years ago.
[D] Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for
conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the
linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
[E] Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not
so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate
the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship
between the two.
[F] If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the
single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors
affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment
relationship would be almost impossible.
[G] The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its
initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems
sustainably— working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the
short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
[H] And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the
end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated
that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive
a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
[I] But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich
and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic
water use for agriculture, slash-and-burn farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling ( 大量消耗)
transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr.
Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best
example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five
centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry
which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in
Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough
fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade
later, there was no sign of the ecosystem re-building itself. It had, apparently, been fished
out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for
crab on the sea floor.
[J] There is a view that modern humans are inevitably sowing the seed of a global Grand
Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the
planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our
ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological
overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s-worth of
environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will
be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will
grind to a halt.
[K] Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to
determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are
only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason
why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while
some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with
economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and
then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
[L] This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do
things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous.
“In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by
under-development,” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner
world? Not necessarily. “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are