中华人民共和国成立70年来生态文明体制变迁的内在逻辑与实践启示

中华人民共和国成立以来,中国共产党带领中国人民不断探索实践生态文明建设。随着人民环境偏好的增强,中国的生态文明体制不断变迁以满足人民日益增长的美好生态环境需要。通过对中国环境管理机构、环境保护政策变迁历程的梳理,可以探析其变迁的内在逻辑和动力机制。中国的生态文明体制变迁始终坚持以人民为中心的发展思想,以适应人民群众环境偏好变化为逻辑起点,并不断通过体制改革来提高环境治理效率和改善环境治理效果。中华人民共和国成立以来生态文明体制的变迁为新时代生态文明建设奠定了基础、指明了方向,在未来建设美丽中国过程中要坚持以人民为中心的发展思想以满足人民环境偏好变化、完善生态文明制度建设为增强环境治理的效果和效率提供保障、以综合治理的思路构建中国特色社会主义生态文明建设的治理体系。     

试论生态林业系统的时空观

生态林业系统具有时间、空间两个序列的开发前景。长周期,大跨度的生态林业生产可以分解为复合的短周期方式,使生态意识与经济效益有机结合。空间组合的多层次立体开发有效地利用了光、热、水、土资源,并获得最大生物量;地域组合着眼宏观,注重研究大型骨干及网络性生态工程问题。     

信息化与贸易新发展

从生产力发展与技术进步的视角来观察，人类社会经历了三次大的革命，即：农业革命、工业革命、信息革命。其中，信息革命是迄今为止最伟大的一次革命。信息化的进程对人类社会的发展产生了巨大的影响。信息化引起和带动了贸易的革命性变化，推动了贸易纳新发展。贸易秩序将走向法制化、明化。     

对我国生态环境保护的初步探讨

中国是世界上最大的发展中国家,由于现代工农业生产而造成了严重的环境污染,尤其是大量使用农用化学品所导致的生态失调与环境破坏,已严重威胁到人类生存环境及生活健康。今后社会发展必须大力提倡与推广无公害、无污染的清洁生产,全面实现生产的"零污染"与废物的"零排放"、保护环境与追求生态和谐的发展目标。     

以“三个代表”重要思想为指导建设社会主义政治文明

江泽民同志在十六大报告申提出发展社会主义民主政治,建设社会主义政治文明,这是我们党根据历史潮流和时代发展的要求提出来的一个新的理论概念。从我国国情出发建设社会主义政治文明最根本的就是坚持党的领导,人民当家作主和依法治国的有机统一。社会主义政治文明与"三个代表"重要思想是不可分割的有机整体。在当前国际国内形势下,更迫切地要求我们要以"三个代表"重要思想为指导,加强社会主义政治文明建设。     

地方文化景观意义探讨--对蛇山南楼文化的再认识

武昌蛇山南楼在其千年传承的历史中形成了深厚的人文底蕴，南楼文化是武汉地域文化的重要组成部分。但是目前南楼文化远远没有得到应有的开发，因此，有必要充分发掘其丰富的文化内涵，使其重展昔日风采，从而推动武汉地区旅游经济的发展。     

国外法治文明成果和教训

中国共产党实施的依法治国方略 ,是对人类近代社会以来资本主义和社会主义两种制度治国经验的科学总结。积极吸收资产阶级创造的优秀政治文明成果 ,特别是法治文明成果 ,吸取苏东剧变的惨痛教训 ,对于推进我国依法治国的进程有着重大的现实意义。     

政治关系文明的制度分析--在国家与社会关系视角内

政治文明包括政治角色文明、政治行为文明、政治关系文明。政治关系文明是政治文明之基。国家与社会关系的文明，是政治关系文明的根本。当前中国国家与社会关系文明的建设是政治文明建设的突破口。为此要在“强国家一强社会”的视角下，通过制度供给构建适应我国国情的国家与社会良性互动的结构性基础。     

Mongolian nomadic culture and ecological culture: On the ecological reconstruction in the agro-pastoral mosaic zone in Northern China

After analyzing the grassland environmental characteristics and nomads vs. agrarian land use styles and their ecological and environmental influences in the arid and semiarid agro-pastoral mosaic zone in northern China, it was concluded that Mongolian nomadic culture is more close to the basic principles of the ecological culture in the modern sense. Mongolian nomadic culture has advantages over agrarian culture in ecology and environmental care, sustainable utilization of grasslands, and in sustainable human social economic development in the region. Generally speaking nomadic culture prevents desertification; whereas, agrarian culture facilitates desertification. Confliction between nomadic protection and agrarian destruction of grassland ecosystem is essentially focused on the problem of regional and even global ecological safety. Obviously, protection of ecological safety should be given priority because human social and economic existence, as well as development depend on and are decided by the vulnerable ecological safety in the arid and semiarid areas. Therefore expansion of cropping into the fragile ecosystem of arid lands was unfortunate. The long term sustainable management of these grassland ecosystems could benefit from reversal of policies that are exacerbating the problems of land degradation, and from the adoption of land use practices that have been successfully applied for centuries by Mongolian herders. Protection of grasslands and nomadic culture is far more important or even vital to the subsistence and sustainability of human and all other beings, compared to the protection of agrarian lifestyle and land cultivation. Protection of ecologic safety is protecting the premise and fundamental bases of economic and social development in the area. It is important to derive the rational elements of nomadic culture in construction of ecological culture, and in the ecological reconstruction in northern China. Based on analyzing and reasoning in line with the quintessence of nomadic culture summarized, some proposals on ecological reconstruction in the area are presented.     

When is it coevolution?

This paper evaluates the differences between Norgaard's and Winder et al.'s approach to socio-environmental coevolution. Winder et al. emphasize the evolutionary dynamics of coevolutionary change. These were omnipresent in Norgaard's work but they have not been adequately explored by other ecological economists. I argue that Winder et al.'s definition of coevolution is in essence the same as Norgaard's and that their real differences are, how they see coevolution applied and how far they are willing to draw a priori a line between evolutionary and non-evolutionary socio-environmental dynamics. My thesis is that at this stage a more open approach to evolutionary dynamics and coevolution a la Norgaard is a wiser strategy than Winder et al.'s narrower approach.