含有〈生态〉标签的文章(15)

禹河故道

【2016-01-19】

@大象公会 【为什么南方多江,北方多河?】为什么中国河流南方多称为“江”,北方多称为“河”?“江”、“河”又如何从长江黄河的专称泛化为一般河流通名?移民又是如何改变“江”、“河”的分布的?作者:@Serpens 、@qqflyaway_PKU

@whigzhou: 好文,不过,“上古时期,黄河中上游植被条件尚好,泥沙含量较少,下游地区尚能保持比较稳定的河道。……黄河有文字记载的第一次大决口在周定王五年(公元前 602 年),此前黄河自(more...)

标签: | |
7021
【2016-01-19】 @大象公会 【为什么南方多江,北方多河?】为什么中国河流南方多称为“江”,北方多称为“河”?“江”、“河”又如何从长江黄河的专称泛化为一般河流通名?移民又是如何改变“江”、“河”的分布的?作者:@Serpens 、@qqflyaway_PKU @whigzhou: 好文,不过,“上古时期,黄河中上游植被条件尚好,泥沙含量较少,下游地区尚能保持比较稳定的河道。……黄河有文字记载的第一次大决口在周定王五年(公元前 602 年),此前黄河自大禹治水后一直安稳的流淌在“禹河故道”中。”——这一判断依我看不大可能成立。 @whigzhou: 更可能的情况是:上古黄河根本没有形成稳定的河道和明确的主干流,定王五年的决口之所以成为史载之首次,并不能证明此前河道稳定,更可能只是:1)此前没有主干道因而无所谓大决口,2)此前不存在将此类事件记录下来的制度/文化条件 @whigzhou: 大江河的冲积平原和三角洲,在经历长期农业开发之前,通常不会是一条主干流入海,更可能是漫流入大片大片的沼泽地,其中呈树根状分布着大量较小的入海水道,随着农业开发不断持续,入海水道才被逐渐约束到越来越少的干流中,沼泽也逐渐被排干,这一过程在珠江三角洲至今尚未完成。 @whigzhou: 上古黄河水系和华北平原处于何种状况,从古代城邑的分布也可看出端倪,华北平原的古城绝大部分沿太行山东麓、燕山南麓和山东丘陵北麓分布,在以安阳-廊坊-东营为顶点构成的三角形里,几乎没有古城邑  
[译文]二氧化碳的益处

The benefits of carbon dioxide
二氧化碳的益处

作者:Matt Ridley @ 2015-10-20
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:淡蓝
来源:作者个人博客,http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-benefits-of-carbon-dioxide/

Global greening may save more lives and forests than warming costs

比起变暖之害,全球绿化有可能拯救更多生命和森林。

My Times Column on the surprisingly large benefits of carbon dioxide emissions:

我在的《泰晤士报》上的专栏分析了二氧化碳排放所带来的令人震惊的巨大好处:

France’s leading television weather forecaster, Philippe Verdier, was taken off air last week for writing that there are “positive consequences” of climate change. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of mathematical physics and astrophysics at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, declared last week that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are “enormously beneficial”. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, said in a lecture last week that we should “celebrate carbon dioxide”.

Philippe Verdier,法国电视天气预报员中的佼佼者,因写到气候变化具有“积极效应”而于上周被调离播报岗位。Freeman Dyson,普林斯顿大学高等研究院数学物理学和天体物理学荣休教授,上周称,二氧化碳的非气候影响“极为有益”。Patrick Moore,绿色和平组织创始人之一,在上周的一次讲座中说,我们应该“为二氧化碳而欢庆”。

Are these three prominent but very different people right? Should we at least consider seriously, before we go into a massive international negotiation based on the assumption that carbon dioxide is bad, whether we might be mistaken? Most politicians today consider such a view to be so beyond the pale as to be mad or possibly criminal.

这三位杰出而各不相同的人物说的对吗?基于二氧化碳有害的假设而展开大规模国际谈判之前,我们至少应该严肃地思考一下,有没有可能我们是错的?今天,大多数政客都将这视作无比出格、近乎疯狂,甚或是有罪的观点。

Yet the benefits of carbon dioxide emissions are not even controversial in scientific circles. As Richard Betts of the Met Office tweeted last week, the “CO2 fertilisation effect” — the fact that rising emissions are making plants grow better — is not news and is discussed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

然而,在科学圈里,二氧化碳排放的好处连“颇可争议”都谈不上。正如英国气象局的Richard Betts上周的一条推文所说的那样,“CO2的施肥效应”——即逐渐增加的排放量使得植物生长得更好——并不是新闻,而且曾在政府间气候变化专门委员会的报告中得到讨论。

The satellite data show that there has been roughly a 14 per cent increase in the amount of green vegetation on the planet since 1982, that this has happened in all ecosystems, but especially in arid tropical areas, and that it is in large part due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

卫星数据显示,自1982年以来,地球上的绿色植被总量大约增长了14%。这种增长出现于所有生态系统中,但在干旱的热带地区最明显。并且,大部分增长主要源于人为的二氧化碳排放。

Last week also saw the publication of a comprehensive report on “Carbon Dioxide — the Good News”(more...)

标签: | |
6704
The benefits of carbon dioxide 二氧化碳的益处 作者:Matt Ridley @ 2015-10-20 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:淡蓝 来源:作者个人博客,http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-benefits-of-carbon-dioxide/ Global greening may save more lives and forests than warming costs 比起变暖之害,全球绿化有可能拯救更多生命和森林。 My Times Column on the surprisingly large benefits of carbon dioxide emissions: 我在的《泰晤士报》上的专栏分析了二氧化碳排放所带来的令人震惊的巨大好处: France’s leading television weather forecaster, Philippe Verdier, was taken off air last week for writing that there are “positive consequences” of climate change. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of mathematical physics and astrophysics at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, declared last week that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are “enormously beneficial”. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, said in a lecture last week that we should “celebrate carbon dioxide”. Philippe Verdier,法国电视天气预报员中的佼佼者,因写到气候变化具有“积极效应”而于上周被调离播报岗位。Freeman Dyson,普林斯顿大学高等研究院数学物理学和天体物理学荣休教授,上周称,二氧化碳的非气候影响“极为有益”。Patrick Moore,绿色和平组织创始人之一,在上周的一次讲座中说,我们应该“为二氧化碳而欢庆”。 Are these three prominent but very different people right? Should we at least consider seriously, before we go into a massive international negotiation based on the assumption that carbon dioxide is bad, whether we might be mistaken? Most politicians today consider such a view to be so beyond the pale as to be mad or possibly criminal. 这三位杰出而各不相同的人物说的对吗?基于二氧化碳有害的假设而展开大规模国际谈判之前,我们至少应该严肃地思考一下,有没有可能我们是错的?今天,大多数政客都将这视作无比出格、近乎疯狂,甚或是有罪的观点。 Yet the benefits of carbon dioxide emissions are not even controversial in scientific circles. As Richard Betts of the Met Office tweeted last week, the “CO2 fertilisation effect” — the fact that rising emissions are making plants grow better — is not news and is discussed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 然而,在科学圈里,二氧化碳排放的好处连“颇可争议”都谈不上。正如英国气象局的Richard Betts上周的一条推文所说的那样,“CO2的施肥效应”——即逐渐增加的排放量使得植物生长得更好——并不是新闻,而且曾在政府间气候变化专门委员会的报告中得到讨论。 The satellite data show that there has been roughly a 14 per cent increase in the amount of green vegetation on the planet since 1982, that this has happened in all ecosystems, but especially in arid tropical areas, and that it is in large part due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions. 卫星数据显示,自1982年以来,地球上的绿色植被总量大约增长了14%。这种增长出现于所有生态系统中,但在干旱的热带地区最明显。并且,大部分增长主要源于人为的二氧化碳排放。 Last week also saw the publication of a comprehensive report on “Carbon Dioxide — the Good News” for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by the independent American scientist Indur Goklany, to which Freeman Dyson wrote the foreword. The report was thoroughly peer-reviewed, as was almost all of the voluminous literature it cited. (Full disclosure: I helped edit the report.) 上周,更有一份关于“二氧化碳——大好消息”的很全面的报告出炉,这是由美国独立科学家Indur Goklany向全球变暖政策基金会(GWPF)提供的,并由Freeman Dyson作序。该报告经过了充分的同行评议,报告所引用的巨量文献也几乎全都如此。(大曝光:我参与编辑了该报告。) 11 Goklany points out that whereas the benefits of carbon dioxide are huge and here now, the harms are still speculative and almost all in the distant future. There has so far been — as the IPCC confirms — no measurable increase in droughts, floods or storms worldwide, no reversal in the continuing rapid decline in deaths due to insect-borne diseases, and no measurable impacts of the continuing very slow rise in global sea levels. Goklany指出,二氧化碳的好处不但巨大,而且就在眼前,其害处则仍是推测性的,且几乎全部都只会出现于遥远的未来。迄今为止——如政府间气候变化专门委员所确认的——世界范围内的干旱、洪涝或暴雨并未出现可衡量的增加,虫媒传染病致死病例持续快速减少的现象并未逆转,全球海平面极为缓慢的持续上升也并没有产生可衡量的影响。 In stark terms, Bangladesh is still gaining land from sedimentation in its rivers’ deltas, has suffered no increase in cyclones, but has benefited from reduced malnourishment to the tune of billions of dollars from higher crop yields as a result of carbon dioxide emissions. 粗暴点说,孟加拉国现在仍然不断从其河流三角洲的沉积中获得土地,并未因大气气旋增加而备受折磨,却得益于因价值数十亿美元的粮食增收所带来的营养不良减少,而这正是二氧化碳排放的结果。
[This is the summary from Goklany's report: [以下为Goklany报告的总结: 1. This paper addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall. 1. 本论文讨论了升高的二氧化碳浓度 是否以及多大程度上,以刺激植物生长、暖化地球、增加雨量的方式,使生物圈和人类受益。 2. Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels. 2. 经验数据确认,生物圈的生产率自1982年以来已增加了大约14%,大部分是二氧化碳水平持续上升的结果。 3. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields. 3. 数千项科学实验表明,提升大气中二氧化碳浓度,促进了农作物收成增加。 4. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild. 4. 上述收成的增加非常有可能使得用于耕作的土地数量相对于产量未增长时数量减少了11-17%,导致有更多土地被抛荒。 5. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types. 5. 卫星证据确认,持续提升二氧化碳的浓度也在所有植被类型的野生陆地生态系统中导致了生产率提高。 6. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems. 6. 持续提升的二氧化碳浓度也增加了许多海洋生态系统的生产率。 7. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environ- mental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming. 7. 最近数十年,人类和环境健康方面的气候敏感指数的变化趋势已经且持续改善,尽管有人宣称它们将会因全球变暖而出现恶化。 8. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors. 8. 与它在农作物和生物圈生产率上所带来的好处相比,二氧化碳的负面影响——在极端天气发生的频率和强度上,在海平面高度上,在传染病流行与人类健康上——实在太小以至难以测量,或被其他因素所抵消。 9. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms. 9. 用于影响气候变化政策的那些模型高估了变暖的速度,低估了二氧化碳的直接好处,高估了气候变化的害处,低估了人类适应变化从而抓住好处同时减少害处的能力。 10. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.] 10. 极有可能的是,对于人类乃至整个生物圈,二氧化碳浓度持续上升的影响时下大体上是一种净收益。这些好处真实可见,而暖化的代价则并不确定。若二氧化碳浓度上升戛然而止,当然可能减少暖化成本,但与此相比,也会更快地剥夺人类和地球自二氧化碳获得的诸多益处。]
It is worth remembering that commercial greenhouses buy carbon dioxide to enhance the growth of plants, so the growth responses are well known — and it’s not until carbon dioxide reaches five times current concentrations that the benefits level out. As Patrick Moore pointed out, those were normal levels for much of earth’s history. 我们最好记住这样一个事实,商业温室会购买二氧化碳来促进植物生长,所以生长率对二氧化碳的这种反应是众所周知的——并且,也不是只有当二氧化碳浓度到了当前水平的5倍时这种益处才显现出来。如Patrick Moore指出,足以促进生长的浓度,只须地球历史上多数时候的正常水平。 In addition, hundreds of “free-air concentration experiments” have measured how much increased carbon dioxide levels enhance crop yields in open fields. So it is fairly easy to work out how much carbon dioxide emissions are helping world agriculture: by about $140 billion a year, or $3 trillion in total so far. If reparations are to be paid, perhaps farmers should pay coal producers (full disclosure: I’m both). 此外,数百项“自由空气浓度试验”已经对大气二氧化碳水平提高多少会增加开旷地上作物产量进行了测量。所以要回答“二氧化碳排放对世界农业发挥了多大促进作用”这个问题就相当容易了:增产价值约每年1400亿美元,或迄今总计3万亿美元。如果说真要支付赔款,说不定农户还应该向煤炭生产商交钱呢(大曝光:我两种身份都有【编注:作者身为第5代Ridley子爵,拥有Northumberland郡的Blagdon庄园产业,该地产上有农地,也有两座煤矿,Ridley家族从中获取地租。】)。 Actually, this may be an underestimate: experiments show that crops tend to benefit more than weeds (most crops have a more responsive kind of photosynthetic machinery called C3, while weeds mostly have a less responsive kind called C4). 事实上,这还可能是种低估:有实验显示,农作物通常比杂草受益更多(绝大多数农作物都具备一种反应更敏捷的光合作用机制,叫做C3,而杂草的光合作用机制绝大部分是C4,后者反应敏捷度较低)。 Increased carbon dioxide enhances drought resistance in plants, benefiting dry regions such as the Sahel, which has greened significantly in recent decades. And Goklany calculates that we need 11-17 per cent less land for feeding the world than we would if we had not increased carbon dioxide levels: so emissions have saved — and enhanced the growth of — a lot of rainforest. 增加二氧化碳会加强植物的抗旱性,使干旱地区受益,如萨赫勒地区最近数十年已显著变绿。并且据Goklany计算,和二氧化碳水平上升前相比,现在养活全世界所需的土地数量可以少11-17%:也可以说,二氧化碳排放拯救了大量热带雨林——而且也促进了其生长。
[Here's one weed experiment, as described in Goklany's report: [以下为Goklany报告中描述的一项杂草实验: "A Chinese experiment tested this idea by enriching carbon dioxide levels over plots of rice to almost twice the ambient level. This enhanced the ear weight of the rice by 37.6% while reducing the growth of a common weed, barnyard grass, by 47.9%, because the faster-growing rice shaded the weeds. Figure 1 illustrates the differing responses to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations of rice, a C3 plant, and the green foxtail Setaria viridis, a grass some- times proposed as a genetic model system to study C4 photosynthesis."] “一项中国实验检测这个想法,通过在稻田上富集近两倍于周边水平的二氧化碳,将稻穗重量增加了37.6%,同时将稗子(一种普通杂草)的生长抑制了47.9%,因为快速生长的水稻遮挡了杂草。图1显示了不同植物对二氧化碳浓度提高的不同反应,水稻,一种C3植物,另一个则是狗尾草,后者常被当做C4光合作用研究的模式生物。”] [For instance a study published last week found the following: [比如,上周发表的一项研究有如下发现: Since 2012, the researchers have pumped extra CO2 into three of six basketball court-sized rings of 80-year-old bush. This has raised the CO2 concentration in the three plots to about 550 parts per million, up from the ambient level of 400 ppm. Measurements revealed that for each unit of water absorbed, the trees in the CO2-enriched rings reaped 35 per cent more carbon than the trees in the control plots.] 自2012年以来,在六块篮球场大小的、生长着80岁树龄灌木丛的环形地块上,研究者在其中三个地块灌注了超量的CO2,这三个地块的CO2浓度提升到了550ppm,而环境水平为400ppm。测量显示,针对每一吸水单位,富含CO2 的地块的林木所获得的碳量比控制地块要多出35%。]
Well, all right, but surely the climate harms will one day outweigh the growth benefits? Not necessarily. 好吧,就算是这样,但总有一天气候危害肯定会超过生长之利吗?未必。 At the moment, impacts from the modest warming we saw in the 1980s and 1990s are also positive: slightly fewer premature deaths, which peak in cold weather more than in hot weather, slightly longer growing seasons and so on. 目前看来,我们从1980年代和1990年代的最温和的变暖中所看到的影响是正面的:早逝数量稍有减少(早逝通常在天气寒冷时达到峰值,比在炎热时严重),生长季节稍有延长,等等。 A paper published last week concludes that if the world does warm significantly, China’s rain systems will shift north, increasing rainfall in the dry north and reducing flooding in the hot south. 而上周发布的一项报告得出的结论是,如果全球确实大幅变暖,那中国的降雨系统将会北移,北部干旱地区的雨量会持续增加,南方炎热地区的洪涝将持续减少。 Besides, human adaptation means we can capture the benefits and avoid the harms. The IPCC’s forecast warming range includes the possibility that we will still be enjoying net benefits by the end of the century, when the world will (it says) be three to 16 times richer per capita. The fastest way to cut deaths from bad weather today (such as the storm that just battered the Philippines) is to make people richer, not to make weather safer: we have already cut world death rates from droughts, floods and storms by 98 per cent in the past century. 此外,人类的适应能力意味着我们能够抓住好处,同时规避危害。IPCC预测的变暖范围中,便包含了我们在本世纪末仍能享受变暖净收益的可能性,那时全世界人均富裕程度将是目前的3-16倍(报告如是说)。今天,要减少因恶劣天气(如刚刚袭击菲律宾的暴风雨)致死数量的最快方法是让人们变得更加富裕,而不是使天气更安全:过去一个世纪中,我们已将因干旱、洪涝和暴风雨的世界死亡率降低了98%。 As Goklany demonstrates, the assessments used by policy makers have overestimated warming so far, underestimated the direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change, and underestimated the human capacity to adapt. 如Goklany所论证的,迄今政策制定者所用那些评估高估了变暖,低估了二氧化碳的直接好处,高估了气候变化的危害,低估了人类调整适应的能力。 Well, what about the ocean? Here too there’s good news. More carbon dioxide means faster growth rates of photosynthesisers in the sea as well as on land, an effect that is being observed in algae, eelgrasses, corals and especially plankton, such as the abundant creatures known as coccolithophores, whose biomass has increased by 40 per cent in the last two centuries. 好吧,那海洋呢?这里也有好消息。更多的二氧化碳,意味着海中能进行光合作用的生物生长速度也会更快,和陆上的一样,这一效应已在海藻、鳗草、珊瑚,特别是浮游生物(比如颗石藻这种数量巨多的生物)身上观察到,颗石藻的生物量过去20个世纪以来已增长了40%。
[This is what the authors said about coccolithophores: [作者们如此提到颗石藻: "Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate."] “我们在此展示的实验室证据表明,由于更高的CO2分压,使得颗石藻物种的郝氏颗石藻的钙化和净初级生产量显著增加。采自深海的野外探查证据也与这种实验室结论一致,它们指明过去220年间,颗石藻种群的重量平均有40%的增长。我们的发现表明,颗石藻已经并且可能继续对持续上升的大气中CO2分压做出反应,这对未来的海洋和气候的生物地球化学建模具有重要含义。”]
That’s not to say coral reefs and fisheries are not in trouble — they are, but because of pollution, overfishing and run-off, not carbon dioxide. The tiny reduction in alkalinity (misleadingly termed “acidification”) caused by dissolved carbon dioxide is potentially negative in the distant future, but has been much exaggerated — as a big review of 372 studies has concluded. One recent experiment with a common Caribbean coral found that rising carbon dioxide levels would have no impact on its ability to build reefs for several centuries, while modest warming would actually help it slightly. 这并不是说珊瑚礁和渔场现在没有麻烦——它们有,但那是因为污染、滥捕和径流,而非二氧化碳。由二氧化碳分解所导致的碱度微量减少(“酸化”这个术语是误导性的)在遥远的未来是潜在负面的,但这也被极度夸大了——正如一份基于372项研究的大型综述所显示。近期针对一种普通的加勒比珊瑚所做的一项实验发现,提高二氧化碳含量对其在数世纪内形成珊瑚礁的能力没有影响,而且温和变暖实际上还对之稍有帮助。
[This is what that meta-analysis concluded from a comprehensive survey of all studies: [以下是在对所有的研究综述进行统合分析后得出的结论: "In summary, our analysis shows that marine biota is more resistant to ocean acidification than suggested by pessimistic predictions identifying ocean acidification as a major threat to marine biodiversity (Kleypas et al., 1999; Orr et al., 2005; Raven, 2005; Sponberg, 2007; Zondervan et al., 2001), which may not be the widespread problem conjured into the 21st century. Ocean acidification will enhance growth of marine autotrophs and reduce fertility and metabolic rates, but effects are likely to be minor along the range of pCO2 predicted for the 21st century, and feedbacks between positive responses of autotrophs and pH may further buffer the impacts."] “总之,我们的分析显示,与悲观预测将海洋酸化认定为对海洋生物多样性的一种主要威胁相比,海洋生物群更耐酸化。这种威胁不可能是21世纪的一个普遍问题。海洋酸化将加强海洋自养生物的生长,减少生育及代谢率,然而按照对21世纪的pCO2变动范围的预测,其效应很可能是轻微的,并且自养生物的积极响应与ph值之间的反馈机制可能进一步缓冲这种影响。”]
With tens of thousands of activists and bureaucrats heading for a UN conference in Paris next month, there is such vast vested interest now in demonising carbon dioxide that it will be hard to change the world’s mind. Freeman Dyson laments that “scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing”, but hopes that a few will try. Amen. 下月,有数万名活动人士和政府官员将奔赴巴黎的一个联合国会议,当下对二氧化碳的妖魔化背后有着大量的既得利益,很难改变世人的想法。Freeman Dyson叹惜“在二氧化碳问题上相信主流教条的科学界同行们将不会觉得Goklany的证据有说服力”,但希望仍有一些人会去尝试。阿门。
[Dyson went on: [Dyson接着说: "That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts? “对我来说,那就是气候科学的核心谜团。它不是个科学的谜团,而是人类的谜团。究竟是什么导致整整一代科学专家看不到明显的事实? ...Indur Goklany has assembled a massive collection of evidence to demonstrate two facts. First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects observed in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial. ……Indur Goklany汇编了巨量证据来证明两个事实。第一,相比其气候效应,二氧化碳的非气候效应要突出得多,而且益处是压倒性的。第二,真实世界中观察到的气候效应,其破坏性大大低于气候模型的预测,而且经常是有利的。 I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence. 我一直希望,那些37年来盲目妖魔化二氧化碳的科学家和政治家们有一天能够睁开他们的眼睛,看看证据。 Goklany and I do not claim to be infallible. Like the climate-model experts, we have also evolved recently from the culture of the cave-children. Like them, we have inherited our own set of prejudices and blindnesses. Truth emerges when different groups of explorers listen to each other’s stories and correct each other’s mistakes."] Goklany和我并不自认绝对正确。跟那些气候模型专家们一样,我们也刚刚从洞穴儿童文化中进化出来。和他们一样,我们也继承了自己那套偏见和盲目。当不同的探索者群体相互倾听彼此的故事,相互纠正彼此的错误时,真相才会浮现。”]
Post-script: 附: This column produced a lot of commentary. In response to one especially misleading article in the Guardian, Indur Goklany made the following point: 本专栏引发了大量评论。在回应《卫报》上一篇具有相当误导性的文章时,Indur Goklany如此说道:
Your correspondent, Mr. Nuccitelli, hasn’t read with sufficient care the GWPF report he is criticizing. Had he done so, he would have known better than to present the figure from the IPCC of estimated crop yields through the year 2109, or repeat Dr. Betts' claim that studies on crops include CO2 effects, without noting that the vast majority of crop studies did not, in fact, consider CO2 effects. Specifically, the GWPF report (at page 29) notes: 你们的记者,Nuccitelli先生,并未充分仔细地阅读他所批评的GWPF报告。假如他仔细阅读了,他会明白更多而不仅仅是拿出IPCC对截止2109年的作物产量的估测数字,或只是重复Dr. Betts关于作物研究包含CO2效应的声明,而不去注意到事实上绝大部分作物研究并未考虑CO2效应。具体来说,GWPF报告(第29页)提到: The IPCC AR5 synthesis of modelled estimates of the impact of recent climate trends on yields for major staple crops notes, in a remarkable understatement, that ‘[s]ome included effects of positive carbon dioxide trends...but most did not’ (Ref. 175). In fact, only 2 of 56 studies considered carbon dioxide increases (Ref. 176). For this reason alone the IPCC’s claim that the impacts of global warming to date on agricultural productivity and food security are likely negative is suspect. IPCC第五次评估报告在综述有关最近气候趋势对主要作物产量之影响的模型估测时,以令人吃惊的轻描淡写口气提出,“其中有些考虑到了二氧化碳增加的影响……但多数则没有”(引用175)。事实上,56项研究中只有2项考虑了二氧化碳的增加(引用176)。仅此一点,IPCC关于迄今为止的全球变暖对农业生产率和食物安全的影响趋于负面的断言,便是很可疑的。 References 175 and 176 (within the quote) both refer to the IPCC AR5 WGII’s chapter 7 (on Food Security and Food Production Systems), page 492, Figure 7–2. Ref. 176 also notes that “Remarkably, according to Figure 7–2, the studies that considered carbon dioxide suggest that the carbon dioxide effect reduces yields.” To put that into plain English, these studies, or their interpretations, are not credible. 引用175和引用176(在引文以内)提及的都是IPCC第五次评估报告第二工作组部分第7章(“食品安全与食品生产体制”),第492页,图7-2。引用176还提到,“值得注意的是,根据图7—2,考虑了二氧化碳的那些研究提出,二氧化碳效应会减少产量。”直白地说,这些研究,或是他们的解释,都无法令人信服。 Note that the figure on future crop yields presented in Mr. Nutticelli’s article draws from Figure 7-2 referred to in the foregoing. 注意,Nutticelli先生的文章中展示的关于未来作物产量数据,就来自刚刚提到的图7-2。 The GWPF report also notes that impact assessments in general and crop studies in particular: GWPF报告还一般的,就影响评估,以及特别的,就农作物研究,指出: 1. Employ scenarios that overstate warming rates by anywhere between 2- to 4-fold. Even the IPCC has noted the tendency of models to exaggerate the rate of warming. See pages 24-25 of the GWPF report, and p. 769, Chapter 9, IPCC AR5 WGI. This matters for two reasons. Firstly, the world is unlikely to be as warm as projected by the IPCC’s scenarios. Secondly, the lower the rate of warming, the lower the magnitude of negative impacts. 1. 运用了夸大变暖速度2-4倍的设想场景。甚至连IPCC也已经注意到各类模型夸大变暖速度的倾向。见GWPF报告第24-25页,第769页,第9章及IPCC第五次评估第一工作组部分。这很重要,原因有二。第一,世界不太可能像IPCC设想场景那样温暖。第二,变暖速度越慢,负面影响的程度越低。 2. Do not fully account for technological change that ought to occur between now and 2109 (the date used in your correspondent’s figure), which would reduce the net negative impacts of climate change while simultaneously making it easier to adapt to them. 2. 没有充分考虑到从今至2109年间(贵刊记者的数据中所用日期)肯定会发生的技术变革 ,而这些技术变革将会在减少气候变化净负面影响的同时,使得适应它们变得更容易。 For all these reasons the IPCC’s estimates of future impacts are prone to large overestimates, and the figure presented by your correspondent is suspect, to put it mildly. 由于以上所有理由,客气点说,IPCC对未来影响的预测倾向于大大高估,而你们的记者所使用的数据则很可疑。
(编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]澳大利亚的野骆驼

Australia, home to the world’s largest camel herd
澳大利亚,世界最大的骆驼之乡

作者:Sarah Bell @ 2013-5-19
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:BBC News,http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22522695

Australia is famous for its wildlife – kangaroos, koalas and numerous species of snakes and spiders – but it is also home to the world’s largest herd of camels. There are about 750,000 roaming wild in the outback and they cause a host of problems.

澳大利亚因野生动物而闻名遐迩:袋鼠、考拉以及种类众多的蛇类与蜘蛛。不过,澳大利亚还是世界最大的骆驼之乡。约有75万匹只骆驼生活在澳大利亚的广袤内陆【译注:本文outback一词专指澳大利亚人烟稀少的广袤内陆地区,后文皆译作“内陆”】,并制造了很多麻烦。

Camels were imported to (more...)

标签: |
6518

Australia, home to the world's largest camel herd 澳大利亚,世界最大的骆驼之乡

作者:Sarah Bell @ 2013-5-19 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:BBC News,http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22522695 Australia is famous for its wildlife - kangaroos, koalas and numerous species of snakes and spiders - but it is also home to the world's largest herd of camels. There are about 750,000 roaming wild in the outback and they cause a host of problems. 澳大利亚因野生动物而闻名遐迩:袋鼠、考拉以及种类众多的蛇类与蜘蛛。不过,澳大利亚还是世界最大的骆驼之乡。约有75万匹只骆驼生活在澳大利亚的广袤内陆【译注:本文outback一词专指澳大利亚人烟稀少的广袤内陆地区,后文皆译作“内陆”】,并制造了很多麻烦。 Camels were imported to Australia in the 19th century from Arabia, India and Afghanistan for transport and heavy work in the outback. But when the internal combustion engine came along and they were no longer needed, several thousand were released into the wild. 骆驼是19世纪从阿拉伯、印度和阿富汗进口到澳大利亚的,在内陆用于运输和重体力工作。不过随着内燃机的出现,它们就派不上用场了,当中有几千匹被放生到野外。 With no natural predators and vast sparsely-populated areas in which to roam, the camels have flourished and are having a huge impact on the wilderness. 骆驼在内陆没有天敌,活动范围又是广阔的人口稀疏地区,因而得以大量繁衍,如今正对野生环境造成巨大影响。 "One of the biggest problems is that they drink large amounts of water. They gulp down gallons at a time and cause millions of pounds worth of damage to farms and waterholes which are used to water stock. They also drink dry waterholes belonging to the Aborigines," says explorer and writer Simon Reeve. “其中一个大问题是,它们饮水量巨大。骆驼一次能灌下好几加仑的水,给农场和储水塘造成的数百万磅损失。它们还能把澳洲土著民的储水塘给喝干。”探险家、作家Simon Reeve如是说。 "Camels are almost uniquely brilliant at surviving the conditions in the outback. Introducing them was short-term genius and long-term disaster." “论到在内陆环境中生存,骆驼的出色能力无与伦比。把它们引入内陆,短期来看是天才之举,长期来看则是灾难。” Lyndee Severin runs a one-million-acre ranch west of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory that has been overrun by the camels. 北领地【译注:又称澳北区】的骆驼现已泛滥成灾,Lyndee Severin就在该区爱丽丝泉市的西部经营着一个百万英亩的大牧场。 "They do a lot of damage to infrastructure for us, so there's a lot of damage to fences. They break tanks, they break pumps, they break pipes, they break fences - fences have been our biggest concern," she says. 她说:“它们对我们的基础设施造成了巨大破坏,围栏大量受损。它们把蓄水池搞坏,把抽水泵搞坏,把管子搞坏,把围栏搞坏。我们最担心的就是围栏。” But her concern is not confined to her own business - the camels put pressure on native Australian species by reducing food sources and destroying their habitats. "They will just take everything in the landscape and if they destroy the trees and eat the grasses there's no kangaroos, no emus, no small birds if there's no trees, no reptiles," she says. 但她所担忧的不只是自己的生意。骆驼给澳大利亚本土的生物物种带来了巨大压力,因为它们减少了食物供应,破坏了本土物种的栖息地。她说:“它们会吃地上的一切东西。如果它们把树都毁掉,草都吃掉,就不会再有袋鼠,不会再有鸸鹋,不会再有小鸟,没有树,也不会再有爬行动物。” Severin and her team shoot the beasts, often from helicopters, and leave them to rot where they fall. "It's not something that we enjoy doing, but it's something that we have to do." Severin及其团队会射杀这些野兽,一般是从直升机上射杀,并让其就地腐烂。“我们并不喜欢做这种事,但又必须做。” Camels roam freely across an area of 3.3 million sq km (1.3 million sq miles) encompassing the states of Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, as well as the Northern Territory. They are mainly Dromedaries, but some are Bactrian camels. Humans have introduced dozens of species into Australia - including wild horses, pigs, goats, dogs, cats, rabbits and foxes - and these have now become a major problem for the ecosystem. 骆驼在包括西澳、南澳、昆士兰及北领地在内的330万平方公里(合130万平方英里)范围内自由出没。它们主要是单峰驼,但也有一些双峰驼。人类已将数十个物种引入澳大利亚,包括野马、猪、羊、狗、猫、兔子和狐狸等,这些动物现在已为生态系统带来了一个严重的问题。 In 2010 the Australian government endorsed a control plan, the Australian Feral Camel Management Project, which aimed to reduce camel densities through culling and mustering the animals for sale. Between 2001 and 2008 it was estimated there were up to a million feral camels in the outback, but thousands were culled under the project. 2010年澳大利亚政府签署了一项名为“澳大利亚野生骆驼管理项目”的控制计划,意在通过选择性地捕杀并出售骆驼来减低骆驼的密度。2001至2008年间,内陆的野生骆驼数量估计多达100万,但该项目已宰杀其中数千匹。 Animals Australia, a pressure group, described this as a "bloodbath". For its part, RSPCA Australia says it would support a national approach to feral camel management, only if "the programmes are clearly explained and justified... and use the most humane methods available". 压力集团“动物澳洲”将该计划称为“大屠杀”。而澳大利亚“皇家防止虐待动物协会”(RSPCA)则说它愿意支持采取全国性的办法来控制野生骆驼,但要求“对规划进行清楚的解释和论证……并采用能够用到的最人道方法”。 But many farmers feel that they do not have much choice - and must do what they can with or without a national programme. The economic cost of grazing land loss and damage by feral camels has been estimated at 10m Australian dollars (£6.6m). 然而,许多农场主感到他们并没有什么选择余地,而且不管有没有全国性规划,他们都必须采取可行措施。据估计,野生骆驼导致牧场流失和破坏,其带来的经济损失已达1000万澳元(合660万英磅)。 "Killing them seems a tragic waste to many of us but the sheer logistics involved mean there is little choice. It is an issue I find more and more as I travel around the world. Humans introduce animals into fragile ecosystems. What do we do about it?" says Reeve, who is presenting a new series on Australia for BBC television. Reeve说:“对我们许多人而言,杀害它们似乎是一种可悲的浪费,但单单其中所涉及的物流运输就意味着我们没多少别的选择。随着我在世界各地旅行,我越来越多地发现这种事。人类将动物引入脆弱的生态系统。我们该拿它怎么办?” Reeve现在正为BBC电视台一套新的澳洲系列节目担任主持。 "It's not enough for us to stand back and say I can't bear to see animals being killed. If we are going to make ourselves gods by meddling with an ecosystem then we have to take the responsibility to sort it out." “置身事外,说自己不忍看到动物们被杀害,这并不够。既然我们把自己变成了干预生态系统的神,那我们就必须承担起责任、解决问题。” Ian Conway, who runs the 1,800 sq km Kings Creek cattle ranch, also near Alice Springs, believes there is a better way of managing their numbers - rounding camels up and selling them for their meat. Ian Conway也在爱丽丝泉市附近经营一家1800平米、名为Kings Creek的牧牛场。他相信有更好的方法来控制骆驼数量:围捕它们,出售骆驼肉。 Camels range over a vast area and can travel more than 40 miles in a day, so his team uses a helicopter to spot "mobs" of camels. They are then rounded up using heavily-modified off-road vehicles and put into a holding pen, before being sold to the Middle East. 骆驼的活动范围很广,且一天能走40英里,所以Conway的团队使用直升机去寻找骆驼“小队”。然后使用经大幅改装的越野车将它们围起来,关在畜栏里,最后卖到中东去。 Conway, who has been mustering animals for more than 40 years, says: "There's no difference to camel and beef, in fact to a lot of people who live on camel like we do, prefer it to beef." Some are also sold as riding camels, he adds. Conway干围捕动物这一行已有40多年。他说:“骆驼肉和牛肉没啥区别,事实上好多跟我们一样以骆驼肉为食的人,觉得它比牛肉要好。”也有些骆驼是卖出去做骑乘用的,他补充说。 "The Saudis are always interested in them but they are looking for a specific camel. I've got a bloke who wants beauty camels at the moment. The bulls are no good. They like the cows because of their thin heads, but the cows have got to have their lips hanging, for what reason I don't know," says Conway. “沙特人对骆驼总是特别感兴趣,不过他们对骆驼有特定要求。现在就有个家伙找我要漂亮的骆驼。公的不行。母骆驼脑袋瘦小,沙特人喜欢,不过得是嘴唇下垂的母骆驼,不知道为啥,”Conway说。 He thinks a round-up is more humane than the alternative. "They just shoot them and nothing is done with them. We don't know if they lay there for days. I'd like them to come into the yard like this and be sold as meat or riding camels," he says. 他认为围捕比其他处理方法更为人道。“他们就拿枪打,别的都不管。我们都不知道骆驼是不是会在那儿躺好几天。我还是愿意像这样把它们弄到畜栏里来,然后当做食用或骑用骆驼卖掉,”他说。 In many outback areas it is not cost-effective to round up and sell the camels. But Conway is convinced that with the right investment this could become a profitable way of protecting ranches and the environment. 在许多内陆地区,围捕并出售骆驼并不划算。但Conway坚信,只要投资得当,这种保护牧场和环境的办法将会有利可图。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]人类与其他猎食者有何不同?

‘Superpredator’ humans are hunting other animals out of existence
“超级猎手”–人类正将其他动物赶尽杀绝

作者:Elizabeth Pennisi @ 2015-08-20
译者:易海(@胡海栋2221)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:Science,http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2015/08/superpredator-humans-are-hunting-other-animals-out-existence

【尽管大型肉食动物对于生态系统健康至关重要,但人类出于运动消遣目的而对它们的猎杀,其速度是其他物种的九倍。】

A new study drives home the destructive power of our species. Not only do we kill other animals at muc(more...)

标签: | |
6082
‘Superpredator’ humans are hunting other animals out of existence “超级猎手”--人类正将其他动物赶尽杀绝 作者:Elizabeth Pennisi @ 2015-08-20 译者:易海(@胡海栋2221) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源:Science,http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2015/08/superpredator-humans-are-hunting-other-animals-out-existence 【尽管大型肉食动物对于生态系统健康至关重要,但人类出于运动消遣目的而对它们的猎杀,其速度是其他物种的九倍。】 A new study drives home the destructive power of our species. Not only do we kill other animals at much higher rates than other predators, but our ability to bring down larger adults can make it very difficult for some prey populations to recover. This superpredator status may fill our bellies, but it has darker implications. "Any predator capable of exerting such impact will eventually drive its prey to extinction," warns Gerardo Ceballos, an ecologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. 一项新研究清楚揭示了我们人类的破坏力。不仅是因为我们猎杀动物的速度比其他种类的捕食者更快,还在于我们能够捕杀成年个体,这使得猎物的种群更加难以恢复。这种超级猎手的身份可以满足我们的口腹之欲,但它有很消极的影响。Gerardo Ceballos是位于墨西哥城的墨西哥国立自治大学的一位生态学家,他警告说:“任何有能力施加这种影响的捕食者,最终都将导致它的猎物走向灭绝。” It’s happened before. About 14,000 years ago, humans entering North America caused many large species, such as the mammoth, to disappear. And our hunting technologies have only improved since then, particularly when it comes to catching fish. Overfishing is a severe problem in some parts of the world, and a recent report concludes that because of human activity, more than 90 fish species are at risk of extinction. 这种灭绝事件曾经发生过。大约在1.4万年前,人类进入北美,导致许多大型动物灭绝,例如猛犸象。我们的捕猎技术,特别捕鱼技术,是从那时候才开始提高的。过度捕捞在世界上的某些地方是非常严重的问题,最近的一项报告指出,有超过九十种鱼类由于人类活动而面临灭绝的危险。 The new study originated in a casual observation. Thomas Reimchen, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Victoria in Canada, has spent years studying how predators impact the stickleback fish on an island 130 kilometers off the Canadian Pacific coast. Over the decades he determined that each species never kills more than 2% of the sticklebacks per year and usually attacks juveniles. 这项新研究源于一个偶然的观察。加拿大维多利亚大学的进化生态学家Thomas Reimchen常年在距加拿大太平洋海岸130千米的一个海岛上研究捕食者如何影响棘鱼。数十年的研究之后,他发现每个捕食物种每年捕食的棘鱼不会超过2% ,并且捕杀的通常是幼体。 Yet off that same island, fishermen seemed to be taking a far higher percentage of salmon, mostly adults. The contrast bothered him, so Reimchen and a few former students searched the scientific literature for data on the rate at which humans and other animals were killing other species. 然而,在同一海岛附近,渔民捕捞的三文鱼远远超过这个比例,而且捕捞的都是成年个体。这种对比让他很困扰,所以Reimchen 和他之前的几个学生查阅了很多科学文献,来查找人类和其它动物捕杀其他生物的速度。 After a decade compiling and analyzing about 300 studies, the team came to some grim conclusions, says Chris Darimont, a conservation scientist also at the University of Victoria who helped lead the study. Humans and other predators—like lions, wolves, and grizzly bears—kill wild herbivores at about the same rate, but humans kill large carnivores at nine times the rate of other predators, Darimont, Reimchen, and their colleagues report today in Science. 同样来自维多利亚大学的环境保护科学家Chris Darimont说,在经过了十年时间对大约三百项研究的汇编和分析之后,他领导的团队得到了一些残酷的结论。人类和其他捕食者如狮子、狼和灰熊捕杀野生食草动物的速度差不多,但人类捕杀大型食肉动物的速度是其他捕食者的九倍。Darimont与 Reimchen以及他们的同事现已将这一结果发表在《科学》杂志上(8月21日号)。 We kill those carnivores not for food, but for trophies and—sometimes—to eliminate them as competitors, Darimont says. Because they naturally don’t face much predation, they have not evolved ways to successfully avoid humans or reproduce fast enough to make up for human-induced losses. Darimont说,我们杀死这些食肉动物不是为了食用,而是当做战利品,或者,有时把他们当做竞争对手而淘汰掉。由于这些食肉动物很少遭遇自然捕食,它们还没能进化出能成功躲避人类捕杀的方式,也没能进化出足够快的繁殖能力来弥补人类引起的种群数量的减少。 But the toll on fish is even greater. The researchers report that people catch adult fish at a rate up to 14 times other predators. Thanks to mechanized fishing, the annual human toll on marine fish may exceed 100 million tons. What's worse, by focusing on catching large adults, fishing removes individuals in their reproductive prime that are needed to replenish diminishing populations. Already,?this fishing pressure has caused species to evolve new growth patterns and behaviors. 鱼群被捕杀的程度更为严重。研究者说,人类捕杀成年鱼类的速度是其他捕食者的14倍。由于机械化捕捞,每年人类捕杀的海洋鱼类可能超过一亿吨。更糟糕的是,由于捕捞的都是大型成年个体,捕鱼业捞走了那些繁殖能力最强的青壮年个体,而它们对于补充种群数量很重要。人类捕捞所带来的压力已经使物种进化出新的生长模式和行为。 Marine ecologist Nicholas Dulvy from Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, is pleased with the work. Hunting and fishing have "not captured the public attention necessary to change the status quo," says Dulvy, who was not involved with the study. "The disparity between human and animal predation rates is a useful way of illustrating how ecologically out-of-whack many exploitation rates and management policies are." Darimont thinks people need to take a lesson from other predators, switching the focus to catching juveniles and lowering catch rates. 加拿大本那比市西蒙·弗雷泽大学的海洋生态学家Nicholas Dulvy对这项工作很满意。他并没有参与这项研究,但他说,“猎杀和捕捞并没能在公众眼中引起足以改变现状的关注度。人类和动物捕杀速度的不同,是说明开采速度和管理政策如何造成生态紊乱的一个有效途径。”Darimont 认为人类应该向其他捕食者学习,转而捕杀幼体并降低捕杀速度。 But others take issue with the study's approach and conclusions. "I think it’s total rubbish," says Ray Hilborn, an ecologist at the University of Washington, Seattle. An expert on sustainable exploitation, he says that even though humans may take more fish than any one predator, their haul makes up only 40% of total natural predation on fish. 但有人对该项研究的方法以及结论持有异议。华盛顿大学西雅图分校的生态学家Ray Hilborn说:“我认为那项研究完全就是垃圾”。Ray Hilborn是可持续发展方面的专家,他说尽管人类捕捞的鱼远超过其他捕食者,但他们的捕捞量也只及被自然捕食的鱼类数量的40%。 Hilborn says this is a reasonable amount given the need to provide food for the human population, and the new work is “fuzzing up what we mean by sustainability.” He says he doesn't think that people can fish less and still provide enough food for the world. 他认为,相对于人类的食物需求,这是一个合理的数量,最新的这一研究工作“错误理解了我们所说的可持续发展”。他说,他不认为人类能在减少捕鱼量的同时依然能为这个世界提供足够的食物。 Even so, people should take a really hard look at management practices that go after the largest individuals, says Blaire Van Valkenburgh, a paleoecologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the work. "Getting that attitude to change is going to be very difficult, but at least [with this paper] we will be able to get some people to talk about it." 加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校的古生态学家Blaire Van Valkenburgh(他并没有参与这项研究工作)认为,即便如此,人类也应该仔细审视自己专门捕捞大型个体的做法。“让人们改变目前的态度是非常困难的,但至少(这篇论文)会让一些人来讨论这个问题。” (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]市场如何拯救白犀牛

Saving African Rhinos: A Market Success Story
拯救非洲犀牛:一个关于市场成功的故事

作者:Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes @ 2011-8-19
编辑:Laura Huggins
译者:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值)
校对:带菜刀的诗人(@带菜刀的诗人_),林翠(@cwlinnil)
来源:Property and Environment Research Center,http://www.perc.org/sites/default/files/Saving%20African%20Rhinos%20final.pdf

译注:现存犀牛分五种:白犀牛,黑犀牛,苏门答腊犀牛,印度犀牛,爪哇犀牛。本文的白犀牛主要是指白犀牛的亚种南方白犀牛。

In 1900, the southern white rhinoceros was the most endangered of the world’s five rhinoceros species. Less than 20 rhinos remained in a single reserve  in South Africa. By 2010, white rhino numbers had climbed to more than 20,000, making it the most common rhino species on the planet.

在1900年,南方白犀牛曾是世界上五个犀牛物种中最濒危的一种。不到20头犀牛生活在仅存于南非的一个保护区里。到2010年,白犀牛数量攀升至20000头以上,成了这个星球上最常见的犀牛物种。

While southern white rhino numbers rose, populations of the other rhino species declined. This included the African black rhino and three Asian species. Why did the white rhino thrive whereas the others did not? In short, South Africa and a few other African countries adopted policies that created the right incentives for rhino conservation.

当南方白犀牛的数量增加时,其它犀牛物种(包括非洲黑犀牛以及三种亚洲犀牛)的数量却减少了。为什么白犀牛种群繁衍壮大了,而其它犀牛种群没有?简而言之,南非和其它几个非洲国家采用的政策,对犀牛保护产生了正确的激励效果。

BACKGROUND
背景

The white rhino, once plentiful in southern Africa, was all but hunted to extinction in the nineteenth century. As Dutch and English settlers colonized the region, they killed rhinos for meat and sport.

白犀牛曾经大量存在于非洲南部,然而在19世纪被捕猎至几近灭绝。荷兰和英国殖民者在此地区建立起殖民地,他们为取食和娱乐而捕杀犀牛。

By the early twentieth century, only a small population survived  in what is now the Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park in South Africa. Initially a royal hunting area for  the Zulu Kingdom, the park was officially protected in 1895. Its population of white rhinos slowly recovered and by the mid-twentieth century had reached the park’s full ecological carrying capacity.

至20世纪早期(more...)

标签: | |
5962

Saving African Rhinos: A Market Success Story 拯救非洲犀牛:一个关于市场成功的故事

作者:Michael 't Sas-Rolfes @ 2011-8-19 编辑:Laura Huggins 译者:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值) 校对:带菜刀的诗人(@带菜刀的诗人_),林翠(@cwlinnil) 来源:Property and Environment Research Center,http://www.perc.org/sites/default/files/Saving%20African%20Rhinos%20final.pdf译注:现存犀牛分五种:白犀牛,黑犀牛,苏门答腊犀牛,印度犀牛,爪哇犀牛。本文的白犀牛主要是指白犀牛的亚种南方白犀牛。】 In 1900, the southern white rhinoceros was the most endangered of the world's five rhinoceros species. Less than 20 rhinos remained in a single reserve  in South Africa. By 2010, white rhino numbers had climbed to more than 20,000, making it the most common rhino species on the planet. 在1900年,南方白犀牛曾是世界上五个犀牛物种中最濒危的一种。不到20头犀牛生活在仅存于南非的一个保护区里。到2010年,白犀牛数量攀升至20000头以上,成了这个星球上最常见的犀牛物种。 While southern white rhino numbers rose, populations of the other rhino species declined. This included the African black rhino and three Asian species. Why did the white rhino thrive whereas the others did not? In short, South Africa and a few other African countries adopted policies that created the right incentives for rhino conservation. 当南方白犀牛的数量增加时,其它犀牛物种(包括非洲黑犀牛以及三种亚洲犀牛)的数量却减少了。为什么白犀牛种群繁衍壮大了,而其它犀牛种群没有?简而言之,南非和其它几个非洲国家采用的政策,对犀牛保护产生了正确的激励效果。 BACKGROUND 背景 The white rhino, once plentiful in southern Africa, was all but hunted to extinction in the nineteenth century. As Dutch and English settlers colonized the region, they killed rhinos for meat and sport. 白犀牛曾经大量存在于非洲南部,然而在19世纪被捕猎至几近灭绝。荷兰和英国殖民者在此地区建立起殖民地,他们为取食和娱乐而捕杀犀牛。 By the early twentieth century, only a small population survived  in what is now the Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park in South Africa. Initially a royal hunting area for  the Zulu Kingdom, the park was officially protected in 1895. Its population of white rhinos slowly recovered and by the mid-twentieth century had reached the park’s full ecological carrying capacity. 至20世纪早期,只有少量白犀牛还幸存于如今成为南非Hluhluwe-Umfolozi公园的地区。这个公园最初是祖鲁王国的皇家狩猎区,在1895年正式成为保护区。保护区内的白犀牛数量渐渐回升,并在20世纪中期达到了公园生态承载能力的极限。 At that time, the Natal Parks Board decided to take bold action to expand the white rhino population by capturing and relocating animals to new areas. Breeding groups of white rhinos were moved to other state-owned parks, such as Kruger National Park, and also to private game ranches and zoos. This program, known as Operation Rhino, successfully re-established many new breeding groups throughout southern Africa. 就在那时,纳塔尔公园董事会决定采取大胆行动,通过捕获动物并将其迁移至新地区来扩张白犀牛的种群规模。白犀牛繁殖群被迁移到了其它诸如克鲁格国家公园这样的国有公园、私人狩猎牧场和动物园。这个以“犀牛行动”闻名的迁移项目成功地在整个非洲南部重建了许多新的犀牛繁殖群。 By 1960, the white rhino population had grown to 840. The next decade saw increased interest in private game ranching, and in 1968 the first legal white rhino trophy hunt took place. 到1960年,白犀牛数量已增加到了840头。在接下去的十年中,人们对私人狩猎牧场的兴趣不断增加,并在1968年出现了首个合法的白犀牛战利品狩猎。【编注:战利品狩猎是指参与者以获取猎物留作纪念品为主要目的的狩猎活动,与之相对照的另一种商业性狩猎是运动狩猎(sports hunting)】 The Natal Parks Board continued to supply live white rhinos to private landowners for a nominal fee on a first-come, first-served basis. By the mid-1980s, it became clear that there was a problem with this system. A long waiting list of private owners was eager to acquire rhinos for trophy hunting, but they showed little interest in breeding them. This led conservationists to question whether the private sector could actually be entrusted with rhino conservation. On closer examination, however, it appeared the problem was a matter of fixing the incentive structure. 纳塔尔公园董事会继续对私人土地所有者提供活白犀牛,先到先得,只收取象征性费用。到1980年代中期,这项制度的一个问题已显露了出来。有一长串私人地主渴望获得白犀牛来开展战利品狩猎,但他们对养殖白犀牛兴趣寥寥。这使得动物保护主义者质疑私人机构是否能真正被委以保护犀牛的重任。然而,在对情况仔细审视后,人们发现问题关键是要调整激励结构。 PRIVATIZING RHINOS 犀牛的私有化 Before 1991, all wildlife in South Africa was treated by law as res nullius or un-owned property. To reap the benefits of ownership from a wild animal, it had to be killed, captured, or domesticated. This created an incentive to harvest, not protect, valuable wild species— meaning that even if a game rancher paid for a rhino, the rancher could not claim compensation if the rhino left his property or was killed by a poacher. 1991年以前,南非所有的野生动物都被法律当作无主财产(res nullius)对待。对野生动物拥有所有权的好处,就只有通过猎杀、捕获或驯养来获得。这激励了捕猎而非保护珍稀野生物种——意味着即使一个狩猎农场主为一头犀牛付了钱,一旦犀牛离开农场主的所有地或被偷猎者捕杀,农场主将无法索要补偿。 The Natal Parks Board thought that providing rhinos for a low fee—an effective subsidy— would encourage private owners to be good stewards of rhinos. However, a closer look at rhino prices—both for buying and for hunting— suggests that this view was mistaken. 纳塔尔公园董事会曾经认为,提供犀牛时收取较低费用——相当于补贴——将鼓励私有业主对犀牛妥善照料。然而,在仔细考察犀牛价格——包括购买犀牛的价格和捕猎犀牛的价格——后,人们发现这种观点有误。 In 1982, the Natal Parks Board list price for a live white rhino was 1,000 South African rands (R). That same year, the average trophy price was R6,000. Any private landowner receiving a live rhino had a very strong incentive to sell it as a trophy as quickly as possible to pocket  a 600 percent profit. The alternative was allowing it to roam on his property where there was a risk of losing it to a poacher or neighbor. 1982年时,纳塔尔公园董事会对一头活白犀牛的明码标价是1,000南非兰特。而同年一头犀牛作为狩猎战利品的均价是6,000兰特。任何得到活犀牛的私人地主都有非常强烈的动机将犀牛作为狩猎战利品尽快卖掉,以便将六倍之利收入囊中。不然,私人地主只能让犀牛在土地上闲逛,犀牛有落入偷猎者或邻居之手的风险。
THINKING CREATIVELY Rhino poaching is driven by economic forces. If we really want to save the rhino, we must understand how those forces work and look at examples of success stories to see what we can learn from them. 创造性思维 偷猎犀牛的行为受经济力量驱使。如果我们真想拯救犀牛,我们就必须了解经济力量是如何起作用的,并看看我们能从那些成功案例中学到什么。
For the next three years, as the waiting list for white rhinos grew, the Natal Parks Board tripled its list prices, but demand continued to outstrip the rate of supply. In 1985, a private rancher offered a few rhinos up for auction, prompting the Natal Parks Board to do the same. 接下去三年里,白犀牛的申请名单不断增加,纳塔尔公园董事会将价格升至三倍,然而白犀牛依然供不应求。1985年,一位私人农场主拍卖了几头犀牛,这促使纳塔尔公园董事会也将白犀牛进行拍卖。 In 1986, the board auctioned six rhinos, which sold for an average price of just above R10,000—more than double the list price. Encouraged by this success, the board increasingly embraced the auction system over the next three years, during which time the market price soared to an average of almost R49,000 by 1989. 1986年董事会拍卖了六头犀牛,均价刚刚超过10000兰特——高于标价的两倍。受此鼓励,董事会在此后三年中越来越多地进行犀牛拍卖,而在此期间犀牛的平均市场价格飙升到了1989年的接近49000兰特。 During this same period, the average price for a rhino trophy also rose, but peaked in 1989 at just under R92,000 before pulling back to R80,000 in 1990. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between list prices, auction prices, and trophy prices between 1982 and 1990. 同时期,犀牛作为狩猎战利品的均价也在上升,但在1989年达到了顶峰,价格为略低于每头92000兰特,并在1990年回落到了80000兰特。图1为1982年至1990年间标价、拍得价和战利品价之间的关系。 From 1990 onward, list prices were abandoned and rhinos were mostly auctioned, as the Natal Parks Board realized the benefits of market pricing. By this time the gap between the price of a live rhino and a trophy had narrowed such that the trophy price was only about 60 percent higher than the live price—a more realistic mark-up. 自1990年起,随着纳塔尔公园董事会意识到市场定价带来的益处,标价被废除,绝大部分犀牛被拍卖。此时活犀牛与战利品犀牛的价格差距已经缩小,一头战利品价格只比一头活犀牛价格高了百分之六十——一个现实得多的溢价。 Also during this period, the South African Law Commission addressed the issue of ownership of valuable game animals. Recognizing the problems associated with the res nullius maxim, the commission drafted a new piece of legislation: the theft of game act of 1991. This policy allowed for private ownership of any wild animal that could be identified according to certain criteria such as a brand or ear tag. 还是在这一时期,南非法律委员会着手处理有关珍稀狩猎动物所有权的问题。委员会意识到,这些问题涉及无主财产准则,便起草了一项新的立法:《1991年猎物偷盗法案》。按照这项政策,任何野生动物的私人所有权可以根据确切的判别标准来识别,比如烙印或耳牌。 The combined effect of market pricing through auctions and the creation of stronger property rights over rhinos changed the incentives of private ranchers. It now made sense to breed rhinos rather than shoot them as soon as they were received. 通过拍卖实现的市场定价机制,创造对犀牛更牢固的财产权,这二者的共同作用,改变了对私人农场主的激励。养殖犀牛而非一得到犀牛就射杀终于成了明智的做法。 Interestingly, the private market also benefited state agencies such as the Natal Parks Board, which gained from the increased income from rhino sales. From a mere few thousand rands in the early 1980s (the rand/US dollar rate was one to one at this time), the annual market value of live rhino sales grew to R64.5 million (uS$7.8 million) by 2008. 有趣的是,私人市场也使国有机构(比如纳塔尔公园董事会)获益,因为他们通过出售犀牛而获得的收入增加了。出售活犀牛的年市值从1980年代早期的几千兰特(当时兰特对美元汇率为1:1)增长到了2008年的6450万兰特(合780万美元)。 BLACK AND WHITE 黑与白 Not only did the white rhino market grow in value, but white rhino populations also flourished. Figure 2 shows trends in white rhino numbers from 1960 until 2007. Contrast those numbers with the black rhino, which mostly lived in African countries with weak or absent wildlife market institutions such as Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia. In 1960, about 100,000 black rhinos roamed across Africa, but by the early 1990s poachers had reduced their numbers to less than 2,500. 白犀牛不仅市值增长,种群也繁荣了起来。图2展示了从1960年到2007年的白犀牛数量变化趋势。与之形成鲜明对比的是黑犀牛,主要生活在诸如肯尼亚、坦桑尼亚和赞比亚这些野生动物市场制度薄弱或缺失的非洲国家。1960年时大约有10万头黑犀牛分布在非洲,但到1990年代早期,偷猎者使黑犀牛的数量下降到了不足2500头。
RHINO HORN USES There are two major markets for rhino horn. Throughout Asia, rhino horn has been used for thousands of years for both ornamental and medicinal purposes. Ailments that rhino body parts supposedly cure include skin disease, bone disorders, and fever. The second market for rhino horn is the dagger trade in the Middle Eastern nation of Yemen where carved rhino horns are used as handles for ceremonial daggers called jambiyas. 犀牛角的用途 犀牛角有两个主要市场。在整个亚洲,犀牛角被用作装饰和药材已有上千年的历史。人们认为犀牛的身体部位可以用来治疗皮肤病、骨骼疾病和发热等病症。中东国家也门的匕首生意是犀牛角的第二个市场,在那里,经过雕刻的犀牛角被用作一种称作jambiyas的仪式性匕首的手柄。
Rhino poaching is driven by the demand for rhino horn of  both species, which is used for ornamental and medicinal purposes in Asia. Since the mid-1970s, international trade in rhino horn has been subject to a ban under CITES, the United Nations Convention on international trade in Endangered Species. After the CITES ban came into effect, prices for rhino horn soared on black markets and have continued rising ever since. 对两种犀牛牛角的需求驱使了偷猎犀牛的行为。犀牛角在亚洲用于装饰和药材。从1970年代中期开始,根据CITES,即关于濒危物种国际贸易的联合国公约,犀牛角的国际贸易被禁止。自公约生效起,黑市上的犀牛角价格一路飙升。
ABOUT CITES CITES was formed in the mid-1970s as an international treaty to protect wild species threatened by trade. All member countries (more than 175) agree to regulate the trade in species across their borders in one of two ways. Species are either listed on Appendix 1, under which no trade is allowed, or Appendix 2, under which trade is allowed under a permit system only. About 800 species are listed on Appendix 1 and 32,500 on Appendix 2. CITES employs only a single officer to oversee global enforcement of the treaty. 关于CITES 作为一项保护被贸易所威胁的野生物种的国际公约,CITES形成于1970年代中期。所有成员国(超过175个)约定以两种方式之一对通过其边境的物种贸易进行管制。被列入公约附录1的物种被禁止贸易,被列入公约附录2的物种只能在许可证制度下进行贸易。大约有800个物种被列入附录1,而有32500个物种被列入附录2。 CITES只雇佣了一名官员来监督公约在全球的实施情况。
By the mid-1990s, rhino poaching had declined to sustainable levels and many conservationists assumed that the CITES ban had solved the problem. Rhino poaching, however, has re-emerged as a serious problem since 2008. 到1990年代中期,偷猎犀牛的行为已减少到了可持续水平,许多动保主义者认为CITES的禁令起了作用。然而自2008年起偷猎犀牛行为再次成为一个严重问题。 A more plausible reason for the temporary respite in poaching pressure is that all the “easy pickings” were gone. Unprotected wild rhino populations are rare to non-existent in modern Africa. The only surviving African rhinos remain either in countries with strong wildlife market institutions (such as South Africa and Namibia) or in intensively protected zones. 对此前偷猎压力暂时缓解的一个更可信的解释是,所有“易得手猎物”都消失了。在现代非洲,不受保护的野生动物数量非常稀少甚至不复存在。幸存的非洲犀牛只存在于那些有强大野生动物市场制度的国家(比如南非和纳米比亚),或在受严密保护的地区。 South Africa and Namibia have replicated the successful approach to white rhino conservation with black rhinos, currently protecting 75 percent of the world’s black rhino population and 96 percent of the white rhino population. After receiving CITES approval in 2004, both countries have even introduced limited black rhino trophy hunting. 南非和纳米比亚在黑犀牛上复制了保护白犀牛的成功方法,目前保护了世界上百分之七十五的黑犀牛和百分之九十六的白犀牛。在2004年得到CITES的批准后,两国甚至都引进了有限的黑犀牛战利品狩猎活动。 CROSSROADS 十字路口 Despite clear evidence that strong property rights and market incentives constitute the most sensible model for rhino conservation in Africa, many international conservationists and policymakers do not recognize this. Through institutions such as CITES, they continue to pursue a command-and-control approach that depends on regulations or bans to restrict wildlife use. This approach now threatens to undermine the success achieved thus far, as the extraordinarily high black market price for rhino horn has fuelled a new poaching drive. 尽管有清楚的证据表明,强有力的财产权和市场激励在非洲构建了最合理的犀牛保护模式,很多国际保护主义者和政策制定者对此依然不予认可。通过诸如CITES这样的机构,他们一直追求一种“命令加控制”的方法,依靠监管和禁令来限制对野生动物的使用。随着犀牛角异乎寻常的黑市高价促成了新的偷猎驱动力,这种方法如今威胁到了到目前为止已经取得的成功。 Before the recent upsurge in poaching, Asian nationals attempted to gain legitimate access to rhino horn by posing as trophy hunters. In response, South Africa’s government tightened controls over the hunting industry as well as the sale and use of live rhinos and rhino horn. Unfortunately, these restrictions only seemed to precipitate the current poaching crisis. The demand for rhino horn is significant and persistent enough to be very rewarding to criminals who are willing to supply it. 在最近的偷猎高潮之前,一些亚洲人试图作为战利品猎人而合法获取犀牛角。作为应对,南非政府加紧了对狩猎业以及贩卖和使用活犀牛和犀牛角的控制。不幸的是,这些限制看来仅仅加剧了当下的偷猎危机。对犀牛角的需求足够庞大而持久,这使那些愿意提供犀牛角的罪犯获利颇丰。
THREE RHINO MYTHS 有关犀牛的三个传说
  • Rhino horn is used as an aphrodisiac in Asia. Rhino horn is used as an ingredient in traditional Chinese medicine to treat serious illnesses involving high fevers and toxicity. In Vietnam, it is sought as a cancer remedy.
  • 犀牛角在亚洲被用作一种壮阳药。犀牛角作为一种传统中药成分,用来治疗伴有高烧和中毒症状的严重疾病。在越南,人们认为犀牛角可以治愈癌症
  • Rhino poaching is driven by greed and evil people. Rhino poaching is driven by the high price for rhino horn, which is caused by an artificial supply restriction from the ban in the face of persistent demand, creating perverse incentives.
  • 人性的贪婪邪恶驱动了偷猎犀牛行为。面对持续的需求,贸易禁令制造了人为的供应限制,产生了不正当的激励,导致犀牛角的高价,驱动了偷猎犀牛行为。
  • The medicinal demand for rhino horn is unscientific and therefore not legitimate. Use of rhino horns in Chinese medicine has cultural roots going back thousands of years and many of its adherents are unlikely to pay much attention to scientific arguments.
  • 对犀牛角的药用需求缺乏科学根据,因此非法。犀牛角用作中药有数千年的文化根基,因此很多中医拥护者不太会关心有关的科学争论。
South Africa’s game ranchers are also willing to supply the market, and some have already experimented with ways to increase breeding and horn growth rates in a free-range farming environment. Rhino horn is made of keratin (similar to fingernails and hair) and can be periodically and humanely harvested from live rhinos at minimal cost (as little as $20 dollars to sedate an animal and cut off its horns). If the CITES ban was lifted, legal commercial rhino horn production from ranchers could outcompete most illegal harvesting by poachers. 南非的狩猎农场主也愿意向市场供应犀牛,而且一些农场主已经尝试了在放养的农场环境中增加犀牛繁殖和犀牛角生长率的方法。犀牛角由角蛋白(类似于指甲和头发)构成,能周期性地且人道地以最小代价从活犀牛上获得。(麻醉一头犀牛采割牛角的花费低至20美元。)假如CITES的禁令放开,来自农场主的合法商业犀牛角生产便可在竞争中击败绝大多数偷猎者非法获得的犀牛角。 Unfortunately, this pragmatic market solution does not appeal to key international conservationists, who insist that better enforcement and more political will are needed to solve the poaching crisis. Tragically, this may not be enough. 不幸的是,这种务实的市场解决方案对主要的国际保护主义者没有吸引力。他们坚持认为需要更好的执法和更多的政治意愿来解决偷猎危机。可悲的是,更好的执法和更多的政治意愿可能是不够的。 There are many other examples of failed bans, such as alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs, characterized by insufficient incentives to implement them successfully. The market-incentive success story of African rhino conservation may yet be undermined by a failure to recognize and learn from it. 已经有很多禁令失败的例子,比如禁酒和禁毒战争,就是因为没有充分的激励使这些禁令成功实施。市场激励在保护非洲犀牛上取得的成功,可能会由于人们未能认识激励机制并吸取经验而受挫。 MICHAEL 'T SAS-ROLFES is an environmental economist based in South Africa and a 2011 PERC Lone Mountain Fellow. 作者MICHAEL 'T SAS-ROLFES是位南非环境经济学家,2011年的 PERC Lone Mountain Fellow。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[饭文]禁售政策正在加速大象灭绝

禁售政策正在加速大象灭绝
辉格
2013年1月16日

最近,香港海关在三个月内第三次截获大宗走私象牙,共779根1.3吨,而上两次分别为1.6吨和3.8吨;近年来象牙走私的热潮看来仍在延续,全球海关查获数量从2007年的10吨上升到了2011年创纪录的40吨,去年的不完全统计已超过27.5吨,完整数字很可能接近甚至超过前年的纪录。

从流动方向看,中国需求显然是此轮象牙走私高潮的主要推动力量,据此,许多评论者认为这是中国经济增长和消费者购买力提高的结果,但这一观点很难成立,因为过去五年中国消费者收入虽有所增长,但与此同时象牙及其制品的价格却上涨了十几倍,远远超过收入增速,所以,除非偏好发生了变化,否则象牙需求不会如此暴涨。

实际上,偏好确实发生了变化,而变化的起因,正是中国政府为履行《濒危野(more...)

标签: | | |
4432
禁售政策正在加速大象灭绝 辉格 2013年1月16日 最近,香港海关在三个月内第三次截获大宗走私象牙,共779根1.3吨,而上两次分别为1.6吨和3.8吨;近年来象牙走私的热潮看来仍在延续,全球海关查获数量从2007年的10吨上升到了2011年创纪录的40吨,去年的不完全统计已超过27.5吨,完整数字很可能接近甚至超过前年的纪录。 从流动方向看,中国需求显然是此轮象牙走私高潮的主要推动力量,据此,许多评论者认为这是中国经济增长和消费者购买力提高的结果,但这一观点很难成立,因为过去五年中国消费者收入虽有所增长,但与此同时象牙及其制品的价格却上涨了十几倍,远远超过收入增速,所以,除非偏好发生了变化,否则象牙需求不会如此暴涨。 实际上,偏好确实发生了变化,而变化的起因,正是中国政府为履行《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》的义务而于2006年9月实施的《濒危野生动植物进出口管理条例》,该条例切断了象牙进口的传统渠道,而同时,根据2008年CITES会议的分配结果,中国市场到2017年之前的合法进口量被限制在了62吨。 这个数字只是国内传统象牙消费量的零头,而且按目前的趋势,显然不可能指望2017年之后的配额会更高;这一局面一旦明朗,随即产生了类似于一位产量稳定的著名画家于壮年突然病逝的效应,象牙制品立刻在收藏市场受到热捧,此后四五年内,其价格以每年接近翻番的速度暴涨。 很明显,并不是收入增长推动了象牙消费,而是禁售法规限制了未来象牙供应,令其有望成为绝版珍品,满足了作为收藏品所需条件,因而受到收藏者和投资者的热烈追捧,在此过程中需求曲线已虽商品性质的改变而大幅移动;而同时,禁售法规又无法控制住偷猎和走私,结果导致了一种末日来临之前的哄然抢购局面。 末日效应同样也发生在供给端,盗猎行动已发展为类似于对未来现金流一次性提现的做法,假如对未来现金流的预期是可靠的,那么按其现值提出来,和定期获取现金流,效果就是一样的,可是当这个预期靠不住时,立即提现便是理性选择,显然,禁售法规越严苛,供方对未来出售象牙而获取现金流的预期就越靠不住,因而越倾向于提现。 用禁售法保护野生动物,是非常荒谬的做法,就好比用禁止农产品交易来保护耕地;要知道,需要保护的野生动物种群,而不是动物个体,更不是动物器官,象牙作为大象种群所生产的产品,其市场价值恰好可以为保护这些种群提供激励,同理,只有粮食卖的出好价钱,农民才会保护耕地。 野生种群所面临的首要威胁,是丧失栖息地,其次才是偷猎,而要说服当地居民将栖息地留给野生动物,并忍受这些种群带给他们的种种不便和伤害,就必须要让他们相信,这些种群的存在能给他们带来切实的好处,而禁售法却恰恰背道而驰。 热爱野生动物的人们,本应为象牙的高价格而庆幸,这是说服当地农民为大象保留栖息地的最好理由,不幸的是,借助“没有买卖便没有杀戮”这句煽情口号,他们将这一市场价值变成了盗猎者与保护者之间的残酷杀戮,以及当地农民的冷漠旁观,或许还略带庆幸,因为大象与农耕社区之间历来存在不小的冲突。 当然,要将价格激励落实为对野生种群的切实保护,需要建立相应的产权制度以避免公地悲剧,这或许有些难度,但决不会比目前的反盗猎行动更难,因为这相当于让牧民为保护自家的畜群而执行反盗猎,无疑比缺乏激励的官方反盗猎队更加起劲和认真,而象牙的市场高价恰好可以为他们提供执行所需财力。 假如一个当地部落或地方政府被赋予一个大象种群及其栖息地的排他性用益权,或者私人公司通过拍卖获得类似权利,按目前行情,几支象牙便可帮助他们购买一辆丰田皮卡或几百支AK47,比起得不到收益却要冒生命危险、还时刻面临贿赂诱惑的现有反盗猎队伍,当能更好的实施保护。  
[微言]英国的森林

【2012-06-09】

@whigzhou: 1905年,英国林地面积为114万hm2,森林覆盖率为4.7%,英格兰、威尔士、苏格兰
和北爱尔兰森林覆盖率分别为5.2%、4.2%、4.5%和1.1%……2009年,英国林地面积为284.1万
hm2,森林覆盖率为11.7%,英格兰、威尔士、苏格兰和北爱尔兰的森林覆盖率分别上升到8.7%
、13.7%、17.2%和6.5% http://t.cn/zOsN22D

@wh(more...)

标签: | | |
4345
【2012-06-09】 @whigzhou: 1905年,英国林地面积为114万hm2,森林覆盖率为4.7%,英格兰、威尔士、苏格兰 和北爱尔兰森林覆盖率分别为5.2%、4.2%、4.5%和1.1%……2009年,英国林地面积为284.1万 hm2,森林覆盖率为11.7%,英格兰、威尔士、苏格兰和北爱尔兰的森林覆盖率分别上升到8.7% 、13.7%、17.2%和6.5% http://t.cn/zOsN22D @whigzhou: 猜猜为什么?是对森林实施了国有化保护吗?错,森林私有率大幅上升,新增林地大部分是私有的;是禁止伐木或限制伐木规模了吗?错,伐木业和以木材为原料的产业同样大幅增长;当然,这一点也不奇怪:值钱的东西才有人去保护和提供。猜错只能说明你笨。  
[微言]人类与地球

【2012-03-22】

@布尔费墨:打开谷歌地球看看,人类活动对于地球的影响还不如蜘蛛对我们家房顶的影响明显。人类不要太自大了。什么全球变暖,什么增长极限,什么人口爆炸,自己糟践自己。真以为人类在地球上算个什么东西?

@tertio: 这个直观推理问题很严重,如果把所有核弹都点了呢?

@tertio: @whigzhou 这算直觉泵的一个负面案例吧

@whigzhou: 这个我看纯粹是对空胡喷嘛,直觉泵都算不上,最初直觉就不靠谱,谷歌地球我经常看,得不出人类影响很小这个直(more...)

标签: |
4173
【2012-03-22】 @布尔费墨:打开谷歌地球看看,人类活动对于地球的影响还不如蜘蛛对我们家房顶的影响明显。人类不要太自大了。什么全球变暖,什么增长极限,什么人口爆炸,自己糟践自己。真以为人类在地球上算个什么东西? @tertio: 这个直观推理问题很严重,如果把所有核弹都点了呢? @tertio: @whigzhou 这算直觉泵的一个负面案例吧 @whigzhou: 这个我看纯粹是对空胡喷嘛,直觉泵都算不上,最初直觉就不靠谱,谷歌地球我经常看,得不出人类影响很小这个直觉 @whigzhou: 况且,今日人口密集区百年前地貌你见过吗?你第一次看谷歌地球是几年前?这个时间跨度上能对人类“影响”形成任何有意义的直觉吗? @小野猪君: 我看到博主的说法,在想,是不是谷歌地球出了什么新的应用?能看到人类活动对地球的影响? @whigzhou: 生物量(biomass)比例可以给你一个简单但有用的直觉:地球动物总干重约1150百万吨,其中约9%是人肉,60%是人吃的肉,还有百分之几是与人伴生的老鼠之类 @whigzhou: 由于人类食物生产效率极高,因而对食物链上游(植物界)影响相对较小,可降低一个半数量级考虑  
饭文#W4: 下一块金砖在哪里?

【按:你可能已注意到,文章页面的边栏上多了个“相关作品”栏目,这可不是Google投送过来的广告哦,是我的模板程序按照文章所引用或关联的书号从豆瓣上抓过来的数据,这是本次改版的成果之一,但愿你会喜欢:)】

下一块金砖在哪里?
辉格
2011年12月29日

最近,新兴市场投资基金研究公司(EPFR)发表的数据显示,国际资本正在大量流出以金砖四国为代表的新兴市场,跟踪这些市场的指数也相应的大幅下跌,高盛的分析师也认为,新兴市场的黄金时代已经结束;这些看法,无疑给那些寄望于新兴市场的繁荣将全球经济拉出萧条的人们泼了一瓢冷水,不过与种种乐观论调相比,(more...)

标签: | | | | | |
2335
【按:你可能已注意到,文章页面的边栏上多了个“相关作品”栏目,这可不是Google投送过来的广告哦,是我的模板程序按照文章所引用或关联的书号从豆瓣上抓过来的数据,这是本次改版的成果之一,但愿你会喜欢:)】 下一块金砖在哪里? 辉格 2011年12月29日 最近,新兴市场投资基金研究公司(EPFR)发表的数据显示,国际资本正在大量流出以金砖四国为代表的新兴市场,跟踪这些市场的指数也相应的大幅下跌,高盛的分析师也认为,新兴市场的黄金时代已经结束;这些看法,无疑给那些寄望于新兴市场的繁荣将全球经济拉出萧条的人们泼了一瓢冷水,不过与种种乐观论调相比,它们看来更贴近现实。 过去二十年的新兴市场繁荣,是后冷战时代全球化所导致的资源再配置过程的后果,中国和印度的人力资源、俄罗斯和巴西的自然资源,在此之前被深锁在坚固的要素壁垒之内,一旦壁垒拆除,便造成了一股全球性资源再配置洪流,这些资源在进入全新的配置结构后,其产出能力和资产价值皆成倍增长。 这一过程不仅带来产出增长,更倍增了这些资源拥有者的财富,也为完成再配置过程的企业家、资本市场和金融业带来了大量投资机会和丰厚的资本回报;这是一种特殊事件带来的特殊繁荣,为更好的认识它,最好把它与常规增长区分开来,来自生物进化史的类比或许能帮助我们做这种区分。 地质史上,间或会有一些重大地理事件给生物界带来一个特殊的进化阶段,比如板块移动造就的巴拿马地峡最终在250万年前把南北美洲连成一体,冰川进退曾反复打开和关闭连接亚洲和北美的白令陆桥,气候干湿变化曾反复开闭连接下撒哈拉非洲和欧亚大陆的撒哈拉屏障,海面升降也曾多次开闭直布罗陀海峡。 这些地理事件所导致的物种流动,都会在短期内造就一个进化飞跃期,大批物种兴衰更替和辐射进化的规模、幅度和速度,都远非其他时期所能比肩;试想,假如有若干天使站上帝身边观赏进化史,并热衷于对各物种的命运下注,那么上述地理事件发生之际,大概也是他们押注兴趣最浓厚的时候。 那些观察敏锐、对进化规律有着良好把握的天使,这也是一展身手的最佳时机,假如上帝允许,他们或许还会从天堂跳下来,给那些在新生态形势下有发展前途的种群指路、提供交通工具,甚至贷款,这时候,他们就不只是投机者,也是投资者和企业家了。 战后树立的几道铁幕,如同关闭的直布罗陀海峡,将其身后的地中海变成了几近干涸的盐湖和大片荒漠,而构成过去二十年新兴市场繁荣的主要动力,便是海峡开放后迅猛灌入的海水,而现在,这一过程似乎已经完成,08年危机或许就是这股洪流所遭遇的一次反弹——正如熊彼特所指出,由于后浪看不见海岸在哪里,浪潮常常会扑过头而遭遇反弹;这并不是说进化已经停止,创新和增长仍将持续,但它已进入常规阶段,那种惊心动魄的场面已经过去了。 这样,“下一块金砖在哪里”这个问题就变成了:哪里还有这种级别的壁垒?答案似乎很明显:已经找不出大陆级规模的单一壁垒;阻碍要素流动的障碍当然还有很多,但那些都是零星分散而错综复杂的,不是由单一力量所设置并控制的,因而也是难以指望在短期内突然拆除的;如此看来,未来的增长将以常规方式进行。 在常规阶段,增长潜力将再次回归到制度优势和创新体系,这一点正是过去十多年常常被人们所忽视的,新兴市场令人眩目的表现让他们以为制度基础并非那么重要,这种见解的极端表现是张五常的“五千年最好论”,他们因为看到地中海的鱼类种群增长迅猛,便错误的断言地中海有着鱼类发展的最佳环境条件,其实只不过是因为此前地中海的鱼都死绝了。 投资者和企业家们,需要尽快从开放洪流所带来的喜悦和振奋中清醒过来,重新将目光聚集到制度和创新等传统优势上来,如此才能将自己的策略建立在一个牢固而可持续的基础之上;那些在市场制度建设上取得了长足进步的国家,比如秘鲁和蒙古,那些以危机为契机改善了其市场制度的国家,比如韩国,那些面对危机不乞灵于干预和管制而坚守市场取向的国家,比如新加坡和新西兰,在未来更值得看好。 重要的是,对于这些国家的人民,是不是金砖并不重要,那是给投资者衡量投资机会用的指标,好的制度才是他们生活和事业的坚实保障,许多在过去二十年很少吸引投资者目光的国家,比如斯洛文尼亚,实际上在生活安康和经济繁荣上都取得了极大进步。
[微言]象牙与禁猎

话题背景参见:禁售并非保护濒危动物之上策(2010-3-15)

【2011-10-28】

@遗产卫报:象牙雕染色香蕉。年代为19世纪,长17cm,2010年北京古天一秋拍亮相。写生的仿生艺术在清初时期就已流行,这件象牙雕仿真香蕉,体现出仿真艺术的极致。

@Ent_evo:谁能告诉我,这些人为什么要这么蛋疼啊……你要是把象牙拿回来雕个思想者或者大卫那种级别的艺术作品,那没准还稍微从轻发落那么一丁点儿,可你把大象偷猎得这么惨,就为了雕这个???

@whigzhou: “不许出售”=“让它变得一文不值”

@whigzhou: 许多可怜的野生动物迟早要在动物保护主义者手中(或口水中)死绝,阿弥陀佛

@sw小橘子: 没有买卖,就没有养殖。没有养殖,就有偷猎。(more...)

标签: | | | |
4024
话题背景参见:禁售并非保护濒危动物之上策(2010-3-15) 【2011-10-28】 @遗产卫报:象牙雕染色香蕉。年代为19世纪,长17cm,2010年北京古天一秋拍亮相。写生的仿生艺术在清初时期就已流行,这件象牙雕仿真香蕉,体现出仿真艺术的极致。 @Ent_evo:谁能告诉我,这些人为什么要这么蛋疼啊……你要是把象牙拿回来雕个思想者或者大卫那种级别的艺术作品,那没准还稍微从轻发落那么一丁点儿,可你把大象偷猎得这么惨,就为了雕这个??? @whigzhou: “不许出售”=“让它变得一文不值” @whigzhou: 许多可怜的野生动物迟早要在动物保护主义者手中(或口水中)死绝,阿弥陀佛 @sw小橘子: 没有买卖,就没有养殖。没有养殖,就有偷猎。 @whigzhou: 不止如此,假如野生种群不能带来收益,当地居民为何要保留其栖息地? @sw小橘子:有道理。不过这就难了。产权部分转移给当地居民,这是第一重。当地居民形成自我组织,避免公地悲剧,这是第二重。 @whigzhou: 组织失败的话还有最后一招嘛,征用并拍卖种群用益权,所得分给居民 @sw小橘子: 不过还是要补充,在这个例子中,群体规模、成员关系、沟通便利程度、组织化程度等因素,会影响到这个群体是否能够将分散的权利交托与一个代理者并由其实施拍卖。 @whigzhou: 不是啊,假如能够“交托”,就已经组织成功了,征用拍卖说的是组织失败时的外部介入 @whigzhou: 禁猎法实际上已经没收了种群用益权,所以不存在司法障碍 @sw小橘子 又想到一点。居民自组织成功时,证明至少有一种实施方式可以有效利用种群用益权。而当居民自组织失败时,则意味着,在当地种群用益权存在 @whigzhou: 对,拍卖额可能是负的,负值就是“物种存续”买家的出价,当然,这个出价可能仍不足以抵偿用益权的负值,但那就没办法了,说明保护者的意愿不够强烈 @sw小橘子:我不是这个意思。我是说用益权是负值。物种存续是另一件商品。 @whigzhou: 对啊,假如用益权市值为正,就不需要物种存续的买方参与,物种可自我维续,假如其值为负,则需买方出价来补偿该负值 @whigzhou: 总之,无论通过自发组织还是征用 拍卖,首先实现种群用益权的产权化(也就建立了物种前途的排他性影响权),然后所有者用该产权产出若干产品:动物制品、观赏和物种存续,它们的售价之和若能抵偿产权获取和维持成本,物种即无灭绝之虞 @whigzhou: 所以,作为其产出品之买方,象牙雕刻家和虎骨食用者与动物保护捐助者一样,都是物种的恩客,而非敌人 @茶博士未遂:在你的定义里,旅游参观某物种也是“出售”该物种的存在吧?这种出售,只要价格购高,环保主义者和土著就能都基本满意(环保者可能还是会抱怨几句该物种个体受到打扰)。 @whigzhou: 不是,“物种存续”这一商品的买方是主张保护者,卖方是物种命运影响者,而参观管制权是种群用益权的一部分,后者的确立让种群收益内化,从而激励对“物种存续”的产出 @茶博士未遂:价值观上,我认为物种个体直接被人杀掉比物种因栖息地被人侵占而灭绝更不可接受啊 @whigzhou: 呵呵,那你就不是物种存续的买方,而是“动物个体善终”的买方了 @茶博士未遂:请问怎样能买到尽量多的“动物不被任何人直接蓄意杀掉”? @whigzhou: 先形式化一下你的需求吧,是不是先把动物死亡分为“善终”和“惨死”两种?你要买的是善终率的提高,对吧?然后寻找卖家,应该是那些影响动物死法的人吧?这个范围太广太散,而且要命的是,我还不知道你界定善终的标准是什么
寒冷乃文明之福?

最近在读Barry Cox的《生物地理学》,读到讲更新世气候变化的第十章“冰和变化”时,盯着几幅曲线图发呆良久,一个念头突然闪过,让我大吃一惊,不知道是不是我神经过敏——我发现,人类历史上几个重大突破,全都发生在气温下降期(以下数据主要来自该章之图10.2,10.6,10.25):

1)人属确立:前梯格林/拜伯冰期,约200万年,即第四纪更新世(Pleistocene)的开端,图10.2/10.6,旧石器制作、手的进化、脑容量的第一次暴增,人属(Homo)确立;

2)现代智人确立:萨勒/里斯冰期,约25万年前后,图10.2/10.6,语言起源、脑容量第二次暴增,解剖学上的现代智人(Homo sapiens)确立;

3)走出非洲:约6-8万年前,这个时间目前好像还有些争议,按6-8万年前这个偏晚的估计,在威克塞尔/武木冰期(即末次冰期)的前半段,按8-15万年前这个偏早的估计,在艾米间冰期的末段,无论早晚,都在温度下行段,图10.2/10.6;

4)定居农业:新仙女木期(Younger Dryas,又译幼多瓣木期),约10800-10000年前,第260页,此时定居农业和畜牧业在黎凡特地区( 标签: | | |

697
最近在读Barry Cox的《生物地理学》,读到讲更新世气候变化的第十章“冰和变化”时,盯着几幅曲线图发呆良久,一个念头突然闪过,让我大吃一惊,不知道是不是我神经过敏——我发现,人类历史上几个重大突破,全都发生在气温下降期(以下数据主要来自该章之图10.2,10.6,10.25): 1)人属确立:前梯格林/拜伯冰期,约200万年,即第四纪更新世([[Pleistocene]])的开端,图10.2/10.6,旧石器制作、手的进化、脑容量的第一次暴增,人属([[Homo]])确立; 2)现代智人确立:萨勒/里斯冰期,约25万年前后,图10.2/10.6,语言起源、脑容量第二次暴增,解剖学上的现代智人([[Homo sapiens]])确立; 3)[[Out_of_Africa_theory|走出非洲]]:约6-8万年前,这个时间目前好像还有些争议,按6-8万年前这个偏晚的估计,在威克塞尔/武木冰期(即{{末次冰期}})的前半段,按8-15万年前这个偏早的估计,在艾米间冰期的末段,无论早晚,都在温度下行段,图10.2/10.6; 4)定居农业:新仙女木期([[Younger Dryas]],又译幼多瓣木期),约10800-10000年前,第260页,此时定居农业和畜牧业在黎凡特地区([[Levant]])起源; 5)国家和文字:BC3400,图10.25,这是两河文明([[Mesopotamia]])与埃及文明王朝时代([[Dynastic Egypt]])的开始,也是国家和文字的起源时间; 6)希腊和中国的古典黄金时代:BC800-500,图10.25,第一启蒙时代; 7)文艺复兴和资本主义:AD1300-1850,小冰期([[Little Ice Age]]),图10.25,印刷术、文艺复兴、大航海、启蒙、科学、资本主义; 除了热带干旱区域之外,寒冷对人类通常意味着环境条件恶化和食物短缺,莫非这些都是危机导致突破性发展的案例?还是我的幻觉?
饭文#J7: 禁售并非保护濒危动物之上策

禁售并非保护濒危动物之上策
辉格
2010年3月15日

最近,沈阳森林野生动物园三个月内连续饿死11头东北虎的事件,震惊了世人,也引发了人们对野生动物园是不是保存濒危动物的恰当方式这一问题的思考;饿死老虎的直接原因,是以观赏门票为主要收入的商业模式无法维系,该动物园多年来处于勉强维持的亏损状态,加上去年因老虎伤人被封园整顿,终于撑不下去,断了动物口粮。

人们或许还记得,几年前桂林熊虎山庄也曾面临类似的困境,在历经十几年努力并投入4亿多元资金后,山庄在老虎繁育上获得了巨大成功,老虎数量达到1000多头,并以每年一两百的速度增加;但与老虎一起增长的却是亏损,门票收入只够买饲料,无法维持运营,死老虎不能出售,相反还要承担每年十几万的冷藏费;如今,那里的众多老虎正被关在棚屋里苟延残喘。

在繁育上获得巨大成功的投资者,所收获的却注定是巨亏甚至破产,这不得不让人怀疑,目前的濒危动物保护体系,在激励机制上出了大问题;保护野生动物的立法努力,最初所指向的是捕猎行为,但后来人们逐渐意识到,只要对野生动物制品的巨大需求依然存在,就难以阻止猎手们铤而走险;制品禁售法律的主旨,在于通过切断野生制品的流通链,来遏制消费者对供方的激励。

然而,禁售法是否有助于其立法本意&mdas(more...)

标签: | | | | | |
760
禁售并非保护濒危动物之上策
辉格
2010年3月15日

最近,沈阳森林野生动物园三个月内连续饿死11头东北虎的事件,震惊了世人,也引发了人们对野生动物园是不是保存濒危动物的恰当方式这一问题的思考;饿死老虎的直接原因,是以观赏门票为主要收入的商业模式无法维系,该动物园多年来处于勉强维持的亏损状态,加上去年因老虎伤人被封园整顿,终于撑不下去,断了动物口粮。 人们或许还记得,几年前桂林熊虎山庄也曾面临类似的困境,在历经十几年努力并投入4亿多元资金后,山庄在老虎繁育上获得了巨大成功,老虎数量达到1000多头,并以每年一两百的速度增加;但与老虎一起增长的却是亏损,门票收入只够买饲料,无法维持运营,死老虎不能出售,相反还要承担每年十几万的冷藏费;如今,那里的众多老虎正被关在棚屋里苟延残喘。 在繁育上获得巨大成功的投资者,所收获的却注定是巨亏甚至破产,这不得不让人怀疑,目前的濒危动物保护体系,在激励机制上出了大问题;保护野生动物的立法努力,最初所指向的是捕猎行为,但后来人们逐渐意识到,只要对野生动物制品的巨大需求依然存在,就难以阻止猎手们铤而走险;制品禁售法律的主旨,在于通过切断野生制品的流通链,来遏制消费者对供方的激励。 然而,禁售法是否有助于其立法本意——即最大程度的保存濒危物种的野生种群——的实现,却并非无须论证;通过制品禁售来保护乃至扩大野生种群,暗设了一个前提:野生种群的数量是外生给定的,并且是进入消费市场的动物制品的唯一来源,因而流入消费市场的数量越多,野外保存的数量便越少。 这样,在设计激励机制时,所需考虑的市场只有一个:对来自野生种群的动物及其制品的供给和需求;在此考虑之下,最优选择便是:从供给、需求、流通三个方面施加最大的打击,以便消灭这个市场,最终关闭野生种群向消费市场的溢出。 然而这里存在两个问题:首先,满足消费需求的动物制品未必来自野生种群,也可来自人工养殖,因而,消费需求究竟激励了更多狩猎,还是激励了更多养殖,取决于供给成本;不同物种的成本曲线也是不同的;抓到濒危稀有动物原本就很困难,而禁猎法又大幅抬高了其成本,因而养殖成本远低于狩猎成本是完全可能的,越是稀有物种,这种可能性越大;若人工养殖能将市场价格压低到令商业捕猎完全无利可图,那么,禁售法便是不必要的。 其次,野生种群的供给数量,并不是由自然条件和物种禀赋单方面给定的,也与人类行为密切相关,人类对土地的使用状况,极大的影响着野生物种的栖息地面积和质量,从而影响其种群数量和规模;实际上,与捕猎相比,栖息地消失是濒危物种的更大威胁。 因此,{*quote(物种保护.激励结构)若要全面考虑濒危动物保护中的激励机制,须辨识出两个不同的市场:一个是上面所说的动物个体及其制品的终端消费市场,另一个是野生种群的市场,种群数量与规模,首先将由后一市场的供需状况决定,然后再减去其中溢出到终端市场的数量。 如上所述,当养殖替代品不能排挤掉捕猎供给时,禁售法可以降低对捕猎的激励;但人们时常忘记的是,它同时也降低了对保育和扩大野生种群的激励;假设某个非洲、印尼或亚马逊部落,其领地上生活着若干濒危种群,禁售法固然可能降低他们的捕猎热情,却无法阻止他们将草原、森林和沼泽改造成农场、牧场和鱼塘/quote*};由主权政府强行设立自然保护区,虽可缓解这种危机,但剥夺部落居民对土地的传统权利和改善生活的愿望,在道德上却是说不过去的。 来自消费市场的激励,在栖息地究竟会诱发更多的滥捕,还是更多维护种群存续的热情,取决于当地居民对激励的反应是否长期化,而这又取决于其从野生种群中获取的利益是否能长期化,换句话说,产权结构是否明确而稳定;若收益预期可长期稳定,竭泽而渔的滥捕便是不可取的,而部落居民在利益算计上并不比别人更傻。 多数濒危物种的栖息地都位于远离现代社会的部落区,所幸的是,传统部落社会普遍拥有维护公共资源和抑制机会主义行为的制度基础和相关的动员与约束机制,这一点在水源保护、祭祀、求雨和战争等公共事务上已有充分的体现;对于已将保护濒危动物设为既定目标的主权立法者来说,重要的是要让部落居民认识到,他们从野生种群的存续中,可以得到长期稳定和切实可见的利益,立法的作用应在于加强这种预期;显然,禁售法与此背道而驰。 在辨明两个市场及相应的激励关系,并弄清各物种的濒危程度、繁育难度和制品需求度之后,才可能针对不同物种制订出合适的保护机制;像华南虎这样极度濒危而短期内无望恢复野生种群的物种,禁售毫无意义,鼓励养殖以便为未来野化留种,才是可取之道。 对于野生种群仍然存在的濒危物种,在定期种群调查的基础上,动物保护组织可向当地部落发放奖金,政府则可发放出售相关制品的定额许可;而在终端市场上,借助类似纯种马的谱系跟踪和动物身份认定技术,也可以设计出排除了捕猎激励的交易市场;一旦良性激励机制建立,消费者对虎骨虎皮等野生制品的乖僻需求,反而成了物种的救星,相比之下,那些其尸体一文不值的濒危蟑螂,倒是要另觅保护之途了。
鲸这个物种如何私有化?

对我用私有化应对环境问题的说法,bearxy39说

并不是来不来得及的问题,这个想法不具有普遍的操作性啊~!
把森林换成鲸,缺点会更明显(全世界达成了保护鲸的协议,但日本人就是乱杀),私有化能保护鲸么?怎样把鲸都私有化呢?还有,怎么分才合理呢?平均分还是用钱买?想着想着,就牵出一大串问题,甚至是意识形态的问题。

难道避免公地悲剧的解决放案是消灭公地?公地能否被消灭?公地是否应该被消灭?如何消灭公地?消灭公地后会有副作用么?不懂不懂不懂……按照经济学的说法,好像政府存在的必要性之一就是公地无法消灭。

nkpoper说:

鲸鱼当然没办法私有化,这种到处跑的动物,又不可能有人跟着,怎么私有化?

bearxy39说的很好,解决方案就是消灭公地,消灭的办(more...)

标签: | |
390

对我用私有化应对环境问题的说法,bearxy39说

并不是来不来得及的问题,这个想法不具有普遍的操作性啊~!
把森林换成鲸,缺点会更明显(全世界达成了保护鲸的协议,但日本人就是乱杀),私有化能保护鲸么?怎样把鲸都私有化呢?还有,怎么分才合理呢?平均分还是用钱买?想着想着,就牵出一大串问题,甚至是意识形态的问题。

难道避免公地悲剧的解决放案是消灭公地?公地能否被消灭?公地是否应该被消灭?如何消灭公地?消灭公地后会有副作用么?不懂不懂不懂……按照经济学的说法,好像政府存在的必要性之一就是公地无法消灭。

nkpoper说:

鲸鱼当然没办法私有化,这种到处跑的动物,又不可能有人跟着,怎么私有化?

bearxy39说的很好,解决方案就是消灭公地,消灭的办法就是把权利界定到个人,也就是产权拟制和私有化;那么,如此一来,政府还要来干嘛?说得好,为啥非要政府呢?呵呵

不过,bearxy39对产权的理解还浅了一点,如果你深入考察会发现,财产权的根本,不在于对物的占有,而是对他人行为的合法排除,物的状态、甚至有没有物,并非关键,这一点,请参考我的旧文《钓鱼的故事:所有权的另一种解读》。

把我的观点运用到鲸的问题上,相应的财产权不是“对鲸个体的占有”,而是对“鲸这个物种之存续状态”的占有,其含义可以有两种:
1)某人若拥有该项产权,他便有权阻止任何危害到鲸物种存续的行为;
2)某人若拥有该项产权,他便具有排他的权利,可以做任何可能危及鲸物种之存续状态的事。

你很容易发现,这两种含义其实是完全等价的,即:识别出一类行为,赋予某人排他性权利,只有他能实施这些行为;如果别人实施了这些行为,就是对他的侵权,他有权为此索取补偿;这个补偿,或者自己动手去夺取,这叫自力救济,或者他去诉讼,这叫司法救济;其他人如果非要实施这些行为,可以用条件跟他交换,比如付钱,让他有条件解除行为限制,这叫交易,所谓财产权,不过如此。

回到鲸的问题,法官可以把“排除他人危及鲸物种存续的行为”这一权利赋予某人,比如国际鲸委员会,这样,日本渔民(或任何其他人)要捕鲸可以,自己去找委员会谈判交易;法官也可以把“独占的危及鲸物种存续的行为”这一权利(如上所述,其实与前一种是一个东西)赋予某人,比如日本捕鲸协会,如此一来,国际鲸委员会(或任何其他人)要保护鲸免遭灭绝,可以,自己去找日本捕鲸协会谈判交易即可,如果他们筹不到足够的钱来买下这份权利,那不过是表明了希望鲸种存续的人不够多,或愿望不够强烈,或太穷,或这些人只是嘴上喊得响,腰包却捂的紧。

如科斯所指出,若不考虑交易费用,将上述权利界定给鲸委员会,还是捕鲸协会,对最终鲸种的命运无影响,那么考虑交易费用会如何呢?未知,有待研究。

将鲸种产权界定给哪一方,在经济学上或许无关紧要,但在法学上却有关紧要,一项新权利,从模糊到明确,如何界定,界定给谁,应遵循某些一般性的法则,否则容易打起来,各方都可能质疑:凭啥?。

那么有些什么一般性法则呢?首要的是传统,或者如伯克所说的长久性,如果某些事情,我和我的祖辈重复做了几百上千年了,突然不让我做了,我就有了“合理的愤怒”,当然,在你看来,我这种行为在以前是无害的,而现在,许多人认识到捕鲸危及了鲸种的存续,而鲸种灭绝将是对他们的极大伤害(无论是感情的或者其他的总之是伤害),这一抱怨当然也能成立,但无论如何,你的受伤感是新来的,而我的捕鲸传统是古老的。

从这个角度,我倾向于将此项排他权赋予传统捕鲸社区的传统捕鲸渔民,当然,如果有人从其他法理原则上阐明另一种界定方法,请他说明,我持开放态度。但无论如何,权利应被界定,而且应界定为财产权:比如,法官可以要求主张该项权利的渔民提交显示他们过去50年捕鲸范围、种类和数量的证据,然后依此范围种类数量界定其权利,而将除此之外的捕鲸行为排除权赋予鲸委员会——该法人社团的设立宗旨确保了其自己不会捕鲸;此后,鲸种保护者不妨向渔民或他们的代理组织逐步收购其捕鲸配额,来满足他们的需求;若他们拿到证据显示渔民越过配额,可以提出侵权诉讼。

或许有人会问,若将捕鲸排他权赋予一家(比如日本捕鲸协会),他便处于垄断地位,会不会漫天要价?答:现有方式是将排他权赋予政府或联合国某机构,这是绝对垄断,只有赋予私人才可能实现竞争性的分立产权,这正是私有化的好处所在,至于捕鲸权是否可分割为分立产权,取决于其所界定的对象是否可分割,按上述配额方式,是可分割的。

环境和动物保护者需要认清一点:他们对物种免遭灭绝的愿望,也是人类需求之一种,与日本渔民捕鲸的需求相比,听起来或许更高尚,但在法律上并不更正当;法律从未保证:高尚而美好的愿望就必须得到满足;而在人类社会,当不同需求之间的发生冲突时,迄今唯一能和平解决的方案,便是法律保障下的权利和财产权。

那么空气呢?我觉得我在这里说的话完全适用于空气。

假如流溪河归某人所有

关于环境保护的一段对话(2009-5-19),存档:

59:30  F  辉格  我觉得多生小孩并不是所有成本都落在生育者自己头上的
59:44  辉格  F  ?
00:02  F  辉格  比如制造出来的垃圾,就没啥成本了吧
00:25  辉格  F  有啊
00:31  辉格  F  垃圾处理要钱的
00:35  辉格  F  卫生费
00:41  F  辉格  现在没啥钱
01:10  辉格  F  前提是财产权覆盖够充分
01:20  辉格  F  环境问题是财产权问题
01:24  F  辉格  我觉得对资源的消耗浪费或者破坏,现在都没啥成本,或者成本很小
01:29  辉格  F  怎么没啥钱?
01:35  辉格&nbs(more...)

标签: | | |
396

关于环境保护的一段对话(2009-5-19),存档:

59:30  F  辉格  我觉得多生小孩并不是所有成本都落在生育者自己头上的
59:44  辉格  F  ?
00:02  F  辉格  比如制造出来的垃圾,就没啥成本了吧
00:25  辉格  F  有啊
00:31  辉格  F  垃圾处理要钱的
00:35  辉格  F  卫生费
00:41  F  辉格  现在没啥钱
01:10  辉格  F  前提是财产权覆盖够充分
01:20  辉格  F  环境问题是财产权问题
01:24  F  辉格  我觉得对资源的消耗浪费或者破坏,现在都没啥成本,或者成本很小
01:29  辉格  F  怎么没啥钱?
01:35  辉格  F  物业费里含卫生费
01:36  F  辉格  卫生费
01:52  F  辉格  水,多不值钱。。。。。。。
02:02  辉格  F  价格管制
02:27  辉格  F  F 说 (02:01): 我觉得对资源的消耗浪费或者破坏,现在都没啥成本,或者成本很小 
02:40  辉格  F  这是产权缺失的结果,见文
03:17  辉格  F  如果流溪河归某人所有,就没这问题
03:49  辉格  F  即使流溪河主人不爱惜它,也没关系
04:08  F  辉格  为啥没关系
04:10  辉格  F  爱惜它的人可以付钱给他
04:17  辉格  F  让他保养好
04:21  辉格  F  否则不给钱
04:33  辉格  F  如果没人愿意给,说明没人真的爱惜它
04:36  辉格  F  说说而已
04:54  F  辉格  那除非给流溪河起围墙
05:00  辉格  F  未必
05:03  F  辉格  不然干嘛自己花钱,让别人享受
05:12  F  辉格  看都不给别人看
05:22  辉格  F  有人花钱=\=一个人花钱
05:29  辉格  F  NGO多了
06:18  辉格  F  还有房产商
06:32  辉格  F  两岸的房产商都会付钱给他
06:51  辉格  F  旅游业老板
06:59  辉格  F  餐馆老板、酒店老板
07:14  辉格  F  这些老板组成的商会
08:17  辉格  F  不要一想到外部性就认为交易无法达成
08:24  辉格  F  任何交易都有外部性
23:34  F  辉格  那就不见得是福利社会才这样咯,像你说的这样,河流公有也会影响真正的成本
23:58  F  辉格  哦,就是你说的公共化
24:03  辉格  F  对,公有=没人有=产权缺失
25:18  辉格  F  资源保护的过程应该是一个成本内化的过程
25:37  辉格  F  而环保组织和各国环保政策的努力方向恰好相反
26:52  F  辉格  解释一下嘛
27:16  辉格  F  比如政府罚款,
27:31  辉格  F  收益没有落实到个人,起不到激励作用
27:47  辉格  F  国家森林公园、保护区
27:57  辉格  F  捕猎禁令
28:23  辉格  F  全都与成本-收益内化背道而驰
29:08  F  辉格  哦
29:52  辉格  F  保护区无法阻止巴西和印尼农民的刀和火
30:07  F  辉格  那承包也是个办法哦
30:08  辉格  F  只有私人产权能阻止
30:44  辉格  F  承包就是产权一种
30:51  辉格  F  产权不必是永久性的
31:05  辉格  F  只要主体和边界明确
32:31  辉格  F  保护雨林的唯一办法是把它分给私人,然后向他们付钱
32:38  辉格  F  现在已经来不及了
33:25  辉格  F  如果把沙漠分给私人,很快就会改变,我打赌
33:40  F  辉格  是啊,有先例的吗

中南山归来说环境

中南山归来说环境
辉格
06/05/13

对于我这种不喜欢热闹的人,浙南山区是度假的好地方,——或许若干年后也会是定居的好地方,——所以,春节和五一这两个相隔不远的长假都在此度过也并未让我感觉乏味。

这两次旅行,给我留下深刻印象的,除了山区特有的景物之外,就是那里的人口变迁了。一个个已经或即将被遗弃的村庄,一幢幢久无人住的蒙尘老屋,从山谷往高处走,走得越高,便看到越多弃耕的荒田,越少的炊烟,越少的年轻人。山上的往山谷里搬,山谷里的往镇上搬。

据说,近年来官方清退民办教师和合并乡村小学的政策加速了这一趋(more...)

标签: | | | |
1340
中南山归来说环境 辉格 06/05/13 对于我这种不喜欢热闹的人,浙南山区是度假的好地方,——或许若干年后也会是定居的好地方,——所以,春节和五一这两个相隔不远的长假都在此度过也并未让我感觉乏味。 这两次旅行,给我留下深刻印象的,除了山区特有的景物之外,就是那里的人口变迁了。一个个已经或即将被遗弃的村庄,一幢幢久无人住的蒙尘老屋,从山谷往高处走,走得越高,便看到越多弃耕的荒田,越少的炊烟,越少的年轻人。山上的往山谷里搬,山谷里的往镇上搬。 据说,近年来官方清退民办教师和合并乡村小学的政策加速了这一趋势,许多家庭为了孩子上学方便搬到了镇上甚至县城里住。 仔细观察了仍然存在的那些村子的人口结构,很难找到三十岁以下的人,偶尔见到几个也多半是因为假期才出现在那里。这预示着,几十年后,我现在看到的这些村子中的大多数,也将被废弃。 在作出这样的观察和展望之后,我脑中闪过的第一个念头是:随着人类向城市“退缩”,这里的自然环境和生态系统将会大大改善,这是工业化和伴随工业化而来的城市化的结果。想到这里,不禁窃笑——那些环保分子和绿色和平活动家们,如果认识到这一点,不知会作何反应? 在环保分子眼里,现代工业无疑是破坏环境的恶魔,可是只要回顾一下过去几千年的历史,正是农耕生活方式的扩张让人类遍布世界各个角落,彻底改变了地球的面貌,而工业化,虽然在其初期加剧了人类活动对环境的影响,那也主要是通过其新技术和新工具对农业的促进和对农村居民的生活条件改善而实现的,一旦随工业化而来的城市化达到一定程度,扭转了人口形势和能源结构,工业化对环境的积极作用便立刻显现。 一个大工厂,或一个大城市,固然可能产生和排放大量垃圾和污染物,然而与数百万人分散居住在几十万平方公里土地上相比,其对环境的影响可以说是微乎其微的。试以一个200户1000口的中等山村为例,粗略算一笔小帐:按传统的生产和生活方式,假设每户每天烧10斤柴禾,每年有10户盖新房,每幢用木50株,20户修缮旧房,每幢用木10株,那么该村每年仅燃料和建筑两项,至少需要砍伐灌木730吨,乔木800株。为了维持生态平衡,这800株乔木须以低于5%的间伐比例采自800亩密度不低于20株/亩的乔木林;而730吨灌木,以每株得柴30斤算,须以低于20%的间伐比例采自2400亩密度不低于50株/亩的灌木林。与此同时,为了产出足够的粮食,该村需要2000亩耕地。 上述估算意味着,要维持传统的农业生活和环境的稳定,每1000亩耕地需要有1600亩林地相配合。但是我们知道,在没有战争和瘟疫等重大人口抑制力量的制约下,人口会迅速增长,新增的人口会把周围可开垦的土地都变成耕地,这样,要维持上面的比例,就需要自然条件将足够比例的土地限制为不可开垦或没有开垦价值,这个条件只能在山区或丘陵地带成立,而在平原地区是不能成立的。结果是,正如我们看到的,自从人类发明了农业技术,经过几千年的开发,所有被农耕民族长期居住过的土地,森林消失了,越是古老文明的发源地,消失得越是彻底:从尼罗河,两河,地中海西岸,印度,黄河,直到长江流域。农业所到之处,环境资源迅速枯竭,森林和野生动物仅仅在山岭地带得以幸存,即使是山区,如果不幸邻近一个大平原,也难免因为旺盛的外部需求而被砍伐殆尽。 是工业化扭转了这一趋势。首先,工业化将大量人口吸引到城市,城市生活改变了人们的生育偏好,最终扭转了人口形势;其次,工业化改变了能源结构,煤炭和石油代替了木材;第三,工业化改变了建筑材料,水泥、钢铁和玻璃代替了木料。那些拚了命反对建核电站的环保分子,我实在不知道他们是怎么想的,再迟钝的人也看得出:即使把一个核电站所产生的废料不加处理倾倒在一座荒山上,对环境造成的破坏也比一座同等功率的火力发电站要小得多,更不要说和用木材做燃料相比了。 环保分子常说一句话:“回归自然”。而依我看,如果真心想对环境好,人类还是“退缩到城市”为妙,说实话,“回归自然”听起来浪漫,真做起来,恐怕会是环境的灾难。