颜敏 （作者系中南大学公共管理学院讲师）

几天后就要召开的哥本哈根会议，被视为当今世界解决全球气候变暖问题最后的努力。一段时间以来，各国展开了频繁的“环境外交”。几周前，巴西、印度尼西亚和韩国都在谈判桌上摆出了减排温室气体的“硬数字”。几天前，美国宣布2020年温室气体比2005年减排17%，几乎同时，中国宣布2020年将单位GDP碳排放比2005年减少40%～45%。这些外交承诺，似乎为哥本哈根会议取得实质性成果带来了希望。但是，这种希望到底有多大呢？

地球环境严重恶化、全球气候加剧变暖，已不容置疑，而环保全球化也是越来越普遍的事实，传统的民族国家主权受到越来越多的削弱和限制也就不可避免。那么，在此情形下，民族国家是应极力抗拒这种趋势，使各国的争斗更趋激烈，甚至搁置、放弃应对气候问题的努力，以致可能丧失挽救地球环境的最后机会，还是迎头而上，坦然接受这种“削弱和限制”，同时化被动为主动，率先对传统制度开展更为大胆的改革、创新，推行更加环保的生产方式和生活方式，树立真正负责任的环保的形象，以此领导各国开展协调一致的集体行动，最终不但成为世界大国，而且造福于人类后代子孙？

答案是明显的：谁能带领大家共度时艰，谁就最有资格成为领袖。日本明白这一点，所以一直走在世界环保的最前沿；德国明白这一点，所以德国环保已成为各国纷纷学习的榜样。如今美国也作了几乎180度的大转弯，这也是诺贝尔和平奖授予奥巴马的一个重要原因。毫无疑问，我们正处于世界历史的转折点上，而谁转得最快，谁就赢得最多。

(The author is a lecturer at the School of Public Administration, Zhongnan University)

The Copenhagen summit due to open in a few days is seen as the last push to solving the problem of global warming. For some time now, there is frequent ‘environmental diplomacy’ between countries. On the negotiating tables several weeks ago, Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea put forward ‘hard figures’ for reducing greenhouse gases. A few days ago, the US announced that by 2020, there will be a reduction of 17% less than the 2005 emission. Almost at the same time, China announced that by 2020, for each unit of GDP, carbon emission will be reduced by 40-45% less than the 2005 emission. These diplomatic promises seem to bring hope of substantive achievement at the Copenhagen summit. But really how promising is this?

That the earth’s environment is seriously worsening and global climate is rapidly warming are beyond doubt. Global environmental protectionism is also becoming a universal fact, and it is inevitable that the sovereignty of traditional nation states will be weakened and constrained. In this situation, should nation states strive to resist this trend, accelerating conflicts between nations, and even stall or give up efforts in tackling the climate problem, thus probably losing the last chance to save the world’s environment? Or should they face it directly, and calmly accept this ‘weakness and constraint’, while at the same time turning from a passive to an active position, taking on a brave lead role in the reform and innovation of the traditional system, thus establishing a responsible role model towards environmental protection, carry out an even more environmentally sound production method and life-style, and from this leading various countries in the coordination of collective actions? Ultimately, not only will they become one of the world’s great nations, they will also benefit human-kind and future generations.

The answer is clear: whoever can lead us beyond the current crisis will be best qualified as leader. Japan understands this and has been the front runner in global environmental protection. Germany understands this and has already become a model to other countries. Now the US has also made almost a 180-degree turn, and this is an important reason for awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace prize. Without a doubt, we are at world history’s turning point, and whoever turns faster will win more.
Commented translated by smc.

当然，有人会说，做领头人是需要实力的，日本、德国、美国都是工业发达国家。但是，工业发达国家意味着它们的历史包袱最重：它们巨型、昂贵的生产技术和设备已经不适应生态时代的需要，它们的奢侈、浪费的生活方式也积重难返……而新兴国家也有后发优势：譬如，我们可以最快、最直接地利用和开发最新、最先进的环境友善技术和生产方式，我们的生活方式还部分保有节俭、勤劳的传统。

况且，经过几十年的赶超，我们不是已经创造了令世人瞩目的“中国奇迹”吗？中国已经度过了工业化的起飞阶段，已具备经济转型的成熟条件，并且已经到了转型的关口。现在，应抓住时机，顺势而上，巨大的国力总量加上明显的后发优势，使我们完全可以后来居上，成为能源气候时代（托马斯·弗里德曼语）新的世界大国、强国。

当然，还会有人说，这种想法太天真，如今的世界还是由各民族国家构成，民族国家怎么能削弱自己的主权？然而，历史证明，没有世界眼光，任何一个国家都不可能成为真正的大国；不关注人类整体的历史和未来，任何一个国家都没有资格成为世界的领袖。昔日的罗马帝国离不开它的万民法，昔日的大英帝国就建立在全球贸易之上，20世纪的美国如果固守孤立主义就不可能赢得二战之后的霸主地位。相反，大清帝国本来比世界上很多国家都富足强大，却因闭关锁国而最终衰落下去。但要成功走向世界，首先要心怀世界，视通未来，而不是患得患失，只盯着自己那一亩三分地的收获。

Certainly, someone would say that being a leader requires strength. Japan, Germany and America are all industrial developed countries. However, to be industrialized countries means they have to take the heaviest historic burdens. Their large and expensive production technology and equipments no longer meet the ecological needs of nowadays. Their extravagent and wasteful lifestyles could hardly change either. Nevertheless, the developing countries have some potential advantages. For example, we could quickly and directly develop and utilize the most novel and advanced eco-friendly technologies and productions. Besides, to some degrees, we still keep the tradition of living a frugal and hardworking life.

Moreover, after decades of development, haven't we created the 'Chinese miracle' that attracted the worldwide attention? China has passed the take-off stage of industralization. It has well equiped itself to economic transformation and already arrived the strategic pass. Currently, we should seize the opportunity and follow the trend. The strong nation power with enormous potentials would enable us catch up from behind and become the new nation with strength in the 'energy-climate era' (words of Thomas Friedman).

Of course, someone would also say that the idea is too naive. Today's world is still constituted by nation states. Thus, how can nation-state countries undermine their sovereignty? However, the history has proved that without a global perspective, no country could become a truly powerful state. Without caring about the history and future of mankind as a whole, no country is qualified to be the world leader. The old Roman Empire relied on the ius gentium. The past British Empire was established through global trade. The 20th century America cannot win the hegemony after the second world war if it abode by the isolationism. On the contrary, although the Qing Dynasty was more powerful and richer than many other countries at that time, it eventually declined due to its closed-door policy. Therefore, if we want to be successful, we have to at first harbor the world and predict the future instead of being worried about personal gains and losses or only considering about the immediate interest.

几十年来，中国在建设社会主义、振兴民族的旗帜下，一直奉行现代化赶超战略，如今，经济总量已跃居世界前列，但是毋庸讳言，这个过程也给中国的自然生态环境造成了难以弥补的伤害。

自然环境的危机不可避免地影响到居民健康。2007年春，我国卫生部的调查报告指出，不断恶化的大气和水体质量应该为全国急剧上升的癌症暴发率负责：自2005年来，城市地区癌症患病率上升了19%，农村地区上升了23%。

贝克等人的风险社会理论认为，现代风险是由过度生产而产生的，是人类活动本身而不是如传统风险那般由自然界造成，它虽然隐而不见但具有选择性，社会边缘人、弱势群体往往是风险最喜欢光顾的对象。

经济发展的成本由谁负担？收益由谁享受？环境保护的收益由谁享受？环保保护的负担由谁负担？试问上文列举的疾病，是平均分布在所有居民身上，而不论其社会地位、经济收入、居住环境等方面的差异吗？试问水体污染、空气污染、土壤沙化盐碱化、森林退化等是平等地损害每个人的利益吗？不是有些人甚至从中获利了吗？依靠“低环境、资源权优势”，这种发展是绝对不可持续的。

用罗尔斯的话说，就是任何人都应享有平等的自由权，但任何分配方式的调整或改革，都必须有益于最低受惠者，否则，这个制度就不是正义的。用帕累托的话说，就是任何改变都不应该损害各方的现有利益。因此，所谓经济发展与环境保护的矛盾，是某些利益集团为了牟取私利、巩固权力而有意建构起来的虚假问题。如今，已经到了这个时刻：进一步发展经济之前必须首先解决经济民主和环境正义的问题。在这个意义上，保护环境，实现环境正义，是促进社会稳定、和谐的一条根本途径。

In the past several decades, China has been pursuing the forging ahead strategy of modernization by holding socialist construction and rejuvenation of the country. Today, China’s economic aggregate has leaped into the front ranks of the world, but there is no doubt that this process also brought about irreparable harm to China’s ecological environment.

Environmental crisis inevitably affected the health of residents. In Spring 2007, an official report from Chinese Ministry of Health announced that deteriorating air and water quality should be responsible for the sharply increasing rate of cancer. Since 2005, prevalence rate of cancer has increased 19% in urban areas, and 23% in rural regions.

Baker and other scholars’ risk society theory argued that modern risk is created by overproduction, or in other words, by human activities while traditional risk was created by nature. Modern risk is invisible but selective. People living on the edge of the society, disadvantaged groups are the most likely to be vulnerable by risk.

Who is responsible for the cost of economic development? Who enjoys economic gain? Who enjoys benefits of environmental protection? And who is responsible for environmental protection? Take the disease mentioned above for example, is cancer evenly disposed to all the residents regardless of social status, financial reward or living condition? Are people’s interests equally harmed by water pollution, air pollution, desertification, salinization, and deforestation, etc? Do some people even gain from these issues? The developmental model which relies on “ “ is absolutely unsustainable.

As stated by Rawls, “every one should have equal rights of freedom, but any adjustment or reformation of distribution must be favourable to the lowest beneficiary. Otherwise, the system is unjust. Just as what Pareto argued, “any change is not supposed to harm current interests of all sides.” Accordingly, the so-called conflict between economic development and environmental protection is a false issue which is intentionally constructed by certain interest groups who aim to get own profits and consolidate power. Today, we reach the moment when the problems of economic democracy and environmental justice must be solved before further development of economy. In this way, environmental protection and realization of environmental justice are basic path to promote social stability and harmony.