文章 Articles

以生态文明引领发展模式的根本变革

中国最近在"十七大"会议上提出了要建设生态文明的构想。马军说,这是对中国未来发展模式的又一次界定。那么,中国是否将从此引入绿色发展模式?

Article image

中共十七大报告中提出要“建设生态文明”,引起广泛关注。这是在客观分析中国所面临的严峻的资源环境形势后,对中国的未来发展模式的又一次界定;同时也是在客观分析人类所面临的全球环境挑战的基础上,提出中国对未来世界文明形态的基本构想。

生态文明的提出,是基于对工业文明中不可持续的发展模式的反思。人类社会经历了漫长的原始采集、狩猎和农耕文明阶段,直到200多年前,工业革命开始席卷西方世界,工业文明迅速成为占据支配地位的文明形态。在为人类带来空前的物质财富的同时,建立在资源、能源大规模消耗基础上的工业文明发展模式,给工业国家带来了严重的环境污染和生态破坏。

在过去三十年间,伴随全球经济一体化的浪潮,工业化呈现出前所未有的迅猛发展态势。跨国资本将高污染、高能耗、高风险的生产过程转向发展中国家,在不改变发展模式的情况下,减轻了发达国家的环境压力,却大大加重了发展中国家的环境负担,环境污染问题蔓延到全球各个角落。然而,全球气候变化使得任何国家都无法独善其身,如何应对二氧化碳等污染物带来的温室效应,突然成为摆在全球各国面前的紧迫问题。

世界正把关注的目光投向中国。中国经济高速增长,但我们为此付出了极高的资源环境代价,主要原材料消耗量和污染排放量居于世界前列。从根本上看,工业文明的发展模式是不可持续的,西方发达国家的大规模生产和消费已经给全球环境带来了严重影响;而当中国、印度等发展中大国试图以同样方式发展自己,加入世界富人俱乐部的时候,工业文明固有的不可持续性就突显出来,全球环境就会加速逼近危机爆发的临界点。在这样的背景下,中国领导层提出建设生态文明,对保障中国的长远发展和维持全球生态安全都有着深远的意义。

作为一种新的文明形态,生态文明尚无范例可循,从理论到实践都需要作艰难探索。生态文明与工业文明,首先分野在对人与自然关系的认识。工业文明立足于对自然的征服和改造,而生态文明则要求人类寻求与生态环境的和谐,因为生态化环境是人类生存和发展的基础。早在上世纪30年代,环境学者利奥波德就曾指出:“文明并不像通常设想的那样,是去征服一个稳定而永恒的地球”。在人类遍布地球各个可居住角落的时候,在人类握有摧毁生态平衡、破坏生态系统力量的今天,我们反而必须收起心中那柄征服的巨斧,重新找回我们对自然曾经拥有的那份尊重和感恩。

建设生态文明,不同于传统意义上的污染控制和生态恢复,而是设想超越工业文明建立在资源扩张型的发展模式,探索出环境友好型的发展道路。应该清醒地认识到,由于中国巨大的人口基数和经济规模,即使我们采用各种末端治理措施,仍然不能避免严重的环境影响。要真正实现与自然和谐的生产生活,需要大规模开发和使用清洁的可再生的能源,实现对自然资源的高效、循环利用。这样的根本转变不是一个国家可以完成的,需要中国应该和其它致力于维护全球生态安全的国家协同努力。

建设生态文明,并不意味着我们要抛弃业已形成的环境管理体系和环保技术。事实上,许多处在后工业化时代的国家和地区,已经对可持续发展模式作了有益的探索,一些行之有效的环境管理方式和资源利用模式符合生态文明建设的方向。对于尚处于工业化时期的中国,挑战是巨大的;但作为后发国家,如果我们能积极借鉴和吸收他国的有益经验,也存在着超越既有基础设施,直接采用新型技术设施的机遇。

要实现经济增长方式的彻底转变,除了要摆正人与自然关系外,还必须真正贯彻以人为本的原则。应该认识到,生态文明虽然着重强调了保护生态、顺应自然规律,但自然万物本身不能参与到环境管理中,它们需要致力于守护自然的人们为其代言。国际社会提出可持续发展,是要力求实现“既能满足当代人需要又不对后代人满足其需要的能力构成危害的发展”;而中国领导层提出的科学发展观,同样将“以人为本”确定为核心。如果我们发展的目的真正是为了惠及民众,那么我们就不能在发展中破坏民众赖以生存的资源环境;而在环境决策和管理中赋予公民知情权、参与权和司法救济权,是保障公民环境权的最有效方式。

人们曾经对后工业化时代的发展方向莫衷一是,如今寻求与环境友好的发展模式已经成为一个重要的全球主题。提出建设生态文明,既是中国对未来世界发展方向的构想,也再一次体现了中国作为一个负责任的大国,对解决环境问题的高度重视和坚定决心。


背景资料:

2007年7月15日,中共总书记胡锦涛在代表十六届中央委员会向十七大作报告时,提出了实现全面建设小康社会奋斗目标的新要求,其中,要“建设生态文明,基本形成节约能源资源和保护生态环境的产业结构、增长方式、消费模式”。

胡锦涛要求,循环经济形成较大规模,可再生能源比重显著上升。主要污染物排放得到有效控制,生态环境质量明显改善。生态文明观念在全社会牢固树立。

这被认为有利于着力解决中国发展新阶段面临的一些突出问题。国家环保总局不久前发布的一份报告称,中国的总体环境形势仍然“相当严峻”,频发的污染事件影响着人民的生活。

官方数据显示,2006年中国化学需氧量排放总量居世界第一,远远超过环境容量,全国七大水系监测断面中62%受到污染,流经城市的河段90%受到污染。今年5月份在华东发生的太湖蓝藻事件也引起了震动。由于片面追求经济发展,当地大规模发展化工业和轻工业,造成湖水污染,使200万人的生活用水中断。

 

马军,中国公众与环境研究中心主任。

首页图片V 2

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

关注

对于中国来说,环境问题纳入议事日程是很重要的。希望这不是其他国家的政治要求,因为我们一直受到第一世界国家的监督,尤其是美国。希望这完全是出于中国人民自身利益的考虑。

attention

It is significant for China that environmental issues are finally brought to the table. And hopefully, this is not a political requirement to the rest of the world, simply because we are watched by some of the first nations, especailly the U.S. It is all for the sake of Chinese citizens.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

素食的中国可以领导潮流

我十分欣赏马先生的这篇文章,我也赞同中国政府提出的“生态文明”这一构想。我也坚信真正的生态文明应该崇尚素食和停止杀戮牲畜。联合国最近发表了一份报告,论述了牲畜的生产对于环境的影响是显而易见的-人类喜荤的习性正在破坏生物圈,后果比任何一种人类活动还严重。如果你对于人类饮食的巨大影响力还抱有怀疑的话,那么问自己这样三个问题:1)身体健康对你重要吗?2)世界环境对你重要吗?3)你富有同情心吗?如果答案都是“是”的话,那么素食主义就是一种确实、快速的解决方案。马先生,为了减少温室气体排放,增进中国人的身体健康,保护环境,你愿意倡导素食主义吗?你愿意倡导用一种科学的方法来解决全球变暖和生态破坏的问题吗?而这个话题连诺贝尔奖的获得者戈尔都没有政治上的勇气来谈及。如果某位中国的环保斗士能够引导上亿中国人吃素的话,那他或她很可能会改变整个世界的面貌。

A Vegetarian China Could Lead the Way

I am big fan of Mr. Ma's work on behalf of the environment in China, and agree that the government’s new recognition of "ecological civilization" is an important step.

I also firmly believe that a truly ecological civilization would embrace a vegetarian diet and cease exploiting animals.

The UN’s recent report on the impact of livestock production on the planet’s environment is unequivocal – more than any other human activity, our worldwide meat and dairy addiction is killing our biosphere.

If you doubt the potentially world-changing power of your diet, just ask yourself three questions:

1) Is your body’s health important to you?
2) Is the world’s environmental health important to you?
3) Are you compassionate?

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then vegetarianism offers real, immediate solutions.

Mr. Ma, would you consider publicly advocating a vegetarian diet as a way to reduce the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and improve the overall health of China’s people and environment? Would you consider advocating a scientific solution to global warming and ecological destruction which not even Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore has had the political courage to discuss?

If a Chinese environmental pioneer could lead hundreds of millions of Chinese people to adopt a vegetarian diet, he or she could potentially change the entire world.

Christopher Barden

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中国,不要再扮演牺牲品了

跨国资本将高污染、高能耗、高风险的生产过程转向发展中国家,在不改变发展模式的情况下,减轻了发达国家的环境压力。马先生,不要再扮演牺牲品了。中国不一定必须要走资本主义的发展模式,可是它却这么做了,而且是迫不及待的。不应该因为自己的选择而怪罪别人。你的评论好象是为中国政府接下来在环境变化方面的立场做铺垫:当美国不再是最大的二氧化碳排放国时,中国开始指责说是西方国家把资本主义带到了中国,破坏了它的环境。很不错的理由。我们没有时间去争论谁对谁错。我们正面临着一个急需解决的危机。“中国正在很严肃地对待环境问题”北京的马路上每天增加1000亮新车,这是认真地对待环境问题吗?行了,中国,不要把其他国家当作傻瓜。

Stop playing the victim, China.

"Global capitalism has transferred the most polluting, resource-intensive and high-risk manufacturing industries to developing countries. This has allowed developed countries to alleviate the pressure on their own environments, without making any changes to their model of growth."

Stop playing the victim, Ma. China doesn't have to pursue the capitalist model of growth, but that's what it's doing - rapaciously. It can't blame others for the path it has chosen.

Your comments seem to be in preparation for the Chinese government's next position on climate change: when it can no longer point out that the US is the biggest emitter of CO2 it will start to blame the west for bringing capitalism to China and spoiling its environment.

This is a very petty, but predictable response. We don't have time to argue who's at fault. We face an emergency that needs dealing with - right now.

"China is acting responsibly, and taking environmental issues very seriously indeed."

Is adding 1,000 new cars a day to the roads in Beijing "acting responsibly"?

Come on China, stop treating the rest of the world like fools.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

自大和无知的极好表现

我不得不说,第3条评论极好地表明了在发达国家中的人们的自大和无知的思维模式。

去发展中国家看看那些还生活在贫困中的家庭,你就会明白你们不再愿意做的肮脏和低下的工作正是这些中国家庭赖于生存的生命线。

在全球化的发展下,发展中国家因廉价的资源和劳力,松懈的管理和高的投资回报率成为了很多国家的自然(投资)选择。这样这些国家就可以把它们的利润最大化,同时还可以保有他们高傲的态度。

来讨论中国如何看待被转移污染的问题显得更聪明了。但是拒绝承担责任并谴责在受难的国家的做法简直就是懦夫!看看非洲,再看看拉丁美洲,你们为中国指出的另一条道路是什么?更不用说,同中国一起被遭谴责的印度和巴西。是否他们就应该保持落后的状态而只是成为“文明人”的廉价旅游热点,这样你还可以保持你傲慢的态度?

气候变化和环境威胁是目前需要有所行动来解决的紧急问题。但是对于发展中国家的很多人来说,更加急迫的是明天他们的家人是否有饭吃的问题。如果你不了解这个现状而作实际的努力来解决问题的话,除了你朝天大声喊叫之外,你的看法不会得到任何人的认同和支持。

你说得对,每天有1,000辆新车上路对中国来说是个大事。这说明了1,000个中国人开始拥有了他们生命中的第一辆车。但是在你的国家这根本就不算什么,因为你们国人中的很多已经厌倦了你们的第二辆甚至第三辆车。

从你自以为是的梦想中苏醒吧!回到现实中来看问题。先从别人的角度去看问题,然后再开始责备别人。

good presentation of arrogance and ignorance

I have to say, comment 3 does a very good job to represent some mindsets of arrogance and ignorance in the developed (or early developed) world which exactly lead the world to the situation today.

Go to the developing world and have a look of the under poverty families, you will then understand why those nasty, humble, dirty and horrible jobs that you don't want to do anymore are the lifeline of these families and has hope for their future.

In the free capital free trade market undergoing globalisation, developing countries with cheap material and labour, lax regulation and high return of investment of course becomes a natural choice for many, so they can maximize the profit and keep raising arrogant minds that you have.

It is clever to see what China would say about the transferred pollution. But refuse to take responsibility and push the blame to who suffers it is simply just coward!

Look at Africa, look at Latin America, where is the alternative path you are pointing for China? Let alone the other examples being blamed together with China, India and Brazil. Should they just remain lagging behind and only poor tourist hot-spot of "civilized" people so you can still be proud of yourself?

Climate change and other environmental threats are emergency that needs dealing with right now. But what is even more urgent for many people in developing world is how to feed their family tomorrow. Without understanding their “immediate emergency” and do real things to help getting rid of them, you can get no one supporting you but just keep shouting to the air, hot air!!

Yes you are right; putting 1000 car on road a day is a big thing to China, that means 1000 Chinese are having their first car ever in their lives. But it may be nothing at all in your country, because many of you already get bored with your second car, or third!

Wake up from your self-righteous dream! Step down to the ground of reality and try to think from the others side before you start blaming!!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

一种声音

我同意主要责任在西方国家身上。在那里,许多人都很自私,他们以买奢侈品为荣,譬如最新款的电视机,然而他们却从来没有为我们这个星球着想过。而话又说回来了,如果西方人减少消费的话,那中国会受到很大影响。广东和其他地方那些为我们生产消费品的工人们会因此而失业。但是,我们要看清事实:不可能在减少CO2排放的同时,又兼顾发展目标的实现。许多西方人都持这样一种偏激的想法:“凭什么让我不开车?就因为按现在的发展速度,两年后中国的CO2的排放将取代我的吗?”与此同时,许多中国人则这么想:“西方国家应该首先减少污染物排放,因为这本来就是他们的错。”我们现在都没有转变思维方式。由于许多中国人都拥有了汽车,这越发变成一种空想。还是让事实来说话吧:看看北京的天空。如果我们一意孤行,结果会毁了我们赖以生存的地球。而到了那个时候,这些汽车对于我们的子孙后代还有什么用呢?亦或者你不相信事情会变得这么糟?你认为那些西方资本主义国家是这些恶果的根源,但不知怎么的,你也想这么做,因为你觉得自己有权这么做。你会说:“你们犯的错太可怕了,但是无论你们喜不喜欢,我们会重蹈覆辙。”这是一种奇怪的想法。可能你会猜测我是怎么样的一个人,告诉你吧:出于环保考虑,我没有车,假日里不坐飞机;我会回收一切能够回收的东西;当不用电脑、电视机等电器时,我会及时关闭电源。我还是英国绿党的成员,而且我自认为是个社会主义者。你们说发达国家剥削发展中国家,对此我没有异议。在此我只谈了中国,这是因为该网站叫“中国对话”,不是什么“印度对话”、“巴西对话”。中国的人口占全球人口的五分之一,因此中国理所当然十分重要。中国正面临严重的环境问题,我认为一定的压力是很必要的,就像美国和印度过去那样。我相信中国政府会采取积极措施,不再“扮演受害者的角色”。

A response

I agree the west is massively at fault. There are many selfish people there who will not give up luxuries, such as flying or buying the latest TV set, for the sake of the planet. Then again, if they did China would be massively affected. All those people in Guangdong and other places producing goods for our consumerist societies would be out of work.

But you need to look at the science. The required reductions in CO2 do not permit one side to reduce its pollution and allow the other side to grow until it meets its development aims. We're in a crazy situation where people in the west are saying: "Why should I give up my car because my CO2 reductions will be replaced by what China produces in two years at its current rate of growth." At the same time the Chinese are saying: "The west has got to reduce its pollution first because it's all its fault." We're in a state of paralysis.

As for the Chinese having their own cars for the first time, this is an empty dream. Again, look at the science. And look at the sky in Beijing most days. It's leading us nowhere but to the destruction of our planet. These cars won't be any use in the kind of world we are going to leave to our grandchildren, will they? Or don't you believe it will get that bad?

You rightly point out that the western, capitalist nations (which China also is now) have caused and are causing the damage, but bizarrely you think you should copy it because you have the right to. Put simplistically, you're saying: "Your mistakes are terrible, but nevertheless, I'm going to repeat them whether you like it or not." This is a strange proposition.

As for your assumptions about my character, I don't own a car for environmental reasons. I don't fly on holiday for environmental reasons. I recycle everything I can recycle and turn off computers, TVs etc when not in use. I am also a member of the British Green Party, and consider myself to be a socialist. I agree with everything you say about how the developing world is being exploited by the developed world. The reason I only talk about China on here is because this is called chinadialogue, not indiadialogue or brazildialogue. China also represents a fifth of humanity, so is particularly important. China has a huge problem with its environment and I believe it is quite right that pressure needs to be brought, just like with the US, India etc, over its track record. I'm sure the Chinese government understands this but like I said, stop playing the victim.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

致评论3和评论5

很抱歉至少我并不认同中国"扮演牺牲品"的角色的说法,因为它确实是牺牲品之一.作为读者,我不认为评论4想表达"你们的错误是可怕的,但无论你们喜欢与否,我想重申一遍."如我们所知,这仅仅是在争论事实.首先,发达国家减少碳排放事实上正部分的转向为全球消费生产产品的发展中国家.我很难认同这是减少"国家"碳排放的"正确方法".对你所说的认真正视科学,我非常认同.让我们重温一下(2002年)每千人拥有轿车的UNSD数字吧:澳大利亚515辆;加拿大560辆;英国445辆;印度7辆;肯尼亚8辆;中国10辆.美国在1980年时就达到了739辆!不,我并不是说"你们的轿车数量庞大,所以中国/印度就该和你们一样."我只是想指出这个事实.对个人来说,就如你所做的那样,改变生活方式是值得欣赏的.气候变化已经成为了世界最热门的话题.我完全相信,更多的准备将会使这场辩论更有意义.

To comment 3 and 5

Sorry but I'd say at least I do not see China is "playing the victim", because it IS indeed one the victims. And as a reader I don't think the comment No.4 is saying "Your mistakes are terrible, but nevertheless, I'm going to repeat them whether you like it or not", as you understood, but simply just arguing about the fact.

First of all, the reductions of Carbon emission from developed countries are actually partly being transferred to developing countries, who are producing goods for global consumptions, and suffering the emissions. I can hardly agree that this is the "proper way" to reduce "national" emission.

I can't agree with you more about looking at the science really. Let's review the UNSD figures of Passenger Cars being used per Thousand People (in 2002): Australia 515; Canada 560; UK 445; India 7; Kenya 8; China 10. And USA’s level was 739, in the year of 1980!

No I'm NOT saying that "You have huge amount of cars so Chinese/Indian should have as same as yours", but just point out the fact.

For individuals, to change lifestyles, as far as what you did, is appreciated. Climate change has becoming one of the hottest issues in the world and I truly believe more homework would be helpful to make the debate more meaningful.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

另外一种声音

“对不起,我认为中国不是在‘扮演受害者的角色’,因为中国根本就是受害者。”你是在说中国是被迫接受西方的污染类产业。我却认为是缺乏替代技术。西方国家对于汽车数量和尾气排放实行严格配给,并迅速增加可再生能源的使用(现在在这方面做得还很失败)。同时,我还认为根据现有技术来讲,如果中国和印度的人口拥有汽车的比例和西方持平的话,那将是一场灾难。最新科学结果显示,我们要在2015年之前稳定CO2的排放,然后开始减少排放。但如果中国和印度总共25亿的人口实现了刚才提到的汽车拥有量,那上述目标则不可能实现。我知道这很难接受,但却是事实。中国的嫦娥一号花了16亿人民币,而北京CCTV新塔也要花这么多。根据政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)的研究,这些钱其实不是可以用来发展科技,解决气候变化问题的吗?而美国和英国为了在伊拉克和阿富汗发动战争,不是也耗费了巨资嘛。我想说的是我并没有针对中国的意思。

Another response

"Sorry but I'd say at least I do not see China is "playing the victim", because it IS indeed one the victims."

So what you're suggesting is that China has been forced at proverbial gun point to accept western polluting industries.

What I'm saying is in the absence of alternative technology, the west has to seriously ration the amount of car and air journeys it makes and rapidly increase its use of renewable energy (it is currently failing at that). At the same time I'm saying that given the current technology it would be globally catastrophic for China and India to have the same ratio of population/car ownership as the west.

According to the most up-to-date science, we have to stabilise CO2 emissions by 2015 and then start to reduce them. If the combined 2.5 billion population of India and China strive for and achieve the car ownership ratios you mentioned earlier then the above target will not be possible. I know that's unpalatable but it's the truth.

China's just spent 1.6 billion yuan on Chang'e 1 and is spending a similar amount on the new CCTV tower in Beijing. Surely given the science presented to us by the IPCC the money would have been better spent on developing technology to tackle climate change? This philosophy also goes for the much more money Britain and the US have spent on the devastating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, just so you don't think I'm demonising China.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

感谢

感谢你对于中国的关注,也感谢你在个人减少污染方面所做出的努力。如果你在先前的评论中不那么尖锐,如果你能像在后来的评论中那样为发展中国家考虑,我也不会对你充满敌意,现在我要为此向你表示道歉。现在我发现我们的观点日趋一致了。
但是,就像我在另外一篇评论中指出的那样,中国以及其他发展中国家不会照抄照搬西方国家的发展模式。如果真要这样的话,就是十个地球的资源加起来也不够,没有人会傻到这么做。我希望你听说过“共同但有区别的责任”。在应对诸如像气候变化等全球危机时,每个参与国都应该有明确的责任与分工,这是很重要的。一视同仁是不对的,基于此,我希望你能多为发展中国家想一想,多去了解他们的处境。制造紧张空气,打出冠冕堂皇的标语并不能改变什么。面对现实与分歧是广泛接受长期行动框架的第一步,发展中国家不会坐视不理,也不会将责任都推给西方国家。
发展中国家作了很多努力来解决气候变化问题,试图减少污染物排放,尽管有些国家的出发点并不是解决气候变化问题。发展中国家抵御环境污染的能力是最弱的,他们对待这一问题比许多发达国家还要认真,因为这关系到生死存亡。如果你能真正关注这一问题,你会找到许多相关报道,包括你提到的汽车问题。这些报道也许不像西方报道那样具有说服力,但你要站在他们一边,然后你会发现不一样的感觉。这里有个疑问,是由污染转移引发的,西方国家究竟做了多少努力,又有多少发展中国家的努力因此被掩盖了呢?
最后,我想再次强调,这个世界很复杂,而涉及环保的问题则更复杂,不要像在第一篇评论里那样把问题过分简单化。中国没有扮演受害者的角色,其他发展中国家也没有。每个人都是环境恶化的受害者,对于发展中国家的人民来说尤其如此。事实是,几个世纪来,这些人并没有得到受害者应该得到的待遇!

it is appreciated

Your close concern to China is really appreciated, so are your own efforts to reducing individual ecological footprints. If you had lowered your voice and fingers in your previous comment and starting from understanding and consideration to developing world, as you did in the later comment, I would not have been so hostile to you, for what I would like to apologise now. I can see now our points start merging.

However, as pointed out in the other comment, no one is saying China or developing world wants to copy the development path of west until they reach the development aims. That simply requires more than ten Earths to support, and no one is foolish enough to aim at that, nor can they. I hope you have heard of "common but differentiate responsibility". Facing global challenges such as climate change (but not only this), it is important to have clear duty and responsibility for every actor in participation. It is simply not right to treat everyone in the same way, and for this reason I urged you to think more from developing world's side and understand their immediate concern. Pumping hot air with splendid slogan really doesn't help in this case. Face the fact and realise the difference is the first step to a widely accepted long term framework of action, but no one is saying developing world will do no contribution to this and just pushing that to west.

There has been a lot effort done in developing countries to tackle climate change and trying to slow down their emission growth, even though some of them are not for climate change directly. The developing world is the most vulnerable to environmental threats and they even take it more seriously than many developed countries as that is a matter of life or death to them. If you lower your position and pay attention, you can find many reports on that too, including the car issue you raised. They might not be as obvious as those in developed countries, but you have to stand at their side, not yours before you can appreciate that. Again, there is a question mark, as highlighted by pollution transfer, on how much west has really done, and how much the effort in developing countries has been overshadowed by that.

Finally, I would emphasise that again, it is a very complicated world and an even more complicated issues for climate change and other environmental threat, don't be simplistic as you appear in the first comment. China is not playing victim, nor are other developing countries. Everyone is victim of degraded environment, and even more so for people in developing world. The fact is that, they have not been treated as victims as they are for centuries!

Tao Wang

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

很抱歉看到这样的评论

很抱歉看到你的新评论又将你引回了起始位置。为了减少中外对话不必要的翻译工作,我会尽量保持该评论简短,也希望就此结束这场争论。
1.我觉得你急需再学习“不得不”的含义。尤其是这个词在你面对着十亿嗷嗷待哺的人民时的意义!
2.我再重复一次,没人提出发展中国家应该以发达国家的奢华和浪费生活方式为目标,也没人将此作为发展中国家人民理所当然的权利,只有你不断作出这样的假设,并将此作为你论点的基础。
3.一个国家有太多更重要的事情需要处理,所以不太可能将所有力量都集中在处理一个问题上。尽管像你这样的人,具备丰富的物质条件可以做到,我们也很感激这一点。但是也请更多地为其他人的决定着想。

我不想评价战争,因为它自会有它最后的裁决。你提出的其它观点我已经在之前的评论中回答过了。希望对你有帮助,如果你也这样认为的话。Tao Wang

sorry to see that

I am very sorry to see your new comment goes back to the position you had before. In order to reduce the unnecessary translation workload for chinadialogue, I will keep this short and hope to draw an end.

1. You definitively need to learn again the meaning of "have to", especially its meaning when you are facing billions of hungry mouths!
2. I repeat here, no one said developing countries should target at those consumerist and wasteful lifestyle of developed world today, and none have taken it as a granted right of people in developing countries, only except you keep assuming that and make it ground of your argument.
3. A nation has a whole lot of emergencies and priorities to be dealt with, and therefore cannot afford to throw all its resources at one basket. Although individuals like you with sufficient living conditions can, which we appreciate, please be more considerate to other's decision. I don't want to comment on THE war, it will have its own fair judgement and consequence at the end.
The other points you raised should have been answered by my previous comment. Hope that is helpful to you, only if you so wish too.

Tao Wang

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

谢谢

Tao Wang,首先感谢你的致歉。这里谈到的不是所有的西方人都是只认钱的贪婪资本家。同时,有一点也很重要的是,你要理解把污染类的工作转向发展中国家并不像我们把脏和累的工作转移给穷人这么简单。举个例子,我的叔叔曾经在过去很多年里是个报酬丰厚的矿工,但是现在他只是个收入不怎么好的卡车司机。他和成千上万的在英国的老百姓正在努力阻止他们的工作进入发展中国家。现在英国几乎已经没有制造业,因为都已经被转移了。

不是因为普通人不想要污染类的行业(事实上,他们想要这样的工作,因为在钢铁和矿产的行业中,报酬都很好),这是因为在我们资本主义经济里不负责任的领导们串通了同样不负责任的在发展中国家的一些后共产主义的领导人造成的。正如我们双方都知道,失利的正是在发展中国家遭受污染的普通人和在发达国家里不得不在服务行业里领取微薄工资的熟练工人。
如果我们继续在现在形势下的自由市场的资本主义,一百年后的中国、印度和巴西,就会把它们的污染类行业转移到非洲,那么今天我们在这里讨论的话题将会重复。

我同意关于“共同但有区别的责任”的治理污染的观点。西方国家应该利用他们的财富去发展有关对抗气候变化的科技并且从事一些体面的事情,还要把这些技术免费转让,至少也只收取成本费用,不用向发展中国家征收专利费。但是,发展中国家不能等到自己充分工业化以后才来大幅度减轻二氧化碳的排放,或者换句话说,我们不可以两天钓鱼三天晒网!

Thank you

Tao,

Firstly, thanks for the apology. I hoped I've demonstrated here that not all westerners are rapacious capitalists who only care about money.

I think also it's important for you to understand that the transfer of dirty jobs to the developing world is not as simple as being just a case of handing down the work we didn't want to the poor. For instance, my uncle was for years a very well paid miner. He's now a not-so-well paid lorry driver. Him and hundreds of thousands of others, laobaixing if you like, in Britain fought hard to stop their jobs going to the developing world. Britain virtually has no manufacturing sector nowadays because it has all been transferred. This isn't because ordinary people didn't want the dirty industries (in fact they did, because jobs in the steel and mining industries were well paid), it is because the unaccountable leaders in our capitalist economies colluded with equally unaccountable post communist leaders among others in the developing world. The losers, as we both know, are the ordinary people who have to suffer the pollution in the developing world and the skilled workers in the west who've had to take lower paid jobs in the service sector.

If we carry on with free market capitalism in its current form, in a hundred years or so China, India and Brazil, will be transferring their dirty jobs to Africa, and the debate we're having now will be repeated.

As for "common but differentiated responsibilities", I agree with that standpoint. The west has to use its wealth advantage to develop climate change-tackling technology and do the decent thing and transfer that technology free of charge, or at least at cost price, without patents to developing countries. However, developing countries cannot wait until they're fully industrialised before making drastic cuts in CO2 emissions, or shall we say 不可以两天钓鱼三天晒网!