|
世界應該對從事某些污染較大的行業地區有所補償 The world should compensate for some industries that create heavily pollution.
中國是遠在大洋彼岸的發展中國家,輕工業發達. 當美國把污染嚴重的製造業推向國外時,中國就成了大多數生活必需品的製造國. 我在考慮, 如果有人是以世界範圍來整體規劃的話, 那把某些產品集中在世界某地製造好?還是將其分散,取近水樓台的優勢?哪一個代價小一點? 造成對世界的環境污染少一點?我記得在中國,從事某些危險行業的職工, 他們的收入會比一般行業的人高一點 .以此推論, 在世界級範圍內, 如果某一地因為有污染較大的行業,是不是其他污染少或者沒有污染的富裕發達地區,應該對這一地區有所補償?不然, 又要馬兒跑, 又要馬兒不吃草,那是一個惡性循環沒有將來!如果北美洲的發達科技生活水準, 超出中國以及亞洲的平均水平,那中國在哪些方面需要填補現存社會中的不足與空白,增加或幫助提升社會的文明程度,或用自己的特長穿透開拓新的市場? 比如說高鐵就是衣食住行中,行的部分,北美的高鐵網可以提高長途運輸的效率, 增加物流量, 更有效地為nafta 服務.
China is a developing country far from the other side of the ocean, and its light industry is developed. When the United States pushes heavily polluting manufacturing abroad, China has become the manufacturing country of most necessities of life. I am thinking, If someone is planning on a global scale, will some products be better concentrated in the world? Or do you disperse it and take advantage of the local markets? Which one is less expensive? Causes less environmental pollution to the world? I remember that in China, employees in certain dangerous industries will earn a higher income than those in the general industry. It is inferred that in a world-class environment, if there is a polluted industry in a certain place, is it others in rich and developed areas with little or no pollution should compensate for this area? Otherwise, if the horse must run, and the horse should not eat grass. It is a vicious circle without future! If the developed technology living standards in North America exceed the average level of China and Asia, then China needs to fill the gaps in the existing society, increase or help to improve the civilization of the society, or use its own expertise to penetrate new developments market? For example, high-speed rail is part of group service of clothing, food, housing and transportation. The high-speed rail network in North America can improve the efficiency of long-distance transportation, increase the flow of goods, and serve NAFTA more effectively. |
|