文章 Articles

必须高度关注乡村生态退化

动物的种类在减少,土壤和水在受到严重的污染。中国农民的生活水平因经济发展而获得了提高,但农村却因此而遭受了严重的生态损失。蒋高明报道。

Article image

现在与几十年前相比,农民们的生活水平显著提高了:小时候吃不到的白面馒头,现在普通农民的餐桌上都能看到;农民家里用上了电风扇、电话、彩色电视机、洗衣机、甚至空调;原来破旧的草房,现都换成了清一色的瓦房。然而,这些可喜变化背后付出的环境代价也是巨大的。“山清水秀,空气新鲜”曾经是农村人最自豪的,现在这一切即将成为历史。中国经济高速发展,牺牲了乡村自然资源和生态环境。近30年来,中国乡村主要环境变化表现在以下几个方面:

第一,化肥、农药污染严重,白色污染异军突起。(看“中国需高度警惕耕地白色污染“)现代农业过分依赖化肥、农药、除草剂、杀虫剂、农膜等化石型生产资料,粮食增产的同时,环境污染也接踵而至。中国单位耕地面积化肥平均施用量为434.3千克/公顷, 是化肥施用安全上限的1.93倍,但利用率仅为40%左右。农药平均施用量13.4千克/公顷,其中高毒农药占70%,有60%~70%残留在土壤中。现在的农村是充满了杀机的“杀场”,大量农药充斥在果园、菜园、养殖场、农田中,生产反季节蔬菜加重了农药和化肥的滥用。除种植玉米和小麦等常规作物外,农民种植花生、棉花、大蒜、西瓜、西红柿、黄瓜、黄烟、芹菜等等,几乎无一不使用农膜。每年全国农业生产需要50万吨农膜,残膜率高达40%。白色污染遍布中国乡村,形成“白色恐怖”。除此之外,畜禽粪便污染也相当严重,其排放量超过工业固体废弃物2倍多,部分省份超过4倍多。

第二,野生动物减少,乡村生物多样性降低。大量农药和除草剂使用,并没有从根本上控制住害虫和杂草,与此同时,一些乡村原本存在的野生动物尤其是害虫的天敌们却被杀死了,生物多样性急剧下降。目前的北方农村,秋天已基本看不到南迁的大雁,夏天很难看到成群飞着的蜻蜓,燕子也明显地少了,因为它们找不到搭窝的地方——过梁改用天花板了。多样化的森林变成了杨树纯林,鸟类找不到合适的地方做窝。大量湿地消失致使青蛙等两栖类动物丧失家园,河里的鱼虾因为污染而消失。即使让人生畏的蛇,也因为误食了被耗子药毒死的老鼠而丧生,就连那浑身有毒的蝎子也逃脱不出食客的嘴巴。

乡村消失的不仅仅是蜻蜓、知了、大雁、燕子,喜鹊、小黄雀、青蛙、蛇、野兔,消失的是我们的自然生态。幼时的乡村充满着野趣与童趣,那是儿童的天堂,是小动物们的乐园。如今,这一切都成了历史,成了记忆。我们担心,也许有一天,我们的后代已经不知道什么是蜻蜓和知了了。

第三,树种趋于单一,“大树进城”带来乡村大树、老树和古树浩劫。(看"'大树进城'不妥当") 为追求短期经济利益,农民们卖掉了本地树,而改种速生树。北方基本上以杨树为主,原来老百姓喜欢种的榆树、国槐、洋槐、白蜡树、楸树、泡桐、梧桐、枫杨、柳树、柏树、松树等几乎被清一色的杨树所取代,大半个天下的树木都姓了“杨”。(看"人们为什么热衷于栽杨树?") 南方乡村则以杉木、马尾松为主,近来有被来自澳大利亚的桉树“占山为王”的趋势。大树进城之风蔓延全国,城市街头一夜之间站满了树贩子从乡村挖来的大树、老树和古树。城市的美丽,是以极其丑陋的做法,通过牺牲乡村生态为代价实现的。在农村,几乎看不到代表乡村文化的大树和老树,树木几年就换一茬,给人感觉是中国永远处在发展中阶段。

第四,乡村湿地消失,农家孩子缺少了亲水空间。过去的农家男孩子,几乎没有不会游泳的,而现在会游泳的已经非常少了。有3万学生的某农业大学成立游泳俱乐部,前来报名的不到30人,大部分学生都是“旱鸭子”。一个重要原因是池塘被填平了,改造成了旱地,乡村湖泊和河流湿地消失了,孩子们从小就失去了戏水空间。河流可能还有水流动,但成了上游工厂的“排污沟”,那里的水已经不能让人亲近。乡村大量湿地的消失造成的直接后果是干旱进一步加剧。有人经常抱怨现在的降水量经常达不到历史时期的平均值,甚至只有一半,就可能与湿地的消失有关系。由于地面干燥,“上气不接下气”,有云不下雨,这样的天气现象在北方农村逐渐增多了。

第五,秸秆焚烧禁而不止,收获季节里农田狼烟四起。(看"何时驱散田野里的'狼烟'"?) 由于没有给秸秆找到一个很好的出路,农民为图省事,匆忙收获完粮食后,秸秆就地焚烧,造成严重的环境污染,诱发高速公路事故,迫使机场关闭。2007年9月26日,原本只是一场轻雾,却在农民焚烧秸秆的“狼烟”助长下迷了济南人的眼,济南机场将近30个架次的航班降落受到影响,来访的俄罗斯国家杜马议员的专机只好迫降,造成非常不利的国际影响。由于城市周边农村焚烧秸秆等原因,城市空气中可吸入颗粒物含量明显增高,尤其夜间空气污染程度加重,已属重度污染天气。北京每年的“蓝天计划”多次因周边省份焚烧秸秆而“夭折”。

第六,沙子、石头和土壤的消失。城市和工业高速发展,需要大量的建筑材料,这些材料依然是取自农村。昔日的银沙滩被挖得千疮百孔,河流丧失了泄洪能力;大片的山体被炸开,石山被切割成石头、石板,或加工成各种“艺术品”运往城市或海外。对石材的需求,开始破坏的是一些不知名的山体,现在连泰山也有人打起了主意。有人迷信泰山石,认为它能够镇宅避邪,就到泰山周围贩运石头,泰山石生意一路看好。建筑需要大量的砖头取自农田里的黏土,砖瓦场遍布农村。更令人担心的是,城市和工厂由于缺乏长久规划,经常是“建了拆,拆了建”,那些封存在水泥中的沙子永远失去了利用价值,获取新建筑材料继续加剧了乡村生态环境的破坏。

农民生活富裕了,但是他们的生存环境质量却变差了,一些怪病也多了起来。人们的富裕是以环境的污染和健康作为代价,我们的生活还能够充满阳光么?“人们穷怕了,有了钱还管什么环境”,这是我听到的最多的声音。针对上述严峻的现实和人们的麻木意识,我们只有大声疾呼:救救乡村生态!

蒋高明,中国科学院植物研究所首席研究员、博士生导师,联合国教科文组织人与生物圈中国国家委员会副秘书长、中国环境文化促进会理事。他提出的“城市植被”概念和“以自然力恢复中国退化生态系统”等观点得到社会各界广泛认可。

首页图片由rycordell

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

富人消费,穷人承受污染

我的家乡现在也是这样,跟我小时候比真是变化太大了。小时候的池塘里水满满的,有漂亮的莲花,有鱼有虾有青蛙。现在池塘都被填上了,连村外原来水流湍急的大河都干涸了。

The rich benefit, the poor suffer

My hometown has the same situation. When I was young, things were different. In days gone by, there was abundant water in ponds dotted with beautiful lotus flowers. Fish, shrimp and frogs lived wild and free. Now the ponds are filled with earth. Moreover, the river outside our village runs dry where water always used to rush through it in the past.

(This comment was translated by Stacy Xu.)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

屏弃麻木不仁

最可恨和可怕的事情莫过于麻木不仁. 有时尽一点绵薄之力,也许会使全局改观. 我们应该从麻木中觉醒,一同来改变.

该评论由Stacy Xu翻译.

Numbness

The most hateful and fearful thing is numbness. Do something tiny, maybe the end will be changed. Awaken the consciousness and do the change together.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

杨树的问题

这个问题我也发现了,原来我们家乡有各种各样的树,很漂亮。现在好像全变成杨树了,难看得很。

Poplars

I have found the same problem in my hometown. There used to be various kinds of beautiful trees. Now it seems that only poplars are being grown. It is so boring.

(comment translated by Zhou Chen)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

再对蒋高明先生文章的几点看法 (第一部分)

最近我又看到了蒋高明先生为《中外对话》和FT中文写的专栏文章,这次瞄准的是农村生态问题。上次反对蒋先生的几点意见,写起来比较激愤,是觉得蒋先生作为一位植物学家写这样有论点没有论据,或者论据非常牵强的做法,作为写在国外主办的媒体上是非常不妥帖的,他的导向是不准确甚至可能给外国人带来更大的误解的。所以我有必要对那些不确切容易误导的文字发表一些反对意见,争鸣一下。

Several more points about Mr Gaoming's articles (part 1)

Recently, I have just read the column articles written by Mr. Gaoming Jiang for chinadialogue.net and Financial Times, which focus on countryside ecological issues.

I have posted some comments to criticize Mr Jiang’s unfounded or far-fetched viewpoints in his articles. I also think it is inappropriate for him as a botanist to offer such articles for foreign media, because his pieces will mislead foreign readers. As such, I found it is necessary to point out these misleading information in his articles.

Please read the following comments.

Comment translated by Meiyou Ye

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

再对蒋高明先生文章的几点看法 (第二部分)

这一篇里。我不逐条应对的说。
其一、农村生态破坏的原因?。我觉得这篇文字写的偏颇,其原因,不能归结于农村生活或农业生产,而应归结于工业化和城市化,化肥、农药和农膜的滥用以及危害,是我们的工业跟不上农业生产步伐造成的,为什么用量大,而且污染严重,是因为工业没有给提出经济可行的解决方案,我们谁都知道用绿色农药好,可谁又提供绿色农药的正确方案,谁又批准那些高毒性、高残留的物质的使用,归根到底,还是工业!其他各个点,归结到城市化也基本不错。根本原因,是城市化的掠夺和扩张性强,是地区之间、城市和农村之间不和谐的发展。北京与周边出现种种的生态退化问题,是最明显的例证。

More comments on Mr. Jiang's article (part 2)

I have several comments on different parts of this article.

First, the cause of the destruction of eco environment in the countryside? I think this article is biased on this point, the cause shouldn't be attributed to rural life or production, but industrialization and urbanization. The harm of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural membranes is actually caused by the fact that our industry cannot catch up with agricultural needs. Why we use so much and pollute so much? It's because industry doesn't provide a solution for economy. Everyone knows green pesticides are good, but it's Mr. Industry who on one hand suggested green pesticides as a solution, and on the other hand allowed the utilization of the materials with high toxicity and high residues!
It's right to attribute others to urbanization. The ultimate cause is that the strong depredation and expansion of urbanization lead to discordance between regions, cities and rural areas. The emergence of various ecological degradations is the best talking example.
Comment translated by Michelle Deeter

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

再对蒋高明先生文章的几点看法 (第三部分)

其二、某些判断性的句子,实在经不起推敲。几万人的大学学生,向游泳俱乐部报名仅30人,就判定大部分人都是旱鸭子?这个逻辑关系不知道是怎么得出的。学生不报名,有可能是你那俱乐部条件缺乏吸引力,也有可能学生的兴趣并不在其上。没有正确的分析,得出了错误的结论。

Several points about Mr Gaoming's articles (part 2)

Secondly, some judgemental sentences are not well thought out. Several tens of thousands of university students and when only 30 register at a swimming club, its leads him to determine that most people are non swimmers. I don’t know where he gets this kind of logic from. Students don’t register probably because that club's conditions lack enough to attract people and students' interest is not there. There is no accurate analysis leading to erroneous conclusions.

Translated by Mike Thomson

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

再对蒋高明先生文章的几点看法 (第四部分)

其三、本文有给北京市推卸环境空气质量改善能力的责任。蒋先生前一篇和这一篇文字的明显特点,明显地放大周边地区对北京市的环境影响,仅考虑外因而从不考虑内因。举例来说,北京市环境空气质量的改善,其主因是要靠北京市区和所属北京市管辖的县的努力,而不能总是埋怨周边省份的工作从而推卸责任。北京市虽然在点源治理上采取了非常大的动作,污染企业大量的搬迁,但北京市面源污染和机动车污染治理没有实质性进展。面源来说,北京市区内开工的那麽多繁星点点的建筑工程,是不是都很好地执行了升环境和控制污染治理标准,是不是都是ISO14001认证的建筑企业,他们对北京市空气质量都多大的影响,没有人研究给出充足的证据。北京市可能是全国机动车密度最高的城市了吧,即便是全部车辆执行了欧四标准,对北京市排放的空气污染物的量也是非常巨大的,加之北京市规划工作搞的不佳,到处堵车,机动车怠速的影响不可低估。应该有人研究北京市机动车的保有量、上路量对空气质量的影响关系,把机动车空气污染切实搞上去,才是北京市应该做的事,而不是通过植物科学家的口,把几天空气质量查也归结到周边省份焚烧秸秆上。

Several more points about Mr Gaoming's articles (part 4)

Thirdly, this article also takes away responsibility from Beijing for its ability to improve the quality of the air and environment. Mr Jiang in his last article and in this article has a distinguishing feature in that he clearly amplifies the effect surrounding areas have on Beijing’s environment. He only considers external factors and not internal ones. For example, to improve Beijing’s air quality you first need to rely on the efforts of Beijing and all the districts that fall under its jurisdiction and not abdicate responsibility by complaining about surrounding provinces. Though Beijing has adopted very big initiatives by moving a large number of polluting enterprises however Beijing’s non-point source pollution and vehicle pollution administration has not improved in any substantial way. Let’s speak about a real source like those complicated construction projects inside Beijing. Are they all meeting high environmental and pollution control standards? Are they all ISO14001 certificated construction enterprises? They have a great impact on Beijing’s air quality and nobody has researched to reveal sufficient evidence. Beijing is probably the city in China with the highest vehicle density. Even if every vehicle met Euro 4 emission standards they would still make a very large contribution to Beijing’s air pollution. Moreover, Beijing’s planning is not that good: everywhere there are traffic jams and the impact of slow moving vehicles cannot be underestimated. Somebody should investigate Beijing’s vehicle population and the relationship between air pollution and the number of vehicles on the road and actually work out what air pollution these vehicles cause before deciding what Beijing should do and not go by what a botanist says, taking several days air quality inspection, and concluding that surrounding provinces are burning straw.

This comment was translated by Mike Thomson

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

再对蒋高明先生文章的几点看法 (第五部分)

其四、蒋先生提出了救救农村生态的呼声,这呼声固然没错,但没有主语啊。到底谁来救救农村的生态,从大环境来说,必须是国家的发达地区。对于北京来说,北京必须先把自己搞的很好,才有指责别人的权力。我认为,北京市空气质量的改善,首先要压缩汽车总量,大力发展公共交通,应该通过经济和政策的方法,让大部分公务员都去乘坐公交车,北京市绝大部分市民都乘坐公交车,空气质量才能非常有效的改善。另外,北京市一定要将自己那么高的GDP产生的地方财政收入,通过项目的形式辐射周边省市,让这些可能对北京市环境质量有影响的地方休养生息,那才是真正落实了改善农村生态环境的主语呢!

About Mr Gaoming's articles (part 5)

Fourthly, Mr. Jiang has argued that rural ecosystem must be saved. This is a good argument, yet it dropped out the critical subject: by whom? Generally speaking, it should be the rich regions of China, namely the cities, to assume this responsibility. As for Beijing, it is not justified to blame other cities until Beijing has solved its own problems. In order to improve the air quality in Beijing, the number of automobiles should be under tight control. Public transport system should be promoted through the combination of economic incentives as well as government policies. Civil servants and other residents in Beijing should be encouraged to take public transportation. Only by combining all of these measures can air quality be effectively improved. Besides, the municipal government of Beijing should use its fiscal revenue derived from high growth of GDP to help neighboring cities and provinces, as they have a great impact upon Beijing's environment. Only doing so is the beginning of real actions to save the rural ecosystem.

(Comment translated by Zhou Chen)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

欢迎批评,建议发表

这位网友:您的几点不同看法拜读了,受益匪浅。因为事情实在太多,我不能逐条同您辩论,彼此肯定都要一大堆话要说。希望您将您的观点整理发表,口气希望是探讨性的建设性的,而不要是攻击性的,口水性的。如我认为有需要说明的地方,将专门收集证据撰写文章再来同您辩论。其实,我指出的是客观现象,深层的原因肯定不是一两篇文能够说清楚的。希望通过共同努力改善我们的生存环境,而不是堵住了我的嘴,中国的生态环境就好起来了。我是搞生态的,植物学是我大学的专业,是否对生态环境有发言权?不是我能够说了算的,大家都可以发言。希望是对您五篇评论的回复。祝好,蒋高明

Criticism and Advice is Welcome

This user: I benefited from respectfully reading your several points of contention. Because there are too many issues, I can't debate them with you on an item-by-item basis, although I am sure there is a lot we want to say to each other. I hope you prepare your views and put them out in an inquiring, constructive tone and not in an attacking, vituperative manner. If there is something that I seriously need to make clear, I will collect some specialized evidence, write an article, and then debate with you again. In fact, what I pointed out is an objective phenomenon, and the deep layer of reasoning behind it can definitely not be made clear in one or two articles. I hope that through a combined effort to improve our living conditions, and not by shutting me up, can China's environment get better. I work with ecology, and botany was my major in university. Whether I am qualified to speak on the environment is not up to me; everyone can make their own statements. I hope this is my reply to your 5 comments. I wish you well. Jiang Gaoming

The comment was translated by Anton Lee

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

慎用自己的发言权

嗯,反对观点,不反对人。wxaixai的观点我是同意的。蒋教授当然有自己的发言权的,但是作为一个科学家,应该慎重地去使用自己的发言权。您是搞生态的,wxaixai是搞微观技术的,我也是搞植物的,从专业训练上来看,大家都有同等的发言权。在中外对话这样的地方,没有像科学刊物一样严格的审批,但是有比科学刊物更大的影响力,任何人,尤其是被大众所信任的科学家,应该为自己说的话多多把关,不能再以科学家的身份,犯出像以前“亩产十万斤”类似的错误。做科普,应该是把科研的结果来科普,不应该把有争论的东西拿到非专业人员面前。我赞成wxaixai的态度,摆事实,讲道理,有争论,才有进步。
-Aturen

Use your right to speak carefully

Yeah…, oppose the point of view not the person. I agree with wxaixai’s opinion. Professor Jiang of course has a right to speak but as a scientist he ought to use his right to speak prudently. You work in ecology, wxaixai is in micro technology and I work with plants. From a professional training point of view we all have equal right to speak. When on Chinadialogue which is not as strict as a scientific publication but compared to science publications can have a larger ability to influence. Then anyone, especially a scientist whose words are more likely to be trusted by people, should pay careful attention to what they say and should not use the identity of a scientist to make similar kind of mistakes to "every mu producing 50,000 kg of rice". When doing popular science you should only popularise the results of scientific research and not take debatable items and place them in front of non-experts. I agree with wxaixai’s attitude: state the facts clearly; talk reason; have debate and only then can you have progress. -Aturen

Translated by Mike Thomson