大循环:生态+人类生命2系统 人类生态共生 光合作用新陈代谢

焦典

[size=0.95em]2014, Volume 66, Issue 07 (December)
[size=0.95em]https://monthlyreview.org/2014/12/01/paul-burketts-marx-and-nature-fifteen-years-after/   
Paul Burkett’s Marx and Nature Fifteen Years Afterby John Bellamy Foster
(Dec 01, 2014)[size=0.9em]

[size=1em]Topics: Ecology  Marxist Ecology

[size=1em] Places: Global

[size=0.9em]This is the foreword to the second edition of Paul Burkett, Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective (Haymarket, 2014).

[size=1em]Every book more than a few years old needs to be seen within the historical context in which it was written—works of social science most of all. Re-reading Paul Burkett’s Marx and Nature today, nearly a decade and a half after its first publication, reminds me of how different in some respects the historical context was then, at the end of the twentieth century, from what we face today, in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Fifteen years ago the idea of a planetary ecological crisis still seemed fairly new and was being discussed by a relatively small number of environmentalists and scientists. Global warming was a world issue, but seldom hit the front page. Nowadays climate change is part of our everyday lives everywhere in the world—and history seems, if anything, to be accelerating in this respect. A decade and a half ago the contribution of Marx and Marxism to the understanding of ecology was seen in almost entirely negative terms, even by many self-styled ecosocialists. Today Marx’s understanding of the ecological problem is being studied in universities worldwide and is inspiring ecological actions around the globe.

[size=1em]These changes are of course connected. As the environmental problems engendered by capitalist society have worsened, the necessary movements of ecological defense have radicalized and spread across the face of the planet. More comprehensive, dialectical explanations of the social destruction of the environment have thus been sought out, leading thinkers increasingly back to Marx. But today’s widespread recognition of Marx’s contribution to ecology can also be attributed to a considerable degree to Burkett’s work and to that of a few other thinkers whom he influenced. In my own case the debt to Burkett is clear. As I wrote in the preface to my book Marx’s Ecology, which appeared a year after Marx and Nature: “Paul Burkett’s magisterial work Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective (1999) constitutes not only part of the background against which this work was written, but also an essential complement to the analysis provided here. If I have sometimes neglected to develop fully the political-economic aspects of Marx’s ecology, it is because the existence of this work makes this unnecessary and redundant.”[size=0.5em]1

[size=1em]Burkett provided for the first time a completely unified reading of Marx’s value analysis that integrated its natural-material or use-value components within a general value-form theory, bringing the ecological aspects of Marx’s political economy alive as never before.[size=0.5em]2 The result was to sharpen the understanding of Marx’s dialectic of natural-social metabolism, enhancing our knowledge not only of the ecological dimensions of Marx’s critique but also of his political economy as a whole.[size=0.5em]3

[size=1em]Marx and Nature had both a negative and a positive character and it was the negative aspect that stood out at first. Thus it was known at the outset more for its negative refutation of prevailing views than for its positive affirmation of Marx’s ecological praxis. In the opening page of the book, Burkett referred to three common criticisms of Marx’s approach to nature that he proceeded to refute in his book: (1) the claim that Marx primarily advanced productivist or “Promethean” notions aimed at the conquest of nature; (2) the view that Marx’s political economy, and especially the labor theory of value, downgraded nature’s contribution to production; and (3) the idea that Marx’s analysis of the contradictions and crises of capitalism had nothing to do directly with the natural conditions of production.

[size=1em]In all of this Burkett was responding to what could be called first-stage ecosocialist analysis.[size=0.5em]4Although contributions to ecological thought within the Marxist tradition have existed since the beginning—going back to Marx himself—ecosocialism, as a distinct tradition of inquiry, arose primarily in the late 1980s and early ‘90s under the hegemony of green theory (and in the context of the crisis of Marxism following the downfall of Soviet-type societies). The general approach adopted was one of grafting Marxian conceptions onto already existing green theory—or, in some cases, grafting green theory onto Marxism. Thinkers such as André Gorz, Ted Benton, James O’Connor, Alain Lipietz, and Joel Kovel, stood out in this respect for their important contributions to ecosocialist analysis.[size=0.5em]5 Nevertheless, the problem with all such approaches from a socialist perspective was that they did not constitute genuine critiques (the passing through and transcendence) of prevailing environmental thought, nor did they systematically explore the radical roots of Marxian theory itself in order to build on its own materialist and naturalist foundations. Rather they commonly adopted various ad hoc means of bridging the gap between the red and the green (such as O’Connor’s inspired introduction of the concepts of “conditions of production” and the “second contradiction of capitalism”).

[size=1em]Eventually, such an artificially contrived, hybrid methodology, which hardly challenged more conventional green thought, led to Marxism being seen by a number of first-stage ecosocialist thinkers as a mere hindrance to be discarded. Thus Gorz contended that Marx’s approach to work, like Hegel’s before him, was simply that of “the creative objectification of man’s domination of nature.” Not surprisingly Gorz concluded: “As a system socialism is dead. As a movement and organized political force, it is on its last legs…. History and technical changes that are leading to the extinction, if not of the proletariat, then at least of the working class, have shown its philosophy of work and history to be misconceived.” Likewise in an article that appeared in O’Connor’s journal Capitalism Nature Socialism only a year after the publication of Burkett’s book, Lipietz claimed that Marx had fallen prey to “the Biblico-Cartesian ideology of the conquest of nature.” Marx, Lipietz asserted, had underestimated “the irreducible character of…external constraints (ecological constraints, to be exact)” to production and had thus failed to encompass the holism required by an ecological perspective. Hence, “the intellectual scaffolding of the Marxist paradigm, along with the key solutions it suggests, must be jettisoned.”[size=0.5em]6

[size=1em]Burkett’s Marx and Nature was written as a refutation of such first-stage ecosocialist views by means of a reconstruction and reaffirmation of Marx’s own critical-ecological outlook. Marx and Nature thus represented the rise of a second stage of ecosocialist analysis which sought to go back to Marx and to uncover his materialist conception of nature as an essential counterpart to his materialist conception of history. The object was to transcend first-stage ecosocialism, as well as the limitations of existing green theory, with its overly spiritualistic, idealistic, and moralistic emphases, as a first step in the development of a more thoroughgoing ecological Marxism.

[size=1em]Behind the dispute between first-stage and second-stage ecosocialism was in fact a fundamental disagreement about the nature of socialism. First-stage ecosocialists argued that socialism was marred (some said irretrievably) in Marx’s own work by his narrow productivism. A few went so far, as we have seen, to pronounce socialism dead. In this view ecosocialism was the heir apparent to socialism. In contrast, second-stage ecosocialists, beginning with Burkett, conceived ecosocialism not as a successor to Marxism but as a deeper form of ecological praxis arising out of the materialist foundations of classical Marxism. To the extent that the terms “ecological socialism” or “ecological Marxism” were used by second-stage ecosocialists, they did not refer to a break with Marxian theory and practice, but represented a reinvigoration of its classical-materialist perspective. As Raymond Williams stated, the problem of our society is not that we are materialist, but that we are “not materialist enough”—in the use-value sense.[size=0.5em]7

[size=1em]Such differences in perspective naturally gave rise to considerable misunderstandings in the literature. For example, Kovel, who was to succeed O’Connor as editor-in-chief of Capitalism Nature Socialism, observed in his book, The Enemy of Nature (2002):

[size=1em]An opposing point of view [to those who condemned Marx outright as anti-ecological], recently argued by Marxists such as John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett, energetically contests the indictment, and holds that Marx, far from being Promethean, was a main originator of the ecological world-view. Building their argument from Marx’s materialist foundations, his scientific affinity with Darwin, and his conception of the “metabolic rift” between humanity and nature, Foster and Burkett consider the original Marxian canon as the true and sufficient guide to save nature from capitalism….

[size=1em]A close reading will show Marx to be no Promethean. But he was no god of any kind, either…. Marxism today can have no greater goal than the criticism of Marx in the light of that history to which he had not been exposed, namely, of the ecological crisis.

[size=1em]Here it needs to be observed that…there remains in his [Marx’s] work a foreshortening of the intrinsic value of nature. Yes, humanity is part of nature for Marx. But it is the active part, the part that makes things happen, while nature becomes that which is acted upon…. In Marx, nature is, so to speak, subjected to labour from the start. This side of things may be inferred from his conception of labour, which involves an entirely active relationship to what has become a kind of natural substratum.[size=0.5em]8

[size=1em]For Kovel, “Socialism, though ready to entertain that capital is nature’s enemy, is less sure about being nature’s friend.” Such views led him to present ecosocialism as the historical answer to the serious defects of Marxism in this respect.[size=0.5em]9

[size=1em]Yet to contend that Burkett and I view “the original Marxian canon” as a “true and sufficient guide to saving nature from capitalism” is to attribute to us an absolute absurdity. No rational individual could believe that Marx’s nineteenth-century analysis, notwithstanding all its brilliance, constitutes a “sufficient guide” to solving the global ecological crisis in an age of planetary climate change, ocean acidification, and fracking. Naturally, whatever methodological insights are to be derived from Marx’s dialectic with respect to the ecological and social critique of capitalism—and as Lukács said regarding Marxism, “orthodoxy refers exclusively to method”—have to be synthesized with a vast body of historical and scientific knowledge that has arisen subsequently, and with the conditions of contemporary social praxis.[size=0.5em]10

[size=1em]But what about Kovel’s criticisms of Marx himself in relation to ecology? Was Marx seriously ignorant with respect to ecological crisis? Was nature, in his analysis, properly conceived as a mere external object to be “subjected” by labor? Did he view nature as “passive” and inert, a mere “natural substratum”?

[size=1em]Recent scholarship, beginning with Marx and Nature itself, has demonstrated the error of contending that Marx was unaware of the major ecological crises in his time, or that he failed to learn from them—even if he could not possibly foresee the planetary ecological rift of today.[size=0.5em]11 The idea that Marx saw nature as “passive” conflicts with his conception of nature as evolutionary and with the whole dialectical frame of his thought, which led him to point to what he called “the universal metabolism of nature.”[size=0.5em]12 Indeed, for Marx, the labor process, far from being viewed as a mere mechanistic force for the subjection of nature, was defined in its essence (as distinct from the alienated conditions of capitalist society) as “the universal condition for the metabolic interaction [Stoffwechsel] between man and nature, the everlasting nature-imposed condition of human existence.”[size=0.5em]13

[size=1em]Reading Marx and Nature one cannot fail to be impressed by the extent to which Marx’s critique of political economy, as described by Burkett, incorporated the alienation of nature as an essential component of the critique of capital—so much so that this is embodied in the deep structure of Marx’s value analysis. It was this that led Marx: (1) to point out that capitalism undermined “the original sources of all wealth—the soil and the worker,”[size=0.5em]14 (2) to stress the contradiction between use value and exchange value, (3) to emphasize that human beings were themselves a part of nature, (4) to describe the labor and production process as part of the “universal metabolic process,”[size=0.5em]15 and (5) to define socialism as the rational regulation by the associated producers of the metabolism between humanity and nature. According to Marx, no one, not all the people of the world put together, owned the earth; they held it only in usufruct as “good heads of the household,” and were meant to pass it on in improved condition to future generations.[size=0.5em]16

[size=1em]Today it is possible to say that second-stage ecosocialism decisively won the great debate over the ecological significance of Marx and Engels’s works. Nearly a decade and half after the first publication of Burkett’s Marx and Nature the abundant evidence of the deep and pervasive ecological critique embedded in Marx’s work is now so well recognized that much of the debate in this respect is over. Ecological notions, attributable to Marx, such as the metabolic rift and the natural-material basis of use value, have now entered into the basic conceptions of ecological movements themselves.[size=0.5em]17

[size=1em]Nevertheless, the fact that the basic analysis of Marx and Nature has now been widely affirmed by scholars does not make Burkett’s work any less valuable to us today. Nor does it make it less important to continue to examine the works of Marx himself—or those of subsequent Marxists who can be said to have contributed to ecological thought. What it does suggest is that the significance of Burkett’s Marx and Nature, fifteen years after its first appearance, lies less in its negative critique of first-stage ecosocialism than its positive contribution to the urgent task of developing a socialist alternative to capitalism’s destructive ecology. The focus has thus shifted to what can be considered a third stage of ecosocialism research (the logical outgrowth of the second) in which the goal is to employ the ecological foundations of classical Marxian thought to confront present-day capitalism and the planetary ecological crisis that it has engendered—together with the ruling forms of ideology that block the development of a genuine alternative.

[size=1em]Again Burkett led the way. Building on the foundational view established in Marx and Nature, he went on to develop a Marxian critique of existing ecological economics, with the goal of developing a distinctly Marxian ecological economics more equipped to address the environmental contradictions of our time. In 2006 he published his masterwork in this realm, Marxism and Ecological Economics: Toward a Red and Green Political Economy. This critique, aimed at necoclassical economics—together with those forms of environmental (or ecological) economics insufficiently opposed to the former—was developed with regard to four central issues: “(1) the relations between nature and economic value; (2) the treatment of nature as capital; (3) the significance of the entropy law for economic systems; (4) the concept of sustainable development.”[size=0.5em]18 In all of this Burkett extended the deep understanding of classical Marxian insights already evident in Marx and Nature in order to critique and transform ecological economics in a more radical and uncompromising direction—in relation to both society and nature. His landmark article on “Marx’s Vision of Sustainable Human Development,” in the October 2005 issue of Monthly Review, gave perhaps the most comprehensive view of Marx’s larger ecological conception of socialism, conceived in terms of a world of substantive equality and ecological sustainability.[size=0.5em]19

[size=1em]It is a testimony to the power of Burkett’s contribution that others are now attempting to follow in his footprints, extending Marx’s socio-ecological dialectic and ecological-value analysis to the scrutiny of today’s environmental problems.[size=0.5em]20 We live in a time of great ecological peril, but we are also seeing a great flowering of socialist ecology and of more radical forms of environmental practice, particularly in the global South.[size=0.5em]21 Burkett’s work has made possible a kind of spiraling movement in which critics of the status quo are able to move back to Marx’s radical-materialist critique and then move forward again, newly inspired, to engage in revolutionary ecological and social praxis in the present. Mainstream environmentalism only describes the ecological crisis engendered by today’s society; the point is to transcend it.

Notes

• ↩John Bellamy Foster, Marx’s Ecology (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000), ix. Burkett and I corresponded and inspired each other throughout the 1990s. While he was developing Marx’s ecological-value analysis I was working on the concept of metabolic rift. See John Bellamy Foster, “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift,” American Journal of Sociology 105, no. 2 (September 1999): 366–405. In both areas our work overlapped.
• ↩It is a testimony to the power of Burkett’s analysis that it gave centrality to the concept of value form, a category that has come to be regarded as increasingly central to the interpretation of Marx’s value analysis. Part of this was due to the influence of I.I. Rubin’s work on Burkett’s thinking as well as Burkett’s own deep appreciation of the logic of Marx’s analysis. On this see Burkett, Marx and Nature, chapter 3; also I.I. Rubin, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value (Detroit: Black and Red, 1972), 107–23; Michael Heinrich, An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s ‘Capital’ (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2012), 52–64.
• ↩Here it should be mentioned that a brilliant precursor of Burkett’s analysis of the ecological implications of Marx’s value analysis was to be found in Elmar Altvater, The Future of Money (London: Verso, 1993). Altvater, however, stopped short of a systematic development of Marx’s analysis in this area.
• ↩The discussion of first-stage and second-stage ecosocialism in this and the following paragraphs draws on John Bellamy Foster, “Environmental Politics: Analyses and Alternatives” (a review), Historical Materialism 8 (Summer 2001): 461–77. See also Paul Burkett, “Two Stages of Ecosocialism?: Implications of Some Neglected Analyses of Ecological Conflict and Crisis,” International Journal of Political Economy 35, no. 3 (Fall 2006): 23–45.
• ↩See André Gorz, Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology (London: Verso, 1994); Ted Benton, “Marxism and Natural Limits,” New Left Review 178 (November–December 1989): 51–86; James O’Connor, Natural Relations (New York: Guilford Press, 1998); Alain Lipietz, “Political Ecology and the Future of Marxism,” Capitalism Nature Socialism 11 (2000): 69–85; Joel Kovel, The Enemy of Nature (London: Zed, 2002).
• ↩Gorz, Capitalism, Socialism, and Ecology, vii, 29; Lipietz, “Political Ecology and the Future of Marxism,” 74–75.
• ↩Raymond Williams, Problems in Materialism and Culture (London: Verso, 1980), 185, 106–14.
• ↩Kovel, The Enemy of Nature, 210–11.
• ↩Kovel, The Enemy of Nature, ix. In a similar way, An Ecosocialist Manifesto, authored by Kovel and Michael Löwy in 2001, sees ecosocialism as the heir to what it calls “first-epoch socialism,” http://iefd.org.
• ↩Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (London: Merlin Press, 1971), 1.
• ↩In addition to Burkett’s Marx and Nature, particularly chapter 9, see Foster, Marx’s Ecology, 141–77, and John Bellamy Foster, “Capitalism and the Accumulation of Catastrophe,” Monthly Review 63, no. 7 (December 2011): 1–17.
• ↩Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works (New York: International Publishers 1975), vol. 30, 63. The interpretation of Marx’s materialism offered by Sebastiano Timpanaro that suggested that Marx saw nature as “passive” and denied its active principle was strongly criticized in Foster, Marx’s Ecology, 258.
• ↩Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (London: Penguin, 1976), 290.
• ↩Marx, Capital, vol. 1, 638.
• ↩Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 30, 63.
• ↩Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (London: Penguin, 1981), 911, 959.
• ↩See, for example, Hanna Wittman, “Reworking the Metabolic Rift: La Via Campesina, Agrarian Citizenship, and Food Sovereignty,” Journal of Peasant Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2009): 805–26.
• ↩Paul Burkett, Marxism and Ecological Economics: Toward a Red and Green Economy (Chicago: Haymarket, [2006] 2009), vii.
• ↩Paul Burkett, “Marx’s Vision of Sustainable Human Development,” Monthly Review 57, no. 5 (October 2005): 34–62.
• ↩See, for example, Jason W. Moore, “Transcending the Metabolic Rift,” Journal of Peasant Studies 38, no. 1 (2011): 1–46; John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York, The Ecological Rift (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010); John Bellamy Foster, “The Ecology of Marxian Political Economy,” Monthly Review 63, no. 4 (September 2011): 1–16; Ariel Salleh, “From Metabolic Rift to ‘Metabolic Value,’” Organization and Environment 23, no. 2 (2010: 205–19; and Chris Williams, Ecology and Socialism (Chicago: Haymarket, 2010).
• ↩A high point here was the 2010 Peoples’ Agreement in Bolivia, reprinted in Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster, What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2011), 145–58.
  

焦典

约翰·贝拉米·福斯特：向地球工程学宣战和资本主义对地球的创造性毁灭

• 时间：2019-05-22 09:41
• •来源： 无产者译丛
• •作者：  约翰·贝拉米·福斯特
• •
  

在这种生态革命中，需要优先考虑以最快的速度消除化石燃料的排放，但这反过来要求人类与地球的关系以及人与人之间的关系发生根本性的变化。我们必须重点关注可持续的人类发展，在社会中建立一种新陈代谢可再生产的有机系统。几个世纪的剥削和征用，基于阶级，性别，种族和民族的分裂，都必须得到超越。因此，当前条件所构成的历史逻辑指出了长期生态革命的必要性，建立一个新的可持续人类发展系统，满足人类作为自然和社会存在的全部需求：即生态社会主义。
【译者按：十八世纪末的化石能源大开发推动了人类社会进入工业时代。人均能耗的增加使得普通群众的生活水平得到巨大提高，完成工业化的发达国家甚至进入了所谓的“丰裕社会”。但人类对化石能源的使用本身又具有矛盾性，除了化石能源储量有限不可无限使用外，其对环境的影响甚至可能会影响到人类的生存本身。早在一百多年前，恩格斯就告诫我们“不要过分陶醉于我们人类对自然界的胜利”，因为“对于每一次这样的胜利，自然界都对我们进行报复。每一次胜利在第一步都确实取得了我们预期的结果，但是在第二和第三步都有了完全不同的、出乎预料的影响，它常常把第一个结果重新消除。”人类现在就已经走到了这样的十字路口。一方面是气候专家不断发出警告，明确指出如不减少化石能源使用量，气候变暖的趋势将不可扭转；另一方面，则是逐年增加的化石能源使用，而且随着发展中国家的工业化浪潮，增长势头越发猛烈。资本主义生产方式的逐利性决定了，发达国家不可能把清洁能源技术和节能减排技术无偿分享给发展中国家，部分发达国家如美国甚至带头否认气候问题，鼓励本国进一步开发化石能源。历史将会表明，人类的出路只能是社会主义。通过社会主义革命，消灭私有制带来的狭隘利润导向，在统一经济计划的指导下，有步骤的将人类的能源工业从化石能源转换为核能和水电、太阳能以及风能等其他可持续能源，解决即将威胁人类生存的气候危机。同时，摆脱化石能源也意味着，人类的工业文明取得更加稳定，更具持续性的能量来源，能源危机也随之解决。下面这篇文章指出的问题都是真实存在的，但是和很多生态主义者一样，在解决问题的方案上，排除了核能这一最具前景的稳定能量来源，因此不得不通过过限制发达工业国的经济增长，回归小农业等降低生产率的激进做法来实现能源生产消费模式的变革。这样的观点忽视了一点，那就是社会主义的生产力必须高于资本主义，人民群众的消费水平只能更高，不能更低。要达成这样的目标，人均能量消耗只能更高而不是更低。因此，如何辩证看到核能，恐怕是环保人士和社会主义者最需要严肃思考的问题之一。】

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

海洋上空形成的云层。图片来自美国国家公共电台的文章《希望研究气候工程的科学家们不要理会特朗普》。（Pixza/Getty 摄）

情况正在变遭。按照目前的全球碳排放速度，预计地球大气层的碳含量将在不到20年的时间内达到地球碳总量的万亿分之一1，这超过了《全球碳预算报告》的估算。高碳含量将带来危险的气候变化，这种气候变化很可能是不可逆转的，气候变化会影响未来几百年，甚至是未来几千年。即使整个世界立刻停止排放二氧化碳，大气中已经积累的碳含量使得气候变化必然会发生，会持续不断地对人类和地球上的全部生命造成破坏性影响。如果全球平均温度上升幅度达到2°C，再加上大气中碳浓度达到450 ppm的水平，全球气候会截然不同。届时，气候反馈机制将越来越多地发挥作用，有可能在本世纪内将全球平均温度提升至比工业化前高3°C或4°C的水平，现今的许多人都能在有生之年感受到这一变化。再加上其他温室气体，比如甲烷和一氧化二氮，情况会更严重。

快速的气候变化给整个人类带来了巨大危险。以白宫的唐纳德.特朗普为代表的资本主义政治经济结构对环境危机的无能为力，科学家们只好去追求使用技术修复环境问题。地球工程计划，就是指通过大规模，有计划的人为干预，控制地球的整个气候。

地球工程计划不仅有以比尔.盖茨和理查德.布兰森为代表的亿万富翁阶层的热情推动，环境保护基金和自然资源保护委员会等环境组织也支持它；突破研究所（突破研究所是一个位于加利福尼亚州奥克兰的环境研究中心，突破研究所“致力于为21世纪实现环境现代化”）和《气候准则红线：紧急行动案例》（《气候准则红线：紧急行动案例》是一本2008年的书，它提供了科学证据，证明全球变暖危机比官方报告和各国政府迄今为止所表明的要糟糕。该书认为，我们正面临着“可持续发展的紧急情况”，需要明确摆脱一切照旧的政治）等智囊团；埃克森美孚和壳牌等化石燃料公司；还有美国，英国，中国和俄罗斯政府都在积极推动它。联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）已将地球工程提出的负排放战略（采用生物能源与碳捕获和储存的方法，简称BECCS）纳入其几乎所有气候模型中。甚至一些政治左翼（其中“加速主义”在某些组织已经成为重要思想）已经不加批判地抓住了地球工程作为一种捍卫生态现代主义的经济和技术战略的方式，雅各宾杂志2017年夏季出版的特刊《地球，风和火》得到大量投稿就可以证明这一点。

气候学家詹姆斯·汉森3认为，如果想要地球大气避免450 ppm的碳浓度并且恢复到全新世（全新世是最年轻的地质年代，从11700年前开始。根据传统的地质学观点，全新世一直持续至今，但也有人提出工业革命后应该另分为人类世）350 ppm的碳浓度平均值，需要通过技术手段进行一些碳负排放，因此至少在有限的范围内进行地球工程是必要的。然而，与大多数人一样，汉森的战略仍然基于现行制度，排除了全面生态革命的可能性，即动员生产体系和消费体系相关的全部人口参与到生态革命中来。可以肯定的是，任何实施地球工程的尝试（即使采用碳去除技术方案）作为解决全球变暖的主导战略，如果它从属于资本积累，都将对人类造成致命伤害。这种行动的代价，它给后代带来的负担，以及对包括我们自己在内的生物物种的危害都是如此之大，以至于唯一合理的做法是长期的生态革命——尽可能减少二氧化碳和其他温室气体排放，重视农业生态学，恢复包括森林在内的全球生态系统，以吸收二氧化碳。4这需要伴随着广泛的社会重建，重建被资本主义兴起破坏的更高级的集体主义和平等主义的方式。

过时的化石能源资本政权下的地球工程计划

地球工程作为一种想法可以追溯到人类首次发现人类活动会导致气候快速变化的时期。从20世纪60年代初开始，苏联（也是当时世界上）领先的气候学家米哈伊尔·布迪科（Mikhail Budyko）率先就工业系统不断燃烧化石燃料将不可避免地加速全球气候变化发出了一系列警告。5虽然人类活动会导致气候快速变化早已得到认可，但重要的是布迪科新发现了气候反馈机制，例如北极冰川融化，如果冰川减少，冰川对太阳辐射的反射就会减少，地球吸收的太阳辐射量就会增加，全球平均温度会提高。1974年，布迪科提出，作为气候变化的可能解决方案，使用高空飞机将硫颗粒（形成硫酸盐气溶胶）释放到平流层。这是在模仿火山活动推动硫气进入大气层，从而形成局部屏障，限制进入地球的太阳辐射。布迪科认为，资本主义经济以资本积累为基础，尽管存在对气候的危险，但资本主义经济无法限制对能源的使用和排放。6因此，必须探索稳定气候的技术替代方案。直到1977年，意大利物理学家切萨雷·马尔凯蒂（Cesare Marchetti）提出了一项计划，捕获发电厂排放的二氧化碳，并使用管道将它们隔离在海洋深处，“地球工程”初具规模。7

布迪科开创性地提出使用硫颗粒来阻挡部分太阳光线的方法，现在被称为“平流层气溶胶注入”；以及马尔凯蒂早期提出的碳捕捉和封存的概念，分别代表地球工程的两种主要方法，太阳辐射管理（SRM）和二氧化碳去除（CDR）。太阳辐射管理旨在限制到达地球的太阳辐射数量。二氧化碳去除寻求方法捕获和去除以减少碳进入大气的量。

除了布迪科首先提出的“平流层气溶胶注入”方法外，近年来比较有影响力的另一种太阳辐射管理方法是“亮化海洋云层”。“亮化海洋云层”通过修改覆盖大约三分之一海洋的低空层积云，使它们更具反射性，来冷却地球。在理想情况下，一支由1,500艘无人卫星控制的船只组成的特殊舰队将在海洋中漫游，向空中喷洒亚微米级的海水，这些海水会蒸发掉，留下盐颗粒，这些明亮的盐粒可以反射入射的太阳辐射。它们还可以充当云凝结核（云凝结核，又称凝结核，是使水蒸气凝结为液态时，作为凝结核心的颗粒），增加云的表面积，从而可以反射更多的太阳辐射。

“平流层气溶胶注入”和“海洋云增亮”都被广泛批评会给气候变化本身带来巨大危害，都只能解决气候变化的表面症状而不是气候变化的原因。“平流层气溶胶注入”，通过软管，大炮，气球或飞机将气溶胶注入到平流层，将改变全球水文循环，产生巨大的不可预测的影响，可能导致地球主要地区的大规模干旱。令人担心的是，它可以终结印度季风系统，从而破坏满足多达20亿人口的农业生产。8人们还担心它可能会影响全球大部分地区的光合作用和农作物生产。9向大气中注入硫磺颗粒可能会导致臭氧层的消耗。10大部分注入的额外的硫会最终会回到地面上，形成酸雨。11最令人担忧的是，平流层气溶胶注入必须年复一年地重复进行。一旦终止，碳累积引起的温度升高几乎立刻会出现，世界温度可以在十年内上升2-3°C——这种现象被称为“终止问题”。12

与“平流层气溶胶注入”一样，“海洋云增亮”将以不可预测的方式极大地影响水文循环。 例如，它可能在亚马逊地区造成严重干旱，使世界上最重要的陆地生态系统干涸，对地球系统的稳定性产生无法估量和灾难性的影响。13“海洋云增亮”的许多危害与“平流层气溶胶注入”相似。与其他形式的太阳辐射管理相比，“海洋云增亮”不能阻止二氧化碳浓度增加引起的海洋酸化。

二氧化碳去除（CDR）的第一种能够有经济收益，可以吸引投资者重视的想法是用铁给海洋施肥。用铁给海洋施肥，从而促进浮游植物的生长，从而促进海洋吸收更多的碳。在这个领域已经进行了十几次实验，实验证明这一计划的实现仍然有许多困难。对浮游植物，浮游动物和许多其他海洋物种，一直到食物链顶端的鲸鱼的生态循环的影响是不确定的。虽然由于给海洋增加了铁，海洋的某些部分会变得更绿，但其他部分会变得更蓝，更缺乏生命，因为它们会被剥夺生长所必需的营养素——硝酸盐，磷和二氧化硅。14证据表明，海洋吸收的大部分碳将留在海洋的表面或中间，只有一小部分进入海洋深处，只有在海洋深处的碳才能被自然隔离。15

在各种二氧化碳去除（CDR）的模式中，生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS），因为它承诺实现碳负排放，所以获得了最多的支持。如果可以在几十年后从大气中清除碳，那么各国实现甚至超越气候目标指日可待。16虽然生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）目前主要作为未经实践的计算机模型存在，但它已经纳入联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）使用的几乎所有气候模型中。按照模型，生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）燃烧剩余农作物发电，然后捕获产生的二氧化碳，将之储存在地下。从理论上讲，由于植物作物具有“碳中性“——植物最终释放出来的二氧化碳都是从大气中吸收来的，生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）通过燃烧生物质，然后捕获和隔离产生的碳排放，不仅能够发电，同时也能减少大气中的碳含量。

然而，生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）在实践的过程中受到质疑。在联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）的规划中，平均需要从大气层中去除630亿吨二氧化碳，约占工业革命到2011年碳排放总量的三分之二，这需要由农业企业经营的大规模农作物种植园来提供农作物。17如果更加雄心勃勃地想从大气中去除万亿吨二氧化碳，需要占据印度国土面积（或等于澳大利亚）两倍的土地，大约是目前全球耕地面积的一半，来提供农作物；还需要供应目前全球农业总用量的淡水。气候学家詹姆斯·汉森（汉森曾批判地指出，碳负排放在联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）气候模型中“像癌症一样蔓延”）估算了按照理想情况实施生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）需要的成本，大约数百万亿美元；按照“最低估计”，本世纪需要投入高达570万亿美元。19如果将生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）作为主要机制，并且不改变现有的资本主义生产体系，生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）会导致大量的农民流离失所，全球粮食生产也会受到极大的影响。

因此，由于生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）对全球土地使用会产生较大影响，生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）模型提出的概念——大规模商业化农业生产是“碳中性”的，再加上碳封存就可以带来碳负排放——是夸张的甚至是错误的。生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）不考虑其他的土地使用方式，只希望能够在广阔的种植园中进行单一的农作物种植。然而，与单一农作物种植相比，生物多样性生态系统在土壤和生物质中的碳封存率要高得多。20可以替代生物能源与碳捕获和储存方法（BECCS）碳封存方法的另一种方法就是大规模恢复地球生态，包括重新造林，同时推广一种借鉴传统农业中的养分循环和高级的土壤管理方法的生态农业。21这可以避免农业企业单一农作物种植带来的代谢裂缝（译者注：“代谢裂缝”是马克思运用“新陈代谢”分析资本主义的劳动和资本积累的结果。所谓“新陈代谢”，在马克思那里，指的是自然和历史之间的物质和能量的一种新陈代谢的交换，这种交换是通过劳动实现的，劳动使人与自然之间形成了新陈代谢的交换关系，既保持了人对自然的能动性，又保持了人的活动与自然之间的平衡。人与自然之间的新陈代谢的交换，在资本主义条件下，是通过持续的资本积累完成的，因此，它是一种资本主义社会的新陈代谢。由于资本积累的需要，资本家不断地掠夺自然，也不断地破坏人与自然之间的平衡的新陈代谢，这就使人与自然之间的交换关系产生了“代谢裂缝”），而这种农业企业单一农作物种植在每公顷粮食产量和碳封存方面效率较低。

二氧化碳去除（CDR）的另一个通常提倡的技术，即碳捕获和封存（CCS）技术，并非严格意义上的地球工程，因为它旨在捕获和封存特定电厂（如燃煤电厂）的碳排放。然而，在全球范围内推广碳捕获和封存（CCS）的基础设施作为应对气候变化的手段——从而避免在生产领域和消费领域进行生态革命，由于其巨大的经济和生态规模，因此被视为地球工程的一种形式。虽然碳捕获和封存（CCS）理论上允许电厂燃烧化石燃料而不把碳排放到大气中，但碳捕获和封存（CCS）的规模和实现需要的成本令人望而却步。正如克莱夫·汉密尔顿在《地球之主：气候工程时代的黎明》中所写的那样，碳捕获和封存（CCS）用于单个“标准尺寸的1000兆瓦燃煤电厂......需要30公里长的吸气装置和占地面积约6平方公里的六个化工厂。”22能源专家瓦茨拉夫·斯米尔计算得出，“为了隔离目前（2010年）二氧化碳排放量的五分之一，我们必须创建一个全新的遍布全球的吸收-收集-压缩-运输-存储行业，其年度吞吐量必须超过当前全球原油行业年产量的70%，而全球原油行业的井，管道，压缩机站和储存需要的巨大基础设施是依靠几代人才建成的。”23捕获和封存当前的美国二氧化碳排放量每年需要1300亿吨水，相当于哥伦比亚河年流量的一半左右。这个新的巨大基础设施将放在目前的化石燃料基础设施之上——所有这些都是为了继续燃烧化石燃料。24

人类世时期地球生态危机的预防原则

如果地球生态危机是地球上持续几个世纪的资本战争积累的产物，那么化石资本体系衍生出的地球工程计划则可以被视为为了维持资本主义的运转，将这场战争推向终章的庞大项目。在现有的资本主义制度下进行地球工程的唯一目的是保持现状不变——既不扰乱占主导的资本主义生产关系，也不寻求推翻与资本密切相关的化石燃料工业。因此，世界上欠发达地区的利润，产量和克服能源贫困成为维持现有化石资本体系，并不惜一切代价维持现有资本主义政权的理由。埃克森美孚公司首席执行官雷克斯·蒂勒森（Rex Tillerson）在2013年的年度股东大会上提出了一个问题——没有任何讽刺意味，“如果人类受到影响，拯救地球有什么用？”25

生态危机的整个历史导致了当前地球的紧急情况，其中包括许多灾难——从几乎完全破坏的臭氧层，到富营养化和海洋死区的扩散，到气候变化本身；生态危机的历史也警告我们任何与在整个星球上策划工程相关的尝试都足够愚蠢。地球生态系统的复杂性意味着任何微小的改动都可能产生巨大的不可预见的后果。正如弗里德里希·恩格斯在十九世纪所警告的那样，“我们不要过分陶醉于我们人类对自然界的胜利。对于每一次这样的胜利，自然都会报复我们。事实上，每一场胜利，首先都会带来我们预期的结果，但在第二和第三的位置，它会产生截然不同的，无法预料的影响，这些影响往往会取消第一场胜利。”26

不确定性，加上极大可能对地球生态系统造成无法估量的伤害，每当提出地球工程问题时，必须引用众所周知的预防原则（预防原则指凡有活动或政策对公众或环境有不可回复的损害威胁时，不得以缺乏充分的科学证据为由，推迟符合成本效益的预防措施。旨在防止环境恶化，而非回复或减轻灾害）。正如生态经济学家保罗•伯克特（Paul Burkett）所解释的那样，有效的预防原则必然包含以下内容：

（1）谨慎预防原则，如果某项行动可能造成严重损害，则有理由采取措施确保不采取行动。

（2）举证责任原则，支持行动的人有责任表明该行动不会造成严重损害，从而将举证责任转移到行动可能造成的损害（例如对一般人口和占领环境的其他物种造成的危害）。简而言之，需要证明安全而非潜在危害。

（3）替代评估原则，如果有可行的替代行动可以安全地实现与拟议行动相同的目标，则不会采取任何可能有害的行动。

（4）所有关于原则1到原则3的应用，必须开展公开的，透明的，民主的，包括所有受影响各方的社会讨论。27

很明显，在资本主义最大化积累制度的背景下推动的地球工程计划将完全被基于上述每个标准的有效预防原则排除。几乎所有主要的地球工程计划都会对整个人类造成极大的破坏。让资本主义地球工程的现状支持者承担责任，让他们证明地球工程计划不会对作为人类居住地的地球造成巨大伤害，否则这些提议将无法通过。由于不燃烧化石燃料和促进替代能源形式的替代方案是完全可行的，而地球工程对整个生态系统带来了巨大的危险，这种技术作为控制全球变暖的主要手段也将被排除在外。最后，目前的经济和社会制度下的地球工程总是不变地仅涉及权力机构的某些单位——一个亿万富翁，一个公司，一个政府或一个国际组织，由他们代表整个人类实施这种表面上的行动，而把世界上大多数受影响的政党排除在决策过程之外；有数亿人，也许是数十亿人在支付环境成本，往往付出生命地代价。总的来说，地球工程，特别是如果从属于资本积累过程，违反了神圣的预防原则，古人曾经说过，首先不要伤害他人。

生态革命是唯一的选择

作为当前地球战争的延伸，旨在维持现有生产方式的气候地球工程计划与巴瑞·科蒙纳在1992年著的《与地球和平相处》所阐述的观点形成鲜明对比，他写道：“如果环境受到污染，经济萧条，导致这两者的病毒将在生产系统中找到。”28毫无疑问，现在的生产方式，特别是化石资本系统，需要在全球范围内改变。为了阻止气候变化，世界经济必须迅速转向零二氧化碳排放量。人类社会一致努力，利用已有的可持续技术手段，社会组织形式做出必要改变，减少当前原子化的生产体系产生的巨大的资源浪费和生命浪费，零二氧化碳排放量这个目标是可以实现的。这些变化不能简单地由精英从高层实施，而是需要人民的自我动员，受到青年旨在实现平等，生态，集体化和社会化的革命行动的启发——认识到他们将要继承的这个世界危在旦夕。

今天的生态革命必须包括以下内容：(1)暂停富裕国家的经济增长，同时将收入和财富向下重新分配；(2)迅速减少温室气体的排放；(3)快速逐步淘汰整个化石燃料能源结构；(4)建设可持续替代能源的基础设施，如太阳能和风能，由当地进行控制；(5)大规模削减军费开支，释放经济盈余用于生态转型；(6)推广循环经济和零废物系统，减少能源和资源的吞吐量；(7) 建立有效的公共交通，同时采取措施减少对私人汽车的依赖；(8)恢复全球生态系统，与地方居民包括土著达成一致；(9) 将有破坏性、能源密集、使用大量化学药品、单一农作物生产的农业综合企业转变为生态农场，以可持续小农场和农民种植为基础，提高每英亩粮食产量；(10)有效控制有毒化学品的排放；(11)禁止淡水资源私有化；(12)对公共海洋（公共海洋指的是国家管辖范围以外的海洋区域，不受任何国家管理）进行强有力的，以人为本的，可持续发展的管理；(13)制定保护濒危物种的有效的新措施；(14) 严格限制公司过分的和破坏性的消费主义市场营销行为；(15)重组生产，以打破目前贪婪成性的商品链和“我死后，哪怕洪水滔天”的哲学；(16)发展更合理，更公平，更少浪费，更有集体主义精神的生产方式。29

在这种生态革命中，需要优先考虑以最快的速度消除化石燃料的排放，但这反过来要求人类与地球的关系以及人与人之间的关系发生根本性的变化。我们必须重点关注可持续的人类发展，在社会中建立一种新陈代谢可再生产的有机系统。几个世纪的剥削和征用，基于阶级，性别，种族和民族的分裂，都必须得到超越。因此，当前条件所构成的历史逻辑指出了长期生态革命的必要性，建立一个新的可持续人类发展系统，满足人类作为自然和社会存在的全部需求：即生态社会主义。

注释：

http://trillionthtonne.org,accessed June 3, 2018. Note that the trillionth metric ton here refers to      cumulative carbon (not carbon dioxide).

Jacobin,  vol. 26 (2017).

James Hansen et al., “Young People’s Burden: Requirements of Negative CO2Emissions,” Earth      System Dynamics 8 (2017): 577–616; James Hansen et. al., “Young      People’s Burden: Requirements of Negative CO2 Emissions,” July 18,      2017, http://columbia.edu.

See John      Bellamy Foster, “The      Long Ecological Revolution,” Monthly Review 69, no. 6      (November 2017): 1–16.

Spencer Weart, “Interview with M. I. Budyko: Oral History Transcript,” March 25, 1990,      http://aip.org, The Discovery of Global Warming (Cambridge,  MA: Harvard University Press, 2003): 85–88; Climate and Life (New      York: Academic, 1974), 485; M. I. Budyko and Y. A. Izrael, ed., Anthropogenic      Climate Change (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1991), 1–6;      Blue Planet Prize, “The      Laureates: Mikhail I. Budyko (1998),” http://af-info.or.jp; John      Bellamy Foster, “Late      Soviet Ecology and the Planetary Crisis,” Monthly Review 67,      no. 2 (June 2015): 7–10.

M. I.      Budyko, Climatic Changes (Washington, D.C.: American      Geophysical Union, 1977), 235–36, 239–46; Foster, “Late Soviet Ecology,”      11.

Oliver      Morton, The Planet Remade (Princeton: Princeton University      Press, 2016), 137–38.

Alan      Robock, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, “Regional Climate Responses      to Geoengineering with Tropical and Arctic SO2 Injections,” Journal      of Geophysical Research 113 (2008): D16101; Alan Robock, “20      Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea,” Bulletin of Atomic      Scientists 64, no. 2 (2008): 15; Clive Hamilton, Earthmasters (New      Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 64.

Robock,      “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea,” 16.

Ibid.

Michael      E. Mann and Tom Toles, The Madhouse Effect (New York:      Columbia University Press, 2016): 123; Robock, “20 Reasons Why      Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea,” 16.

Hamilton, Earthmasters,      65–67; Robock, “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea,” 17; Daisy Dunne, “Six      Ideas to Limit Global Warming with Solar Geoengineering,” Carbon      Brief, May 9, 2018, http://carbonbrief.org.

Hamilton, Earthmasters,      52–55; Carbon Brief, “Six Ideas.”

Hugh      Powell, “Fertilizing      the Ocean with Iron,” Oceanus 46, no. 1 (2008),      http://whoi.edu; Hamilton, Earthmasters, 27–35.

Powell,      “Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron”; Hamilton, Earthmasters, 35.

Abby      Rabinowitz and Amanda Simson, “The      Dirty Secret of the World’s Plan to Avert Climate Disaster,” Wired,      December 10, 2017.

Rabinowitz and Simson, “The Dirty Secret of the World’s Plan to Avert Climate Disaster.”

Julia Rosen, “Vast Bioenergy Plantations Could Stave Off Climate Change—and Radically Reshape the Planet,” Science, February 15, 2018; Rabinowiz and Simson, “The Dirty Secret of the World’s Plan to Avert Climate Disaster”; ETC      Group, Biofuel Watch, Heinrich Böll Stiftung, The      Big Bad Fix: The Case Against Climate Geoengineering (2017),      22, http:// boell.de.

Hansen et al., “Young People’s Burden.”

ETC Group, Biofuel Watch, Heinrich Böll Stiftung, The Big Bad Fix,      20–22; Michael Friedman, “Why      Geoengineering Is Not a Remedy for the Climate Crisis,” MR Online, May      22, 2018, http://mronline.org.

Friedman,      “Why Geoengineering Is Not a Remedy for the Climate Crisis.”

Hamilton, Earthmasters,      47–50.

Vaclav      Smil, “Global      Energy: The Latest Infatuations,” American Scientist 99      (2011), http:// americanscientist.org. See also Jeff Goodell, “Coal’s New Technology,” Yale Environment 360, July 14, 2008,      http://e360.yale.edu.

Andy Skuce, “‘We’d Have to Finish One New Facility Every Working Day for the Next 70      Years’—Why Carbon Capture Is No Panacea,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 4, 2016), http://thebulletin.org.

Tillerson quoted in Michael Babad, “Exxon Mobil CEO: ‘What Good Is It to Save the Planet if Humanity Suffers?’” Globe and Mail, May 30, 2017      (updated June 19, 2017).

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 25 (New York:International Publishers, 1987), 460–61.

Paul      Burkett, “On Eco-Revolutionary Prudence: Capitalism, Communism, and the      Precautionary Principle,” Socialism and Democracy 30, no.  2 (2016): 87.

Barry      Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet (New York: New      Press, 1992), ix.

See ETC      Group, Biofuel Watch, Heinrich Böll Stiftung, The Big Bad Fix, 10.  2018, Volume 70, Issue 04 (September 2018)

【约翰·贝拉米·福斯特是俄勒冈大学的社会学教授，也是《每月评论》的一名编辑。这篇文章曾于2018年7月24日在《科学为人民》网站和《每月评论》网站上发表过，现在做了略微的修订。它是为《科学为人民》2018年夏季的地球工程特刊而发表的，特刊标志了该杂志的重新开办。译者：栀。本文原载微信公众号“无产者译丛”，授权察网发布】

焦典

生态环境部：“十三五”污染防治攻坚战阶段性目标全面圆满超额完成
来源：央视网
2021-08-18 22:02

央视网消息 ：8月18日，国新办举行建设人与自然和谐共生的美丽中国发布会。

生态环境部部长黄润秋会上介绍，“十三五”规划纲要确定的九项生态环境约束性指标和污染防治攻坚战的阶段性目标全面圆满超额完成，生态环境明显改善，厚植了全面建成小康社会的绿色底色和质量成色。

在大气环境质量方面，2020年全国地级及以上城市优良天数比例达到了87%，比2015年增长了5.8个百分点，超过“十三五”目标2.5个百分点。PM2.5，也就是细颗粒物未达标地级及以上城市平均浓度达到了37微克/立方米，比2015年下降了28.8%，也超过“十三五”目标10.8个百分点。

在水环境质量方面，全国地表水优良水体比例由2015年的66%提高到了2020年的83.4%，超过“十三五”目标13.4个百分点；劣V类水体比例由2015年的9.7%下降到了2020年的0.6%，超过“十三五”目标4.4个百分点。

在土壤环境质量方面，全国受污染耕地安全利用率和污染地块安全利用率双双超过90%，顺利实现了“十三五”目标。在生态环境状况方面，全国森林覆盖率2020年达到了23.04%，自然保护区以及各类自然保护地面积占到陆域国土面积的18%。

另外，在应对气候变化碳减排方面，2020年单位GDP二氧化碳排放比2015年下降了18.8%，也顺利完成了“十三五”目标任务。

生态环境部部长黄润秋表示，今年上半年，全国生态环境状况仍呈持续改善态势。PM2.5平均浓度同比下降2.9%，优良水体比例同比增长了1.1个百分点。

焦典

央视网消息： 国新办今天（8月18日）上午举行新闻发布会，生态环境部介绍，“十三五”规划纲要确定的9项生态环境约束性指标和污染防治攻坚战阶段性目标任务圆满完成。

上半年，全国生态环境质量总体持续改善，全国PM2.5平均浓度同比下降2.9%；地表水优良水质断面比例同比上升1.1个百分点，劣V类水体比例同比下降0.7个百分点。此外，我国对9.5亿千瓦的燃煤发电机组进行了改造，已建成全世界最大的清洁发电体系。在生态系统状况方面，森林覆盖率达到23.04%

焦典

自然资源部：我国生态建设取得积极成效 10年间林地、湿地河流水面等地类合计增加2.6亿亩

来源：央视网

2021-08-26 19:41

央视网消息： 今天（8月26日）上午，自然资源部召开新闻发布会，公布第三次全国国土调查主要数据成果。三调全面查清了我国国土利用状况，建立了覆盖国家、省、地、县四级的国土调查数据库。

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

数据显示，我国耕地面积19.179亿亩，园地3亿亩，林地42.6亿亩，草地39.67亿亩，湿地3.5亿亩，建设用地6.13亿亩。数据还显示，10年间，生态功能较强的林地、草地、湿地河流水面、湖泊水面等地类合计增加了2.6亿亩，可以看出我国生态建设取得积极成效。

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

全国第三次国土调查是一次重大国情国力调查，也是国家制定经济社会发展重大战略规划、重要政策举措的基本依据。

焦典

2021年我国共完成造林种草666.67万公顷
来源：新华社
2022-03-12 10:50
新华社北京3月11日电（记者胡璐）3月12日是我国第44个植树节。全国绿化委员会办公室11日发布《2021年中国国土绿化状况公报》显示，全国完成造林360万公顷，种草改良草原306.67万公顷，治理沙化、石漠化土地144万公顷。

重点生态工程深入实施。完成天然林抚育113.33万公顷，退耕还林、退耕还草分别完成38.08万公顷和2.39万公顷，长江、珠江、沿海、太行山等重点防护林工程完成造林34.26万公顷，三北工程完成造林89.59万公顷，京津风沙源治理工程完成造林21.25万公顷，完成石漠化综合治理33万公顷，建设国家储备林40.53万公顷。开展森林质量精准提升，完成退化林修复93.33万公顷。新增水土流失治理面积6.2万平方公里。

草原和湿地保护修复切实加强。开展草原生态修复156.26万公顷。新增和修复退化湿地7.27万公顷。荒漠化防治稳步推进，在7省区开展荒漠生态保护补偿试点。

森林草原资源保护管理全面加强，全国森林火灾次数、受害森林面积、受害草原面积均呈下降趋势。全国松材线虫病疫情防控成效初步显现，扩散趋势有所放缓。全国林业、草原有害生物防治面积分别达966.67万公顷、1373.33万公顷。

同时，绿色富民产业发展取得新成效。全国经济林面积保持在4000万公顷以上，完成油茶林新造改造25.13万公顷。生态旅游游客量达20.93亿人次，同比增长超过12%。