中国与世界,环境危机大家谈

china and the world discuss the environment

  • linkedin group
  • sini weibo
  • facebook
  • twitter
envelope

注册订阅每周免费邮件
Sign up for email updates


文章 Articles

Ecological civilisation is the way forward

Ma Jun

Readinch

China’s recent Party Congress unveiled a new determination to redefine the country’s model of economic growth, writes Ma Jun. Can a greener form of development now emerge from China?

article image
 

The political report emerging from China’s recent Party Congress said that the country needs to “build an ecological civilisation”. It’s a remark that has attracted widespread attention. It represents an attempt by China’s leaders to redefine the model of growth that China should follow, taking into account an objective analysis of severe problems the country faces in terms of resources. It also represents the state of Chinese thinking on the future of global civilisation in the light of the world’s shared environmental challenges.

The idea of “ecological civilisation” is based on a reconsideration of the unsustainable model of development that has arisen out of industrial civilisation. In its history, the human race moved from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies. Then the industrial revolution enveloped the west around 200 years ago. Since then, industrialisation became our main marker of civilisation. While it created unprecedented levels of material wealth, the industrial model of development, based on high levels of resources and energy consumption, also brought serious pollution and ecological destruction to the industrialised world.

Over the past 30 years, riding on the wave of globalisation, industrialisation has brought unprecedented levels of rapid economic development to the world. 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. The environmental burden on developing countries has increased, and pollution has now reached every corner of the globe. But global climate change means that no country can isolate itself from the effects of pollution generated abroad. Every country is now faced with the urgent question of how to reduce emissions – and keep global warming in check.

Attention has now focused on China. The country’s economy has grown rapidly, but we are paying a high price in terms of our resources and environment. China currently leads the world in terms of resources consumption and pollution emissions. Ultimately, our model of industrial civilisation is unsustainable. Large-scale production and consumption by western nations has wreaked havoc on the global environment. As countries like India and China attempt to join the club of rich nations, the problems are becoming more acute. The global environment is heading quicker than ever towards crisis point. And it is with this background that China’s leadership put forward its “ecological civilisation” plan. It has profound implications not only for China’s hopes of maintaining long-term growth, but also for attempts to guarantee the security of the global environment.

Ecological civilisation is a new idea, and as such, there are no models for us to follow; putting the theory into practice will be a tough task. Ecological civilisation differs from industrial civilisation in the way it views humans’ relationship with nature. Industrial civilisation requires that nature is conquered and moulded to our needs. Ecological civilisation, however, requires that humans live in harmony with our environment, because the environment is the foundation of our very existence. As early as the 1930s, the ecologist Aldo Leopold wrote, “Civilisation is not…the enslavement of a stable and constant Earth.” Humans have spread out to inhabit every habitable corner of the Earth, and have acquired the power to destroy the ecological balance. Now we have to put down our tools and try to recover our lost sense of respect and gratitude for nature.

Ecological civilisation is not the same as pollution control or environmental recovery. It transcends traditional ideas that stem from our current model of development, based on the constant expansion of resources. It is important to recognise that, given the size of China’s population and the scale of its economy, even by taking the most extreme clean-up measures, our effects on the environment will still be severe. In order to find a way forward that is truly in harmony with nature, we need to develop clean, renewable energy on a large scale and make efficient use of resources, which should then be recycled. This fundamental change cannot be achieved by any single country, but only through the concerted efforts of China and other countries who together aim to safeguard global ecological security.

However, building an ecological civilisation does not mean entirely abandoning existing environment management systems and techniques. Many post-industrial countries are still seeking a new model of sustainable growth. Effective environmental and resources management approaches have come out of their experience, and will help in building an ecological civilisation. The challenge for a China, which is still stuck in the industrial age, is immense. But as a developing country, China can learn a lot from the experience of other countries. New technology can be used to replace existing infrastructures.

We should recognize that ecological civilisation focuses on conserving and respecting nature, but that nature cannot participate in efforts
to protect the environment. It is humans who need to act as guardians of nature.

The idea of sustainable development, according to the 1987 Brundtland commission, is “development that meets that needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Similarly, the “scientific concept of development”, advanced by China’s leaders, centres on the principle of “putting people first”. If the aim of development is really to benefit the people, we cannot destroy the very resources on which people rely for survival. The best way to ensure the public protect the environment is to implement policies that grant people the right to information and to participate in environmental affairs, and give them access to legal aid.

There are a wide variety of opinions on how to develop in the post-industrial era. The quest for an environmentally friendly model of growth has now become an important global undertaking. Ecological civilisation, China’s view of future economic development, shows that China is acting responsibly, and taking environmental issues very seriously indeed.


Background: the Congress report

In the16th Central Committee of the Communist Party’s report to the 17th Party Congress, general secretary Hu Jintao unveiled new requirements for establishing a well-off society. One was to “build an ecological civilisation and a model of growth and consumption, as well as industries, which are frugal in their use of energy and resources and protect the environment.”

Hu said the circular economy should be expanded, and there should be a focus on renewable energy. He added that if pollution emissions could be controlled effectively, the environment could be improved substantially, and that the idea of ecological civilisation should be firmly established throughout the whole of society.

A recent report by China’s State Environmental Protection Administration said that the country’s state of environmental affairs was “critical”, and frequent environmental accidents are negatively affecting the lives of many.

According to official figures, China’s chemical oxygen demand is the highest in the world, and far exceeds the country’s environmental capacity. Tests of China’s waterways show that 62% were polluted, with 90% of rivers near cities contaminated. In May, The algae-bloom incident in Taihu Lake caused widespread alarm. The area, in eastern China, had developed chemical, heavy and light industry to boost local economic growth, causing such severe pollution that the water supply to 2 million people had to be cut.

 

Ma Jun is the director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs

Homepage photo by V 2

评论 comments

12

评论 comments

中文

EN

嗨 Hi Guest user

退出 Logout /


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

排序 Sort By:

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.


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


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.


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!!


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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!


← Previous 1

合作伙伴 Partners

项目 Projects