとの工夫が施されている。ディスカッションと英作文用の課題には、時間をかけ努めて自分の頭で考えた独自の意見を述べることを強く望みたい。これらに真面目に取り組めば、将来、特に人文学･社会学の分野で本格的な論文を書くためのしっかりとした基礎が構築できると言っても過言ではないであろう。

2008年10月
編注者

Contents

01. Information and Misinformation

1

02. Saving Tropical Rainforests: Creative Approaches

803. Concerning Happiness

16

04. Gizmo Addiction

24

05. Coping with Noise

31

06. The Whaling Debate

38

07. Food: Not Just a Commodity

46

08. Sweatshop Labor

54

09. Japan’s Declining Population

61

10. Poverty: Meeting the Millennium Development Goals

6811. Global Warming: Beyond Kyoto

76

12. Energy: Is Nuclear Power Part of the Solution?

83Notes92

1. Information and Misinformation
CD1-01

For people who thrive on information, this is an exciting time to be alive, with daily delivery of newspapers, magazines and television programs, and 24-hour Internet access.
However, not all of the information we get is reliable. In
their rush to meet publishing deadlines, journalists often 5omit or fail to confirm essential details; and the Internet isfull of traps for information seekers who wander off the beaten track. Mistakes are no big deal if we just want to know
the result of a football match, but they are of major significance if we are seeking an appropriate drug for a rare disease 10or trying to find out about an accident at a nearby nuclear
power plant.
Even before the advent of the Internet, there were plen─ 1 ─2ty of myths created by pranksters, advertising agencies, advocacy groups and even governments. Among the most famous
spoofs were the widely-quoted scientific report on the mysterious powers of pyramids and the iconic photograph of the5 Loch Ness Monster, both of which were eventually revealed
as hoaxes by their creators. While providing harmless entertainment, these also serve as a reminder of the need to be
skeptical of any information that does not come from impeccable sources.
Misleading claims made by manufacturers are more seri10ous, and in many countries these may result in penalties. In
the case of governments, however, the only penalty for issuing false or misleading information is embarrassment when
they are caught out. The Japanese government-funded
15 Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation once produced acartoon film showing a character named Pluto Kun drinking
plutonium, with the intention of convincing the public that
nuclear power was safe. It backfired, however, when it wasdenounced as highly irresponsible by independent experts
20 and ridiculed by the international media.
Advocacy groups, too, have been guilty of spreading
false and misleading information. For example, there are various phony research institutes dedicated to convincing people that global warming is a myth, which were set up by
25 major companies likely to be adversely affected by policies toprevent global warming. Despite losing the media battle,
they and their corporate sponsors managed to delay action
for a lost decade that the next generation should never forgive them for.
On the other side of the political spectrum, environ30

1. Information and Misinformation3

mentalists do not always get their facts right either. For
example, when Shell Oil Company announced plans todump an old oil platform in the sea, Greenpeace protested
that it was full of toxic chemicals and would be an environmental catastrophe. After an aggressive campaign, 5Greenpeace succeeded in persuading Shell to tow the rig toland and dismantle it there. It then became clear that theamount of toxic chemicals was much smaller thanGreenpeace had estimated, and that dumping the oil rig in
the sea would have been better for the environment. The les- 10
son to be drawn is not that environmentalists are deliberately
distorting the facts, or that the best way to get rid of stuff isto dump it in the ocean, but that we should be prepared toquestion what we read and hear, even when it comes frompeople and organizations that we trust and respect and when 15
it supports our own views.
One person who did just that was British environmentalist Chris Goodall. In order to verify the conventional
belief that walking is the most environment-friendly way to
get around, he compared a 4.8-km journey to the local shop 20
by car and on foot, and factored in not only the carbon dioxide discharged by the car but also the 180 calories of energy
burned by the walker and the food that would be needed toreplace those calories. Surprisingly, he found that if the walker ate 100 grams of beef in order to regain the lost calories, 25
it would result in four times as much carbon being discharged compared to going by car, because so much energy
is used in meat production. Even if the walker drank a half
liter of milk instead, it would still result in more carbon
emissions than the short drive to the store would. A shallow 30

45101520

2530

interpretation of Goodall’s findings might lead to the conclusion that driving is better for the environment than walking. However, that is not what Goodall is telling us. If weexamine the problem more carefully, we find that the realissue is the role of large-scale agriculture in global warming.
To confirm this, we might refer to a report by the US
Department of Agriculture – a firm supporter of modern
farming methods – which tells us that agriculture is responsible for 17% of US energy consumption.
Transport and agriculture also feature in another interesting example of challenged assumptions. A large amount of
cut flowers is flown from Kenya to the UK every year. This
provides poor Kenyans with a useful source of income, butalso results in significant carbon emissions. Environmentalists were at odds with development agencies over whether
this trade should be discouraged. However, it turns out that
producing the same amount of flowers in a heated greenhouse in the Netherlands results in the emission of five times
as much carbon. But before jumping to conclusions and outsourcing all flower production to Kenya, we should first ask
ourselves if we need cut flowers at all.
In a recent issue of Positive Living entitled “The Treethat Could Save the Planet”, a project to plant a million
Japanese paulownia trees across the US was introduced.
According to the article, the paulownia absorbs ten times
more carbon dioxide than any other species of tree. Much asI admire both the magazine and the tree, I found this somewhat hard to believe. I immediately turned to Google to see
whether or not the claim was true. If you would like toknow the answer too, log on to the Internet and find out

1. Information and Misinformation

5

what the experts have to say.
Comprehension Check 1
Answer yes, no, or not clear from the text.
According to the text, does the writer think
1. it doesn’t matter if information provided on the Internet iswrong?
2. governments are an impeccable source of information?
3. the Pluto Kun cartoon achieved its goals?
4. global warming is a myth?
5. the safest way to dispose of anything is to dump it in thesea?
6. driving is better for the environment than walking?
7. Britons should buy flowers grown in Kenya?
8. the paulownia could help solve an environmental problem?

Comprehension Check 2
1. Why do journalists sometimes make mistakes?
2. What can we learn from the stories of pyramid power andthe photo of the monster?
3. What was the aim of the Pluto Kun cartoon film?
4. What did some major companies do in order to delay
action on global warming?
5. How was the Shell oil platform disposed of in the end?
6. What should we learn from the Shell oil rig case?
7. What issue lies behind Goodall’s surprising conclusion?
8. Which has a greater impact on the environment, flying
flowers from Kenya to the UK or growing them in heated6

greenhouses?
9. Why do some people want to plant a lot of paulownia
trees?

Vocabulary Check
Fill each gap with a suitable word or phrase from the text.
1. Your homework must be handed in by next Friday: that isthe.
2.
groups campaign for various causes, such asconservation and social welfare.
3. A lot of people believed the story, but I was.
4. It is ver y
to pretend that plutonium isharmless.
5. The Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation wasto the promotion of nuclear energy.
6. We believed the story, but in fact it was.
7. During thefrom 1990 to 1999, environmental problems received a great deal of attention.
8. Was it just a careless mistake, or did theygive us the wrong information?
9. We couldn’t get tickets for the concert, so we went to amovie.
10. We thought it would rain heavily, but it
to be a fine day.

Discussion
1. Which source of information do you trust most: television,
newspapers or the Internet?

1. Information and Misinformation

7

2. What do you think of Chris Goodall’s conclusion?
3. When shopping, should we favour goods produced indeveloping countries or locally produced goods?

Composition
Write a short composition about one of the following:· a myth that many people believe or used to believe· the activities of Greenpeace· paulownia trees and their benefits to society