Help me find some information about environmental protection.

What kind of ecological and environmental protection concept and resource development concept should we hold? Are environmental protection and resource development irreconcilable contradictions? I don't think so. Because their goals are the same, all for the survival of mankind. Therefore, scientific ecological environment protection and resource development can realize the unity of opposites.

I believe that all people who care about environmental problems have a sincere heart and hope that our future generations can survive better. We should not doubt those who exploit natural resources in order to make people in poor areas get rid of poverty and get rich as soon as possible. They also have a heart to protect and improve the survival of people in poor areas. Only those who strongly advocate protection think about the long-term survival of all mankind, while those who actively advocate development think about solving the survival problems of people in local areas at present. What reason do we have to deprive local people of their right to subsistence and development?

Over the years, with the propaganda efforts of various environmental protection organizations, the general public has a certain degree of environmental awareness, which is the credit of various environmental protection organizations and people, but having environmental awareness does not mean knowing environmental protection. Many of us are environmentally conscious, but out of consideration for our own immediate interests and greed for enjoyment, we are unwilling to consciously abide by environmental standards. For example, those of us who are not worried about food and clothing, in order to taste the game, to wear high-grade fur fashion and to show off our wealth, have promoted and stimulated the emergence and development of the wildlife trading market, making our exploitation and utilization of natural resources beyond the capacity of nature. In this process, the consumers who should really be blamed are those who have no worries about food and clothing, not those who have no food and clothing and have to ask for natural resources in order to survive, and they should not be accused of developing and utilizing natural resources in order to get people in poor areas out of trouble as soon as possible.

Why did environmental problems not attract people's attention at least before the industrial revolution, but now it has become a global urgent problem that is increasingly affecting human survival? This is because in the past, the demand for natural resources and various kinds of garbage produced by human beings have not exceeded the bearing capacity of nature, but now, the over-exploitation and utilization of nature and a large number of domestic and industrial garbage have exceeded the bearing capacity of nature. How did this happen? It is the constant pursuit of material and spiritual enjoyment after solving the problem of food and clothing. To solve the environmental problems completely, we must restrain people's expanding desire for pleasure. Therefore, when we publicize environmental protection and expose environmental problems, the most important thing is to advocate a moral concept of helping the poor for the rich and lead a simple life among us urbanites who have no worries about food and clothing and enjoy modern civilized life. Those who live in poor and backward areas are backward and simple enough to make a living. How to solve the problem of their survival and development?

We should oppose dogmatism and extreme environmental protection. On the surface, this kind of thought seems to be correct and extremely chaotic, but in fact it is very selfish and irresponsible, because it deprives people in poor and backward areas of their right to subsistence and development.

In remote, poor and backward areas, local people hunt, cut down trees and burn wasteland in order to survive. It is precisely because the dawn of modern civilization has not yet reached them that they are still following this backward lifestyle. Under such living conditions, what do you want them to eat without hunting or cutting down trees? Burn what? With what? Some of our environmentalists always indiscriminately criticize the development and utilization of natural resources by local governments and local residents in these areas, and often make a well-intentioned mistake, that is, you can't cut down the virgin forests here, kill wild animals, build dams on rivers here, and keep the original features here. You can promote economic development by developing green tourism. But at present, our national quality and environmental awareness are not high. Is tourism really green? Will the development of tourism not cause damage to the ecological environment? Let's see what happens. 1. In the past, local people only produced a small amount of domestic garbage, and there was almost no non-degradable garbage; Nowadays, due to the influx of a large number of tourists, a lot of domestic garbage has been brought, especially those plastic food packaging bags that were rarely seen in the past; Whose fault is this? 2. Because tourists want to taste the local game, the original non-existent wildlife trade came into being; In the past, local people only hunted and excavated wild animals and plants in small quantities to meet their own consumption; Now, in order to meet the needs of tourists and increase their economic income, they begin to kill and dig wild animals and plants in large numbers; Whose fault is this? 3. In the past, the local people were simple and sincere; Now, with all kinds of tourists, all kinds of bizarre culture, all kinds of fake and shoddy goods and colorful liars brought by illegal traders, the local people have benefited a lot from deception, and the folk customs are no longer simple and sincere; Whose fault is this?

The Lugu Lake scenic spot in Yunnan is such a living example, which was reported by CCTV. However, this report simply blames the relevant departments of the local government. How many people have thought about who brought all this? This situation has not spared almost all scenic spots. I have no objection to developing tourism here. What I want to say is that developing tourism is not a panacea for environmental protection and development. Perhaps, developing tourism will do more damage to the ecological environment than developing natural resources. In fact, tourism itself is also a kind of utilization of natural resources, so the development and utilization of natural resources is not a question of availability, but a question of how to develop it.

The protection of the ecological environment should not be blindly pursued intact, and nothing can be changed. People who hold this extreme environmental protection view, while caring about the environment, ignore the problems of survival and development, especially those in remote, poor and backward areas. They idealize and dogmatize environmental protection, making it lose its vitality. Such people eat and drink by themselves and enjoy the benefits of modern civilization in the city without any worries. Some of them have been to remote, poor and backward areas, let alone living and working there. A few people have been there. It was just a trip in a luxury SUV. They just want to take this opportunity to reserve a back garden for the city people to eat, drink and explore. According to their view, human beings may have to return to primitive society to meet the requirements. This kind of thinking can only bind us and make society stagnate.

Once I went to Dulongjiang, Yunnan to take photos. I was deeply impressed by the well-preserved virgin forests and clear streams and rivers there, and I was indelibly impressed by the poor living conditions of local residents. However, what impressed me the most was what a border guard said to me: "It's green mountains and green waters for you tourists, but for those of us who are here every day, it's a wasteland." Please note that this is just the words of a person who only needs to serve here for two years. What will happen to people who have lived here for generations? This sentence is like a slap in the face for me, which makes me awake a lot when I once shouted environmental protection.

We can't regard all the exploitation and utilization of natural resources as the destruction of the ecological environment, which is the real selfishness and dogma. We are opposed to blind and excessive destructive development regardless of long-term interests. We have made an ecological assessment of those who can help local people get rid of poverty and become rich and civilized, taking into account the ecological recovery after development, and orderly, scientific and reasonable development will not be arbitrarily accused and stopped. In fact, as long as it is developed scientifically and reasonably, that kind of partial and temporary destruction will not cause irreversible ecological disaster, but will form a new ecological landscape and even improve the original harsh natural environment. This example is not without it. Far away is Dujiangyan in Sichuan and the Grand Canal running through the north and south, and near is Qiandao Lake in Zhejiang and Lubuge Hydropower Station in Yunnan.

In terms of environmental protection, our most urgent goal at present is not simply to blame and stop the development and utilization of natural resources, but to improve the quality of the whole people, especially to improve the environmental awareness of modern urban people who live in cities, lead civilized lives and have no worries about food and clothing. People who have no environmental awareness in remote and poor areas do little damage to the environment, and in order to ensure their own survival, some can even say that their behavior itself is a chain in the local ecological environment. On the contrary, we educated modern urbanites, for pleasure, have stimulated the development of some luxury goods industries, such as furs, high-grade wooden furniture, game restaurants, disposable utensils and so on. The development of these industries has indeed caused a thorough and devastating blow to the ecological environment, and the talents in modern civilized cities are indeed the direct and indirect killers of the ecological environment.

Imagine if there are two people, one is a rich man who has no worries about food and clothing, the other is a poor man who has no shelter and food, and a cherished wild animal appears in front of them. The rich kill it to enjoy fur and game, while the poor kill it to keep out the cold and fill their stomachs. Are both behaviors to blame?

What kind of environmental protection is "rational"

-comment on Charles krauthammer's save nature, but only for mankind.

With the general deterioration of the environment, environmental protection has become a hot topic. Faced with various suggestions, proposals, rules and laws on environmental protection, some people suggest choosing them. For example, a passage in an English book of a university advocates such a view, which is called "rational environmentalism", and rationally declares that human beings "protect the environment not for nature, but for ourselves", so human beings should "make emergency adjustments only when the living environment is threatened". In order to win support, the theory "does not require people to make sacrifices for other creatures".

Humans do protect the environment for themselves, but the problem is how to protect it. This article claims that we should "make urgent adjustments when the living environment is threatened", that is, we should wait until we can't live any longer before considering protecting the environment. Who makes the environment unbearable? It is true that there are factors of the earth's own climate change cycle, but in just a few hundred years since the industrial revolution, it is mainly human beings who have made the environment uninhabitable. In the face of the worsening environmental crisis, it is definitely not the right attitude of a "rational" person to let the environment continue to deteriorate on the pretext that some environmental problems are not urgent without reviewing his own mistakes and changing his erroneous concept of treating the environment as a "free resource".

Facts have proved that adopting the environmental pollution control method of "pollution first, then treatment" will cause a lot of waste of funds-because the income from manufacturing pollution is often less than the cost of eliminating pollution. However, because this is only "external diseconomy", the author does not have to pay the bill immediately, and he will have no interest in eliminating these pollutions. Then, we will see a strange phenomenon: while the author is willing to pay for the "external diseconomy" of others, he adopts an indifferent attitude and creates a huge amount of "external diseconomy" for others and even his descendants.

Another strangeness of this article is that "people are not required to make sacrifices for other creatures". Imagine what it would be if people were asked to make sacrifices for other animals-maybe just some money, or just changing their hobby of eating game. We know that when there is a conflict between creatures, either they both lose, or one side always has to make a "sacrifice". Since human beings don't "sacrifice", they have to let other creatures sacrifice. How should they sacrifice for mankind? Simple-give your life.

The author says that he loves the Arctic reindeer (I really don't know what he said), but in order to exploit oil, he does not hesitate to destroy the reindeer breeding grounds in Alaska-because it can avoid war. Not to mention that exploiting Alaska's oil can't avoid war at all; Even if war can be avoided, it is really worth considering whether it is rational to choose money between race continuation and money because human oil is cheaper and Arctic reindeer can't breed.

Similarly, the author loves spotted owls (I hope the fewer creatures he likes, the better), but for the livelihood of loggers, he does not hesitate to support them to cut down forests and destroy spotted owls. I don't know why the author holds such a strange logic-it seems that loggers can't find new jobs without logging, lose all economic sources without logging, can't survive without logging, and have to "sell" spotted owls for their "survival problem".

In the author's eyes, as long as the interests of human beings conflict with those of other creatures, even if the precious lives of other creatures can be exchanged at the expense of human beings, he will think that human beings are more important than other creatures. This is the so-called "rational" environmental protection concept. In this "rational" environmental protection concept, we can't see any "rational" shadow. Through the grandiose packaging, we can only see an inexplicable domineering attitude of "self-respect" and a terrible disregard for the extinction of other creatures for a little economic benefit.

The author says that it is "luxury environmental protection" to protect things that do not immediately pose a threat to human health and safety, and "luxury environmental protection" is good only if it can be realized at a small price. However, is there anything related to environmental protection that can be achieved at a small price? Hardly. In other words, the author will not support environmental protection for things that do not pose an immediate threat to human health and safety.

Do we need such "rational environmentalism"? This kind of "rational environmental protection" actually means that when the environment deteriorates to the point where we can't wait any longer, Qi Xin will work together to alleviate an environmental problem. On the one hand, environmental problems emerge one after another, and the speed of emergence is getting faster and faster; On the other hand, the speed of alleviating environmental problems lags far behind the speed of its emergence. We could have contained some problems in the bud, but those who are "rational and environmentally friendly" have to wait until the pollution is out of control. It can be said that this "reason" has surpassed the understanding ability of ordinary people.

What kind of environmental protection is rational? That's what the author regards as "emotional" environmental protection way of doing things. To protect the environment, we must love nature, not regard it as the object of our "utilization"; To protect the environment, we must nip environmental problems in the bud, rather than let them expand day by day. Such environmental protection is truly rational environmental protection.

June 5th, 2004 is the 33rd World Environment Day. The United Nations Environment Program defines the theme of World Environment Day this year as: Everyone is responsible for the survival of the ocean (wanted! Seas and Oceans—— Dead or Alive) calls on the international community to attach importance to marine environmental protection and take active actions to leave a clean ocean for mankind.

Chinese mainland coastline18,000 kilometers, and more than 6,500 coastal islands. According to the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone system and continental shelf system in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China can have about 3 million square kilometers of jurisdictional waters.

China is a big maritime country, with a vast sea area under its jurisdiction, rich coastal zone and marine resources, and great potential for coastal economic development. The rapid economic development and population growth in coastal areas have brought great environmental pressure to coastal areas and oceans, and the coastal and marine environmental problems are outstanding. It is an important task for China to protect the marine environment and promote the coordinated development of social economy and coastal areas and marine environment.

What kind of ecological and environmental protection concept and resource development concept should we hold? Are environmental protection and resource development irreconcilable contradictions? I don't think so. Because their goals are the same, all for the survival of mankind. Therefore, scientific ecological environment protection and resource development can realize the unity of opposites.

I believe that all people who care about environmental problems have a sincere heart and hope that our future generations can survive better. We should not doubt those who exploit natural resources in order to make people in poor areas get rid of poverty and get rich as soon as possible. They also have a heart to protect and improve the survival of people in poor areas. Only those who strongly advocate protection think about the long-term survival of all mankind, while those who actively advocate development think about solving the survival problems of people in local areas at present. What reason do we have to deprive local people of their right to subsistence and development?

Over the years, with the propaganda efforts of various environmental protection organizations, the general public has a certain degree of environmental awareness, which is the credit of various environmental protection organizations and people, but having environmental awareness does not mean knowing environmental protection. Many of us are environmentally conscious, but out of consideration for our own immediate interests and greed for enjoyment, we are unwilling to consciously abide by environmental standards. For example, those of us who are not worried about food and clothing, in order to taste the game, to wear high-grade fur fashion and to show off our wealth, have promoted and stimulated the emergence and development of the wildlife trading market, making our exploitation and utilization of natural resources beyond the capacity of nature. In this process, the consumers who should really be blamed are those who have no worries about food and clothing, not those who have no food and clothing and have to ask for natural resources in order to survive, and they should not be accused of developing and utilizing natural resources in order to get people in poor areas out of trouble as soon as possible.

Why did environmental problems not attract people's attention at least before the industrial revolution, but now it has become a global urgent problem that is increasingly affecting human survival? This is because in the past, the demand for natural resources and various kinds of garbage produced by human beings have not exceeded the bearing capacity of nature, but now, the over-exploitation and utilization of nature and a large number of domestic and industrial garbage have exceeded the bearing capacity of nature. How did this happen? It is the constant pursuit of material and spiritual enjoyment after solving the problem of food and clothing. To solve the environmental problems completely, we must restrain people's expanding desire for pleasure. Therefore, when we publicize environmental protection and expose environmental problems, the most important thing is to advocate a moral concept of helping the poor for the rich and lead a simple life among us urbanites who have no worries about food and clothing and enjoy modern civilized life. Those who live in poor and backward areas are backward and simple enough to make a living. How to solve the problem of their survival and development?

We should oppose dogmatism and extreme environmental protection. On the surface, this kind of thought seems to be correct and extremely chaotic, but in fact it is very selfish and irresponsible, because it deprives people in poor and backward areas of their right to subsistence and development.

In remote, poor and backward areas, local people hunt, cut down trees and burn wasteland in order to survive. It is precisely because the dawn of modern civilization has not yet reached them that they are still following this backward lifestyle. Under such living conditions, what do you want them to eat without hunting or cutting down trees? Burn what? With what? Some of our environmentalists always indiscriminately criticize the development and utilization of natural resources by local governments and local residents in these areas, and often make a well-intentioned mistake, that is, you can't cut down the virgin forests here, kill wild animals, build dams on rivers here, and keep the original features here. You can promote economic development by developing green tourism. But at present, our national quality and environmental awareness are not high. Is tourism really green? Will the development of tourism not cause damage to the ecological environment? Let's see what happens. 1. In the past, local people only produced a small amount of domestic garbage, and there was almost no non-degradable garbage; Nowadays, due to the influx of a large number of tourists, a lot of domestic garbage has been brought, especially those plastic food packaging bags that were rarely seen in the past; Whose fault is this? 2. Because tourists want to taste the local game, the original non-existent wildlife trade came into being; In the past, local people only hunted and excavated wild animals and plants in small quantities to meet their own consumption; Now, in order to meet the needs of tourists and increase their economic income, they begin to kill and dig wild animals and plants in large numbers; Whose fault is this? 3. In the past, the local people were simple and sincere; Now, with all kinds of tourists, all kinds of bizarre culture, all kinds of fake and shoddy goods and colorful liars brought by illegal traders, the local people have benefited a lot from deception, and the folk customs are no longer simple and sincere; Whose fault is this?

The Lugu Lake scenic spot in Yunnan is such a living example, which was reported by CCTV. However, this report simply blames the relevant departments of the local government. How many people have thought about who brought all this? This situation has not spared almost all scenic spots. I have no objection to developing tourism here. What I want to say is that developing tourism is not a panacea for environmental protection and development. Perhaps, developing tourism will do more damage to the ecological environment than developing natural resources. In fact, tourism itself is also a kind of utilization of natural resources, so the development and utilization of natural resources is not a question of availability, but a question of how to develop it.

The protection of the ecological environment should not be blindly pursued intact, and nothing can be changed. People who hold this extreme environmental protection view, while caring about the environment, ignore the problems of survival and development, especially those in remote, poor and backward areas. They idealize and dogmatize environmental protection, making it lose its vitality. Such people eat and drink by themselves and enjoy the benefits of modern civilization in the city without any worries. Some of them have been to remote, poor and backward areas, let alone living and working there. A few people have been there. It was just a trip in a luxury SUV. They just want to take this opportunity to reserve a back garden for the city people to eat, drink and explore. According to their view, human beings may have to return to primitive society to meet the requirements. This kind of thinking can only bind us and make society stagnate.

Once I went to Dulongjiang, Yunnan to take photos. I was deeply impressed by the well-preserved virgin forests and clear streams and rivers there, and I was indelibly impressed by the poor living conditions of local residents. However, what impressed me the most was what a border guard said to me: "It's green mountains and green waters for you tourists, but for those of us who are here every day, it's a wasteland." Please note that this is just the words of a person who only needs to serve here for two years. What will happen to people who have lived here for generations? This sentence is like a slap in the face for me, which makes me awake a lot when I once shouted environmental protection.

We can't regard all the exploitation and utilization of natural resources as the destruction of the ecological environment, which is the real selfishness and dogma. We are opposed to blind and excessive destructive development regardless of long-term interests. We have made an ecological assessment of those who can help local people get rid of poverty and become rich and civilized, taking into account the ecological recovery after development, and orderly, scientific and reasonable development will not be arbitrarily accused and stopped. In fact, as long as it is developed scientifically and reasonably, the partial and temporary destruction will not cause irreversible ecological disasters, but will form a new ecological landscape and even improve the original harsh natural environment. This example is not without it. Far away is Dujiangyan in Sichuan and the Grand Canal running through the north and south, and near is Qiandao Lake in Zhejiang and Lubuge Hydropower Station in Yunnan.

In terms of environmental protection, our most urgent goal at present is not simply to blame and stop the development and utilization of natural resources, but to improve the quality of the whole people, especially to improve the environmental awareness of modern urban people who live in cities, lead civilized lives and have no worries about food and clothing. People who have no environmental awareness in remote and poor areas do little damage to the environment, and in order to ensure their own survival, some can even say that their behavior itself is a chain in the local ecological environment. On the contrary, we educated modern urbanites, for pleasure, have stimulated the development of some luxury goods industries, such as furs, high-grade wooden furniture, game restaurants, disposable utensils and so on. The development of these industries has indeed caused a thorough and devastating blow to the ecological environment, and the talents in modern civilized cities are indeed the direct and indirect killers of the ecological environment.

Imagine if there are two people, one is a rich man who has no worries about food and clothing, the other is a poor man who has no shelter and food, and a cherished wild animal appears in front of them. The rich kill it to enjoy fur and game, while the poor kill it to keep out the cold and fill their stomachs. Are both behaviors to blame?

What kind of environmental protection is "rational"

-comment on Charles krauthammer's save nature, but only for mankind.

With the general deterioration of the environment, environmental protection has become a hot topic. Faced with various suggestions, proposals, rules and laws on environmental protection, some people suggest choosing them. For example, a passage in an English book of a university advocates such a view, which is called "rational environmentalism", and rationally declares that human beings "protect the environment not for nature, but for ourselves", so human beings should "make emergency adjustments only when the living environment is threatened". In order to win support, the theory "does not require people to make sacrifices for other creatures".

Humans do protect the environment for themselves, but the problem is how to protect it. This article claims that we should "make urgent adjustments when the living environment is threatened", that is, we should wait until we can't live any longer before considering protecting the environment. Who makes the environment unbearable? It is true that there are factors of the earth's own climate change cycle, but in just a few hundred years since the industrial revolution, it is mainly human beings who have made the environment uninhabitable. In the face of the worsening environmental crisis, it is definitely not the right attitude of a "rational" person to let the environment continue to deteriorate on the pretext that some environmental problems are not urgent without reviewing his own mistakes and changing his erroneous concept of treating the environment as a "free resource".

Facts have proved that adopting the environmental pollution control method of "pollution first, then treatment" will cause a lot of waste of funds-because the income from manufacturing pollution is often less than the cost of eliminating pollution. However, because this is only "external diseconomy", the author does not have to pay the bill immediately, and he will have no interest in eliminating these pollutions. Then, we will see a strange phenomenon: while the author is willing to pay for the "external diseconomy" of others, he adopts an indifferent attitude and creates a huge amount of "external diseconomy" for others and even his descendants.

Another strangeness of this article is that "people are not required to make sacrifices for other creatures". Imagine what it would be if people were asked to make sacrifices for other animals-maybe just some money, or just changing their hobby of eating game. We know that when there is a conflict between creatures, either they both lose, or one side always has to make a "sacrifice". Since human beings don't "sacrifice", they have to let other creatures sacrifice. How should they sacrifice for mankind? Simple-give your life.

The author says that he loves the Arctic reindeer (I really don't know what he said), but in order to exploit oil, he does not hesitate to destroy the reindeer breeding grounds in Alaska-because it can avoid war. Not to mention that exploiting Alaska's oil can't avoid war at all; Even if war can be avoided, it is really worth considering whether it is rational to choose money between race continuation and money because human oil is cheaper and Arctic reindeer can't breed.

Similarly, the author loves spotted owls (I hope the fewer creatures he likes, the better), but for the livelihood of loggers, he does not hesitate to support them to cut down forests and destroy spotted owls. I don't know why the author holds such a strange logic-it seems that loggers can't find new jobs without logging, lose all economic sources without logging, can't survive without logging, and have to "sell" spotted owls for their "survival problem".

In the author's eyes, as long as the interests of human beings conflict with those of other creatures, even if the precious lives of other creatures can be exchanged at the expense of human beings, he will think that human beings are more important than other creatures. This is the so-called "rational" environmental protection concept. In this "rational" environmental protection concept, we can't see any "rational" shadow. Through the grandiose packaging, we can only see an inexplicable domineering attitude of "self-respect" and a terrible disregard for the extinction of other creatures for a little economic benefit.

The author says that it is "luxury environmental protection" to protect things that do not immediately pose a threat to human health and safety, and "luxury environmental protection" is good only if it can be realized at a small price. However, is there anything related to environmental protection that can be achieved at a small price? Hardly. In other words, the author will not support environmental protection for things that do not pose an immediate threat to human health and safety.

Do we need such "rational environmentalism"? This kind of "rational environmental protection" actually means that when the environment deteriorates to the point where we can't wait any longer, Qi Xin will work together to alleviate an environmental problem. On the one hand, environmental problems emerge one after another, and the speed of emergence is getting faster and faster; On the other hand, the speed of alleviating environmental problems lags far behind the speed of its emergence. We could have contained some problems in the bud, but those who are "rational and environmentally friendly" have to wait until the pollution is out of control. It can be said that this "reason" has surpassed the understanding ability of ordinary people.

What kind of environmental protection is rational? That's what the author regards as "emotional" environmental protection way of doing things. To protect the environment, we must love nature, not regard it as the object of our "utilization"; To protect the environment, we must nip environmental problems in the bud, rather than let them expand day by day. Such environmental protection is truly rational environmental protection.