[参考资料]关于可持续性发展

lusenUID: 154895

The biophysical factor in urban sustainability

William E. Rees

     Cities are among the brightest stars in the constellation of human achievement. At the same time, ecological footprint analysis shows that they act as entropic black holes, sweeping up the output of whole regions of the ecosphere vastly larger than themselves. There is a clear causal linkage between global ecological change and concentrated local consumption. In this light, national and provincial/state governments should assesss what powers might be devolved to, or shared with, the municipal level to enable cities better to cope with the inherently urban dimensions of sustainability.

     At the same time, international agencies and national powers must recognize that policies for local, provincial, or national sustainability have little meaning without firm international commitment to the protection and enhancement of remaining common-pool natural capital and global life support services. There can be no ecological sustainability without international agreement on the nature of the sustainability crisis and the difficult solutions that may be necessary at all spatial scales.

     One thing does seem increasingly clear: government intervention is necessary. Deregulation and free markets alone will not resolve our problems (money prices say virtually nothing about ecological scarcity or the “invisible foot” of the marketplace). Indeed, the present analysis suggests that if we simply stay our present development course in the blind hope that things will all work out, humans may well become the first species to document in exquisite detail the factors leading to its own demise (without acting to prevent it).

     This points to the wild card in the sustainability dilemma:

1.        Will humanity be able to muster the political will to act decisively and coherently to address its most communal of problems?

2.        Are there any circumstances short of imminent global collapse in which the presently rich would be willing to consider any significant reduction in their own material prospects that the poor might live at all?

3.        Are we even able to contemplate negotiating an international protocol to coordinate and facilitate the kind of ecological fiscal reform required to stimulate the needed efficiency revolution?
As Lynton Caldwell (1990) observes:

    The prospect of worldwide cooperation to forestall a disaster… seems far less likely where deeply entrenched economic and political interests are involved. Many contemporary values, attitudes, and institutions militate against international altruism. As widely interpreted today, human rights, economic interests, and national sovereignty would be factors in opposition. The cooperative task would require behavior that humans find most difficult: collective self-discipline in a common effort.

In this light, empirical evidence on the relationship between ecological decline and socio-political stability provides cold comfort. Recent studies suggest that “in many part of the world, environmental degradation seems to have passed a threshold of irreversibility ”and “that renewable resource scarcities of the next 50 years will probably occur with a speed, complexity, and magnitude unprecedented in history” (HOMERDIXON, et al. 1993). Meanwhile, work on environmentally-related social strife suggests that “so long as ecological decline is seen as temporary, advantaged groups are likely to accept policies of relief and redistribution as the price of order and the resumption of growth. Once it is accepted as a persisting condition, however, they will increasingly exert economic and political power to regain their absolute and relative advantages” (GURR, 1985). In short, in the absence of a concerted shift in values and material behavior, the increasing disordering of regional ecosystems and the ecosphere may well be accompanied by increasing social entropy – the breakdown of civil order within countries and increasing turbulence in international relations. Global change and social inertia clearly make poor bedfellows.

以下是我翻译的,有很多地方是经济学的专业名词,还没弄懂,请大家指教.

城市可持续性发展中的生态因素

    城市建设是人类所取得的许多辉煌的成就中的一颗璀璨的明星。但是同时，生态“足迹”分析显示城市作为一个巨大的黑洞，席卷了远比它们自身大得多的整个地区的生态系统的产出。在全球经济变化和集中的地区消耗之间有着清晰的因果关系。这样看来，国家及地方政府应明确以多大的力度对城市一级地区的投入，使之更好地处理自身内在的可持续性发展的空间尺度。

    同时，国内外机构都必须认识到如果离开了坚定的保护和加强现存的共享自然资源和全球生命支持公益设施的国际性义务，那么地方性或者说是国家性的可持续发展策略也将是毫无意义的。除非对全球性的可持续发展危机及应在更大范围内采取的解决危机的困难性达成世界性的共识，否则，生态系统的可持续发展也将不复存在。

    有一种观点是日渐明了的：政府的干预是必须的。自由市场本身是无法解决我们的问题的（货币价格或者说市场“看不见的手”实际上对生态资源的缺乏是毫无影响力可言）。实际上，目前的分析显示，如果我们只是简单地停留在现在地发展道路上，盲目地希望一切问题都终将解决，那么人类将会成为第一个完美且详实地记录了（而非阻止）导致其灭亡的因素的物种。

     以下指出了可持续发展的普遍性难题：
1．        人类是否有能力集中政见，紧密地，决定性地解决自身地共同问题？
2．        是否会有这么一种情况在不久的将来发生重大改变，即现有的富者愿意考虑在他们本身的物质期望方面做出重大的让步，使得穷人得以生存？
3．        我们是否可以考虑谈判拟订一个全球性的草案来协调及促进类似的生态财政改革以刺激所需的效率革命？

就像考德威尔林顿的发现：
只要有固有的经济和政治利益掺杂其中，希望世界性范围的合作来阻止灾难的发生几乎是不可能的。很多的当代价值观、态度及制度都是与国际利他主义相对立。就像现在所广为人知的人权、经济利益及国家主权也将是对立的元素。合作的任务将需要“集体的共同自律行为”这对人类来说相当困难。

这样说来，经验主义的关于生态消耗和社会政治的稳定性的相互关系的证据是毫无用处的。最近的研究显示“在世界的许多地方，环境退化似乎达到了无法逆转的极限”，“可再生资源的短缺将在今后的50年中快速地、复杂地、史无前例地出现。”同时，研究环境相关的社会冲突的著作指出“只要环境衰落看似暂时性的，强势群体倾向于接受免除及再分配策略作为秩序及增长恢复的代价。一旦环境衰落被认为是远久性的，无论如何，他们将依靠加强的经济和政治的力量来重新获取他们绝对的和相对的优势。”总而言之，在对价值及实质性的行为缺乏协商手段的情况下，增长的区域性生态系统和生态圈的混乱将很可能带来社会状况的恶化--国内的无秩序和国际关系的无序。全球的改变和社会的惰性明显地使得合作者寥寥无几。

imongUID: 140258

GREAT！
自己翻译的？很强啊:D

p.s.我把格式重新排了一下。
THANK YOU VERY MUCH！

lusenUID: 154895

Cities are among the brightest stars in the constellation of human achievement. At the same time, ecological footprint analysis shows that they act as entropic black holes, sweeping up the output of whole regions of the ecosphere vastly larger than themselves. There is a clear causal linkage between global ecological change and concentrated local consumption. In this light, national and provincial/state governments should assesss what powers might be devolved to, or shared with, the municipal level to enable cities better to cope with the inherently urban dimensions of sustainability.

At the same time, international agencies and national powers must recognize that policies for local, provincial, or national sustainability have little meaning without firm international commitment to the protection and enhancement of remaining common-pool natural capital and global life support services. There can be no ecological sustainability without international agreement on the nature of the sustainability crisis and the difficult solutions that may be necessary at all spatial scales.

One thing does seem increasingly clear: government intervention is necessary. Deregulation and free markets alone will not resolve our problems (money prices say virtually nothing about ecological scarcity or the “invisible foot” of the marketplace). Indeed, the present analysis suggests that if we simply stay our present development course in the blind hope that things will all work out, humans may well become the first species to document in exquisite detail the factors leading to its own demise (without acting to prevent it).

This points to the wild card in the sustainability dilemma:

1. Will humanity be able to muster the political will to act decisively and coherently to address its most communal of problems?

2. Are there any circumstances short of imminent global collapse in which the presently rich would be willing to consider any significant reduction in their own material prospects that the poor might live at all?

3. Are we even able to contemplate negotiating an international protocol to coordinate and facilitate the kind of ecological fiscal reform required to stimulate the needed efficiency revolution?
As Lynton Caldwell (1990) observes:

The prospect of worldwide cooperation to forestall a disaster… seems far less likely where deeply entrenched economic and political interests are involved. Many contemporary values, attitudes, and institutions militate against international altruism. As widely interpreted today, human rights, economic interests, and national sovereignty would be factors in opposition. The cooperative task would require behavior that humans find most difficult: collective self-discipline in a common effort.

In this light, empirical evidence on the relationship between ecological decline and socio-political stability provides cold comfort. Recent studies suggest that “in many part of the world, environmental degradation seems to have passed a threshold of irreversibility ”and “that renewable resource scarcities of the next 50 years will probably occur with a speed, complexity, and magnitude unprecedented in history” (HOMERDIXON, et al. 1993). Meanwhile, work on environmentally-related social strife suggests that “so long as ecological decline is seen as temporary, advantaged groups are likely to accept policies of relief and redistribution as the price of order and the resumption of growth. Once it is accepted as a persisting condition, however, they will increasingly exert economic and political power to regain their absolute and relative advantages” (GURR, 1985). In short, in the absence of a concerted shift in values and material behavior, the increasing disordering of regional ecosystems and the ecosphere may well be accompanied by increasing social entropy – the breakdown of civil order within countries and increasing turbulence in international relations. Global change and social inertia clearly make poor bedfellows.