Section (C)
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
We recently participated in an environmental fair at the Mall (購物中心) of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, the largest indoor shopping center in America. After speaking with thousands of parents, children and teachers, we were alarmed at the public's wealth of environmental ignorance. We were equally annoyed that all of what we heard was so superficial, and based on such a shallow understanding of today's true environmental problems. Here are five examples.
One: Recycling (回收利用) is the key.
Actually, recycling is one of the least important things we can do, if our real objective is to preserve natural resources. Remember the phrase "reduce, reuse and recycle"? Reduce comes first for a good reason: It's better not to create waste than to have to figure out what to do with it. And the production of recycled items, like the production of any other form of manufactured goods, requires energy and other resources while creating pollution. Rather, we need to make products more durable, lighter, more energy efficient and easier to repair rather than to replace. Finally, we need to reduce and reuse packaging.
Two: Garbage will bury us.
The original garbage crisis occurred when people first settled down to farm and could no longer leave their places after their garbage grew too deep. Since then, every society has had to figure out what to do with its waste — something that is usually unhealthy, smelly, and ugly — throwing garbage in the streets, piling it up just outside of town, building it into structures or simply setting it on fire.
Today we can design history's and the world's safest recycling facilities, garbage dumps and facilities for burning rubbish. America even has too much garbage dump capacity, thanks to the fact that we have been building large regional dumps to replace older, smaller local dumps. The problem is political. No one wants to spend money on just getting rid of garbage or to have a garbage site in the backyard. The obvious solution is to stop generating so much garbage in the first place. Doing so requires both the knowledge and the self-discipline to use less energy and do more with less stuff.
Three: Industry is to blame.
No, it's all people's fault. Certainly industry has played a significant role in destroying natural areas, generating pollution and using up resources. But we are the ones who signal to businesses that what they are doing is okay — every time we buy their products.
And don't just blame industrial societies. In his recent book Earth Politics, Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker wrote that "perhaps 90 percent of the destruction of animal and plant species, soil erosion, forest destruction and creation of deserts is taking place in developing countries." Thus, even non-industrialized, poor economies are creating environmental disasters.
Four: The earth is in danger.
In reality, the earth doesn't need to be saved. Nature doesn't care if human beings are here or not. The planet has survived major changes for millions upon millions of years. Over that time, it is widely believed, 99 percent of all species have come and gone, while the planet has remained. Saving the environment is really about saving our environment — making it safe for ourselves, our children and the world as we know it. If more people saw the issue as one of saving themselves, we would probably see increased support and commitment to actually doing something.
Five: Americans are wasting more.
The myth has it that Americans consume too much, since the creation of solid waste per person continues to climb. Each person generates about 4.4 pounds of garbage a day — a number that has seen steady growth. The assumption is that we are unstoppable in our desire to consume. In reality, increases in solid waste are based largely on the mathematics of households, not individuals. That is because regardless of the size of a household, certain necessary activities and purchases generate trash.
As new households form, they create additional garbage. Think about a couple going through a divorce. Once there was one home. Now there are two. Building that second house or apartment used lots of resources and created lots of construction rubbish.
Where once there was one set of furniture, one washing machine and one refrigerator, now there are two of all these things. Each refrigerator contains milk bottles, meat containers and packages of mixed vegetables. Each cupboard contains cereal boxes and canned goods.
The government's official numbers tell this story: From 1972 to 1987, the US population grew by 16 percent, while the number of households grew by 35 percent. Solid waste created in towns and cities increased by 35 percent, too.
If Americans were really creating more trash by spoiling ourselves with a lot of unnecessary items, we would be spending more on trash-generating items: non-durable goods like food and beauty products. These all generate lots of garbage, since they are used and discarded quickly, along with their packaging. But household money spent for non-durable goods actually declined slightly from 1972 to 1987.
Yes, the earth's resources are not infinite; natural areas are being destroyed; the number of plant and animal species is declining; consumption of resources is expanding. But we must be less willing to accept superficial, theoretical announcements of right and wrong, cause and effect. To truly change the world for the better, we need more facts, not simply more faith.
Words: 901
節(jié)約使用, 重新使用, 再回收利用
最近,我們參加了一次在明尼蘇達州布盧明頓市的美國購物中心舉辦的環(huán)境大會。此中心是全美最大的室內(nèi)購物中心。 在與幾千名家長、孩子和教師交談之后,我們驚訝地發(fā)現(xiàn),人們的環(huán)境知識是那么的貧乏。
同樣讓我們懊惱的是,我們聽到的一切都相當(dāng)膚淺,對當(dāng)今真正環(huán)境問題的理解也很淺薄。 以下就是五個例證:
誤區(qū)1:回收利用是關(guān)鍵
實際上,如果我們的真正目的是保護自然資源,那么回收利用則是我們能做的工作中最不重要的事情之一。
還記得"少用,重用,再回收利用"這一說法嗎? 將"少用"放在第一位有充分的理由:與其絞盡腦汁地思考怎樣處理廢物,還不如干脆不要制造垃圾。 而且生產(chǎn)回收利用的產(chǎn)品,就像生產(chǎn)其他各類產(chǎn)品一樣,需要能源和其他資源,同時還造成了污染。
與之相反,我們需要制造更多更耐用、更輕便、更節(jié)能、更易修理而不是更易替換的產(chǎn)品。 最后,我們還要減少并重復(fù)使用產(chǎn)品的包裝。
誤區(qū)2:垃圾會埋葬我們
最早的垃圾危機發(fā)生在人類首次定居并開始農(nóng)耕時,由于垃圾堆積過多,人們無法離開他們的住地。 此后,每個社會都要想辦法解決垃圾問題——處理那些通常是有害的、難聞的、難看的東西——要么把垃圾扔到街上,要么堆在城外,要么摻在建筑結(jié)構(gòu)里,要么干脆付之一炬。
今天,我們能夠設(shè)計出有史以來世界上最安全的再造設(shè)施、垃圾場和廢物燃燒設(shè)備。 美國的垃圾傾卸能力非常強,因為美國人一直在修建大型區(qū)域性垃圾場,以取代陳舊的小型地方性垃圾場。
問題出在觀念上。 沒人愿意把錢花在清理垃圾這種小事上,或在院子里設(shè)一處垃圾堆放點。 最顯而易見的解決辦法是首先停止生產(chǎn)這么多垃圾。 要做到這一點,需要人們有意識地、自覺地減少使用能源,并且用更少的東西辦更多的事情。
誤區(qū)3:工業(yè)難辭其咎
不,這是所有人的過錯。 在破壞自然環(huán)境、制造污染和消耗能源方面,工業(yè)固然起了主要作用,但是我們才是授意者: 每當(dāng)我們購買他們的產(chǎn)品時,我們就在向企業(yè)發(fā)出信號,告訴他們可以這樣做。
不要只是譴責(zé)工業(yè)社會。 在其新作《地球政治學(xué)》一書中,厄恩斯特·烏爾里克·馮·魏茨澤克寫道:"動植物物種滅絕,土壤受侵蝕,森林被毀,沙漠產(chǎn)生,在這些破壞中,也許有90%正發(fā)生在發(fā)展中國家。" 可見,即使是非工業(yè)化的經(jīng)濟窮國也在制造環(huán)境災(zāi)害。
誤區(qū)4:地球身處險境
事實上,地球并不需要我們?nèi)フ取?自然界并不在乎人類是否存在。 這個星球幾十億年來經(jīng)歷了種種重大變化仍能生存。 這期間,99%的物種生生死死,唯獨地球依然存在,這一點已成共識。
拯救環(huán)境其實就是拯救我們自己的環(huán)境——是為了保障我們自己、我們的子孫以及我們周圍世界的安全。 如果更多的人把這看作一項拯救自己的事業(yè),那我們會看到更多人以實際行動支持和投身于這項事業(yè)。
誤區(qū)5:美國人浪費更多
有種說法是,美國人消耗太多,因為他們的人均固體垃圾制造量在持續(xù)上升。 每人每天生產(chǎn)的垃圾大約為4.4磅,這一數(shù)字仍在持續(xù)增長。 據(jù)推測這是因為我們美國人的消費欲望無法遏止。
實際上,固體垃圾的增長主要是以家庭為單位,而不是以個人為單位。 因為不論一戶人家有多少人,一些必要的日?;顒雍唾徫锒紩圃炖?。
隨著新家庭的形成,將產(chǎn)生更多的生活垃圾。 設(shè)想如果一對夫婦離婚了,原先的一個家,現(xiàn)在卻變成了兩個。 建造第二棟房子或公寓用去了大量資源,也制造了大量的建筑垃圾。
原先只有一套家具、一臺洗衣機和一臺電冰箱,現(xiàn)在卻變成了兩套或兩臺。 每臺冰箱里都有牛奶瓶、肉罐頭和各種蔬菜包裝。 每個碗櫥里都有麥片盒和罐裝食品。
政府的官方數(shù)字表明:1972至1987年,美國人口增長了16%,家庭數(shù)目增加了35%, 鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)和城市所制造的固體垃圾也增長了35%。
如果美國人的確縱容自己購置了許多不必要的用品,從而產(chǎn)生出更多的垃圾,那我們大多是購買了那些制造垃圾的產(chǎn)品: 如食品和美容用品等非耐用商品。由于使用頻繁,丟棄迅速,加上它們的包裝,所有這些東西制造了大量的垃圾。 但實際上,非耐用商品的戶均消費在1972至1987年間略有下降。
是的,地球的資源不是無限的,自然界在遭受破壞,動植物的物種數(shù)目在減少,而資源的消耗卻在增加。 但是我們切不可輕易接受理論上的、膚淺的是非之說和因果之說。 要真正使世界更美好,我們需要更多的事實,而不僅僅是更多的信念。