Thursday, January 03, 2008

拖住文明後腿的知識分子

時代不斷進步,左翼人士亦不例外。從前的共產主義者會叫嚷要均分社會的財富,清算「剥削工人」的資本家。今天的新左派則「進步」了不少,他們改為要「正義分配」地球的「大氣層使用權」,而清算的對象,則集中針對「破壞地球生態」的資本主義魔鬼美國。

傳媒知識份子梁文道先生,最近撰文指美國是「拖住世界後腿」。他指摘歷史上美國的溫室氣體排放得最多,「令地球環境付出重大代價」,但卻不肯承擔更多的減排責任,就像某人「身上掉下來的毛髮塞掉去水口」,卻不肯去「分擔更多的水管修理費」。

筆者不清楚「毛髮脫落」對社會到底有甚麼好處,但如果沒有能源的燃燒排放,整個近代文明的發展便不會出現。要知道,由早期的木材、木炭,以至較近代的煤、石油及天然氣,獲取能源的方式就是透過燃燒這個氧化過程,釋放出能量,而氧化過程就必然會排放二氧化碳。把能源的燃燒排放比喻為「毛髮塞掉去水口」,是一個滑稽而不知感恩的比喻。

傳媒知識分子似乎認為,如果西方國家從來不曾燃燒過能源、排放過溫室氣體,現在的世界就會變得更加美好。他們忘記了,燃燒能源正是推動近代文明發展的動力。沒有能源的廣泛應用,就沒有十八世紀的工業革命,電燈、汽車、飛機,以至後來的電腦和互聯網也不會出現。沒有西方國家過去百多年的「排放」,中國也極可能只停留在專制落後的小農社會(雖然有人會說中國人的思維仍很小農),知識分子那有機會像今天般透過發達的傳體暢所欲言?

燃燒能源絕對不是「罪」。它推動了人類物質生活的進步,解放了環境對個人自由的約束,貢獻之大,就算溫室氣體排放真的如環保分子所說般帶來問題,人類當初還是會選擇同一條路。

與其他左翼環保信徒一樣,梁文道先生把「二氧化碳」和「廢氣」互相混淆。他理應知道,二氧化碳不是「廢氣」,而是地球上生命的必需元素。沒有二氧化碳,就沒有光合作用,植物便不會有糧食,整個生物鏈便告瓦解。反美的左翼環保信徒把二氧化碳宣傳成「廢氣」,說是「全球暖化」的元凶,這一點他們做得非常成功,現在大家一提起二氧化碳便會聯想到「全球暖化」。但事實卻是一向排放最多的美國,過去一百年的平均溫度竟完全沒有上升過,難道美國的科技真的高到可以將「暖化」通通「轉嫁」給別人而自己不受影響?

事實上,環境污染是一個管理上的問題。環境污染最嚴重的,基本上都是些發展中的國家,如中國﹔難道中國的空氣污染是美國吹過來的嗎?若然不是,到底美國的排放與中國的環境污染有甚麼關係?美國雖然排放得多,但保育卻做得很好,環保分子如真的關心環境的話,應呼籲發展中國家以美國為目標改善環境上的管理,而不是以「正義分配大氣層使用權」為藉口,反過來要求美國倒退到發展中國家的水平。

環保分子所謂的「正義分配大氣層使用權」,其實是把共產主義過去主張的均分財富借屍還魂。因為資本主義的現代生活都是建築在能源的消耗之上﹔賺得越多,消費越多,最終能源的消耗及排放自然亦越多。若把能源的排放限制,那賺得再多也沒有用。梁文道等知識分子認為「任何一個國家的國民都不該享有比其他國家人民更高的排放量」,但問題是﹕如果美國人不應比一個非洲窮人排放更多的話,那麼,居住半山的富豪是否也不應比住天水圍的草根市民排放更多呢?骨子裏,這其實是舊日共產黨「大鍋飯」集體平均主義的翻版。

事實上,從來就沒有人限制過任何國家的排放,大家的「大氣層使用權」本來就是平等的,決定排放量的唯一因素,就是你能賺多少錢購買能源去燃燒。這亦是中國和印度等新興國家拒絕為減排設限的原因。他們要繼續增加排放,決不是爭取甚麼「大氣層使用權」,而是為了改善人民生活,望有朝一日能與歐美等富裕社會看齊。

左翼知識分子眼中,「富裕」本身就是「罪」。只是汲取過共產主義失敗的教訓,他們都不會直接說出來。透過出色的語言技巧,他們創造了根本不存在的「大氣層使用權」,拖住文明發展的後腿,以免世界進一步走向那「萬惡」的資本主義富裕社會。

補充:
根據梁文道另一篇差不多相同的文章,原來「毛髮脫落」這不知所謂的比喻是彼得辛格(Peter Singer)提出的,真不明白為什麼香港傳媒知識分子這麼欣賞辛格這個Intellecutal Moron

2008年1月19日: Greenpeace rallied against the launching of the world's cheapest car
2008年2月09日: Eco-fascism: Jail politicians who ignore climate science

推薦閱讀:
If More CO2 is Bad ... Then What?
Blame the greens when the lights go off
Without us Human, Earth would be pointless
Elite disdain for consumerism and economic growth
Environmental extremism must be put in its place
'Medieval Environmentalists' attack CO2 in their efforts to derail civilization
Bali's Smog of Self-Delusion
Buying Forgiveness
The Conspiracy to Deny the Poor Mobility
The Little Car that Environmentalists Love to Hate
In Praise of Carbon

38 comments:

Red Bull said...

我收到風,X高官姓yellow

你做官既,又姓yellow, 唔通X高官就是你?

kmb59 said...

各國生產的商品及服務都不會只供當地人享用,梁先生大概也要對“美帝”排放的溫室氣體負責吧!

詩白爾 said...

我捻假如博主有不滿要投訴,不如就先投訴大學同教育局啦!
本本化學書ecology書都話過量CO2會影響生態,仲有條偉大方程式佐證。大學教授又係咁講....
另外美國一百年平均溫度無咩點變,唔代表其他地方無變喎,不如博主自己去威尼斯水道邊D屋或者北極海邊冰層表面(永久凍土唔計)住番一兩年,睇下你要搬幾多次屋。
我呢D讀死書o既人淨係識睇facts,政治野我無興趣。不過照你咁講落去,我覺得李嘉誠有需要上街抗議以免俾左翼人士或者梁文道等人o既言論迫害。

真小人 said...

根據廢柴兄的理論, 有錢人大Q晒, 所以可以做.....

1)在貧人區附近起屏風樓, 土地是公家的, 無問題. 空氣真係差左, 我唔覺呀, 至少我搵到錢.
2)想食多d肉, 我有錢, 米比錢砍伐晒d 森林來養牛. 你唔好理我300磅, 但我有錢, 食完轉頭便去減肥堂. 你唔好同我講, 我搶貴晒d 肉價, 只怪你班窮人無錢買肉, 食菜或食樹皮, 唔會死人的.
3)食飽去叫雞先. 玩女星, 悶悶地玩下小妹妹或者試下小男孩先. 我有比錢的, 反正佢地都係check, 大過又會比人搞, 我好心比錢佢地, 食下蕉, 高爾夫球, cherry, 好正常之嘛. 個個有錢人都係甘玩喇.
4)飲大野錯手打死人. 無問題, 我有錢, 請個出名律師先, 可以令我無罪. 謝xx同楊xx都係甘, 你老x, 我比佢地兩條粉腸有錢, 殺你全家, 轉頭去攞好市民獎都得.

這便是廢柴兄的思想, 不幸地每天也發生這些事情..........

得啖笑 said...

真小人兄唔駛咁勞氣,黃牛一直以來用咁多時間寫咁多「驚世駭俗」嘅文章,只不過係想搏出位,所以所謂嘅論點,一定係要借題發揮同嘩眾取寵,走另類路線先得。

手法好簡單,上網狂key word search ,是但執啲幾十頁嘅公海多的是嘅學術報告或網站,專執嗰一兩段啱用嘅出來,再用多幾個類似手法,做成一篇文章,有時仲可以就住手頭順手執到嘅零碎資料,先至倒轉頭來砌成一篇文,所以有時內容會扭曲或拉雜些,anyway,只要樣樣提啲,睇落就好似好有research base 咁,快夾靚。

要反駁佢,只要認真睇佢有曾經quote過嘅東西,跟住就明乜嘢叫斷章取義同小提大作!不過你同佢拗,佢就以自己嘅「學術研究」結果,話你唔係scientific,冇資格講;你跟住動氣同佢嘈,佢就偷笑,等佢啲fans出手,自己梗係扮斯文啦,仲話你粗暴地阻佢嘅言論自由噃。

佢近來夢想自己做才子,所以借陶傑、梁文道來大做文章,想借真才子來上位,自然要精挑兩位作家嘅論點,局部放大或扭曲後再發揮。

最簡單一句,睇完啲咁嘅大作,笑吓咪算囉!

Anonymous said...

黃牛這篇文章,只是反駁那此將所有罪責都歸究於美國人身上而已。
每個人都是吸O2放CO2, 唔通有人會講,正因為咁,所以人口越多既國家越排放得多"溫室氣體"咩。
平心而論,大氣使用權存在的話,政府就應該先立法限制每個人的肺活量了,及禁止所有帶氧運動......呼吸急促一點的,唔該坐監。
本人不反對環保,但環保分子用的方法及宣傳技倆,有時實在令人汗顏。最緊要既係,千祈唔好浪費資源。

庖丁 said...

二氧化碳教主堅信二氧化碳係有兩個氧的真氣,牠以為"沒有二氧化碳,就沒有光合作用,植物便不會有糧食,整個生物鏈便告瓦解",牠只是屬崇美極右翼的知其一不知其二的知識貧乏份子,阿vc點解唔叫牠問吓有生物知識之朋友/網友啫,或者vc教佢點上網搜索"植物是如何製造二氧化碳"呀!

Anonymous said...

>每個人都是吸O2放CO2, 唔通有人會講,正因為咁,所以人口越多既國家越排放得多"溫室氣體"咩。

This is a very wrong concept ..

We all produce some sort of waste as an animal .. we do go to toilet every single day .. or you don't?

So why can't you accept CO2 as a "waste gas" produced by human beings - just as the toilet waste that we produce ?

The key point here is that : respiration is essential need, and people don't have any choice over this. So it's stupid to blame people for breathing .. BUT we can choose what energy source to use, what engines to run .. which is up to you to make the difference.

yellowcow said...

Because CO2 is essential to plants and all animals and humans depend on plants.

What is your reason of accepting CO2 as a waste gas? We may have no choice but to produce toilet waste, but what is so essential about toilet waste itself?

Have you heard of popoluation control? Greenies think that our planet is already way over populated.

Check these news out to see what they are up to:

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

Baby tax needed to save planet

Anonymous said...

it's simple .. because CO2 is a biological waste generated in the process of metabolic ... and if it's not a waste gas then why should it be exhaled?

詩白爾 said...

I think Mr. yellowcow should study both agricultural science and Global studies before you come back to this topic. At first, this planet is not over populated, and there are no well-known standard of overpopulation in the earth. The problem in this planet is: the food are not fairly distributed to the whole population (obesity is found in US and western Europe, people in Asia, eastern Europe and most area in Africa keep died in/suffered from malnutrition .
The next thing you should consider is photosynthesis included both consumption of CO2 and oxygen; but the plants have a net oxygen contribute to the atmosphere.If you have study basic biology courses, CO2 is defined as a metabolic waste in living organism.
The idea of carbon neutral is not reduceing the CO2 in the earth to zero, but reduced the excess CO2 found in atmosphere by bioprocess ,and therefore reduced the effects of acid rain or any enviromental disadvantages like flooding, green-house effect to the whole planet.

yellowcow said...

"the food are not fairly distributed to the whole population"

Why should food be "distributed" at all, let along "fairly"? Food should be either produced or purchased.

I agree with you that the planet is not overpopulated. But I suggest you check out what environmentalist has to say on overpopulation.

What is the ideal CO2 level in atmosphere anyway? There is no proof that current CO2 level has any environmental disadvantages.

"...enviromental disadvantages like flooding, green-house effect to the whole planet"

Green-house effect is NOT a disadvantage and actually is essential to this planet. By far the most important green-house gas is water vapour.

yellowcow said...

"if it's not a waste gas then why should it be exhaled?"

Human sweats water out throught perspiration so that also makes water a waste I guess.

paulymh said...

歪理一大堆,懶得慢慢批評。
/但如果沒有能源的燃燒排放,整個近代文明的發展便不會出現。/
魚目混珠:梁生沒說美國不應該排放,而是說要排放最多的國家處理回自己的污染。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
偷換別人概念說人說不應排放,然後上綱上線,亂吹一通。

/環境污染最嚴重的,基本上都是些發展中的國家,如中國/
再度偷換概念:
1.CO2問題不是環境污染的全部。
2.洋垃圾。
3.如果你想說的是CO2排放最嚴重的,基本上都是些發展中的國家,錯得亂七八糟。
最嚴重的是美國和澳洲。

/應呼籲發展中國家以美國為目標改善環境上的管理,而不是以「正義分配大氣層使用權」為藉口,反過來要求美國倒退到發展中國家的水平。/
虛構事實。
「正義分配大氣層使用權」的意思是美國應該為自己的排放負責,而不是倒退到發展中國家的水平。

paulymh said...

還有以偏蓋全。
找到了一少部份環保份子的言論,就當作是所有支持環保的人的言論。

paulymh said...

看多了兩篇,歪理滿布,慘不忍睹,中五生也能做得比你好,我只能說,你沒得救了。
繼續活在自己的妄想之中吧。
懶得替一個妄想症病人醫病。

Anonymous said...

>>Human sweats water out throught perspiration so that also makes water a waste I guess.

yea you can guess whatever you like ..

all i could say for now is : waste is just another complicated concept which common sense approach failed to define ..

for instance, even toilet waste - as widely accepted as a waste material, is useful material for bacteria as a food source.. as a matter of fact "resource/waste" is often the one same thing in the food chain ..

and don't fool around trying to mix up definitions.. "water content in sweat" and "water" and "sweat" is 3 totally different things .. it might sounds stupid but think of the 白馬非馬 story ..

(aaa .. pls don't stop replying to that "pollutant definition" thread.. it's much more interesting .. or you want it to be relocated to the most recent post's comment?)

牛王 said...

黃牛還不知道實踐共產主義最成功的是梵蒂岡,最右的也是梵蒂岡!看這畜生是天生左右不分了。

詩白爾 said...

it's not the problem of economic issue, but the issue of better use of the source in this planet. While the "freegans" (i hope you have heard about this group of people)in the whole world can feed themselves without giving a penny, the buddies suffer from hunger could buy enough food by their poor wages.

Maybe i use the word "distributed" wrongly, but i really want to let you know it would be very great if everyone are fed with enough food. it benefits the whole world, but not only a few multi-corporation enterprises.

Environmentalist is not a proper authority to comment on overpopulation, but the social science experts.

"What is the ideal CO2 level in atmosphere anyway? There is no proof that current CO2 level has any environmental disadvantages."

Let us talk about environmental science, CO2 are like the particules and water vapour. it absorb the radiation and emit the energy as heat. If too much CO2 remain in the atmosphere before it become a part in the plants, the temperature would keep increasing and cause climate changes in equatorial area and the poles. In a normal situation, 0.058 %CO2 was founded in the air. But the scientist have claimed that CO2 is keeping increases in a rate of 1.5ppm per annually. So, slightly increase in CO2 level can cause enormous climate change in earth.
And One more thing to remind you is CO2 level affects the photosynthetic rates in plants. Be Careful if you want to give any comment on scientific researches.

Though Greenhouse effect was essential to the planet in establishing atmospheric layers some time ago, it does not mean we need it forever.I can say,"Not Now!"

Anonymous said...

Dear 詩白爾

I would like to say that the word "distributed" is not that inaccurate in your original post if you'r trying to say : allocated.

Economics is the study of resrouces allocation. And if you are by this definition it's more or less just pointing out how economic activities acted to starve people.

VC said...

http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html

VC said...

危機一髮! 環保分子請注意!

http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html

Anonymous said...

這個一氧二化氫的爛gag居然都給再炒冷飯 .. 純粹就是要為了要騙騙一些沒什麼化學根底的人

你們真的沒希望了,直接去死吧 ...

牛屎 said...

VC,
黃牛某年某日都有貼過這惡作劇網來反環保,可惜我踢爆牠而不逞,你真枉作小人。

VC said...

牛屎, 但comments令我想起它。

我不反環保,商業工業的盲目發展確需要防範;只是我討厭某些"環保分子"愚弄有Heart的大眾。

再者,我和Yellow Cow立場見解亦不盡相同。

不過,我興幸香港還有這Yellow Cow。

Anonymous said...

>>危機一髮! 環保分子請注意!

Except for an intention to mislead readers, I can't find any other reasonable explaination to have this statement claimed (provided that this was recently posted in this same blog and you probably read and/or even commented on it too). Shame on you ..

VC said...

是嘲笑,是parody,不是mislead.

Can't distinguish? Shame on ... oh, sorry, there is no-one!

Anonymous said...

If you put that "alert" with that "link" together, knowing by heart that the "alert" is a false statement, and the "link" contained misleading information without further clerification - I think it is you who can't distinguish "misleading" from "joking" ..

This is a blog space open to public access and so part of the readers would definitely be misled if they have insufficient chemistry knowledge .. have you ever considered about that?

ref : http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m033.htm

"MISLEADING CONDUCT - Knowingly making a false statement" ..

or ref : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misleading

Just check anyone of those

Poor you ..

>>Shame on ... oh, sorry, there is no-one!

aaaa i feel so god damn hurt !!

(don't be silly next time, save your key strokes and say something useful instead)

Anonymous said...

and btw .. just got to my mind here

"luckily" what?

We were onto the definition of pollutant and yellowcow said CO2 will be diluted in open space and thus will not cause harmful effect and so it's not a pollutant ..

I replied saying that "dilution effect" will make discharging CO (carbon monoxide) harmless then could CO be removed from the pollutant list. And up to now there's no reply at all.

what so "lucky" ? or you'r replying to someone else ? or you'r just speechless? .. that message is incomprehensible at all ..

VC said...

Oh, this Anonymous = that Anonymous!

"...
Luckily,..."

="Stupid definition arouse stupid debate! o甘駁落去沒完沒了!
Luckily, 我不是Yellow Cow, 亦無義務答。 Ha Ha"

Anonymous said...

>>Stupid definition arouse stupid debate!

heard about an old saying ? 真理是越辯越明的 .. apparently you don't believe in it tho' .. and if his definition is sound and concrete, it won't fail any of those tests ..

so if a stupid debate can tell if a definition is sound or not, then it might not be that stupid afterall ..

庖丁 said...

真理或是越辯越明,原因是兩者沒有必關係,與偏頗的牛辯論則多是越辯越暗!

cv said...

HA HA
包拋頸的好辯者多是要做the man with last debate

VC said...

"真理是越辯越明" 很少應驗的。

尤其是有參與者無虛心接受自己或許有錯!

However, I agree with you, yellow cow's definition is stupid.

But he was more stupid to debate with you in this way.

Anonymous said...

>尤其是有參與者無虛心接受自己或許有錯!

talking of that ..

yea .. look at this blog's settings .. I think you just pinpointed the most crucial point about this blog

the writer assumed itself flawless and busting everyone in his way ..

Anonymous said...

收聲啦弱智牛

Anonymous said...

不能同意這文章
有很多事「人類」是可以做到的,
但都是要付出相對代價的,
在進步同時,
必需考慮自已「應」進步多少,
永續「發展」概念

不必扯上共產
地球就是應大家一起保護的

台北唐先生 said...

  西方发达国家的富豪们现在有很多骑自行车上下班,为的是健身,附带是环保。让我们(弱势群体)衷心祝福中国的有车族(私家车)以车代步吧。愿他们都成为三高人士(高血糖、高血压、高血脂)。

——摘自《何健语录》,欢迎转载,谢谢支持!