[06.03.07 英国 Spiked 北京2008系列 之九] 中国有毒？

dakelv

【06.03.07 英国 Spiked 北京2008系列 之九】中国有毒？
【标题】Toxic China? 中国有毒？
【原文链接】http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/233/
【翻译方式】人工翻译
【翻译】dakelv
【声明】本文翻译仅限Anti-CNN使用，转载请注明译者及出处。
【译注】1）本文是Spike Online 的 “2008北京：挑战对中国的污蔑”系列文章之九。
              2）由于文章较长，将原文和译文分别分两次贴出。一楼二楼为原文。三、四楼为译文。

【原文】

Toxic China?

Western critics cite China's environmental record as an excuse for attacking economic growth.
Kirk Leech

Environmentalists are seeking to exploit China’s hosting ofthe Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008 as an opportunity to put pressureon the country, to improve dramatically an environmental record nowseen as a threat to the planet. But are demands for China to rein inits industrial advance and slow down its growth the best solution forChina, or the world?

China has long been criticised by environmentalists for a litany ofenvironmental crimes. Chastised for building the Three Gorges Dam, thelargest hydroelectric project in the world, because of its supposedenvironmental destruction and displacement of villagers, it is alsocriticised for its water cleanliness. It is claimed that five ofChina’s greatest rivers are too polluted to touch, never mind drink.Several of the country’s largest waterways, including the Yellow River,run dry before reaching the sea. The leak of toxic benzene into theSonghua River in November 2005, and the disconnection of water suppliesto the city of Harbin and its millions of inhabitants, has increasedconcerns.  


It was recently reported that China is now the world’s second-largestproducer of greenhouse gas emissions, soon to over take from the USA(1). (Ironically China has also been taken to task for expanding itsnuclear power generation). Plans to build 600 coal-fired power stationsby 2030, with the expected rise in greenhouse emissions, in a countrywhere roughly a third of the population is already said to be exposedto ‘acid rain’, have been roundly condemned (2).

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently reported that two-thirdsof China’s cities have air quality below standard. Nine of its citiesare in the top ten most polluted in the world, some having the highestrates of airborne carbon monoxide in the world (3). It has been widelyreported, by the Chinese themselves, that 400,000 people dieprematurely every year from diseases linked to air pollution, partlydown to increased car use. The numbers of cars in Beijing has doubledin the past five years to 2.5m; it is expected to rise to over 3m bythe time the Olympic flame reaches the capital city in 2008.


The British Guardian newspaper recently awarded Beijing theaccolade of ‘air pollution capital of the world’ (4) and joined in withcriticisms of China’s slowness in adopting Kyoto Protocols ongreenhouse gas emissions - perhaps forgetting that as a developingworld country, China is not bound by the Protocols.

Environmental campaigners claim that de-forestation projects willsoon leave few trees in the north of the country, and thatdesertification, the creation of deserts, is happening faster thananywhere else in the world, with deserts encroaching on Beijing. Thelist of rare and endangered species of animals and plants at riskstretches from mammals to plants. National Geographicmagazine recently commented that China was committing ‘ecologicalsuicide’. It is also claimed that China’s growing human population,currently 1.3billion, spells environmental and economic disaster forthe planet.


Whilst China has long been on the radar of environmentalists, what’sgiven this targeting of the country a real impulse is China’s rapidindustrialisation, and natural resource use, kindling fears that thisspells doom for China and for the whole planet. How should we considerthese claims?

Chinese destruction and growth

Data released by the Chinese government at the start of the WorldEconomic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2006, indicated thatChina has just leapfrogged over several European powers to become theworld’s fourth largest economy by GDP at market prices. When one looksat purchasing power parity (taking China’s lower prices into account)it is already number two (5).


This rapid industrial growth, and heavy use of fossil fuels, helpsexplain why China has become the new ‘bete noire’ of environmentalcampaigners, replacing the USA as the most ‘toxic country’ in theworld. As the environmental website Grist put it, ‘We’ve said it beforeand we’ll say it again: One of the biggest and most underreportedenvironmental stories today is the rapid, massive industrialdevelopment taking place in China’ (6). For environmentalists thisrapid industrialisation is damaging the country, and the world’seco-system. China’s exploitation of the planet’s natural resourcesleaves the world heading for catastrophe.

Leading environmentalist Lester Brown, in his recently published Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilisation in Trouble,reveals his alarm at China’s growing demand for the world’s naturalresources. He states that China leads the USA in the consumption offour of the basic commodities, consuming twice as much meat as the USA,twice as much steel, and leading the USA in grain and coal consumption.The USA still leads in oil consumption, partly due to owning 10 timesas many cars, but as Chinese car ownership grows, it is narrowing. Theimage he presents is of China sucking up the world’s resources likesome mighty vacuum cleaner, in a vain attempt to feed itself, andindustrialise.

Equally, environmentalist Jonathon Porritt, in his new book Capitalism As If The World Matters,suggests that ‘China must feed 20 per cent of the world’s population onjust 7 per cent of the world’s arable land’ (7). Both books suggestthat China is helping to push the world towards environmental andsocial disaster.

Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature, and whoadvocates ‘bringing one, and no more than one, child into this worldwill hurt neither your family nor our nation’ (8) (for the USA, notChina!) echoes these fears. Writing in the Washington Post (9),he has argued that at the pace China is converting farmland intofactory sites, there will not be enough land left to feed its people.Mass starvation looms.

This sentiment that the Chinese economy is growing at a pace thatcannot be sustained has become an obsession for many environmental websites, green newspapers, eco-blogs, and books. Their beef is thateconomic growth, beyond providing the necessities of life - a roof overones head, water and food - is a waste of the world’s limited naturalresources. As Grist puts it when looking at China, ‘currently, thecountry’s 1.3 billion residents are using the equivalent of one100-watt light bulb per person, per year. Now imagine, instead of onelight bulb, 20 bulbs, two TVs, two cars, a washing machine, and adishwasher. Add to that the growing demand for power presented byChina’s steel, aluminium, and plastics industries. Where will all thepower come from?’ (10)


China’s industrial development is roundly criticised, but moresignificantly China has now become a symbol for all that is seeminglydestructive about economic progress and development in the modernworld. China has become the dark vision through which many globalenvironmental concerns are expressed. It is demonised as a country, forthe pace of its industrialisation, and used as an example for the restof the world of what may be coming very quickly around the corner forall of us.

But it is not just China today that’s the worry; but China in thefuture, when Chinese consumption levels have reached Western,particularly USA levels.


For Brown and Porritt, China’s high speed growth is of greatconcern, but current statistics only reflect existing consumption inthe country. When they ‘calculate’ Chinese consumption levels perperson, reaching USA consumption levels per person around 2031 (11),they are gripped with fear and foreboding for the future of the planet.However, their analysis is little more than morbid speculation, with ‘if‘ as the operative word. As Brown suggests,


‘If China reaches US consumption per person…. If China’s economycontinues to expand at eight per cent GDP growth per year, its incomeper person will reach the current U.S. level in 2031…. If at that pointChina’s per capita resource consumption were the same as in the UnitedStates today, then its projected 1.45billion people would consume theequivalent of two-thirds of the current world grain harvest…. If Chinaone day has three cars for every four people, US style, it will have1.1billion cars. The whole world today has 800million cars ….If it doesnot work for China it won’t work for India’ (12).
It is worth noting that Brown has a 30-year history of making suchpredictions, and getting them totally wrong. Porritt, who quotes Brownat length in his book, believes that ‘what’s happening in Chinaprovides a window on the kind of resource constraints and naturalcapital dilemmas that we too, will soon be facing.’(13) Porritt’suncritical acceptance of Brown’s failed predictions suggests a mindsetimmune to serious research. Let’s look at China’s recent economicdevelopment, and what exactly is concerning environmentalists.


China’s development

China’s industrialisation is rapid and impressive. Its sheer size,scale and vitality stands in comparison to most regions of the world.Hence it has become the target of those who see industrialisation andgrowth as destructive, and coming up against the natural resourcelimits of the planet. These critics cannot see how such swiftindustrialisation and resource depletion can be sustained.


For Brown, ‘The Western economic model - the fossil fuel-based,auto-centred, throwaway economy - is not going to work for China’ (14).Professor James Lovelock, most famous for his Gaia hypothesis - aquasi-mystical idea that the planet Earth is one living, andself-regulating organism, and that humans are simply one part of it -claims in his new book The Revenge of Gaia,‘I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China andIndia cutting back…the worst will happen’ (15). His predictions wererecently given front-page coverage in the British Independent newspaper (16).


But is China’s growth so exceptional? Or does it stand out because thedeveloped world’s economies seem set on simply holding things togetherand avoiding major risks? (17) How much of this discussion is aboutChina, and how much is a reflection of a certain disenchantment withinthe West with economic growth and progress in general?

China’s demand for raw materials, to help build its cities andindustrialise, throws up the kind of statistics indicative of anambition often missing in the Western world, where caution andrestraint are by-words. According to official Chinese governmentstatistics, China in 2003 absorbed roughly half the world’s cementproduction, one-third of its steel production, one-fifth of itsaluminium and nearly one quarter of its copper.


In the past two decades China has witnessed the greatest movement ofhumanity the world has ever witnessed. Over 200million people havemigrated from rural to urban areas, mainly to cities along the southerncoast, in search of employment and a better standard of living.Official predictions see another 300million joining them in the next 20years. China will have to build new housing for 400million people inthe next twelve years; such will be the scale of urbanisation (18).


It’s not just cities that the Chinese are building. Underconstruction is the world’s longest bridge, linking the eastern citiesof Ningbo and Hangzaou; the world’s highest railway line, built partlyon glaciers, up into the mountains of Tibet (19); already constructedis the Jinmao Tower, with the highest hotel in the world; soon to beconstructed is the world’s largest airport terminal, Terminal 3 Beijingairport, ready for the 2008 Olympics, handling up to 60millionpassengers and 500,000 planes a year. British architect Norman Foster,who designed it, described the scale as ‘truly awesome’ (20).


At a time when many shipyards in the West are closing, China isbuilding dozens of new ones, including the world’s largest in Shanghai.China’s Shenzhou spacecraft makes it the third country to send a humaninto space. And there is the notorious Three Gorges Dam, the largesthydroelectric project in the world, due to be completed in 2009.


But China’s most amazing project is the construction of 800-mile-longcanals, to carry water from the south of the country to the north. It’san almost unimaginable engineering feat, akin to draining LakeSuperior, one of the Great Lakes of North America, pouring the waterinto aqueducts, and sending it to Philadelphia (21).

The term China Syndrome, once used in the West to predict theconsequences of a nuclear power station meltdown, is now used toexplain why one-fifth of the bulk freighters in the world areeffectively out of use at any one time. They are to be found in longqueues stranded, either unloading raw materials at Chinese ports, orleaving China, to load up with commodities in other countries for areturn to China.


China’s fast industrialisation dwarfs much of the developing anddeveloped worlds. But are environmentalists correct that these plansspell ecological disaster for China and the world, and should Chinafollow their conservationist and preservationist suggestions?

China crisis

Clearly, such rapid industrial development, rural migration to thecities, booming demand for cars and petrol, road congestion, oldindustrial plant, and reliance on coal-fired power generation, comes atsome price. There are problems that need to be addressed. As someonewho has spent time in some of India and Brazil’s burgeoning industrialcities, such as Ahmedabad and Porto Alegre, I can testify to theburning feeling in one’s throat and eyes from car exhausts, coal-firedpower stations, and smoke stack industries.

Recent Chinese government reports found that 70 per cent of thecountry’s rivers and lakes were seriously polluted (22), and that 90per cent of its cities suffer serious water pollution and droughtproblems (23). China should find ways to improve the living conditionsand environment of its workers, reduce pollution, and clean its rivers.


But this is not really what’s behind many of the criticisms levelled atChina. What lies beneath is often a more profound loss of faith in thebenefits of economic development, centred on a negative view ofhumanity’s relationship with nature. Porritt exemplifies this well:‘the kind of materialism driven on by our contemporary consumercapitalism is leaving people unfulfilled and is killing the humanspirit even as it degrades and despoils the natural world’ (24). ForPorritt, the richer we become the less happy we are. Porritt, Brown andLovelock are telling the Chinese that their economic aspiration ismisplaced, that it cannot last, and that even if it did, the Chinesepeople won’t be happy.

But the Chinese may well see things differently. What about those whoseaverage life expectancy in 1950 was 35 years, while today it’s close to70? Or those whose income per capita has increased sevenfold over thesame period? Or the 400million people lifted out of severe poverty, ‘inthe most dramatic burst of wealth creation in human history’? (25)

Today, China’s poverty rate is estimated to be lower than the averagefor the world as whole. In 1980 the incidence of poverty in China wasone of the highest in the world (26). In the 20 years between 1981 and2001, the proportion of the population living in poverty fell from 53per cent to eight per cent (27). One does not have to be a cheerleaderfor the political regime in China, or a capitalist red in tooth andclaw, to see this as progress.

China does have quality of life issues it needs to address. ButChina will be in a much stronger position to deal with some of thenegatives of its growth if it rejects a mindset that views scientificand technological progress, and economic growth, as the problems, andsees them both as part of any solution. China’s GDP has grown onaverage nine per cent every year from 1979 until 2003 (28). Thisgrowth, coupled with the fact that its population hasn’t grown as fastas many forecasted, has had an enormous benefit on living standards inChina. This dynamism leaves China in a very strong position to improvethe living standards, and environment, of its population. Reducingpeople’s living standards by arguing for less development, as someenvironmentalists do, is neither desirable, nor is it going to happen.

If tackling some of China’s environmental problems, such as pollutionand dirty rivers is a priority, then it’s going to come through greaterapplication of technology, and through increased economic development.It will not come through the conservation of China’s natural resources,and preservation of a so-called harmonious relationship with nature.

Missed from environmental prognosis is the recognition that richersocieties, those who have advanced through economic, scientific andtechnological development, create more positive environments for us tolive and work in. Poorer societies are in no position to even begin tothink about such questions. The argument that China needs to lower itsconsumption, or as Porritt puts it ‘consume wisely’ (29), throughadopting sustainable development polices that limit our activity andavoid using up resources, will only help hamstring societies fromdealing with problems.
To explore whether China is heading for environmental disaster orwhether development and science can provide answers, let’s look indetail at two of the key areas of environmental concern: China’sgrowing demand for energy and its increased utilisation of naturalresources.

[ 本帖最后由 dakelv 于 2008-9-29 00:28 编辑 ]

dakelv

【原文（续）】
China’s energy present

China’s industrialisation is creating a huge demand for energy. In2005, China added 65billion watts of generating capacity to itsnational electric grid, the year before it had added 50billion watts.This is akin to adding half of India or Brazil to its electric systemannually. No electricity system in the world has ever grown so fast.


Coal is the country’s default source of energy: coal-fired powerstations produce about 80 percent of the country’s needs, and a greatdeal of carbon dioxide emissions. It is the basis of much of theenvironmental criticism over China. Only a man blinded by the smogwould not see this as a problem. China has taken on board someenvironmental measures aimed to reduce its reliance on coal and otherfossil fuels. While commonsense on a technical level, it’s not yetclear if these measures will be taken much further and act as brake onits growth.

China has introduced a tax on high-sulphur coals, and in Beijingestablished 40 ‘coal-free zones’. A law taking effect this year willrequire China to produce 10 per cent of its energy from renewableresources by 2020. China is working with a number of European Unioncountries to produce coal-fired power stations with drastically reducedcarbon dioxide emissions (30). China is moving ahead with plans forgreater use of natural gas in the capital, with massive pipelinesplanned to pump natural gas across the country. Beijing already has thelargest fleet of natural gas buses in the world, nearly 1,700.

Some of these measures are clearly modelled on policies and lawsintroduced in the West over the past 15 years. China has alsointroduced other measures that would be unacceptable in the West. Some30 big projects were suspended at a mandate from the StateEnvironmental Protection Administration (SEPA) in December 2004. Theirconstruction was put to a halt as the projects, most of them hydro orthermal power plants, failed to have an environmental impact assessmentaccording to Chinese law (31). Most were subsequently allowed toproceed after passing the assessment.
In another dramatic move China has moved to slow down the growingdemand for cars and petrol. Total vehicle sales grew by 15 per cent in2005, making China the second largest vehicle market in the world.Already Chinese fuel efficiency standards for new cars are muchstricter than those in the USA, and are soon to become even tougher.But to deal with this rapid growth in car ownership, the ChineseGovernment have introduced measures unimaginable in the West.

In an effort to reduce the numbers of cars on the road, licence platesare rationed. In Shanghai if you want to purchase a new car, first youbuy it, then you bid for a license plate. The number of plates up forauction is limited to around 6000 per month. In the June 2005, auctionplates went for around £2,400.


Whether one sees such measures as authoritarian or a progressivesolution, they’re rarely discussed, or referred to by Westernenvironmentalists.  Nor was the speech made by Chinese Premier WenJiabo at a conference on science and technology in Beijing in January2006. His speech outlined China’s future science and technology plans.First on his list was that ‘technology development on energyconservation, water resources and environmental protection should begiven priority’ (32).


Maybe this is hype; maybe these are the wrong priorities for China.But the plain facts are that they don’t fit in to the environmentalistworldview of China as some über-devourerof the world’s natural resources, and don’t fit the moral lesson we aresupposed to learn from our environmental preachers about China’srunaway economy.

China’s energy future

None of the measures listed above will satisfy China’s long-termenergy demands. The International Energy Agency calculates that by 2020China will be responsible for 40 per cent of all coal burnt, 10 percent of all oil, and 13 per cent of all electricity used in the world.Such will be China’s productive needs. Consequently China is movingahead with alternatives.

China’s search for non-fossil fuel power generation, for examplehydroelectric power projects such as the Three Gorges Dam, and theincreased use of nuclear power - China is planning to build two nuclearpower stations every year until 2020 (33) - has been the subject ofintense criticism. But some of the research and experimentation that iscurrently being carried out in China holds up the possibilities ofdramatic advances in energy creation.

Engineers and physicists at Tsinghua University in Beijing areworking on an advanced form of nuclear power generation, a Pebble-BedReactor (PBR) (34). It’s small enough to be assembled frommass-produced parts, cheap enough to be available in vast numbers,capable of producing clean electricity, with no spent fuel rods, andits melt-down proof. The Chinese are claiming this is the biggestadvance in nuclear power generation for 25 years.

Of course it may well be that this is a blind alley, and it fails tolive up to predictions. But it is also under serious study at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the USA, and in November2005 South Africa announced that it would build its first PBR. But thisuse of technology and science to produce new forms of energy, helping,not hindering, human advance, is missed from the environmentalistmindset.


China stands out from other developing countries, such as India andBrazil, in that its energy consumption per dollar of GDP is falling.Its average GDP over the past decade is around eight per cent, withenergy consumption lower. This is due in the main to installation ofmore modern industrial plant and equipment, and energy conservationprojects. The net result is that China has been reducing its energyintensity. Yet China continues to be criticised for its energy demands.It can’t really win, and that’s because the criticism is not about theform of its energy consumption, but the fact that its consumption isgrowing.

Natural resources, natural limits?

Lester Brown’s prediction, given high profile coverage in the Britishmedia, that China’s rapid industrialisation will help hasten thecollapse of human civilisation unless it develops a new economic modelby reducing demand for natural resources, is not new. It’s an argumenthe has been making since 1973, the year before he set up the WorldwatchInstitute (35).


In an article for Foreign Policy in 1973 (36), Brown wrote:‘soaring demand for food, spurred by continued population growth andrising affluence, has begun to outrun the productive capacity of theworld’s fishermen and farmers’. His argument the planet cannot cope hasbarely changed for over 30 years.

Ronald Bailey, science editor of Reason magazine, explainedin his testimony to a US Congress subcommittee in 2004 why apocalypticenvironmental predictions, from the likes of Lester Brown, PaulEhrlich, and those accepting the ‘Limits to Growth’ argument, have allproven so incorrect. He revealed that Brown made similar predictions in1981, 1994, and 1996. More recently in 1997 Brown argued that ‘risingfood prices will be the first major economic indicator to show that theworld economy is on an environmentally unsustainable path’ (37). He isconsistent, but is he right?
The World Bank price index for food shows that food prices, as onewould expect with the introduction of new technologies, and theconcentration and centralisation of production, made a rapid declineglobally from their peak in 1975. Brown’s response in 1999 was to argueof the dangers of cheapening food prices!

Brown has argued, since the publication of his 1995 book Who Will Feed China: A wake- up call for a small planet(38), that China would face insurmountable food shortage problemsunless it slowed down its economic development. Less than 10 yearslater the World Food Programme called on China to improve the amount offood it was donating to the world. China was now no longer in need offood aid, and it was in a position to be a donor to the programme, nota recipient (39).

That Brown’s unfounded prejudice that the world cannot feed itsgrowing population is still dragged out by environmentalists with noembarrassment suggests that some have already made up their minds,immune to facts and reality. In essence Brown’s argument is a re-run ofthe old Malthusian argument, that population growth would alwaysoutpace the availability of land, minerals and other natural resources,leading to famine and economic slow-down. Though this has neveroccurred, mainly due to human creativity and technological and socialdevelopment, we are still threatened with the same spectacle of theworld’s natural resources devoured, this time by the Chinese Dragon.Let’s look at how long the world’s natural resources may last.


Current predictions for the depletion of natural resources runsomething like this: copper, 33 years; zinc, 25 years; silver, 14years; tin, 23 years; gold 16 years and lead 23 years (40). China’srapid industrialisation may well speed this up. This may sound alarmbells, but the bare facts are that these estimates have stayedvirtually the same for over 30 years. Mining companies busy extractingresources don’t begin the search for new deposits, with the subsequentcosts, until there is a pressing need to - when the resource they areextracting begins to run out.

There are vast amounts of raw materials on the planet that atpresent are either too technologically difficult, or too expensive, toextract - for example those under the oceans or under the Arctic andAntarctic. These will not always be financially and strategicallyprohibitive to extract. But clearly mathematically, there are finitesupplies of basic raw materials, and fossil fuels on the planet. Atsome point in the future copper, tin, oil and coal will run out.Mankind is going to have to develop substitutes for these minerals, andnew forms of energy that as yet perhaps don’t even exist in ourimagination. History shows that mankind is more than capable of thesefeats.


But in the empty imagination of environmentalists, who fast-forwardtheir disenchantment with modern consumption patterns into some futureChinese ‘Blade Runner’ world of hell, such advances are absent.

Jonathon Porritt suggests that if the Chinese adopt American culturalhabits, for example the mass reading of newspapers, then there will notbe enough trees on the planet to turn into newsprint. Porritt seemsunaware or uninterested in the dynamics and possibilities of newtechnology. Newspapers are read on the net even today, and could beprinted if needed on alternative paper.  


Rather than see modern technology helping to solve potential resourceproblems, Porritt simply projects the current level of human know-howand skill into the future and imagines the worst. This negative view ofhumanity, of what we have achieved and could achieve, leads not just todownplaying human creativity and ingenuity, but in celebrating backwardtrends and ideas.

Stop the world, I want to get off

This view is accurately caught in the vast number of environmentalists who lauded the words of Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat, A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.  He wrote with great amusement on an article by Zou Hanru, a columnist for the China Daily,who suggested that as the Chinese use 45billion pairs of disposablechopsticks a year, or 1.66million cubic meters of timber, or 25millionfull-grown trees, they should consider eating with their hands,abandoning chopsticks (41).


Maybe Zou was serious; Friedman was clearly not. But that thisthrowaway proposal has been excitingly supported by environmentalistsis evidence that environmentalists are dumping their prejudices withconsumption and growth onto China.

Such prejudice and leads environmentalists to interpret events tofit their worldview. Many have jumped on the rural riots in ZhejiangProvince in July 2005, when a pharmaceutical plant was closed throughlocal pressure, and those in Guangdong Province in December 2005,captured on TV, in which at least 30 people died, as environmentalprotests against pollution and for environmental justice.Environmentalists see these protests and riots as basically similar toWestern-style ecological protests against consumption and development(42).

This is a woeful misinterpretation of events. There are major faultlines running through Chinese society. There are real winners andlosers in China’s rapid capitalist advance. The rural poor, forexample, are likely to be some of those who miss out. But to interpretrural unrest and riots as similar to anti-roads protests in the UK, ordemands for a slowdown in economic development (43) as similar toanti-capitalist protests in the West, suggests at best wishful thinkingand at worst, downright dishonesty.


China’s rapid industrial advance has clearly spooked westernenvironmentalists. Hence their demands for China to adopt restraint, toconsume less, or ‘more wisely’, to lower their vision, and ambition,and to adopt policies of sustainable development.


It’s a real sign of our times: China exports material goods to theWest; the West exports a culture of restraint, fear, and conservationto China.

(1) New York Times, 30 October 2005
(2) A rain check on Asia, Chembytes E-zine
(3) BBC News, 15 June 2004
(4) Guardian, 31 October 2005
(5) IMF World Economic Outlook
(6) The great thrall of China, Grist
(7) Jonathon Porritt, ‘Capitalism As If The World Matters’
(8) Bill McKibben, Annonline
(9) Getting Resourceful about Resources, Washington Post, 1 January 2006
(10) The great thrall of China, Grist
(11) Guardian, 25 January 2006
(12)  Lester Brown, ‘Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a planet Under Stress and a Civilisation in Trouble’
(13) Jonathon Porritt, ‘Capitalism As If The World Matters’
(14) Lester Brown, ‘Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a planet Under Stress and a Civilisation in Trouble’
(15) James Lovelock, ‘The Revenge of Gaia’
(16) Independent, January 2006
(17) The state, the economy and the politics of fear, by Phil Mullan
(18) China syndromes, Grist
(19) The railway across the roof of the world, Guardian, 20 September 2005
(20) The railway across the roof of the world, Guardian, 20 September 2005
(21) China to pump rivers 800 miles north, Guardian, 27 November 2002
(22) Peking Duck
(23) The polluter pays: how environmental disaster is straining China’s social fabric, Financial Times, 27 January 2006
(24) Jonathon Porritt, ‘Capitalism As If The World Matters’
(25) China’s growing pains, Economist, 21 August 2004
(26) How have the world’s poorest fared since the early 1980s?, World Bank
(27) Learning from success, IMF
(28) China’s Economic Growth with WTO Accession: Is it Sustainable?, Chatham House
(29) Capitalism as if the world matters more than we do, by Daniel Ben-Ami
(30) The polluter pays: how environmental disaster is straining China’s social fabric, Financial Times, 27 January 2006
(31) China Improves Enforcement of Environmental Laws, Chinese Embassy UK
(32) People’s Daily Online, 12 January 2006
(33) Scenes from China’s Industrial Revolution, Economist View, 6 January 2006
(34) Modular Pebble Bed Reactor
(35) Worldwatch
(36) Foreign Policy, ‘The next crisis? Food’, 1973
(37) Science and public policy, Reason, 4 February 2004
(38) Lester Brown, ‘Who Will Feed China?: wake up call for a Small Planet’
(39) China ‘no longer needs food aid’, BBC News, 13 December 2004
(40) U.S Geological Survey, quoted in Ronald Bailey, ‘Theenvironmental movement’s collapsing case that we are running out ofnatural resources’, Philanthropy magazine, November 1998
(41) Turn your fingers into chopsticks, China Daily
(42) Mad in China, Grist
(43) ‘There is an emerging pattern or rural unrest that challenges thevery legitimacy of the Chinese state and the development path on whichit has embarked’, Joshua Muldavin, professor of Human Geography at StLawrence college USA, quoted in ‘The polluter pays: how environmentaldisaster is straining China’s social fabric’, Financial Times, 27 January 2006


【原文截图】

dakelv

【译文】


中国有毒？

西方评论家以中国的环境记录为借口来攻击其经济发展。

作者：Kirk Leech

环境保护主义者正利用中国2008年在北京举办奥运会来对其施加压力，以促其对已经对地球造成巨大威胁的环境记录作出巨大改善。但是对于中国或者世界来说，要求其放缓工业和经济发展是最好的解决方式吗？

由于其一系列与环境有关的罪过，中国长期以来一直受到环境保护主义者的谴责。中国建造的三峡大坝是世界上最大的水电工程，由于假定其对环境造成的毁灭性破坏以及三峡居民因此而搬迁，中国受到到了责备。同时中国还因为其水资源的清洁程度而受到指责。据声称，中国五条最大的河污染非常严重，以至于连碰一下它们都有危险，更不用说从中取饮用水了。这个国家的几大河流，包括黄河，在汇流入海之前就已经干涸。2005年11月有毒的苯泄漏到松花江里，因此哈尔滨的饮用水源被切断，这件事情也引起了诸多关注。


据最近一份报告，中国目前是世界上第二大温室气体排放国，而且很快就会超过美国名列第一（1）。（具有讽刺意味的是，中国同时还因为扩大其核能发电项目而受到责难).

中国到2030年建造600座火力发电站的计划也受到严厉的谴责，因为中国大约有三分之一的人口被认为已经受到酸雨的危害，而这些发电站的建立也会增加温室气体的排放量。

世界卫生组织在最近的一份报告中指出，中国有三分之二的城市的空气质量低于标准。世界上污染最严重的十个城市中，中国占了九个，其中有的城市空气中一氧化碳含量居世界第一。据来自中国的广泛报道，每年大约有40万人由于空气污染的缘故而死亡，这部分地归咎于不断增长的轿车的使用。在过去五年内，北京轿车的数量翻了一番，达到2千5百万辆。预计，到2008年奥运火炬在首都点燃时，这个数目将会达到3千多万。

英国的《卫报》最近授予北京“世界空气污染之都”的称号（4），同时也加入了批评中国在签署京都协议上表现缓慢的行列之中。然而《卫报》也许忘了，作为发展中国家，中国根本不受这个协议的制约。

环境运动活跃人士声称，砍伐森林的工程将使中国北方的数目所剩无几，而沙漠化进程比世界上其他任何一个国家都快，沙漠在不断地接近北京。稀有和濒危动植物从哺乳动物到植物都有。《国家地理》杂志最近评论说，中国正在搞“生态自杀”。它同时还声称，中国不断增长的人口数量 -- 目前已达13亿 --对整个地球来说是一场环境和经济灾难。

虽然中国受环境主义者的注意已久，但是真正促使中国成为环境主义者标靶的是中国迅速的工业化进程和由此而来的对资源的使用。这引起了中国和地球灭亡论的恐慌。我们应如何看待这些指控呢？



中国的毁灭和发展

在2006年一月于瑞士的达沃斯举行的世界经济峰会之前，中国政府公开了一些数据。这些数据显示中国已经超过数个欧洲强国，从GDP的市值上已经跃居全球第四大经济体。如果把购买力比价考虑在内（即：考虑中国的低物价）的话，中国已经跃居第二名了。（5）

迅速的工业化进程，化石燃料的大量使用，这一切可以解释为什么中国已经成为环境运动活跃人士的眼中钉，而且已经取代美国成为世界上最“有毒的国家”。用一个名叫Grist的环境保护主义网站上的话来说，“我们以前如是说过，而且我们现在还要说：当今一个最大和报道最少的环境方面的故事就是在中国发生的迅速的、大规模的工业化发展进程”（6）。对于环境保护主义者来说，这种迅速的工业化进程正在损害中国乃至世界的生态系统。中国对地球上自然资源的利用把整个世界带入一场灾难。

注明环境保护主义者莱斯特·布朗在他最近发表的《B计划2.0：拯救压力下的星球和遭遇麻烦的文明》一书中警告大家关注中国对世界自然资源的日益增长的需求。他说，中国在四种基本商品的消费方面都已领先美国 --中国对肉食的消费是美国的两倍，钢铁是三倍，而且对粮食和煤炭的消费也在美国之前。美国在石油方面的消费仍然领先中国，部分原因是其拥有的车辆是中国的十倍，但是随着中国有车阶层的增长，这个差距在不断缩小。他所要描绘的画面就是中国为了养活自己和进行工业化进程这两个徒劳的尝试，就像某种巨大的真空吸尘器一样吸走了世界资源，

同样，另外一个环境保护主义者 Jonathon Porritt在他的新书《资本主义：仿佛世界是举足轻重的》一书中说，“中国必须用世界7%的耕地养活世界20%的人口”（7）。这两本书都暗示中国正把世界推到环境和社会灾难的边缘。

《自然界的尽头》一书的作者 BillMcKibben提倡“把一个，仅仅一个，孩子带到这个世界上来对你的家庭和我们的国家都无害”（8）（这里指的是美国，而不是中国！），这个倡导所体现的也是同样的担忧。他在《华盛顿邮报》（9）上撰文指出，按照中国把耕地转化成工厂的速度，迟早中国将没有足够的耕地来养活其人民。大规模的饥荒随时都会到来。


在很多环境主义者的网站，绿色报纸，生态博客和书籍里，到处充斥着“中国经济发展已经达到不可持续的地步”这样的情绪。他们抱怨说除了提供住房、水和粮食以外的经济发展都是对世界有限的自然资源的一种浪费。Grist网站在谈到中国时说，“目前，这个国家的13亿人口平均每人每年用一个相当于100瓦的灯泡的电力。现在想像一下，如果不是一个灯泡，而是20个灯泡，两台电视，两辆汽车，一个洗衣机，还有一个洗碗机。再加上中国日益增长的钢铁业、铝业和塑料工业对电力的需求。这些电力从何而来？”（10）。【译注： 按照这些所谓的环境保护组织的逻辑，中国人只配过那种点小油灯的生活？！】


中国的工业发展收到了来自多方面的责难，但是更重要的是，中国现在俨然已经成为现代社会经济进步和发展所带来所有的毁灭后果的一个象征了。全球很多环境方面的担忧都是透过中国这面黑色的镜子来表达出来的。作为一个国家，中国因为它的工业化进程而被妖魔化。同时，它也被用作反面教材来提醒世界其他国家很快会发生在它们身上的事情。


但是这种担忧还不仅是今天的中国；还有将来的中国，尤其是当中国的消费水平赶上西方，尤其是美国的，消费水平时。

对Brown和 Porritt来说，中国的告诉发展是令人担忧的，而现有的数据只能说明中国现有的消费水平。当他们通过“计算”得出2031年中国人均消费水平就会超过美国消费水平时（11），他们心中充满了对世界未来的恐惧和不祥之兆。但是他们的分析只是阴暗的猜测而已，因为他们的分析是以“如果”为前提的。比如Brown 指出：

“如果中国的人均消费水平赶上美国。。。如果中国经济继续以GDP每年增长8%的速度发展，到2031年中国人均收入就会赶上美国。。。如果到那时中国人均资源消费水平和美国今天的水平持平的话，那么我们可以推测出倒是14.5亿中国将消费大约占目前世界粮食产量的三分之二。。。如果有朝一日中国像美国一样，每四个人拥有三辆汽车，那么他们将拥有11亿辆汽车。目前全世界汽车总数是8亿辆。。。如果这对中国来说是行不通的，那么对印度来说也不行”（12）。


值得一提的是，Brown做这样的预测，而且被证明预测是错误的，已经有30年历史了。Porritt在自己的书中大量引用Brown的话。他认为“中国发生的一切也预示了我们也迟早要面临的资源紧张和自然资本问题（13）。Porritt对Brown预测的不加批判的吸收说明了他不注重调查研究的心态。让我们看一下最近中国的经济发展情况，以及让环境保护主义者真正担心的问题吧。


中国的发展

中国的工业化进程是迅猛而惊人的。它以其大小、规模和活力而傲视世界上大部分地区。因此它也成为那些视工业化和发展为毁灭力量、对有限的自然资源不利的人的批评对象。这些批评者看不到迅速的工业化进程和对资源的消耗其实也是有其持续性的。

对于Brown来说，“西方那种依赖石油的、以汽车为中心的、用完就扔的经济模式，在中国是行不通的”（14）。JamesLovelock教授以盖亚假说而著名。根据这个半神话的假说，整个地球是一个有生命的、自我调节的有机体，人类只是其中的一部分。在他的《盖亚的复仇》一书中，他写道，“美国以及正在兴起的中国和印度经济丝毫没有减缓的迹象。。。最糟糕的事情尚未到来”（15）。最近，英国《独立》报在头版刊登了他的这一预测。

但是中国的发展难道真的与众不同吗？或者它如此与众不同是因为发达国家的经济都是建立在不毁灭、避免冒险的基础上的？这些讨论里面到底有多少有关中国的成分？又有多少是反映了西方国家对总体经济发展和进步的某种醒悟？

中国城市建设和工业化对原材料的需求的数据让人想起一种西方世界所缺少的雄心，因为在西方社会谨慎和节制是座右铭。据中国政府官方数据，2003年，中国消费了大约世界水泥产量的一半，钢铁产量的三分之一，铝产量的五分之一，还有铜产量的四分之一。

在过去的二十年里，中国目睹了世界有史以来所目睹的最大的人口迁移。大约两亿人从农村迁移到城市地区寻找就业机会和更高水准的生活，他们中的大多数迁移到了南部沿海城市。官方预测在下个二十年内，将有3亿人加入他们的行列。在未来12年里，中国必须为4亿人口建新房子，这就是中国城市化的规模（18）。

中国的建设不仅局限于城市。中国同时还在修建连接东部城市宁波和杭州的世界上最长的桥梁；穿越部分冰川，修建世界上最高的直达青藏高原的高速公路线；已经建成经贸大厦，上面有世界上最高的宾馆；还有很快就要为2008年奥运修建每年可以接纳6千万人次和50万飞机架次的世界最大飞机终端 --北京机场三号航站楼。此终端的设计者，英国设计师诺曼·福斯特说，其规模是“非常惊人的”（20）

当西方很多船长都在关闭的时候，中国正在建立十多个新船厂，包括在上海建立的世界上最大的船厂。中国建造的神舟航天飞机使这个国家成为把人送往太空的第三个国家。还有计划2009年完工的世界上最大的水利工程 -- 著名的三峡工程。

但是中国最惊人的工程师建造800英里长的南水北调大运河。这几乎是一个不可想象的工程奇迹，相当于把北美五大湖之一的苏必利尔湖的湖水通过导水管道输送到美国的费城（21）。

“中国综合症”，这样一个本来是西方用来预测中国核电站奔溃所引发的后果的一个词，现在被用来解释为什么在任何一个时刻，全世界五分之一的大型运输货轮都在外面忙碌。它们或者在中国港口排着长队等待卸货，或者是正在驶离中国，到其他国家装满商品，然后重新返回中国。

中国迅猛的工业化进程使大部分发展中和发达国家都相形见绌。但是是否如环境保护主义者所说，这些发展会对中国乃至世界带来生态危机？中国是否应该听从他们的建议保护和储存资源呢？

中国危机


显而易见，如此迅速的工业发展，农村人口向城市的迁移，对汽车和石油的不断增长的需求，道路阻塞，旧工业厂房和对火力发电的依赖，都是有一定代价的。有很多问题都亟待解决。我曾经在印度和巴西的一些正在发展的工业城市呆过，比如艾哈迈达巴德和阿雷格里港，我也可以证明那些汽车尾气，火力发电站和工厂烟雾对嗓子和眼睛所造成的那种灼热的感觉。

中国政府最近的一个报告表明，中国70%的河流和湖泊污染严重（22），90%的城市面临严重的水质污染和干旱问题（23）。中国需要设法改善工人的生活条件和环境，减少污染，清理河流。

但是这并不是很多针对中国的批评所注重的地方。在这些批评后面是一个围绕人和自然关系的负面观点的、对经济发展的益处丧失信心的心态。Porritt就是一个很好的例子，“这种由我们当代的消费资本主义所驱使的物质主义使人们失去了成就感，在贬低和掠夺自然的同时也抹杀了人类的精神”（24）。对于Porritt来说，我们越富有就越不幸福。Porrit, Brown和Lovelock是在告诉中国人，他们在经济上的抱负放错了地方，是不可能持久的；即使能够持久，中国人民也不会感到幸福。


但是中国人却可能有不同的看法。1950年的人均寿命只有35岁，而今天却已经接近70岁了，这又怎么解释？还有，又如何解释那些在同时期人均收入增长了七倍的人？或者那些在“人类史上最富有戏剧性的财富创造过程中” （25）摆脱赤贫的人？


今天，据估计中国的贫穷率低于整个世界的平均值。1980年，中国贫困率是世界最高的国家之一（26）。在1981年到2001年的二十年之间，生活在贫困线下的人口从53%降到了8% （27）。不论是那些为中国的政治制度唱赞歌的人，还是那些牙齿和爪子都沾满鲜血的资本家，都能看到这种进步。


中国确实有生活质量的问题需要处理，但是如果中国拒绝那种把科学技术进步看成是问题所在的观念，而把科学技术看成是任何解决方案的组成部分的话，中国就会更有力地应对其发展过程中的负面影响。从1979年至2003年，中国GDP年增长率为9%。这种增长速度，再加上中国的人口增长率没有像很多人预测的那么快，对中国生活水准的提高起到了很大的作用。这种增长力度使中国有很强的能力去改善其人民的生活水准和环境。像某些环境保护主义者那样，试图通过放缓发展速度来降低人民生活水准的做法，几部可取，也不会得逞。


如果诸如治理污染和肮脏的河流是中国亟需解决的环境问题的话，那么这个问题的解决只能通过对技术的更广泛的运用和经济的更快的发展来实现。通过保护中国的自然资源，或者维护人与自然的所谓和谐关系，是不可能达到这一目的的。


以上这些环境方面的预测都忽略了一点，那就是富裕社会，也就是那些通过经济和科技发展而取得进步的社会，都为我们的生活和工作提供了更好的环境。而那些贫穷的社会则根本不会开始考虑这些问题。那些认为中国需要通过采取可持续性发展策略、通过限制我们的活动和避免耗尽资源来达到降低消费的观点，或者用Porritt的话来说，“聪明地消费”的观点，只能在解决问题上拖社会的后腿。为了探讨中国是否正在走向环境灾难，发展和科学是否能提供解决问题的答案，让我们仔细看一下环境问题的两个主要方面：中国对能源的日益增长的需求，以及中国队自然资源的不断增长的利用。

dakelv

【译文（续）】

中国的能源现状

中国的工业化进程带来了对能源的巨大需求。2005年，中国的国家电网增加了650亿瓦的发电能力。在此之前的2004年增加了500亿瓦。这相当于每年向其电里系统增加相当于印度或者巴西一半的发电能力。世界上没有任何一个电力系统的增长速度有如此之快。

煤炭是中国的主要能源来源。火力发电站提供中国百分之八十的能源需求，同时也占中国二氧化碳排放量的大部分。这也是很多针对中国的环境方面批评的根源。只有那些被烟雾蒙住了双眼的人才看不到这个问题。中国采取了很多环境措施以降低它对煤炭和其他矿物燃料的依赖。虽然这些措施从技术上均属于常识性的，但是这些措施是否会实施下去，是否会对经济发展起到制约作用，尚不清楚。

中国已经开始对高硫煤炭征税，在北京也已经设立了四十个“无煤炭区”。今年实施的一项法律将要求中国到2020年保证其能源需求的10%来自于可更新资源。中国正和几个欧共体国家一起建立二氧化碳排放量非常小的活力发电站。中国正实施在首都大规模使用天然气的计划，而且也正计划建立全国性输送天然气的管道。北京已经拥有世界上最大的燃气公共汽车车队，车辆已达1700辆。

以上有些措施是基于以往15年间西方国家颁布的政策和法规的。同时，中国也实施了一些在西方根本不会被接受的措施。2004年12月，国家环境保护总局责令停止了大约30个大项目。这些项目中大部分都是水利或热力电站，他们被停止是因为它们没有根据中国法律规定进行环境影响评估。这些项目中的大部分在通过评估后被允许继续进行。中国还实施了一个大的举措，那就是降低对车辆和石油的不断增长的需求。2005年车辆总销售增长了15%，这是中国成为世界第二大汽车市场。中国新车燃油效率标准的严格程度目前已经超过美国，而且这些标准很快会变得更严格。但是为了应付这种车辆拥有率的快速增长，中国政府已经实行了在西方看起来不可想象的措施。


为了减少上路车辆数量，中国控制了车辆牌照的发放。在上海，如果你想买辆新车，你想买车，然后再竞标车牌。每月拍卖的车牌数目大约在6000个左右。2005年6月，每个车牌大约以2400英镑成交。

不管你认为这种措施是专制的还是进步的解决方式，西方的环保主义者很少讨论甚至提及此事。在2006年于北京举行的科技会议上，温家宝总理的讲话里也没有提及。在他的报告中，他介绍了中国未来的科技规划。第一条就是“节能型、节水型和环保型的科技发展应该放在首位”（32）。

也许这只是高谈阔论，也许这对于中国来说不应该是最重要的。但是事实是，这些措施不符合环保主义者眼中的中国是世界能源最大消费者这样的形象，而且也不符合我们中国自由的经济发展中所应学到的道德教训。

中国的能源未来


上述的措施中没有一个措施会满足中国长期的能源需求。据国际能源署推算，到2020年，中国的煤炭使用量将占世界总量的40%，石油消费量将占世界总量10%，电力消耗量将占世界总量的13%。这也是中国需要生产的能源量。因此，中国正计划寻找替代能源。


中国对非矿物油发电的探索，比如三峡水利发电工程，和对核能的不断增长的使用 （中国计划从现在起2030年间，每年建立两座核电站（33））引发了非常严厉的批评。但是目前在中国进行的很多研发有可能意味着能源开发方面的巨大进步。

北京清华大学的工程师和物理学家正在从事一种被称为卵石床反应堆的高级核能发电的研究（34）。这种反应堆很小，可以由大规模生产的零件组装而成；造价很低，可以大批量生产，可以生产出干净的电能，没有废核料棒，也不会产生核芯溶解的现象。中国人声称这是25年以来核能发电的最大突破。

当然这很可能根本行不通，而且也不会像想象得那样好哦啊，但是美国的麻省理工学院对此也正在进行认真的研究。2005年11月南非宣布将建造第一个卵石床反应堆。但是在环保主义者的头脑里，这种通过科技来产生新的能源，帮助而不是阻碍人类进步的做法是不存在的。

中国与其他发展中国家，比如印度和巴西，不一样的地方在于其每美元GDP所消耗的能源呈下降趋势。在过去十年里它的平均GDP是大约8%，能源消耗更低。这大部分归功于现代化工厂、仪器以及节省能源项目的的建立和安装。一个直接的结果就是中国大大地减少了对能源的使用。但是中国仍然继续因为其能源消耗而遭受批评。在这一点上中国永远不会赢，因为这些批评不是针对中国能源消耗的形式，而是中国的能源消耗在增长这样一个事实。


自然资源，自然限制？

Lester Brown预测，中国的快速工业化进程将加速人类文明的崩溃，除非中国发展一种新型的、减少对自然资源依赖的经济模式。英国媒体对这一预测均以显著版面加以报道，但是这个预测本身却不是什么新鲜的东西。Lester Brown从1973年，也就是他建立世界观察学院的前一年，就一直抱有这种观点（35）。

在一篇为《外交政策》杂志撰写的一篇文章中（36），Brown写道：“人口的不断增长和不断提高的富裕水平所造成的对粮食的不断攀升的需求，已经开始超过了世界渔民和农民的生产能力。”在过去30多年里，他提出的地球无法维持下去的观点一直没有什么变化。

在2004年对美国国会一个附属委员会所做的报告中，《理性》杂志的科学编辑Ronald Bailey解释了为什么Lester Brown和Paul Ehrlich之流所作的世界末日般的环境预测，以及那些接受“限制发展论”的人是错误的。他指出，Brown在1981，1994和1996年均作出过这一预测。在1997年，Brown提出，“粮食价格的提高将是世界经济走向在环境上不可持续道路的主要经济指标。”他的观点没有变过，但是是正确的吗？世界银行的粮食价格指数显示，由于新技术的使用和生产的集约化，全球粮食价格从1975年的巅峰值急剧下降。对此，1999年Brown的反应是转而去辩论降低粮食价格的危险性！


自从1995年出版了他写的《谁为中国提供粮食：给一个小星球的警醒之语》一书开始，Brown就主张，除非中国放缓其经济发展的速度，否则它定会面临无法逾越的粮食短缺问题。不到十年以后，世界粮食计划署呼吁中国提高它向世界捐献的粮食数量。现在中国已经不需要粮食援助，而且还成为粮食计划署的捐助者，而不是受捐者。（39）


“世界无法为其不断增长的人口提供粮食”这个Brown提出的毫无根据的偏见仍然被环境主义者毫不脸红的加以利用。这表明了有些人早已经先入为主，而且事实和现实已经对他们没有影响力了。说穿了，Brown的观点其实是马尔萨斯论的翻版。马尔萨斯论认为人口增长总是要超过可利用的土地、矿物和其他资源，其结果就是饥荒和经济衰退。虽然由于人类的创造性和技术以及社会的进步，这种情况从来没有发生过，但是我们仍然面临着世界自然资源被吞噬的景象，这一次吞噬者是中国这条龙。让我们看一下世界的资源这次能持续多久。


目前有关于世界自然资源的消耗的预测是这样的：铜：33年；锌：25年；银：14年；锡：23年；黄金：16年；铅：23年（40）。中国的快速工业化将加快资源的消耗。这听起来有点让人警觉，但是事实是，这些预测三十年来就没有变过。除非资源开始耗尽，亟需寻找新的矿藏，否则开采资源的矿产公司不会开始这样做，因为这样做是有代价的。


目前地球上有大量的原材料由于开采技术难度大或者费用过高一直没有开采，比如那些海洋下面和南北极下的矿产。这些矿产的开采从经济上和政策上总有一天是可行的。但是从数字角度上讲，地球上的基本原材料和矿物燃料是有限的。在未来的某个时候，铜、锡、石油和煤炭终将耗尽。那时，人类必须寻找这些材料的替代品和新型能源，而目前这些还不能想象。历史证明了人类在这方面的能力。

环境主义者把他们有关现代消费方式上的认知快进，并把我们带入一个《银翼杀手》一样地狱般的未来世界。在他们的空洞的想象力里，以上这些进步都是不存在的，


Jonathon Porritt提出，如果中国人选择了美国文化习惯，比如报纸的广泛阅读，那么将来地球上不会有树木以供我们印刷报纸。Porritt似乎对新技术的原动力和可能性不是视而不见就是不感兴趣。即使是今天，人们已经可以在网上读报纸，如果需要，报纸也可以用纸的替代品印刷。

Porritt不把现代技术看成是解决可能发生的资源问题的手段，却简单地把人类现阶段的认知水平引申到未来，并因此作出最坏的想象。这种对人类的已有和将会有的成就的负面看法，不仅是对人类创造力和聪明才智的贬低，而且会导致对落后趋势和思想的歌颂。


让地球停下来，我想下去


这种观点在大量的环境主义者对《世界是平的：二十一世纪简史》一书的作者ThomasFriedman的言辞的推崇中表现得淋漓尽致。在这本书中，他饶有兴趣地提到了《中国日报》专栏作家邹汉儒（音译）写的一篇文章。在这篇文章中，邹指出，中国人每年使用450亿双一次性筷子，相当于166万立方木材，或者2500万根成年树木。他们应当考虑抛弃筷子，用手吃饭 （41）。

也许邹是认真的；而Friedman 却不是。这种把筷子扔掉的建议得到了环境主义者的热情支持，从这里可以看出，环境主义者把他们对消费和增长所怀有的偏见都抛洒到中国身上了。

这种偏见导致环境主义者曲解周围的事件，使其符合自己的世界观。很多环境主义者对以下两个事件趋之若鹜。一个是2005年7月发生在浙江的在地方压力下一个制药厂被关闭的事件。另外一个是2005年12月发生在广东省的事件。在这个反对污染和环境方面的不公的抗议活动中有30人死亡。这个抗议被拍摄下来。环境主义者认为这些抗议和骚乱基本上和西方式的反对消费和发展的生态方面的抗议是一样的（42）。


这种观点是对这些事件的可悲的曲解。中国的社会存在着大的裂痕。中国的快速资本主义发展中，有人收益，有人受害。比如那些农村的贫困人口，很可能是失去机会的那些人。但是把农村的动荡和骚乱和英国的反对道路建设的抗议相提并论，或者把放缓经济发展的要求和西方反对资本主义的抗议混为一谈，说得好听点是一厢情愿；说的不好听点，就是彻头彻尾的不诚实行为。

中国的快速工业化进程确实使西方环境主义者惊恐万分。所以他们才会要求中国节制、减少或者“更理性地”消费，降低他们的目标和雄心，并采取可持续发展的政策。

这是我们时代的真实标志：中国向西方出口原材料；而西方向中国出口节制、恐惧和资源保护的文化。

血性与理性

楼主辛苦了，
能否介绍下英国 Spiked？真是难得的客观，我觉得他的观点比国内的那些专家还要到位。

64396170

环境保护是全球共同责任，但发达国家应该承担更多环境责任。

和谐共生

真是辛苦了！谢谢，环境问题已经纳入政府官员政绩考察中的一项，中国对环境问题的认识应该不劳所谓“环境保护者”操心，怎么样即保护环境，又能继续发展，这是中国尽力达到的目标。

PS：俺家所在的城市有一湖一河，10几年前污染的特别严重，几乎水里见不到鱼，而且散发着臭味，现在治理的相当不错，山清水秀的，每天从湖边走过，心情都好。先发展起来的城市都有过只顾发展不顾污染环境的过程，等污染严重了才重视起来，又花巨资花人力物力进行整治才恢复过来，希望这样的教训不要在开发建设西部的时候再发生。

吃裤子穿饭

“抛弃筷子，用手吃饭”
我想骂人

joanne9821

写得算不错了。而且我觉得治理环境这件事，别人说，我们要做，别人不说我们也要做。不仅仅是为了自己周围环境，也是为了养育我们的地球。所以别人的批评我们可以听取，污蔑就当作耳旁风，平常心嘛。把自己的精力放在治理国家上面吧

redliquid

现在都是马路边的小食店才用一次性的筷子.大部分外的面饭馆都开始使用多次使用的筷子了.一次性的也是竹制的越来越多.
其实感觉国人对环境保护和日常的能源节约是越来越在意了.例如限塑令,绝大部分人都很自然的遵守了,并觉得这是一件好事.超市塑料代使用量大幅下降,我妈出门都带着无纺布袋,
平时也有很多电视节目告诉大家如何节水节电,不用的电器一律关上,平时注意的很.我真想问问那些号称环保的国家,一个家庭一个月用多少电.中国家庭电器不比他们少,但差不多三到四个城市家庭才顶的上欧美一个家庭的用电量,看视频和照片里他们办公室里很多不用的电脑不关,就那样开着,灯也是,一年四季不论家里还是公司不开空调就受不了.(以前还看过一个美国人的博客,大骂和中国人室友住一起对方不愿24小时开空调)我家里都是真的很热才开,设的温度也28-29度,够用就好,尽量用电扇,现在不论城市还是乡镇,有条件的家里用很多太阳能热水器,路灯公用电话也用太阳能板,这些欧美国家做了吗.他们在大量的浪费,大量的使用大排量的汽车,然后经常只坐一两个人,他们要是能学会节省一点,会比现在的情况好的多.但他们的眼睛只看的到别人,从来不说自己

dakelv

Spiked （又名 spiked 或者 sp!ked),是一个英国网络媒体。其主要内容是政治、文化和社会。杂志的使命是希望“创造历史”，并且为“自由、启蒙、试验和卓越”而战。Spiked杂志对社会和政治的批判通常被形容为“自由马克思主义”。
（译自维基百科英文版）

Spiked杂志曾声称，自己并不是中国政权的朋友，但是并不影响它批判西媒对中国的恶意攻击和不实报道。我觉得这样反而能显示出它的观点的客观性。

原帖由 血性与理性 于 2008-9-29 00:39 发表
楼主辛苦了，
能否介绍下英国 Spiked？真是难得的客观，我觉得他的观点比国内的那些专家还要到位。

dakelv

不论出于何种原因，中国在环保上所作的工作，在很多方面是超过西方的。比如垃圾的回收，日常能源的节约，对太阳能的普遍利用等等。西方环保主义者拿环保向中国发难，其实是醉翁之意不在酒。

原帖由 redliquid 于 2008-9-29 06:57 发表
现在都是马路边的小食店才用一次性的筷子.大部分外的面饭馆都开始使用多次使用的筷子了.一次性的也是竹制的越来越多.
其实感觉国人对环境保护和日常的能源节约是越来越在意了.例如限塑令,绝大部分人都很自然的遵守了 ...

6052

这篇文章不错，可以用来比照环保主义者的观点，能够看出很多问题来。应该说，二者都有部分观点是有道理的，也各自有偏颇之处。
记得在学校有一次听讲座，老师很推崇 阿米什 现象，当时我就质疑过阿米什的普及意义，认为那只是一个标本（事后老师大约是有一点点微辞哦）。通过这里看到的外媒对西藏问题的深入讨论，印证了我的观点——在环保方面，有些观点是真实的，有些只是空中楼阁式的想象。看来阿米什也和香格里拉一样，同属西方人的反现代性想象。
这篇文章对我而言的第二大好处是，印证了近段时间我对世界末日论的观点。我认为所谓世界末日，除了其宗教意义外，还有一种危机意识，这种意识是西方社会针对现代化进程而生的，而中国却几乎没有。也就是说，所谓末日其实是西方的末日，那种悲伤是西方人的悲伤，那种恐惧是西方人的恐惧，所以中国人中很少能看到这种意识。有些人把这归为中国人自身的问题，但在这里得到的印证却是，那的确是更与西方人的生活相关，而与中国人的生活无关的东西。

总之，这是一篇虽有偏颇但更能给人很多启发的文章。

[ 本帖最后由 6052 于 2008-9-30 02:36 编辑 ]