Archives for posts with tag: environment

I saw these pictures in the paper version and now saw them online…they are amazing both aesthetically (aerial shots) and because of the sad reality that they reveal–the irreversible degradation of China’s environment. The pictures are all taken from Hubei province, in and around nine major cities There’s a little essay exhorting us to greater environmental consciousness, reproduced here:

9月16到19日,在对湖北9城市的航拍中,我无意间拍下了这组令人心痛的照片。我们飞行的航线并非为拍摄这些场景而设置,但是,这些我不愿看到、也难以置信的画面还是进入了我的视野——

素有“千湖之省、鱼米之乡”美誉的湖北,山青水蓝,花红柳绿,可从空中看到的另一种色彩,却和这片土地的美是那么不协调。这色彩斑杂的一个个场景,宛如大地上的一道道伤痕。当然,这样的污染情况绝非湖北一地仅有;湖北也许并不是最严重的地方。但是,这些发生在眼前的触目惊心,却让每一个深爱着这片土地的人无法平静。我们只有正视美丽之中的丑陋,才能将美丽永远保存。

二十一世纪的现代文明,催生了繁荣昌盛的经济成果,同时,人类对大自然的攫取、掠夺和伤害,也催生了这样本不该生长的“恶之花”。 我们赖以生存的家园,正在变得像一个人与自然的战场——人类分明可以看到自己舞动的刀光剑影,可故意视而不见;孰不知最后伤害的是人类自己!

人类与大自然的关系,并不是“我”与“它”的关系,而是“我们”的整体概念。本是亲为一体的人与自然,如今成为争夺地盘的敌人,这场战争的结局,只能是两败俱伤。

如果我们还爱着自己的家园,我们怎能够对她的伤痕置之不理?

如果我们还爱着自己的家园,我们一定可以再见到柔软的青草、清冽的湖水和蔚蓝的天空!

我们已经失去了很多。其实失去并不可怕,可怕的是我们不知道失去了什么。我们失去的,只是那一片耕地,那一处湖泊,那一类物种吗?如果我们不知道已经和将要失去的是什么,那才是永远地失去。而我们,再也不能失去了!

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The debate rages on, with many Wenchuan local residents, according to a survey, inclined
to get out of there while they can. This article claims that out of 768 people surveyed, over 90% of them wanted to leave and rebuild their homes and their lives somewhere else. There’s a passage that’s particular revealing as it talks about the uneven economic development in the area.

过度发展招来泥石流

汶川城从原先的5000人发展到如今4.5万人,修路、建厂,开发过程中破坏了很多山体

地震后,四川省地矿局的刘洪涛进入汶川考察。他在对县城所有的地质灾害点进行摸底后发现,由于县城逐渐扩张,直接引发县城周边的30多处地质灾害点。“这些隐患多数是人类活动造成的。”

上世纪50年代,汶川县城由绵虒镇搬迁到如今的县城所在地威州镇。1984年,整个县城面积是91公顷,进入上世纪90年代县城面积扩展到3.5平方公里。人口从原先的5000人到后来的4.5万人。

建设部抗震救灾规划专家组驻阿坝州组长、清华大学建筑学院副院长尹稚来考察后说,汶川城这片土地只合适5000人生存。

刘洪涛在县城里看到多处地方,有削山建房屋的活动痕迹。他说,这样就容易造成山体下挫,发生滑坡。

汶川城在弹丸之地新修了校场街和校场横街,而后又修岷江路。地震前,县城还准备向南北扩展,合并雁门和绵虒一些区域,将人口发展到7万人。

地震中断了汶川的发展梦。

地震当天下午3点,汶川时代广场新开楼盘杨柳水岸小区原本约定业主收房。开盘前,地震发生。这个位于峭壁边上的住宅小区其一楼迅速被山上滚石淹没。如今,有些楼房的三四层楼已被埋于土下。

龙溪乡乡长周光辉说,希望地震后,过度发展与山区承载力的矛盾能引起重视,如果村民都回去原址重建,且不说目前还有没有地方可建,就是能重建,以后也会严重破坏山体,破坏生态环境,带来更多的地质灾害。他建议,对于他们龙溪乡,最多只能回去 1000多人,其他的地方进行封山育林。

The thing is that in the 1990s, as mining and other industries spurred economic development, the population grew from 5000 in in the mid-1980s to about 45,000 in the 1990s. However, the article claims that this parcel of land was not really meant to support more than 5000 people. The picture that I am getting from both this article and the other that I translated and read is that the headlong rush to economic development has complicated the issue. Now, what was once (and some believe still is) a good place to live faces numerous dangers–the mountains, the rivers, the buildings. In a situation like this, it’d be hard to convince any of the survivors to stay here. If I lived there I would feel less than safe, and that’s not even considering the trauma of being in the place where it all happened. It seems quite understandable that people would want to start afresh somewhere else. One of the people quoted in the article said that even if they had to rebuild their lives in Xinijiang, they would go and never look back.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Original article about Yellow River here.

Just something I saw in China CSR.com…this thing was on the way from Oakland to China. I guess there are some loopholes in Hong Kong law that allow e-waste to get through, even though it’s technically illegal. Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,