568
Z. Ouyang
as it demands input from the polluters but benefits the whole society. The thorough approach to pollution control is clean production, whereby resources are fully
transformed during production under full-process control, thus benefiting both the
producers and the society. Clean production has been promoted for many years but
with little effect. There are two reasons—front-end investment and willingness of
implementation, the second reason being more important as technological improvement is an ongoing process. On a deeper level, it is because enterprises are not strictly
required to fulfill social responsibilities. In developed countries, enterprises adopt
clean production primarily because of the law, then for economic considerations, and
at last because of public pressure. When all these three factors, especially the last one,
come into play, enterprises would have no choice but to go clean. Consumers express
their expectation for a clean life through their buying behaviors. This expectation is
not only for the product to be harmless to the buyer, but also to the environment, even
for production to be harmless to the environment too. This gives rise to the environmental labeling system, a certification system that is under rigorous supervision and
designed to meet both physical and mental needs. However, it must be noted that not
everybody would feel the mental impact of environmental damage as that doesn’t
just depend on income, but also on culturing and upbringing, which is reflected in
the ratio between physical and mental needs. When the general public is on a low
cultural level, a green social atmosphere cannot be fostered and the producers feel no
pressure. We have introduced the environmental labeling system, but consumers only
care about the products per se and hardly ever ask about the emission and pollution
control during production when paying the bill. The public wouldn’t complain either
unless something goes wrong at back-end pollution control.
Pollutant discharge doesn’t just take place during production, but also in life. With
the rising consumption level, the amount and quality of all sorts of solid wastes has
been increasing sharply, hazardous wastes in particular. Wastes are either landfilled,
burned or recycled. Landfilling can still be seen in many places as it is the simplest
way, but it is leaving ever more hidden hazards with the shrinkage of usable land.
Burning can generate energy, but siting for this approach is very difficult due to
public concerns over incineration technology, the safety of which is under question
as hazardous wastes are posing ever bigger threats. Even if the technology is safe,
the burning of a vast variety of materials would lead to a very low utility value of the
embers. Recycling is a relatively thorough approach. I don’t agree with the notion
of “circular economy” because circular utilization of energy is impossible and that
of materials has a lot of limitations. Therefore, I suggest developing a resourcesaving economy that includes maximal recycling. The key to recycling and reuse
is sorting. In developed countries, there is a stringent system for waste sorting and
recycling. Wastes are not only sorted into tens of kinds, but down to different sizes
in the same kind. Although law plays a part in successful recycling, the basic factor
is public cooperation. Some scholars, including me, began to call for waste sorting
and recycling many years ago, and it was gradually implemented in the twenty-first
century, but even rough sorting has met numerous difficulties. There are two reasons
for this. The first is the responsibility for management. Some pilot communities
have actively sorted wastes, only to find them being taken away all mixed together,
Z. Ouyang
as it demands input from the polluters but benefits the whole society. The thorough approach to pollution control is clean production, whereby resources are fully
transformed during production under full-process control, thus benefiting both the
producers and the society. Clean production has been promoted for many years but
with little effect. There are two reasons—front-end investment and willingness of
implementation, the second reason being more important as technological improvement is an ongoing process. On a deeper level, it is because enterprises are not strictly
required to fulfill social responsibilities. In developed countries, enterprises adopt
clean production primarily because of the law, then for economic considerations, and
at last because of public pressure. When all these three factors, especially the last one,
come into play, enterprises would have no choice but to go clean. Consumers express
their expectation for a clean life through their buying behaviors. This expectation is
not only for the product to be harmless to the buyer, but also to the environment, even
for production to be harmless to the environment too. This gives rise to the environmental labeling system, a certification system that is under rigorous supervision and
designed to meet both physical and mental needs. However, it must be noted that not
everybody would feel the mental impact of environmental damage as that doesn’t
just depend on income, but also on culturing and upbringing, which is reflected in
the ratio between physical and mental needs. When the general public is on a low
cultural level, a green social atmosphere cannot be fostered and the producers feel no
pressure. We have introduced the environmental labeling system, but consumers only
care about the products per se and hardly ever ask about the emission and pollution
control during production when paying the bill. The public wouldn’t complain either
unless something goes wrong at back-end pollution control.
Pollutant discharge doesn’t just take place during production, but also in life. With
the rising consumption level, the amount and quality of all sorts of solid wastes has
been increasing sharply, hazardous wastes in particular. Wastes are either landfilled,
burned or recycled. Landfilling can still be seen in many places as it is the simplest
way, but it is leaving ever more hidden hazards with the shrinkage of usable land.
Burning can generate energy, but siting for this approach is very difficult due to
public concerns over incineration technology, the safety of which is under question
as hazardous wastes are posing ever bigger threats. Even if the technology is safe,
the burning of a vast variety of materials would lead to a very low utility value of the
embers. Recycling is a relatively thorough approach. I don’t agree with the notion
of “circular economy” because circular utilization of energy is impossible and that
of materials has a lot of limitations. Therefore, I suggest developing a resourcesaving economy that includes maximal recycling. The key to recycling and reuse
is sorting. In developed countries, there is a stringent system for waste sorting and
recycling. Wastes are not only sorted into tens of kinds, but down to different sizes
in the same kind. Although law plays a part in successful recycling, the basic factor
is public cooperation. Some scholars, including me, began to call for waste sorting
and recycling many years ago, and it was gradually implemented in the twenty-first
century, but even rough sorting has met numerous difficulties. There are two reasons
for this. The first is the responsibility for management. Some pilot communities
have actively sorted wastes, only to find them being taken away all mixed together,