China and its people under the crisis of climate change

（This article is translated from Chinese to English by Google translate）

In recent years, the issue of climate change has become an international hotspot. Climate change refers to the rapid rise of the earth's temperature and the increasing frequency of extreme weather after the industrial revolution, especially in recent decades.

The cause of this climate change almost unanimously points to human activities. Quoting this defining statement from Wikipedia (Of course, it does not mean that Wikipedia is authoritative, but its source is authoritative (the following passage is from the Tampa Bay Times, which has won 13 Pulitzer Prizes) Times)” and NASA (NASA), the content is verifiable, and this paragraph is also highly generalized and concise): There is a strong scientific consensus that human economic activities have caused global warming in recent decades , there is no dispute among the academic circles that it is true that "man-made global warming has existed and is occurring in recent decades". More than 97% of climate scientists believe that "global warming exists, and human activities are very likely to be the main cause of global warming in the past half century".

The Harm of Climate Warming and Its Countermeasures

And the dangers of this climate change are also very clear. Extreme heat is becoming more frequent, rising sea levels due to melting glaciers submerge low-altitude areas, increased frequency of heavy precipitation and floods, spread of infectious diseases to high latitudes, drier and desertified arid areas, reduced biodiversity, and snow and ice in extremely high latitudes Melting and cooling damage the ecology, increasing epidemics, reducing crop production, and increasing tropical cyclones such as typhoons. All of these have caused serious harm and threat to the survival of human beings and even all living things on earth. If the continuous aggravation of climate warming cannot be stopped in time, human beings will suffer from extremely tragic natural disasters and induced man-made disasters in the future, and even human beings may perish because of it.

And climate warming (climate warming is the mainstream and key of this round of climate change, and the main content discussed in this article is also about climate warming, so if there are no special circumstances below, "climate warming" instead of "climate change" Call it. Also, "climate warming" does not only refer to a natural phenomenon caused by human factors, but also a climate crisis that will cause disasters) is mainly caused by human activities, including industrial and agricultural activities and various living consumption. To curb climate warming, it is necessary to limit industrial and agricultural production and personal consumption, and reduce production, supply, and use related to greenhouse gas emissions. This will greatly affect the economic development, employment, quality of life, and social stability of countries and their people. Moreover, extensive international cooperation must be achieved to curb climate warming. However, the impact of climate warming on different countries is different, and the level of development, industrial structure and quality of life of the people in each country are also different, and the responses of countries to climate warming are also different. Therefore, the climate issue is not only a scientific and environmental issue, but also a political issue, economic issue, human rights issue, people's livelihood issue, international relations issue and many other important and thorny issues for human beings. Behind these issues, there are huge conflicts of interests, which affect the rise and fall of various countries and nations, and are related to the livelihood, life, survival and death of countless people.

In addition, there is another point that is the widespread influence of "climate warming denial". Due to factors such as religion, social trust, education popularity and quality, values and culture, and the most important interests and positions, the forces to deny or question climate warming are very powerful, including a large number of politicians, social activists and a large number of The common people all hold the denial of climate warming. Several main points of the denial of climate warming are nothing more than "climate warming is a normal natural change, not caused by man-made factors or the influence of man-made factors is very small", "the climate is not necessarily warming but may be cooling", "Climate warming is a hoax created by some politicians and scientists for power or interests" etc. some natural phenomena"). These doubts actually have a lot of facts and clear evidence that can be refuted and denied, but it is still very common to firmly believe in these views. (About the fallacy of "denial of climate warming", from academic journals to well-known media to experts from various countries, there are clear and credible criticisms. Because the space is too long, I will not list them here one by one. Those who want to know Can be checked online or offline through reliable channels)

As a result, there have been many disputes among countries and people on whether and how to curb climate warming. These disputes are at the level of interests, but also at the level of values, and more interests and values are intertwined. As China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, related disputes are also very intense. The impact of climate warming on China, China’s response from officials to the public and its impact on decision-making, as well as the many domestic and foreign relations issues reflected in these responses and disputes, are also very complicated and acute, worthy of analysis, discussion, and Give some kind of possible suggestion.

First of all, Chinese officials recognize the existence of climate warming and its real threat to China, and have done a lot of research, analysis and prediction on this. However, there are great disputes with other countries about how to solve climate warming and how much to bear in international emission reduction cooperation, and its own policies are constantly changing.

What is more valuable for analysis and discussion is the relevant attitudes, words and deeds of the Chinese people (of course, the "people" here also includes the elite and vested interests).

Most of the Chinese people (hereinafter referred to as "Chinese") actually doubt or even deny climate warming. The reason is nothing more than the arguments of people who deny climate warming in other countries. Their views and doubts can also be refuted by relevant massive and solid facts and data.

However, these Chinese people who deny climate warming cannot decide China's climate policy, and their doubts are of no value in discussion in terms of scientific nature. What is really worth discussing is the position and attitude of mainstream citizens, including climate warming affirmers and deniers, towards China's approach to climate warming, and the values and interests reflected behind it, as well as other more complicated things.

There are many Chinese people who agree with the real existence of climate warming, especially the elite groups in Chinese society. Although their scientific literacy is not high, at least they are better able to understand and recognize the conclusions drawn by science than those "elites" who believe in religion in the United States. However, this does not mean that they have a correct understanding and attitude towards China's role and responsibility on the issue of climate warming, nor does it mean that they are keen on environmental protection and curbing climate warming. On the contrary, their position is precisely to strongly oppose the global efforts to improve the climate issue, and oppose China's assuming appropriate responsibilities and paying the corresponding price.

"Chai Jing interviews Ding Zhongli" related right and wrong

This position and attitude is very typical and concentrated in the Chinese people's attitude towards the former CCTV reporter Chai Jing's interview with the Chinese Academy of Sciences climate expert Ding Zhongli. In the interview, Chai Jing emphasized the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the major efforts made by developed countries to reduce emissions, and advocated a professional rather than political approach to global emission reduction and China's responsibility issues. Ding Zhongli, who was interviewed, emphasized the game of national interests (political factors) behind the division of climate responsibility issues, developed countries need to take more responsibilities, China, as a developing country, should have more room for industrial development, and the Chinese people have the right to own and develop The per capita emission rights of the nationals of the same amount, etc. Ding Zhongli also specifically mentioned that developed countries industrialized earlier and had a longer period of unrestricted emission of greenhouse gases, and emphasized that China ignores the past and only requires the right to own 80% of the per capita emissions of developed countries in the future.

It sounds like Chai Jing and Ding Zhongli are right (although those who attacked Chai Jing didn't think she was right), and Ding Zhongli's words are more in line with the interests of the Chinese people. In particular, Ding Zhongli's defense of the Chinese people's emission rights on par with developed countries, "Are the Chinese people human?" made the Chinese feel even more excited, calling him "the country's peerless" and "true experts." Chai Jing, on the other hand, is considered a traitor on the sidelines of the United States and foreign interest groups, ignorant of professional knowledge, and disrespectful of experts and scholars. . On various platforms such as Zhihu, Bilibili, and Weibo, you can see relevant comments about this interview. The attacks, slanders, and obscenities against Chai Jing are unsightly.

And is the truth really what the audience thinks it is? Is what Ding Zhongli said the whole truth (similarly, is what Chai Jing said the whole truth)? What role and responsibility should China play in global emission reduction?

First of all, what Ding Zhongli said is the truth, but only part of the truth, an obviously selective exposition. Indeed, as a late-developing industrial country, China's economic development level, per capita GDP and living standards are far behind those of Europe and the United States. For China at present, economic development, employment and increasing national income are more urgent and practical than combating the climate issue. Developed countries have both first-mover advantages and a relatively superior and affluent life today, so the responsibility for reducing emissions should be greater and the pressure to reduce emissions should be smaller. This is why, in the international climate negotiations, developed countries and developing countries have a consensus on "common but differentiated" emission reductions. cooperating.

But on the other hand, Chinese people intentionally or unintentionally ignore the greater price paid by developed countries and the need for China to make more efforts. Indeed, on a per capita basis, the per capita carbon emissions of developed countries are still greater after emission reductions. But as Chai Jing and the background video said, according to the agreement, developed countries will reduce their emissions by 80% (and may even reach 95%), while developing countries will not reduce their emissions so much, and they will achieve net carbon emissions. A time of zero can be later. Ding Zhongli also mentioned that the emissions of developed countries at that time will be 2.3 times that of developing countries, compared with 7.54 times before. Such data show that both the absolute price paid by developed countries and the relative price paid compared with their original emissions far exceed that of developing countries. And this means that developed countries need to take the initiative to make more sacrifices, including abandoning many industrial achievements that have been made, more traditional industrial workers are unemployed, and the existing social order is even more impacted.

Yes, even so, developed countries still have an advantage in per capita emissions, and they still have historical debts. However, it is already a very considerable effort to let the vested interests take the initiative to cut a very large share from the existing income and expected income. Although vested interests should indeed pay more, it is impossible to ask them to become the same as the per capita level of less developed countries. This is like redistribution and taxation. Vested interests do need to hand over a certain amount of income to subsidize the poor and maintain social fairness, but it is impossible to require them to become consistent with the average wage or even the minimum wage. China's highest personal income tax rate is 45%, the United States is 35%, and the highest rate in European developed countries is 75%. For the elite and the rich, even if they pay 75% of their personal income, the remaining 25% of their property is still more than ten times or even dozens of times the national average wage and the minimum wage. Is it possible to require them to be reduced to equal to the average wage level? Such a complete "equalization of the rich and the poor" is indeed an ideal state, but it is impossible and should not be realized today. And like Bill Gates, even if he spends most of his money for charity, his assets and consumption are still much higher than ordinary people, but is it necessary for him to be considered a perfect person if he is required to have the same clothing, food, housing and transportation as ordinary workers and employees?

The same goes for carbon emissions. For developed countries, the degree of industrialization is already very high, and the degree of agricultural intensification and per capita output value are also very high. Although the proportion of the tertiary industry has been increasing in recent years, its per capita industrial and agricultural output value is still many times higher than that of developing countries. . Although there are certain elements of unjust income (such as the inequality created by the colonial accumulation in the early years and the international division of labor today), the mainstream of economic achievements is still obtained through hard work and innovation. To reduce such a large amount of carbon emissions, the impact on the economy and employment will be huge. Even if industrial transformation and upgrading are carried out and employment placement is carried out, there will definitely be a high price, which will damage the vested interests of some people. In fact, this kind of contribution has also triggered a rebound from stakeholders, from oil companies to ordinary industrial workers, there has been fierce opposition, and has caused domestic turmoil in various countries (the United States is an example). Developed countries are already willing to make greater overall and per capita sacrifices for carbon emissions. Does it have to make their per capita carbon emissions, which are highly related to their per capita industrial output value and per capita GDP, equal to the level of developing countries? Is this realistic and feasible? Ding Zhongli also said that sharing a share of the cake is "such a great benefit". Are the "interests" of developed countries all brought by strong winds? Developed countries are willing to make such a big compromise, shouldn't China and other developing countries also make corresponding concessions?

Perhaps some Chinese people, even though they are well aware of this, still believe that absolute equality should be demanded, and think that what I said is speaking for the rich, worrying about vested interests, and a "traitor" who stands on the side of foreigners. Then think about it, in China's domestic actions to reduce carbon emissions, is it fair that Shanghai's per capita carbon emissions should be reduced to the level of Qinghai (even if Shanghai is obviously more affected by climate warming and should pay more)? Is it possible that the per capita carbon emissions in the urban area of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province will be reduced to the same level as that in the rural areas of the province? Even if developed regions and major cities rely on blood sucking and privileges to develop to a certain extent, and consume more resources, is it fair to force the same standard on carbon emissions? Is it beneficial to China's development including the interests of underdeveloped regions? We all know that there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor in China, but in the future China will adjust income and improve redistribution. Is it possible and should it be possible for China’s top elites to have the same income as ordinary white-collar workers, white-collar workers and ordinary farmers to have the same income, and everyone to have the same income?

If this is done, it is in line with the principle of complete equality (and even catch up with the past) advocated by Ding Zhongli and his supporters. This is what an ideal society should look like, but it is impossible in reality. Most of Ding Zhongli’s supporters who speak on various online platforms, especially Zhihu, have a little culture and income, and many of them are above the national average income. Do you support this kind of “equalization of the rich and the poor”? Those high-achieving students in 985 and 211 support themselves to earn the same income as Foxconn assembly line workers (even if the former often pay less blood and sweat than the latter, and the latter need compensation benefits even more due to their family background)? In terms of per capita carbon emissions, if you are a well-off Chinese, are you willing to reduce the carbon emissions of industrial and agricultural consumer goods you consume to the level of ordinary people? In the past, if the carbon emissions of consumer goods were 10 times that of poor households, would you like to reduce consumption to 2 times?

Therefore, Ding Zhongli's position is indeed correct from a completely idealized level, but it is unrealizable and unreasonable. At present, human beings have not achieved the environment required for complete equality, and supporters themselves cannot achieve "equal wealth" with the lower classes, and the per capita carbon emission values are also very different in different regions of the country. Are Chinese countries consistent in terms of per capita carbon emissions?

Developed countries reduced their carbon emissions by a huge margin, but still higher than the per capita emissions of developing countries. Developing countries paid a smaller absolute amount per capita and a relatively small reduction, but still lower than the average per capita of developing countries. The difference in per capita carbon emissions between the two countries was large. Downsizing and joint emission reductions based on the common but differentiated principle to curb climate warming are already the best solution at the moment.

Ding Zhongli's Fallacy

In addition, Ding Zhongli mentioned in the interview that as a geological researcher, he believes that human activities have little impact on temperature, and later mentioned that it is not absolutely certain that climate warming is caused by human activities, and that "do scientists have a mainstream?" , which is actually quite misleading. His statement is quite similar to the position of those who hold the denial of climate warming. Originally, I didn’t want to comment in detail on the denial of climate warming that has long been falsified by countless arguments, but since Ding Zhongli is mentioned, let’s make a specific judgment.

Indeed, if placed in a long geological time, the temperature increase in recent decades and hundreds of years is not unique (there are also studies in the scientific community, which show that the earth has a climate of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, which is caused by natural causes. Changes, that is, "Milankovitch cycle"), today's climate warming is just a small fluctuation in the extremely long process from the birth of the earth to the present, and the earth has had a period of more than ten degrees higher than the current average temperature. However, such fluctuations, which are very small from the perspective of a very macroscopic historical span, have a devastating impact on human beings today, and this time they are not natural but man-made, not irresistible but preventable. For human beings, the fluctuations in the span of 10,000 or 100,000,000 years need to be ignored, and they have to be ignored. Just like the sun will perish in billions of years, it is impossible for humans to live on the earth (the earth itself is gone), if human beings are unable to immigrate to other places in the universe at that time, or if other galaxies are simply not suitable for human survival, then human beings will also die. It must perish, and there will be no trace of human beings left. But this does not mean that we will no longer build and develop, and will no longer fight against various natural disasters and climate issues. Under normal circumstances, human beings still have a very short life span from the perspective of the history of the universe, but a very long life span from the perspective of human beings, which may be tens of thousands, millions, or hundreds of millions of years. Or in a very pessimistic calculation, it may be thousands of years. So in these thousands or tens of thousands of years, did human beings try their best to prolong their life span and make their offspring live a better life? Devastating impact, suffering and death of billions or even billions? To give another simpler example, a person is always going to die, so after birth, do you not need to treat illnesses and live longer if you don’t work hard?

In addition, Ding Zhongli's statement also subconsciously (let's not think it was intentional) ignored the relationship between constants and variables. The warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions is indeed only a small percentage of today's Earth's temperature, but it is this increase that is deadly. Just like the normal temperature of the human body is about 36-37 degrees, and if you have a fever, the body temperature is nothing more than 38 degrees, 39 degrees, and the highest is only 42 degrees. The increase in fever is indeed "small" relative to normal temperature, but it is enough to cause serious discomfort. If the high fever exceeds 40 degrees, you may faint, and if the fever does not subside at 42 degrees, you will die within a few hours. The previous 36 degrees are fine, but the added 6 degrees are enough to kill. The same is true for climate issues. The increase is indeed only a small percentage of the original constant, but it is enough to change the previous ecological balance, destroy the habitability of humans and various creatures, and even lead to the extinction of humans and various creatures. (Similarly, the same is true for sea level rise. The relative value of the global altitude is very large. The highest peak in the world, Everest, is 8,844 meters above sea level, and the deepest Mariana Trench in the world is 11,034 meters, a difference of nearly 20,000 meters. There is a gap of several thousand meters; the difference between China's coastal continental shelf and the continental slope, ocean basin, and trench is also several thousand meters. However, if the sea level rises only by single-digit meters, many large cities will be submerged; They were all soaked into seawater. The value of this increase is indeed extremely small relative to the total value, but it is enough to cause devastating effects)

And "climate change cannot be absolutely determined to be caused by human activities" is just a loophole in science and realistic logic. Regardless of the overwhelming evidence proving that the main cause of climate warming is human activities, it can be refuted only logically. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to guarantee "100% correct and accurate" for various scientific theories and scientific applications today, but many of them can be "100% correct and accurate" by default. Just like the geology studied by Ding Zhongli, it is also a theory of "guessing" about history based on some facts and evidence. Without going through those historical geological ages, it is impossible to 100% say what the earth must have been like at that time. But this does not prevent geologists including him from researching so many results based on reasonable "speculation". Science requires "bold hypotheses and careful proofs". For the sake of rigor, sometimes you can't say enough. That's why climate research reports can't make absolute conclusions. Moreover, this was a few years ago, and various reports now admit that human activities are the main cause of global warming in recent years, and often set a definitive term to avoid being cited by deniers.

What's more, even if it is not 100% sure, then if you are 90% sure, don't take any action? Just like a hospital diagnosing a disease, even if it is "diagnosed", it does not necessarily mean that it is correct. It is not uncommon for the original diagnosis to be overturned by other doctors or even the same doctor after a follow-up visit. Do you deny the necessity of diagnosis and treatment? ? For example, if you have an operation for a certain disease, if you don’t do it, 90% may die within a year, but 10% may take medicine or even recover naturally if you don’t do it. The operation will be very painful and 10% of the operation Risk of failure, so to do or not to do? Of course, as an individual, you have the right to choose not to do it, but when it comes to all mankind, no one has the right to choose not to do it alone (of course, no one has the right to force all mankind to do it together, so it is a problem).

Opposing the consensus of most scientists with "do scientists have a mainstream?" sounds scientific, but in fact it is also sophistry and confusion. It is true that science cannot decide who is right and who is wrong based on the number of people. However, probability itself is also a part of science. When the scientific and academic circles are in dispute over an issue, they should also adopt the minority to obey the majority to form a "consensus" and "mainstream opinion", and use this mainstream opinion as a fact and basis. When about 95% of scientists believe that climate warming is caused by human beings and will cause great harm to current and future human beings, should we listen to 5%? If the 95% are coerced and manipulated without strong evidence and sufficient argumentation, while the other 5% are in a free and independent environment with sufficient scientific basis, of course it can be said that the last 5% are those who grasp the truth. But the reality is just the opposite. The vast majority of scientists who recognize climate warming and human factors are in a free and open academic environment, have rich professional knowledge and scientific literacy, and their theories and propositions have sufficient evidence and rigorous argumentation. Academic reports and papers abound. And the 5% (it seems less than 5% now) scientists have a variety of backgrounds, for example, some scientists deny all environmental issues related to human activities, some are funded and supported by oil companies (of course, some people are also accused of approving climate warming Some have collusion with the new energy industry. Indeed, but there are many more without this kind of interest connection. Of course, these words can also be used to defend those who deny climate warming. Then... anyway, believe it or not), there are The neutrality of these people is questionable due to political influence, and most of these people did not assert that the climate is not warming or that climate warming has nothing to do with human beings. So, trust the majority of scientists, or the minority? (Speaking of which, the majority of Chinese people deny climate warming and human factors. After Chai Jing interviewed Ding Zhongli, the vast majority of Chinese people supported Ding Zhongli. These people are the mainstream. Is it correct? Of course, right and wrong will be confused in this way up)

As for Chai Jing, her own scientific literacy and professional knowledge are certainly not as good as Ding Zhongli's. Her other words and deeds on environmental issues also often reveal her lack of knowledge and lack of rigor in professional issues. For example, "Under the Dome", which she led the filming, was pointed out by many people, including the famous science writer Mr. Fang Zhouzi, for some mistakes. But mistakes are mistakes, she didn't intend to mislead others, and she didn't make any particularly major mistakes. As a reporter, her knowledge of environmental issues is sufficient to support her in conducting relevant interviews, and the issues she mentioned in the interviews are all based on facts and necessary. Especially when Ding Zhongli emphasized China's position, politics and interests, she stood on a professionalism that emphasized the common interests of mankind and depoliticized, which was a good balance in itself. The same is true of other similar "contradictions" in the interview, so that Ding and her different positions can be drawn out, and the complete and multiple truths can be presented in interviews similar to debates. If there is no questioning and debate in the whole interview, but only singing and singing, it will be a failure. She is qualified as a reporter, and the program is also qualified. According to her previous interviews and reports, it can also be seen that she is a person who cares about the motherland and the people. We can criticize her specific mistakes, but there should be no slander and conspiracy interpretation.

(The irony is that in the past two years, China has promised to promote the "carbon neutrality" plan, which is actually acknowledging the correctness of the international mainstream on climate issues and solutions, which is actually the opposite of Ding Zhongli's views back then. But now one side of the Internet They agree with carbon neutrality (at least they did not publicly oppose it), while still generally supporting Ding Zhongli's speech (it can be seen that the speech time was after China proposed the goal of carbon neutrality), which shows that these people have not even understood the basic facts, and have not The ability to think independently does not understand what the content of the carbon neutralization policy is and what Ding Zhongli’s views are. Only the position is not right or wrong, or the position can be turned 180 degrees at any time. These people also keep admiring science, but even the minimum Neither scientific common sense nor scientific spirit)

The Interpretation and Response of the Chinese People to the Climate Issue and Western Criticism and Its Paradox

Chinese people are not only overwhelmingly crazy about Chai Jing's interview with Ding Zhongli, it can be said that this is basically the reaction to all hot issues involving climate change issues. For example, there is a report by foreign media, which mentioned that "every time a Chinese eats a piece of meat, a puff of smoke comes out of the Amazon" to illustrate the impact of China's meat consumption on climate warming. This caused a lot of excitement and extreme anger among Chinese netizens. "Westerners/Americans/Europeans don't let Chinese eat meat" has become a prominent impression of Chinese people on Western and even global environmentalism, and it has become an important reason why Chinese people have a huge dislike for the West, especially the Western left (the so-called "white left") .

"Chinese people eat meat, Amazon smokes" is of course just an exaggerated description and propaganda, but behind this sentence is the objective fact that Chinese people eat a lot of meat and exacerbate climate warming. The "butterfly effect" is well known, and the impact of Chinese people's consumption of Brazilian beef on the Amazon rainforest and global warming is stronger and more direct than the general "butterfly effect". This is not a slander or persecution aimed specifically at the Chinese. First, saying this sentence only reflects a phenomenon and fact, but it does not say that Chinese people should not be allowed to eat meat, let alone prevent Chinese people from eating meat through coercive means. Second, similar criticisms are aimed at the whole world, and more aimed at the West itself. In fact, various environmental protection organizations have more generalized and sustained criticisms of the reality that the meat-based diet in Western countries, especially Americans, has exacerbated climate warming, and have adopted a series of campaigns and actions to reduce people's attitude towards meat in Western countries. consumption.

"The West does not allow Chinese people to eat meat" has been swiped on major social platforms, and Chai Jing has been insulted overwhelmingly, as well as the interpretation of conspiracy theories on climate issues, all reflect the anger and empathy that Chinese people are immersed in injustice. The loss of sense of responsibility and obligation, the haunting of narrow nationalism, the proliferation of anti-intellectual egoism and social Darwinism.

China's participation in reducing emissions and curbing global warming is not only for its own sake, but also a due international obligation. The "community with a shared future for mankind" is not a lie. No matter what the subjective intentions are, in fact, human beings are increasingly becoming a whole that influences, connects, and drives the whole body. This is especially true for climate issues. Of course, China should give priority to its own national interests, but it should also take into account the interests of other countries and the common interests of the world. In terms of carbon emissions, China has corresponding responsibilities and obligations from the government to the private sector. Or, even if individuals are unwilling to take the initiative to fulfill the relevant obligations, they should not show such an attitude of objection that borders on frenzy.

However, many Chinese people don't care about international obligations at all, but completely stand on their own country or their own standpoint, and they don't hesitate to benefit themselves at the expense of others or break up the world's emission reduction cooperation. Let's all play together. Earlier I compared developed countries and developing countries with the fact that regions with different levels of development in China are not suitable for implementing the same carbon emission standards. However, in the eyes of many Chinese, China's domestic affairs are China's affairs, and when it comes to foreign countries, they must insist on taking advantage of themselves. If they pay more than other countries and perform more strictly than other countries, they will suffer. Similarly, they will not admire and follow the efforts of Western countries in curbing climate warming and the real contribution of the people of various countries to environmental issues. Problems fetters and let go of the development of industry beyond the West.

In their eyes, everything is a struggle, a zero-sum game, and no compromise or sympathy is allowed. Only by being unreasonable or only one-sided and unscrupulous can they win the international game and defend the interests of their own country and people ( especially their own interests).

Under such a premise, they naturally regard the West's urging China to pay attention to and participate in addressing climate issues as a cover for the West to suppress China. Whenever Western governments, media, and non-governmental organizations criticize China's climate and environmental issues, they will act reflexively. Be hostile and fight back. They believe that the West's pressure on China on environmental issues is to destroy China's economy, undermine China's industrialization and modernization process, and suppress China's rise and national rejuvenation. The rice bowl of the common people. As a result, China's responsibility for climate warming has been shirked in every possible way, and even various other environmental problems have been downplayed and denied. Then, they have to bite back, by accusing the West of how bad the environment is, or saying that the West has not paid attention to the environmental problems of some other countries, in order to dispel the right of the West to speak on environmental issues and achieve the purpose of defending China.

Such a confrontational reaction is unreasonable, unnecessary, and ultimately self-defeating. It is true that today's world has not achieved great harmony, and is still a jungle society, with fierce competition among countries and ethnic groups. As a country that has suffered historical humiliation and suffering and is still in the developing stage, it is understandable for China to safeguard its national interests. When it comes to environmental issues, of course, this cannot be a purely environmental issue, and there must be a game of national interests. However, when we are safeguarding national interests, we should argue based on right and wrong and follow international rules, instead of confusing right and wrong and going our own way. We must resolutely defend those who are right in China, and have the courage to take responsibility for those who are wrong.

China's Don'ts and Shoulds on Climate

The climate issue is related to the common interests of China and the world, and China should take responsibility. As the country with the largest total carbon emissions in the world, China should undoubtedly undertake more obligations than most countries in curbing climate warming. While asking developed countries such as the United States to pay more per capita and provide corresponding technical and financial assistance to China, we must also be willing to compromise and show sincerity, and take our own share.

As for the impact of environmental protection policies such as emission reduction and energy saving on people's livelihood, especially the employment and income of ordinary workers and farmers, it should be through China's domestic industrial transformation and upgrading, creation of new jobs, reform of distribution mechanisms, improvement of workers' and farmers' treatment, and abolition of various policies for workers and farmers. Unfair and unfavorable systems and policies should be resolved or mitigated. In fact, China's various unfair systems and policies have harmed the interests of vulnerable groups such as workers and peasants far more than the impact of carbon reduction caused by assuming international responsibilities (if the impact of the latter is 1, the impact of the former is 10). Ding Zhongli and his supporters always defend carbon emissions on the grounds of the economy, employment, and quality of life, but in fact, most of the industrial and agricultural benefits associated with carbon emissions are obtained by the powerful and vested interest groups. Just ate leftovers and drank soup. Civilians also bear far more costs of environmental damage than the powerful. Those with power and money can avoid environmental pollution and climate disasters in various ways. At worst, emigrate to safe places. Where can most ordinary people escape? What Ding Zhongli and the others defend are nothing more than the interests of those with vested interests that harm others and benefit themselves, and bring some leftovers for the common people by the way. Even if the current system is not changed, if even partial improvements can be made to the people’s livelihood policies, especially the distribution mechanism, and the vested interests, especially the elite groups, transfer some of their vested interests (the transfer ratio can be completely smaller than the reduction of carbon emissions in developed countries), the common people The income is much more than the current income from manufacturing carbon emissions and pollution emissions.

China's future development, improvement of people's livelihood, and national rejuvenation cannot and should not be achieved by destroying China's domestic and global ecological environment and causing environmental disasters, but should be based on the establishment and improvement of democracy and the rule of law, civil society, and labor creation contribution and the help of scientific and technological development. If you only want to take advantage of the climate crisis and the West’s eagerness to curb climate warming to harm others and benefit yourself, although you can get some benefits in the short term, you will only lose your morals on the international stage in the long run, and be despised and isolated by all countries, especially civilized and developed countries. As far as the relatives are concerned”, they cut themselves off from the international mainstream and future trends, and eventually backfired on themselves. How can we talk about the rise of the country and the happiness of the people. As for the development of many developed countries in the past by polluting the environment and emitting greenhouse gases, of course they should be condemned and demanded to make compensation and help the less developed countries, instead of repeating their harmful actions. This is like colonial expansion, which was once considered to be beyond reproach and allowed some countries to prosper, but we should not engage in colonial expansion in the new era. The reason why Japan invaded Korea and China was "Why can't Britain, France, the United States and the Netherlands can do it?" Then it brought such a huge disaster to the world, especially China. The same is true for China. It is justifiable to take revenge on the country that has harmed itself, but what is the reason for harming weaker and more innocent countries and people after being victimized?

But on the other hand, China should also defend its reasonable and legitimate interests on the issue of emission reduction, and require other countries to fulfill their corresponding obligations and insist on reciprocity (of course, reciprocity is not a complete equality without preconditions). Under the general principle of "common but differentiated", China can of course ask developed countries to make greater efforts in relative and absolute terms, and require developed countries to provide and input funds, technologies, models, experience, etc. Minimal economic and livelihood cost reduction. Developed countries have mature environmental protection experience and technologies, which should be unconditionally informed and taught to China, and technicians should be sent to help implement them. Of course, some revisions can be made according to China's national conditions, but the keynote should still be "used" for my own use, avoiding detours and taking shortcuts. In addition, China also has the right to ask developed countries to bear and compensate for the additional costs that China has paid in reducing emissions compared with developed countries. For example, China restricts the impact of traditional energy and industries on the economy and becomes more unfavorable in global trade. Then it has the right to demand compensation or policy concessions from developed countries, otherwise it can refuse to give up related industries.

China also has the right to impose corresponding emission reduction requirements on other countries with extremely high total carbon consumption and per capita carbon consumption. Just like the oil-producing countries in the Middle East and Russia, the per capita carbon consumption is extremely high and the total amount is quite alarming. Their per capita emission reduction obligations are actually greater than that of China. Especially in oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the per capita carbon consumption of their citizens is extremely alarming, their lives are extravagant and profligate, they have no restraint on resource consumption, and they are based on getting something for nothing, so they should pay a price much higher than the world average. Also, for example, India and other countries, although the current total carbon emissions and per capita carbon emissions are lower than China, but the increase is larger. The comparison of the roles of India and China on carbon emissions is similar to that of China and the United States. Therefore, the mutual responsibilities reached between China and the United States should also apply between India and China. If the oil-producing countries in the Middle East, Russia, India and other countries fail to fulfill their obligations, China can of course take countermeasures.

In addition, China has paid a huge price to implement the "family planning" policy, which has reduced China's birth population by hundreds of millions in more than 30 years, and will continue to affect China's future birth population and birth rate. This undoubtedly promotes China's carbon reduction objectively (the population is small, of course the total carbon consumption is small). Therefore, China can use this to demand more per capita carbon emissions and require countries with higher birth rates to compensate China accordingly.

In addition, although China is the country with the largest carbon emissions in terms of production volume, many high-carbon-consuming products are sold abroad. Therefore, the carbon consumption of China's export products in the production process should be converted in an appropriate way, and China and the importing country should jointly bear the corresponding carbon tax and make joint efforts to reduce emissions from the production end to the consumption end.

From the current point of view, the Chinese government has made the promise of "carbon neutrality" and is actually implementing it. On the whole and superficially, this is certainly a good direction. However, the specific behavior and impact are still unpredictable (although there have been some manifestations). How China will deal with relevant economic, people's livelihood, human rights, environment, and international relations issues, especially the various conflicts of interest between different people and groups, is worthy of attention and study. This is related to the interests of tens of millions of people and even life and death.

Seeing Chinese Mentality and Values from Chinese People Laughing at Greta Thunberg

In recent years, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish "environmental protection girl" (hereinafter referred to as Greta or directly replaced by "she") has become a world-renowned figure because of her active participation in social activities related to climate issues. In the process of calling for the curb of climate warming, she often has various radical, bold, and avant-garde words and deeds, sometimes appearing naive and paranoid. As a result, she was ridiculed by some people (both ordinary people and politicians like Trump) from all over the world, including some Chinese.

Although China and foreign countries have ridiculed her attacks, they are not exactly the same. In foreign countries, especially developed countries in Europe and America, although some people sneered at her and even attacked and abused her, quite a few people expressed their support and understanding for her. In China, there are almost no voices supporting her (or there are some but remain silent?), and the whole network overwhelmingly ridicules and attacks her. The intensity of Chinese people's attacks on her seems to be much higher than overseas. The hatred and contempt for her is particularly strong, and it can reflect some problems about Chinese people and Chinese society.

These mocking attacks can be roughly divided into the following categories: 1. They think she is being used by others as a political tool of interest groups or politicians; 2. They think she doesn’t understand anything and are fooling around; Madness, paranoia, schizophrenia, related behaviors are all illnesses; 4, think she is hypocritical, she is not environmentally friendly and asks others; 5, thinks she does not understand the suffering of people's livelihood, especially the suffering of people in developing countries, and ignores the economy and people's livelihood for environmental protection The question is "why not eat minced meat". Of course, the above is just a summary of these mocking attacks. The actual abuse is more varied, and it is much harsher and meaner than my list in actual expression.

The first thing to explain is that the problem of climate warming that she called for attention and solution is real and the situation is quite serious. It is true that countries have not vigorously promoted various measures to curb climate warming due to various objective or subjective factors. . Therefore, her call is necessary. Of course, she also has many problems and shortcomings, which will be mentioned later. This is the premise of commenting on things about her, including other people's reactions to her, her words and actions.

First, the so-called "being used by others" is indeed not a glorious thing in terms of simply being "used". However, if we consider the various backgrounds, subjective and objective factors, and especially the actual influence of this "being used", "being used" is not necessarily a purely bad thing, and sometimes it is even a good thing. In this world from ancient times to the present, many great undertakings have been realized in the process of people using and being used, and using each other (of course, so many dirty things). The American Revolutionary War received strong support from France. Of course, France has its purpose to check and balance the United Kingdom, but this is of course almost all advantages and no disadvantages for the United States to achieve independence, and it has also formed a hundreds of years of friendship between the United States and France. Sun Yat-sen was supported and protected by some big powers including Japan. Of course, some big powers tried to cultivate agents in China and weaken the Manchu Qing regime. But this contributed to the great victory of the Revolution of 1911, and Sun Yat-sen did not become an agent of the great powers because of this, but promoted China's democracy, prosperity and equality in the world.

Now Chinese people are shocked when they hear "being used", which is largely the result of some education and guidance. Chinese people are very sensitive and disgusted or even hate "interest groups", NGOs, and foreign interference. In fact, the influence of interest groups is ubiquitous in the operation of modern society, but some people have labels and others do not, and interest groups without public labels will operate in secret. Of course national interests must be safeguarded, and of course foreign powers also have various selfish purposes, but under certain circumstances and conditions, their positive effects far outweigh their negative ones.

Greta is being used to a certain extent, but what she calls for is worthy of attention. Cooperation with various stakeholders or value stakeholders, including political forces in various countries, is also voluntary, and the impact it produces is also positive. And her opposite, those who oppose curbing climate warming because of their interests and values, also have the background of interest groups. Trump, who does not recognize climate warming and man-made factors, has received strong support from the traditional energy industry in the United States. Many other politicians, scholars (including a small number of scientists), and media people who deny or doubt climate warming have been exposed to accept donations and donations from various stakeholders.

Of course, as a public figure, people have the right to evaluate her in this way. From a certain point of view, it is understandable that she is used and used as a tool. It's just that it would be naive or stupid to really deny her and her claims.

Second, it is generalization to think that she is ignorant and nonsense, or that she has no detailed understanding of climate issues. She really lacks a comprehensive understanding of the entire human society and even the entire world, and she seems to know little or don't care about the negative impacts of carbon reduction policies. She does not have a complete general knowledge of politics, economy, ideology, international relations, etc., let alone proficiency. But when it comes to the climate issue, her claims are supported by objective facts and research results widely recognized by the scientific community, rather than made up. On the climate issue, she also said "don't listen to me, listen to the scientists". This is much more scientifically literate than those who oppose her.

Three, claiming that she is mentally ill, and citing many of her words and deeds as evidence. First of all, she was indeed diagnosed with mental illnesses such as Asperger's disease, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and selective mutism, but this is different from the severe mental illness that is generally believed to be, and these diseases do not affect her. The truth and necessity of the claim. As for thinking that she suffers from other symptoms such as paranoia, delusion, and mania, if you think that her behavior is such a disease, then many politicians and social activists have been sick since ancient times. The reason why people think she is sick but those people don't is because she is a commoner, and she pays attention to issues that ordinary people don't need so much attention and fanaticism, and she is different and contrary to traditional and part of the public's views and opinions. Deviate from. This in itself is a prejudice.

In the first half of the 19th century, there was a Hungarian doctor Semmelweis, because he always asserted that doctors who did not wash their hands would spread germs and cause maternal death. He strongly urged doctors to wash their hands before operations. Extreme and weird, so he was treated as mentally ill, beaten, sent to a mental hospital and died there. Later, with the development of science, his judgment was confirmed to be correct, and doctors' washing hands became the most important way to avoid infection in hospitals. His extreme eccentricity back then was probably also related to the pain he felt when he insisted on the truth but was misunderstood, seeing so many people die innocently because of avoidable problems but was powerless to stop it. Semmelweis was regarded as mentally ill, after all, because there was no relevant scientific research to prove what he said was true, while the climate problem Greta said had been fully confirmed. She is more extreme, and it is true to say that she is paranoid, but it is only because she is too eager and ignores the limitations of reality. If you have to treat such a person as a mental illness, then the public will be like a paranoid and extremely intolerant psychopath.

Fourth, think that she is hypocritical and does not practice herself. In fact, she did it physically. She refuses to fly in a sailboat and insists on a vegetarian diet. Of course, this has also attracted criticism. For example, some people think that the carbon emission of a series of boat rides is greater than that of taking a plane alone. The people of the country also despised her for the active participation of their own youth in planting trees. Such accusations are indeed very new, especially in China. During the 1989 Student Movement, some student leaders were accused of "using overseas donations to eat and drink", and Fang Fang, who documented the epidemic in Wuhan, was also accused of not being a volunteer for epidemic prevention, using his privileges to let the police send relatives to the airport, and so on.

I don't believe that they really can't tell the difference between the big and the small, and I believe that they are deliberately so full of blame. But let’s refute this fallacy head-on. It is of course best to do what you do, but you must pay more attention to the division of labor and roles. For those who play an important role in certain issues, of course we should be appropriately tolerant. And their identities often mean that more resources need to be obtained and used, otherwise they cannot maximize their effects. Also, in a society where the rule of law and justice are lacking as a whole, accusing those who speak up of some improper things that people have generally done must only make the reality worse, and no one will speak out. As for those who talk about planting trees, I don’t know how many of them have planted trees themselves, whether they planted trees while participating in semi-compulsory activities, or they planted trees on their own initiative with their own money.

Fifth, it is right to criticize that she does not understand the sufferings of people's livelihood and development needs in developing countries, although the motive of criticism is not necessarily to call out for the victims of developing countries. Her biggest problem is that she does not take into account the economy and the environment, the present and the long-term. This is her limitation and lack of intellectual vision. But it seems that no one had a sincere dialogue with her, and explained these things to her through various channels (such as sending an open letter or even going to meet), but made mocking attacks in various yin and yang tones. Those who criticize her, including Putin, who is also worshiped by Chinese Socialists who criticize her for the same reason, do not really care about the suffering of people's livelihood, let alone return their illegal gains to those suffering people. Also, if the problem of climate warming is not solved, but countries are allowed to develop industry and agriculture and emit more carbon dioxide, those developing countries and backward areas will often suffer greater losses than those without development of industry and agriculture, and even make local people Completely lose their homes in the next few decades to hundreds of years. The consequences of climate warming must be borne the most by the most vulnerable, especially in countries that lack democracy, the rule of law, fairness and justice.

In short, although she has various shortcomings, her starting point is sincere, what she appeals to is worthy of attention, and what she does is positive, representing the hope of mankind in the new era. But those Chinese who ridicule her, if she is persistent, brave, firm, and full of idealism, many problems in Chinese society can be paid attention to and solved, and Chinese society will be renewed. A hundred or thirty years ago, there were such people in China, and there were quite a few of them. However, due to the attack and harm of internal and external enemies, only cynical and socialized refined egoists are left in China today. Not only did these people not pursue justice and sacrifice for the people, but they also "screamed and felt proud" of the shortcomings and scars of those real fighters.

For those who ridicule and ridicule Greta, I will send them a sentence from Lu Xun: "In an incurable nation, there must be many heroes who stare at children. These cowards!"

Chinese people not only scoff at her, but also sneer at various international environmental protection organizations, movements and related appeals (as for domestic, isn’t the above-mentioned abuse and attack on Chai Jing just an example. It’s just that domestic appeals and Fewer people are paying attention to climate change, and they have no one to criticize). As for the reasons, nothing more than the above. But as I have refuted one by one before, most of their criticisms cannot be established.

So why do they still criticize like this? This is related to the environment they live in, the values and ways of thinking they hold or are shaped.

Just like they always say that those environmentalists in the West are hypocritical and have double standards. But that's not the case at all. It is not ruled out that some people are really duplicity, but most people who support environmental protection are practicing the principle of low-carbon environmental protection. Regarding European and American environmentalists and mainstream leftists, they clearly support those who implement emission reduction policies (including imposing carbon taxes on them and other policies that affect their real money) in elections. Other environmental policies are often accompanied by economic, income, and living conditions. certain negative impact on quality), and also strive to reduce energy consumption and carbon consumption in many aspects such as consumption, travel, and diet. This requires overcoming or partially overcoming many everyday desires such as convenience, comfort, nutrition, image. For example, how much will it affect the comfort and convenience of traveling by taking public transport or walking instead of driving? How much appetite do you need to overcome to reduce eating those mouth-watering meats? How much restraint is required for this kind of "not eating the meat of the mouth"? Although wearing second-hand clothes or changing clothes infrequently may seem to have little effect, it is also a change in lifestyle, and it is difficult to change from luxury to frugality. Most importantly, they are willing to pay various environmental taxes including carbon tax, and support financial expenditure from taxpayers to curb climate warming and prevent other climate disasters. Isn't it enough to take the initiative to make so many sacrifices, from bearing the economic cost to paying the cost of life? Still can't impress the Chinese?

Really can not impress. On the one hand, many Chinese people don't understand these things. They only see the demonstrations and appeals of those environmentalists, but they don't pay attention to their efforts. But what is even more disgusting is that many people know what they have paid, but they are not moved by it and make themselves and the country change and follow. Even, they knew these facts and were unwilling to admit them.

This is because they have lived in the harsh jungle society of China for too long, and have lost the empathy and sense of responsibility of initiative and fraternity. They think (the following content is a simulation from their standpoint): Your self-discipline and sacrifice are your own business and you asked for it yourself. What does it have to do with me? It's not me who made you sacrifice; let others pay the price with you? That is interference with our freedom. Doesn't the West respect freedom the most (attacking the shield with the spear of the son)? Take care of your country xx first (of course this is similar all over the world). What's the matter, you want to force us to suffer together with you (even if there is no coercion, if the other party is really capable of coercion, they won't say that, dare not say that)? Want moral kidnapping? Your economy is so good and industrialized so early, shouldn't you pay a price? What, I am also a vested interest in China, the first beneficiary of industrialization? That is the result of our own hard work, which is different from your colonial plunder (well, plundering your own people is not colonial plunder (isn’t it more shameless?)). Do you shout passionately, cry bitterly, and have sincere emotions? It's just self-impressed. Taking care of the overall situation? What is the big picture, can it be eaten? By the way, why are you disregarding the overall situation? One, two, three, four, five, look at your actions, are you even more disregarding the overall situation, and have the face to criticize us? ...

The above are not fabricated by my imagination, but can be seen on various platforms. The original words may not be the same, but the meaning is the same. Why are their hearts so cold and so bad? It is also the result of the interaction between environmental shaping and its response. Because in China, a non-democratic and non-rule-of-the-rule environment where injustice is everywhere, only by letting go of empathy and warmth (at least when major interests are involved) can one survive and live well. People who are kind can only be bullied. This is not to say that people are psychopaths and deliberately bully kind people, but that kind people are easy to talk, easy to give in, and easy to waver. There is fierce competition among all parties, and the cake is so big. people. They will not take the initiative to compromise on major interests, and they can only survive by biting desperately. Actively spitting out benefits violates their value instincts and even physiological instincts cultivated in this harsh environment.

And reasoning is not really for the sake of judging, but a tool that is selectively used to safeguard interests. Speak the truth that is beneficial to oneself, and deny and sophistry the morality that is not conducive to oneself. As for moral restraint, it is more regarded as a means of attacking others and a shackle to limit oneself. Whoever speaks morally will have to pay a higher price. Those who ask others to pay sacrifices and prices for something, even if they have reason to say, but have no power or power, will be besieged and asked to pay various sacrifices. Even though he has made sacrifices, people still think he has to make more sacrifices, and find out his various shortcomings and criticize them. As for the death of this man who paid all kinds of sacrifices and suffered all kinds of prices, people may have a few words of praise, but that's all. More than 99% of people will not follow him because of this, but will not make sacrifices, dedicate themselves, and take the lead after seeing his misery.

In China, there are indeed reasonable and unreasonable moral kidnapping everywhere. Only by denying that one has done wrong or simply denying a certain moral standard can one not be kidnapped. "Take care of the overall situation" is indeed used everywhere in China to curb individual rights protection, and many times it is not Gu's justice or even the overall situation, but the illegal self-interest of some powerful individuals. All kinds of righteous names are often just a fig leaf for self-seekers to cover up their evil deeds, which is more hateful than a real villain. In this way, people will not have a sense of community, or what maintains the community is only coercion rather than voluntary. In a situation where everyone is selfish, whoever bears more will suffer. A selfless person just makes a wedding dress for others. What else can he get except a few praises (or even no praise at all)? People are also unwilling to take their share of responsibility for the entire community, even if others take it and they don't.

Compassion and empathy are scarce or selectively used by Chinese people. This is also the result of the vicious circle of interaction between the environment and the individual. In the jungle society, sympathy and compassion mean kindness and softness, and empathy from the standpoint of the opponent will affect the firmness to defeat the opponent in a zero-sum game, which will lead to being deceived, hesitant, and compromise. Being taken advantage of and eaten by others. Treat others with sympathy and empathy, especially competitors, but the other party may not necessarily sympathize with you. Sympathy cannot be mutual or reciprocal, and the sympathetic side is often defeated by the ruthless side. Also, if there is sympathy and empathy but no real cost is paid, then this kind of sympathy becomes hypocrisy. Even if you pay a little, in a harsh environment, there may not be good rewards or even revenge, and the promotion of kindness and hatred. So it's better to be indifferent and unsympathetic from the beginning. Everyone thinks this way, the society is becoming more cruel and indifferent, and those who are sympathetic and empathetic are more likely to suffer and suffer, so it has become a society full of villains. Then everyone loses sympathy or empathy for people other than their loved ones, instead of understanding and understanding others, they speculate maliciously and treat them cruelly, and humanity loses its animal nature and revives. In this way, how much sincere communication and understanding and compromise based on facts and humanitarianism can be expected?

As for admitting mistakes and self-reflection, those are not good things in China. In China, people's reflection is a kind of condescending accusation and oppression of the winners against the losers, the strong against the weak, and it is by no means warm and affectionate. If you reflect on others, you may not be able to forgive and tolerate you. Instead, you will feel that your fault is indeed yours, and then you will be required to pay a higher price and make more concessions. Admitting mistakes or even crimes is even more important. If you admit that your position, viewpoint, and behavior are wrong, the other party will probably not forgive the compromise, but will seize your admitting mistakes and press you step by step, making you fail in the debate and pay more. cost loss. And the other party will confidently think that even you admit your mistake, shouldn't I treat you like this? As for admitting mistakes and understanding each other, if the strengths are equal and there are no major interests, then it is indeed possible, but on the issue of interrelated interests, isn't it a fool to do so?

In addition, Chinese people will have a strong rebellious mentality when faced with the propaganda of environmentalists. Just like the criticism of "Chinese people eat meat, Amazon smokes" (in fact, they didn't say it directly to the Chinese people) appeared, the Chinese people were furious, and some people said that they would eat meat, which made you mad. When Chai Jing interviewed Ding Zhongli, she mentioned that climate warming has caused so many disasters in the world, and it is necessary to reach a carbon emission agreement as soon as possible. Then it said in the barrage, "Just use it up, don't sign it, let's see who is the first to persuade." After Chai Jing said her sincere words about protecting the environment, the barrage area was full of "she is anxious, she is anxious". In addition to environmental protection issues, animal protection issues are also the same. On Zhihu, someone raised the issue of the importance of animal protection legislation, and some people posted photos of dog meat, and some even roasted whole dogs. After the ban on eating dog meat was enacted in Shenzhen, some people claimed to go there to eat dog meat and drink alcohol.

This kind of reverse reaction is also the result of the bad environment, especially the bad interpersonal relationship and education model. China's school education, family education, and social education (of course I'm not just talking about formal education, but all behaviors out of guidance, preaching, and discipline) are full of coercion and even violence (including soft violence). Instead of persuading people with reason, they use violence and coercion to force people to submit. Education is often not about reasoning and clarifying right from wrong, but forced indoctrination and forced recognition, accepting what is right and accepting what is wrong; Pleasure superiority. As a result, both obedient slaves and rebellious mobs are cultivated, or more often a combination of obedient and mobs (plus foolish people), submissive and obedient in front of the powerful and strong, and accepting support and execution of wrong things. In front of the weak or those who are unable to force them to be perverse and violent, deliberately rebellious, and what is right must be rejected, opposed and resisted (even deliberately doing the opposite to provoke). They also can't tell what is good faith advice and what is malicious criticism. The global climate negotiations are to protect human beings including their own homeland, but they use it as a platform for vindictiveness and playing the game of "who will counsel first". Of course, this is also caused by the domestic environment. They often play this kind of "who will counsel first" game in their lives, especially when they are fighting for their own interests. As for compromise? Only the power situation can make oneself compromise, everything is not based on reason but on strength.

As for being emotional because of a sense of justice, a sense of grievance, or a sense of responsibility, not only will it not make the other party respect and respect, but it will be poked hard as a weakness, ridiculed and ridiculed in every possible way, making you angry or lose your temper. It's fine to just ignore it indifferently. Some do this to the just out of stupidity and misunderstanding, others out of profit and more insidious motives. Because they know that such people are more subversive and threatening, and will destroy the order and benefit distribution system they created with lies and violence. They feel a deep fear of those who expose the lies and tell the truth. Even if they have some admiration in their hearts, they will not be soft because of admiration. They know that if they are soft because of admiration and sympathy, they may suffer disaster themselves. So in turn, it intensifies their hostility and hatred for the righteous and sincere. Therefore, it is natural for them to accept villains as friends and righteous men as enemies. Under such circumstances, of course, there will be more and more villains, and fewer and fewer righteous men, or simply there will be no righteous men and only villains.

Chinese people with such thoughts, words and deeds can only be said to be pitiful and hateful. They do not live in a fair, honest, sympathetic, tolerant environment, but in a society full of injustice, lies, indifference and cruelty, and life and death. Such a society will inevitably shape them into such people, and only by doing so can they survive and benefit in such a society. Over time, it becomes culture and inertia, and it becomes this kind of stress response on any issue. As for letting them be kind, it is of course impossible at present in terms of feasibility, and if some people are really allowed to live in a kind way in China, it will also harm them. Divide and eat it.

But this is not to say that they are completely passive to express these words and deeds, on the contrary they are very active, especially those with vested interests. They know right and wrong very well, but they know what to do to maximize their own interests. As for the necessity of the environment, in fact, all human beings and even animals in the world are forced to do so, and they are all products shaped by reality. The harsh environment in China is the reason why they speak and act so badly, but it is not the reason for their acquittal. As long as it belongs to the vested interests and the gain exceeds the loss, there is no innocence.

Of course, don't foreign countries and foreigners have these social and human ugliness? of course not. But at least for some people in some countries, after the baptism of democracy and the rule of law, ideological enlightenment, civil society, and freedom of speech, these ugliness of humanity and society have been greatly reduced. Moreover, the confrontation between some groups in these countries is at least partly based on those tenable reasons. What is the reason for this kind of rebellion and confrontation among the Chinese people?

It should also be noted that the above description and analysis of the evil of the Chinese people does not mean that they are doing evil all the time and in everything. Of course, at least some of them have a kind and reasonable side, and they are not lacking in tolerance and mutual understanding in ordinary or trivial matters, but when major interests are involved, their green faces and fangs are undoubtedly revealed. Every class in China also has relatively good people and relatively bad people, but those with vested interests are relatively worse and more insidious and benefit more. On the whole, the more powerful and connected, the worse the money. Although there are many exceptions, the proportion of exceptions should be is quite low. And the vested interests of such exceptions are still illegal gains obtained through structural injustice. And the people, especially the lower classes, although there are indeed many vicious and vicious people, there are also kind and honest people or those who are forced to be kind and honest. The loser is the one who is insulted and harmed. Except for those who committed heinous crimes at the bottom, everyone else deserves varying degrees of sympathy and understanding.

Is it really necessary and urgent to curb climate warming?

Some Chinese also understand that climate warming is real, but they cannot understand the radicalism and urgency of western countries, especially environmentalists. This is of course excusable. Because there are many other complex and serious civil rights, people's livelihood and even ethnic issues in China that have not been resolved, people are devastated, so environmental issues have been relatively ignored.

But is curbing climate warming really unimportant or urgent? As far as China is concerned, the problem is also very serious, and the impact will be very fatal.

The most direct and obvious negative impact of climate warming is the threat of global sea level rise to coastal areas of various countries. The Chinese economy is also concentrated along the coast. According to research, according to the current rate of sea level rise, Shanghai will become one of the first cities in the world to be submerged. By 2100, half of Shanghai will be submerged by floods. As for the time when Shanghai was completely submerged, there is no very clear conclusion, but it will be within the next few generations. In addition to Shanghai, the entire Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan, and Liaozhongnan are also the four largest industrial bases in China, and all of them will face the danger of being submerged in the next few decades to hundreds of years. According to research predictions, by 2100, 2 billion people in the world may become "climate refugees", and there must be at least hundreds of millions in China. At that time, various contradictions in China, especially class and regional contradictions, will become more intensified, and if it cannot be effectively handled, it will face the possibility of civil war.

If 2100 is still too long and most people of this generation will not see it, then the current climate anomaly in China has already caused real disaster losses. Floods occurred consecutively in Henan and Shanxi this year, killing hundreds of people and affecting tens of millions of people. Many businesses and families went bankrupt. Although the death toll is not the highest on record, the rainfall intensity exceeds the maximum on record. The low number of deaths is mainly due to the fact that there are more scientific methods and related mechanisms for flood control than before, and the intensity of the disaster itself has actually increased. In addition, floods and droughts have continued throughout the country in recent years, and relevant scientific research generally believes that it is related to climate change, rather than historical norms. If the climate continues to deteriorate, such extreme weather will only increase instead of decreasing or maintaining the current situation. These are not just disasters, but shocking deaths and the destruction of the economy and people's livelihood. Now there are a few people struggling for their lives in the flood, and in the future there may be hundreds of thousands of people struggling in the flood at the same time. What a terrible scene it is. There are also outbreaks of human evils that accompany natural disasters, such as robbery, rape, and murder will occur everywhere. Even in developed countries like the United States, the burning, killing, and looting of New Orleans under the disaster of Hurricane Katrina are shocking (of course Katrina Hurricanes and climate warming seem to have nothing to do with each other, but it can explain how man-made disasters will follow after huge natural disasters).

Of course, some people say that human beings have encountered various disasters in the past, and more people died. For example, there was a flood in Henan in 1975 that killed 80,000 people, and the floods and droughts in history killed countless people. However, it is different now than before. In the past, human beings were unable to fight against nature due to insufficient technical means, or disasters were caused by man-made accidents. Now it is due to obvious climate change, and there are indeed ways to avoid the tragedy. Moreover, with the development of the times and the progress of society, human beings value life even more. Now and in the future, it is no longer and should not be the age when millions of people's lives are like nothing. The greatest progress of human beings in the past thousands of years is to cherish and respect life. Should we regress to the ancient times of war and famine, where corpses littered the fields? Just like the vast majority of people in ancient times could not get treatment for their illnesses, and even minor illnesses can kill them now, can we still be like this now? Death caused by force majeure cannot be prevented, but we should avoid and prevent it as much as possible. Still taking an individual as an example, everyone may have various accidents, such as death in childhood, disaster in youth, illness in middle age, and sudden death in old age. But if we can see some dangerous signs and germs of serious diseases in advance, we will definitely prevent and delay them. Even though birth, old age, sickness and death are inevitable, unless you encounter some painful situations where life is worse than death, in most cases, you should try your best to live every minute and avoid every danger. The same is true for human collectives and human societies.

What's more, it is always better to prevent it before it happens than to hold on to it temporarily. If we don't stop the abnormal climate caused by man-made now and give birth to fluke and procrastination, then future generations and people at that time will struggle for their lives in floods and droughts like ants, and die in despair one by one. Such scenes have happened in Chinese history, and there are also reduced versions today (think of the citizens struggling desperately in the Zhengzhou subway during the Henan flood), so it is not difficult to imagine. People in history were still relatively insensitive. Even though contemporary Chinese people are not fully awakened due to various factors, they already have the basic emotions, dignity, value, and rights that modern people have, and have many concerns, nostalgia, and reluctance. Rich emotions. The destruction of tens of thousands or even millions of such lives would be such a huge tragedy, and what a frightening ideological impact it would produce. Not yet, but then it will be too late. Just like the people in Nanjing before December 1937 and the people in Xinyang, Henan Province before 1959, they did not expect the shocking tragedy that followed. But unexpected does not mean that it will not happen, and it is even more likely to happen. Psychological escape cannot achieve escape from reality, and it also makes it even more impossible to escape in reality. Of course, this is not to imagine disasters and worry unfoundedly, but to say that in the face of iron-clad evidence, we cannot just ignore it and let it go.

We think environmentalists like Greta Thunberg are paranoid and crazy, and she/they do have some shortcomings, but she/they are crying out to prevent human beings, including the Chinese people, from falling into such a disaster. Numerous scientific studies and objective reality have confirmed that such a situation is likely to happen in the future, and there are already some precursors of human life. If we make more efforts now, it is possible to reduce the abnormal deaths of hundreds of thousands, millions or even more people in the future (including the very tragic deaths from floods and droughts and related poverty and wars).

Climate Issues and Human Conditions and Future under Climate Policy

So, is it enough for global cooperation to go all out to curb climate warming? Of course it's not that simple.

The human factor of climate warming, of course, is industrial and agricultural production. But in fact, it involves the interests of almost everyone in the world. If we want to curb climate warming, we need to make changes to the production and life of the entire human being. Moreover, this also requires the cooperation, compromise, and dedication of every country, every class, every group, and every individual in the world.

Industrial and agricultural production is of course a direct factor in greenhouse gas emissions. However, consumption largely determines production. Limiting industrial and agricultural production in order to curb climate warming is known to affect the interests of producers, but it will also affect the interests of consumers. In many cases, consumers need to pay more. But consumers also come from different classes and groups. If production is reduced, the strong among consumers must retain their vested interests, and the weak will bear the cost.

If production is restricted, it is actually tantamount to restricting consumption. If consumers cannot consciously live a low-carbon life, they can only choose to buy industrial and agricultural products that have been forced to reduce production at high prices and where scarcity is the most expensive. Of course, people with more money and resources will benefit relatively without affecting the quality of life, while ordinary people will complain or be forced to low-carbon. Such emission reductions are obviously exploiting and harming the poor and weak. In order to maintain or even continue to improve their living standards and maintain their superior status, powerful and wealthy people will definitely take more plunder and do whatever they can to compete for the already limited industrial and agricultural products that have been forced to be compressed due to emission reduction and low-carbon and other related resources. The common people and the weak will be even more vulnerable, not only will their material income decrease, but they will also rely on the strong to live better. This is a bit like a prison. In a prison where food and daily necessities are scarce, a chicken foot, a cigarette, and a packet of instant noodle seasoning can win over a person, and two boxes of instant noodles and a bottle of "Laoganma" can command Full prison. The development of modern civilization is largely based on material abundance and the widespread popularization of consumer goods. If material is not abundant, especially if it is artificially compressed, that person's rights and freedom will also be damaged.

This involves another impact of curbing the climate problem, that is, the expansion of public power, especially the strengthening of totalitarianism. As mentioned earlier, to reduce carbon emissions, international cooperation must be achieved. The same is true in China, which also requires the joint efforts of all walks of life, all regions, all industries and all groups. However, the advantages and disadvantages of carbon reduction policies are obviously different for different groups. At least in China and other developing countries, few people are willing to voluntarily surrender their own interests. So this requires the country, especially the central government to rely on coercive force to coordinate and distribute benefits. As for various policies on environmental issues, they also need legal norms and national unified orders, and more importantly, they need to be enforced by administrative and judicial forces, including the decision-making and coordination of the central government. This is obviously very conducive to totalitarianism. Only centralization can make everyone pay the price for carbon reduction everywhere. And this kind of centralization cannot guarantee that it will only be used for carbon reduction and environmental protection, but will inevitably extend to other fields.

This is obviously not conducive to the establishment of a democratic, open and pluralistic society that protects individual rights and freedoms. In highly developed and democratic countries, this adverse effect is limited, and this kind of centralization can even be used to solve some things that could not be solved before and represent the values and interests of local conservative forces, and through various campaigns, discussions and compromises, the democratic constitutional government can be amended The system makes it better. But in those autocratic totalitarian countries or authoritarian countries with insufficient democracy, this kind of centralization of course means the strengthening of autocracy and the restriction of the rights of individuals and small communities. Environmental needs such as carbon reduction provide some legal basis for its strengthening of centralization, which contributes to its prestige of autocracy. Moreover, the environmental policies promoted by autocrats must benefit (or lose) unevenly and tendencies, and whoever is close to and supports power will get more. Those who are unwilling to cling to power will be squeezed out and suppressed under the pretext of high-sounding, politically correct environmental issues. Under normal circumstances, autocrats must be more inclined to the powerful and those with vested interests, which is conducive to the stability of the regime and the guarantee of loyalty to the system and its individuals. In addition, in the process of promoting carbon reduction, it must be brutal, one-size-fits-all, and disregarding human rights. There is no need to explain this much, just look at China's implementation of family planning and the prevention and control of the new crown. In addition, when implementing policies, they often don't talk to the people, but force the people to accept them, and prevent relevant news reports and reflections and criticisms. The so-called "people can do what they want, but not make them know", is often the case in China's environmental policy.

Under such circumstances, the inequity between classes, regions, urban and rural areas, and industries will be intensified, and class conflicts, regional conflicts, and conflicts between different groups will become more intensified and irreconcilable. This will in turn prompt authoritarian regimes to strengthen centralization and mobilize violent machines to maintain stability, and then society will become more oppressive and unequal.

If the society is in such a highly unequal situation, it will be impossible for people to consciously reduce carbon emissions, and it will even lead to rebellion among the lower classes. Imagine a scenario like this: 20 years before carbon neutrality is achieved, unemployment due to carbon reduction policies, rising prices can hardly buy necessities, parents look down on sick children and children cannot go to good schools, the gap with the upper class further widens, and is suppressed by the stability maintenance system A middle-aged man who couldn't express his appeal went to a butcher shop on weekends and spent a few hundred yuan to buy a few catties of beef to satisfy his cravings. Then he was seen by a grassroots official who was inspecting, and he kindly advised him to "eat a few catties of beef, and let's save our planet together." The man could only reply: "My lord, that's your earth", and then enjoyed the beef happily, and in his heart he wished that the earth would perish and everyone would perish together. For those ordinary people, enjoying some cheap industrial and agricultural products is already the greatest enjoyment in their life, and hard work is such a hope. If even this is deprived or forced to reduce consumption, how shameless it is?

Groups in different situations have different expectations for the future. Some people expect and have the ability to allow their children and even later generations to enjoy various privileges. For them, the future is of course full of hope and worthy of pursuit and care. As for those who are bankrupt, unemployed, and hard-working, they have often lost their hope for the future, and they are unable to make their children and future generations stand out, full of despair. Such a completely different state of mind, of course, will not single-mindedly consider the future of mankind. Guessing from the theory of evil nature, those who feel hopeless about themselves and the life of their offspring would rather let the world be destroyed and everyone die together to be fair, just like the middle-aged man I assumed earlier. Due to various reasons, such desperate people seldom really engage in anti-social behaviors such as killing people, but they can and conveniently refuse to make carbon reduction efforts and let the earth commit suicide slowly.

Also, in a country with authoritarian corruption and lack of mutual trust between people, even if religious factors are excluded, people who do not believe in artificial climate change and the need to reduce carbon must be very common. Some people pretend not to believe it out of self-interest, while others really don't believe it. Especially for the ordinary people, disadvantaged workers and peasants, they have been deceived by officials, elites, and superiors all their lives or even for many generations. The educational propaganda, and even the entire ideology and discourse system, how many slick lies and deceptions are there. How many times have they been tricked delicately or roughly during their dealings with various government agencies, public security agencies, hospitals, and schools. Under such circumstances, society has fallen into the "Tacitus Trap", or the story of "Wolf is Coming", even if you say how carbon emissions affect human beings, including these ordinary people, they will not Will believe and take the initiative to cooperate, just feel that it is another trick of the well-dressed people above to deceive the people (and they will indeed use this kind of policy to deceive people, the simple intuition of the people is often correct, although this kind of Habitual intuition can also be fatally misleading). (In fact, there are structural deception and exploitation by the elites on the common people in countries and regions under the rule of law, because the right to speak is in the hands of the former, and they can use all kinds of high-sounding reasons and completely legal means to silence the common people. speechless)

So, can a democratic and open society achieve universal low-carbon life and achieve emission reduction goals? Obviously not. Taking the United States as an example, about half of the people do not recognize that climate warming is caused by human factors or hold a skeptical attitude, and this view is deeply rooted. This is not only a question of interests, but also a question of religious values. For those who believe in religion, let them do things that they think are against the will of God and inconsistent with religious teachings, even if they threaten to be imprisoned or even killed, they will not do it. Of course, in reality, it is impossible to send people who are unwilling to reduce carbon to prison or kill them just because they want to reduce carbon. Therefore, about half of the people in the United States will continue to live a life of high consumption and high carbon consumption (or at least not intending to control carbon emissions) in the long run, which will obviously make the remaining half who are willing to control consumption angry. The latter believes that the former does not take responsibility for exacerbating the climate crisis, and it is unfair not to share the joys and sorrows with them. The former believes that the latter is a paranoid self-masochist who interferes with their freedom. And as long as half of the Americans are still wantonly emitting carbon, the U.S. goal will definitely not be achieved. This will not only directly aggravate climate warming, but also cause dissatisfaction in China, the European Union, India and other countries. They think that even if the leading countries do not follow the regulations to reduce emissions, wouldn't they be at a disadvantage? Except for those countries in Western Europe and Northern Europe that may be able to abide by the agreement on their own, the rest of the countries will definitely "follow the trend" and break the agreement or at least increase some carbon emissions. Therefore, the goal of curbing climate warming will definitely not be achieved. Even if the speed of climate warming can be slowed down, if there is no sudden decisive variable, disasters will still come later in the year.

Not only the United States, but many other democracies, especially developing countries, will have similar problems. In fact, it is more difficult for democracies to reduce emissions. Because a democratic country must listen to the opinions of the people, and it cannot be decided by the rulers. Moreover, even if the ruler makes a decision or even enacts a law, a democratic and free society can also elect him out of office (and then probably elect someone who denies climate warming and refuses to implement international agreements), demonstrates civil disobedience, refuses to implement laws, or The long-term legal proceedings with the government are protracted, and if people's livelihood is seriously affected, there may be riots or even riots. So emission reduction will be nothing or greatly reduced. Except for countries in Western Europe and Northern Europe that are both democratic and have high national quality (scientific literacy and self-discipline), in fact, most democratic countries are not as good as autocratic or authoritarian countries in terms of reducing carbon emissions. At this time, the superiority of certain systems is revealed. For authoritarian countries, especially those with a high degree of totalitarianism, all these problems can be solved by maintaining stability, from brainwashing to deleting posts and banning accounts, from monitoring to drinking tea, from putting pressure on academic work to being put in prison, from talking about personal future When it comes to threatening your family, there is always a way to make you succumb, and if you don't succumb, you can't make others not succumb too. Under such high pressure, all dissatisfaction will be suppressed, and all losses and pain can only be digested by themselves or passed on to the more vulnerable. Therefore, the implementation of various policies, including environmental policies such as carbon reduction, is of course very smooth. Of course, they sometimes encounter obstacles and do not implement environmental policies, but this is not because ordinary people are obstructed by defending their rights, but because some vested interests are motivated to maintain illegal interests.

This begs another question, and the impact of climate issues and curbing global warming on politics, human rights and other human agendas. As mentioned earlier, climate warming is so harmful that people have to give up many things to curb it. In fact, what people transfer is not only material interests, but also political rights, personal freedom and many other non-material things. As mentioned earlier, emission reduction requires the intervention of public power, which will encourage autocracy and centralization. In addition to this, many things related to individual rights and freedoms will be affected. When carbon reduction becomes a priority goal, other demands for rights, equality, and dignity can only be sidelined. This is similar to the time of war. In order to win the war, all kinds of rights, dignity, and free order that ordinary people cherish and pursue cease to exist or are greatly restricted. Although the period of reducing emissions will not be the same as that of wartime, it is quite similar.

For these, developed and democratic countries have given a very systematic and complete solution (although it may not be completely feasible), which is basically two words "equality", or two words "helping the weak". In order to avoid inequalities and various contradictions caused by emission reductions, developed democracies place more emphasis on the promotion of equality, and try to promote various equality measures such as income equality, equal rights, and equal public services such as education and medical care. They also emphasize providing compensation and various assistance to relatively disadvantaged groups, groups most affected by climate change and emission reduction measures (in turn, they also require those who are well-off and well-earned to pay more in emission reductions). In addition, these countries also pay more attention to the improvement and adjustment of the democratic and free system and the environment, so that they can adapt to the era of climate change and emission reduction as much as possible. This can greatly reduce social conflicts and quell dissatisfaction among all parties. Even, the various reforms brought about by this sense of crisis have also promoted and accelerated the protection and development of human rights (the two world wars and the Cold War are examples. The bad consequences of the conflicts have strongly stimulated the sense of crisis. Institutions and models that are more conducive to human rights and sustainable development have been built under the crisis).

But these are difficult to implement in developing countries, especially non-democratic countries. As mentioned above, they will achieve emission reductions in a way that damages human rights, and after reducing emissions, they will cause human rights damages. What is even more worrisome is that some authoritarian countries take advantage of the emphasis on climate issues and strong demand for carbon emission reduction in developed democratic countries in Europe and the United States, and use carbon reduction as a bargaining chip to blackmail the latter, in exchange for carbon reduction in Europe and the United States to reduce their human rights issues. Criticize and intervene. On the balance between the two, Europe and the United States probably care more about carbon reduction, which affects their own survival and the future of human civilization, while human rights in other countries are important issues, but they can only be put on the back burner or sometimes ignored. In this way, the international pressure to improve human rights faced by many autocratic countries will be greatly reduced, and autocracy and human rights violations will intensify, or at least will not improve. For those oppressed people, they will endure longer and greater suffering.

In addition to these, various conflicts and conflicts will occur in the process of climate change and carbon reduction due to interests, grievances, values, and positions among countries and within countries, which will aggravate crises and even create more disasters. For example, a country with historical grievances or major conflicts of interests wishes that the country of the other party will be submerged in the sea and its citizens displaced miserably, so that the great hatred will be avenged (or conversely, the other party can no longer revenge itself), and the other party can no longer threaten its own country and nation . With such a mentality, how is it possible to cooperate in the fight against climate change? Even if there is no enmity and life-and-death confrontation, and even mutual affection, it may involve major transfer of interests such as slowing down the development and production of industry and agriculture, taking huge sums of money from the already insufficient treasury to pay huge carbon taxes, accepting 5-8 digit climate refugees, do these countries prioritize their own interests or others? Is it possible that a bowl of water is level?

Those countries with serious domestic inequality, severe conflicts and highly polarized societies will not really help each other like a family. Even if it's a token help, that's all. In different regions (such as inland and coastal areas) where there is a large gap between rich and poor, obvious differences in ethnic identity, huge conflicts of interest, and even institutional inequality, one group of people will gloat over the loss of another group of people's homes (even if it is not a big one). Part is also part), even sympathy is very difficult to give up the benefits to an equal degree to accept those who lost their homes (unless there is coercive force). At the onset of worsening climate change, one group of people will not pay enough carbon reduction costs for another vulnerable group (again unless coercion is used). Let the inland residents who can’t settle down in the big coastal cities and can’t buy a house, reduce emissions for the sake of those who have a few sets of real estate worth tens of millions in the big coastal cities and people with various household registration privileges? Unless someone is forced to be willing, it is enough to be sympathetic not to hope that the latter will drown quickly and the property will be soaked in the sea. How can those regional groups with a strong sense of regional identity and less affected by the climate crisis be willing to reduce production capacity to achieve carbon neutrality? Those people who live in the deep inland and high latitudes, and the geographical location and resource endowment of the coast are very different, will they think "you also have this day" when the prosperous coastal areas are submerged? Will they keep the coast at great cost? It will only try to resist carbon reduction. This kind of situation is already happening (see the waves caused by the recent power cuts in Northeast China and other places), and this kind of psychology has already existed, and it is no surprise that it will become worse in the future. (Of course, in some innocuous matters, various groups in various places can have warmth and mutual assistance, but when it comes to huge interests such as living space, how much use is there for compatriots in the jungle society? Conflicts of interest between husband and wife, parents and children in life and death There is no lack of enemies in China, let alone compatriots?)

In the same way, those who do not bear children may not want to fulfill their obligations to contain disasters that only occur after their own death. As for other people's children, although they are their own compatriots, they have never loved themselves, and they will be overwhelmed by abuse and hostility if they complain on the Internet. As for the sake of the future generations of our country and nation, if a person works in the "996" style, more than 80% of his labor income will still be cut off from leeks, he can't look down on illness, buy a house, have children or support the elderly, let alone Expressing appeals and defending rights, everything has to be swallowed and endured by oneself. I am afraid that I have long lost the patriotism and national sentiment to pay the price for the motherland. Instead, there will be many such people who hate the country and the nation (even if he should actually Hate some of the rich and not all). Even if they have children, they are also facing various pressures of survival, and they have no time or energy to think about things hundreds or even decades later. For the sake of children? The most troublesome thing for children is not what kind of ecological environment they will live in decades from now, or how likely they are to die from floods or droughts, but whether they can go to a less dilapidated school, find a decent job that can support their families, and If a child is sick, can he afford the medical expenses, and how to pay for the medicines outside the medical insurance. Survival is difficult now, how can we control the future?

Under the severe contradictions and widespread poverty, people have no time to think about the future and can only be satisfied with the present, because if they are not satisfied with the present, they can't even touch the door to the future. For the rulers, for the sake of stability and the survival of the regime, they can only accommodate and indulge various production and living activities that include carbon emissions, and try to make the economic cake as big as possible, so that all parties can share more than before. , to ease the current contradictions and the needs of all parties. As for how terrible the future is, after all, "you will not shed tears until you see the coffin". On the contrary, if the scale of the "cake" is reduced in order to reduce emissions, it will make the distribution conflicts worse, and it will easily trigger a rebound from all parties, which will lead to instability or even collapse of the regime.

In the process of saving the environment such as carbon reduction, the rich and powerful and other vested interests may not lead by example to reduce carbon emissions and invest real money in environmental projects like those elites in developed countries in Europe and the United States. Carbon, at most engage in some forms to show participation in carbon reduction. They have always rejected the reciprocity of rights and obligations. They can enjoy rights with peace of mind, but they are unwilling to undertake obligations. For example, some suspected vested interests on Zhihu publicly declared that carbon reduction can be done, but carbon tax should not be implemented. This statement would be ridiculed in a normal society, but it is agreed by many people in China.

What is worse is that they will take advantage of this opportunity to make a fortune from the climate crisis, and take advantage of relevant policies and resources to snatch it. For example, they will take advantage of their power and information advantages to quickly carve up the new energy market and obtain huge profits. Can the upper beam be crooked and the lower beam straightened? These people themselves account for most of the consumption and carbon emissions of industrial and agricultural consumer goods. These ruling classes only care about interests but no people, only selfishness and no sense of responsibility, and are desperate for power and profit. They just want to desperately overdraw, squeeze out the surplus value of the country, the nation and the people, and leave all the disasters to future generations like drums and flowers. , "After I die, no matter the flood."

Under all these realities, it becomes very impossible for the world to achieve "carbon neutrality" on time and achieve the goal of curbing climate warming. Unless countries implement super-strong coercive force to promote carbon reduction, big countries force weaker countries to strictly reduce carbon, or there are breakthrough technological innovations that can quickly and easily achieve carbon neutrality or solve the climate crisis before the global climate crisis erupts (this is actually similar to unrealistic fantasies in desperation, although not impossible), otherwise climate catastrophes will surely occur in the next few decades to hundreds of years, ranging from millions to hundreds of millions of people directly caused by climate change and billions of people have become refugees. Under such circumstances, widespread famine, poverty, and war will be inevitable, and there will be no optimistic answer to the question of how long the human species can exist.

There have been a lot of studies on the various collateral effects of human beings fighting for living space under the climate crisis, including wars and terrorist activities. For example, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recently predicted that in 2040, human beings may break out of global military conflicts due to crises caused by climate change, especially in Asia and Africa, which are severely affected by climate warming and whose ability to resist crises is fragile. The authors argue that by 2040 at the latest, the world will embark on a "climate conflict" in which all parties will use each other's technologies to exacerbate natural disasters such as droughts and floods. This first refers to geoengineering techniques. Regions such as the Congo, the Indus, the Mekong and the Nile basins are likely to become hot spots in future climate wars. These areas have the potential for conflict due to changes in riverbed and flow direction. In fact, wars caused by climate change have precedents in ancient times. The "barbarian invasion" in Europe in the ancient Roman period and the invasion of China by the Mongols and Jurchens/Manchus in China are very typical examples. If we say that the wars triggered by climate change in the future will be different from the wars of the past, then it will be the fight of horses and machetes, but the future may be the throwing of missiles or even nuclear bombs.

However, even knowing these consequences, it is impossible for human beings to let go of various interests and grievances. Because these interests and grievances are also related to life and death and the meaning of their own existence, no one is willing to pay the price of the decline and death of themselves and their relatives and friends for the survival and development of others, other races, and even all mankind. Moreover, at least some of them, those individuals, groups, and nations who have been oppressed, exploited, bullied, and suffered historically, are justifiable for not giving up and fighting, and cannot be rudely denied or unreasonably deprived.

Of course, maybe the future is not so pessimistic. Human beings have made unprecedented concerted efforts, shared the cost, as well as technological breakthroughs and other unimaginable reasons to successfully curb global warming and other climate disasters (or these disasters still occur, But human beings already have ways to avoid and overcome the harm caused by these disasters), tomorrow is a new day in the world, and children can bathe in the warm sunshine and look forward to a more distant future. But at that time, people who hold climate change denials will definitely come out and say, "climate warming is really a big hoax, otherwise why didn't those disasters happen". This sentence can negate the sacrifice and dedication of countless human beings. Even so, it is better than saying "this is God's arrangement" in the apocalyptic period when human beings face the catastrophe of millions of deaths every day.

However, the possible future in which human beings can successfully survive the climate change crisis is far less likely than the future in which human beings will perish in all kinds of disasters caused by climate change, and the modern civilization that has been painstakingly built will collapse and be destroyed.

After millions of years of evolution, the predecessors of human beings became similar to modern Homo sapiens 10,000 years ago. And within these ten thousand years, human beings have created brilliant civilizations that have not been able to appear in the previous millions of years of evolution. From primitive society to agricultural civilization, from agricultural civilization to industrial civilization, from traditional industry to the information age, human beings have developed at a super-accelerated speed. Today's human beings have reached unprecedented heights in both material and non-material civilizations. This kind of development has enabled human beings to overcome many insurmountable disasters and poverty in history, and the survival probability, length and quality of human beings have been greatly improved, but at the same time, it has also led to the emergence of ecological crises such as man-made environmental pollution and climate change. . The achievements of human beings have devoured human beings, and human beings will also face the challenge of disasters created by themselves.

Although the world is full of ugliness, people fight endlessly, selfishness, indifference, lies, violence, oppression, harm are everywhere, and all kinds of evil people are rampant, but there are also mutual help, warmth, sincerity, peace, justice, and care. , with the sacrifice and dedication of countless people with lofty ideals. On the whole, human beings today still enjoy the best life in human history, with unprecedented rights, dignity and survival value. Compared with the living conditions and quality in the long history of human beings, it is like a dream. The most important thing is that we still place our hope in the future, looking forward to the day when human beings will realize widespread or even complete fairness, justice and prosperity, everyone can develop freely, and all the ugly, fallacies and lies in history can be broken and righted. It would be a pity if the human world with such hopes is completely (or mostly) destroyed by climate change or other unknown disasters in the next hundreds or thousands of years. We also can't bear to see the splendid youth created by the descendants of the Chinese people be ruined together with the world. We also hope that future generations will see for us a bright era in which democracy, the rule of law, freedom and progress, and fairness and justice are fully realized in the land of China.

As a speck of dust in the universe, a flicker of a frame in the long history of mankind, I cannot resist such a magnificent and long force in the background of existence. Even if such magnificence and longness are reduced to one ten-thousandth or even smaller and short-lived, that is, in the current era of human society, if I replace myself with billions of human beings, it is still powerless to prevent various disasters including climate change ( were even coerced into participating in these disasters). Even if the climate catastrophe is overcome, it will not necessarily be when another crisis occurs (for example, if a super-giant meteorite hits the earth, it may suddenly wipe out human beings and thousands of species that are unprepared). Even though human beings have created splendid and broad civilizations, they are still just humble passers-by in the history of the universe. However, as "thinking reeds", let's struggle and record.

Wang Qingmin

October 13, 2021

The 230th year of the Republican calendar (the first draft)

(In the summer of 2022, high temperature disasters will occur across China, affecting hundreds of millions of people, and several people will die directly from "heat stroke". This speed of climate warming is earlier than some scholars and media expected. Before that, it was common People who do not believe in climate change, or think that climate warming only harms other countries but not themselves, are finally beginning to change, but there is still no general awakening. Moreover, even if they understand and start to participate in curbing climate warming now, they will still too late)