Translated an opinion piece (note that Willfanyi does not support the opinion of the article and does not comment publicly about the documentary)
为什么《穹顶之下》没有说服我？Why ‘Under the Dome’ Didn't Convince Me
首先要声明，这篇文章并不是来批判《穹顶之下》的。相反，柴静的这部作品，无论从包装的精美，文案叙事的设计，采访对象的深入，还是数据的翔实程度来看，都非常值得喝彩，甚至有可能成为整个中国科学传播史上的经典之作。但是，跳出那些感情叙事的框架之后，我只能说，《穹顶之下》虽然感动了我，却没有说服我。从更理性的角度出发，如果不把雾霾当做“私人恩怨”，而作为一项公共政策来谈论的话，似乎有更多的问题需要进一步深入探讨。
First of all I’d like to say that I’m not here to heap criticism on ‘Under the Dome’. Actually, I think that Chai Jing did a great job. She covered everything very well and structured her narrative in a clear and engaging way. Organising the data and interviews in such a way as to clearly communicate a message to the viewers must have been extremely difficult, and if there was a hall of fame for Chinese documentaries, this should be in it. But when I step back and look at the documentary, which by the way I found it very challenging and/or heart-rending to watch, I wouldn’t say I was necessarily persuaded. For when you look at the issue in a rational, economic way, i.e. not like Chai Jing whose dislike of smog is on the level of a personal vendetta, there are reasons to question some of the documentary's conclusions.
雾霾的危害具体有多大？这在科学界其实并没有确切的定论。柴静在片中引用了前卫生部长陈竺的研究，认为每年因空气污染而早死的中国人约有50万（其实陈的原文是35-50万）。但是这只是很粗略的估计，由于缺乏更详细的研究数据，我们很难知道这样的结论可靠度究竟有多少。
So, basically, how harmful is smog/thick air pollution? In fact, there’s not a clear scientific consensus. Chai Jing quoted some research from a previous Health Minister, Chen Zhu, who estimated that air pollution kills about 500,000 people in China per year (actually in his original findings Chen said it was a maximum of 500,000, 350,000 to 500,000). The reality is that it was a ballpark figure. The science can’t give us something more specific at the moment, and so I’m not sure how seriously we can take these high death toll figures.
在整个科学界，对于PM2.5危害的研究也才刚刚有所进展。很长一段时间以来，人们其实并没有发现大气细颗粒漂浮物对于肺癌有什么关系，2013年，当钟南山宣称空气污染导致肺癌增加的时候，还遭到了方舟子的批驳。直到2013年底，根据几个最新的调查，国际癌症研究机构（IARC）才首次把大气污染物列为一级致癌物。
The whole ‘PM 2.5’ phenomenon is also a relatively recent development. For quite some time there was no particular focus on these tiny particles as being especially cancer-causing, until 2013 when Zhong Nanshang announced that air pollution was increasing rates of lung cancer, which got him a public reprimanding from Fang Zhouzi. But these particles have only been classified as particularly cancerous since late 2013 by the IARC, an international cancer research institute, based on some recent findings.
不过，这些调查大多都是在西方国家做出的，而中国的PM2.5浓度往往是这些国家的几倍甚至十几倍。按照Turner等人的研究，每增加10微克/立方米的PM2.5浓度，会导致肺癌死亡率上升15%-27%，按照这个算法，光是大气污染一项，就能导致中国的肺癌死亡率比欧美高出300%以上。但在实际情况中，中国的肺癌死亡率虽然略高，却远未达到如此夸张的程度。所以这些研究中发现的线性关系，能不能简单地拷贝到中国，还是比较有疑问。
In any case, this research was undertaken in the West. No places in the West experience PM 2.5 like China does, and typically China would have several times, maybe dozens of times more PM 2.5 in the air than anywhere in these Western countries. According to one researcher’s estimation (Turner), you get a 15-27% higher chance of getting lung cancer for every 10 micrograms of PM 2.5 per cubic metre around you. In that case, considering China’s high levels of PM 2.5, Chinese people should get lung 300% more often than Europeans. In fact, rates of lung cancer in China are somewhat higher than in Europe but certainly not to that degree. So, there's some doubt as to what extent you can extrapolate the research findings onto the ‘field’, i.e. China.
当然，很多人可能要说，知道PM2.5有害不就好了吗？至于它每年究竟导致10万人还是50万人死亡，有多大意义吗？
Of course, one might say, we all know that PM 2.5 is pretty bad, isn’t that enough? Is it worth splitting hairs over whether the death toll is as high as 500,000 or just 100,000?
但这恰恰是在公共决策层面至关重要的一点。如果不把雾霾当做私人恩怨，我们必须知道我们为雾霾付出的具体成本大约是多少。因为社会的决策，它不是讲温馨讲情怀讲故事，任何一个社会选择的背后，往往都是冰冷的经济学核算。很少有东西是无本万利的，任何选择都有得有失，我们要讨论的，是它“值不值得”。
But I would say that’s exactly worth splitting hairs about if you’re working at the highest levels of government. Smog and air pollution is costing our people a lot, and it would be nice to know exactly how high the price is. It doesn’t feel like a particularly good question to ask, in fact, it would be easier just to say 'Smog is our sworn nemesis, down with smog!', and that would certainly make decision-making a lot easier. But if you’re making economic decisions that affect the whole country you might want to hold off. There’s actually not a lot of things that are really ‘priceless’, in the sense that you should never ever consider doing without them. Maybe we can talk about whether clean air is really priceless?
柴静自己曾在博客里写过一篇关于DDT的故事：当年农药DDT被发明出来，用来消灭蚊虫，减少疟疾。但是1962年，蕾切尔·卡逊发表了著名的《寂静的春天》，指出DDT致癌，并污染环境。《寂静的春天》后来几乎成了环保主义者的圣经，并最终导致了DDT的全面停用。
Chai Jing once wrote an essay about the use of DDTs on her blog. In the early days, when the pesticide ‘DDT’ had just been invented, it was considered a very effective means for dealing with all sorts of pests, and that in turn helped deal with rates of malaria. And then in 1962 Rachel Carson published ‘Silent Spring’, which showed that DDT is a significant contributor to cancer and tends to damage the environment. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that Silent Spring is a sort of ‘environmentalist Bible’. In the end, it successfully put the kibosh on the use of DDTs pretty much anywhere in the world.
听上去棒极了，但可惜，DDT停用之后，又没有同样有效的药物来对付蚊虫，这使得非洲疟疾的发病率飙升，仅南非的一次疟疾大爆发，就导致了至少10万人的死亡。因为DDT的禁用，到了2000年，世界上至少有3亿疟疾患者，每年导致超过100万人死亡，相当于每天都有“7架坐满儿童的波音747失事”。
That sounds great, except when that happened there wasn’t anything nearly as good as DDT to replace it. This meant that pests were once again out of control and rates of malaria in Africa skyrocketed. One outbreak of malaria in South Africa is estimated to have costs the lives of 100,000 people. Thanks to the ban on DDTs, by the year 2000, at least 300 million people had caught malaria who theoretically didn't have to, and today 1 million die from malaria every year, equivalent to 7 Boeing 747s full of children crashing every day.
为此，科学家们开始呼吁重新使用DDT，南非在2003年采纳建议，并迅速把疟疾死亡人数降到50%以下。后来，连世卫组织都开始号召非洲国家重新使用DDT。
As a result, some scientists started to say that, actually, maybe we could consider using DDTs again. South Africa agreed in 2003, and the malaria rate there quickly dropped by more than 50%. Afterwards, even the World Health Organisation started saying to African nations that they might want to consider using DDTs once more.
但此时，已经有大约2000多万人死于疟疾之下。后来著名作家迈克尔·克莱顿曾说，《寂静的春天》一书所杀的人，大概比希特勒还多。
In any case, it is estimated that 20 million people have died because of malaria that wasn't able to be contained due to the DDT ban. If we look at the statistics in the simplest of ways, the number of deaths caused by Rachel Carson’s book is not unlike that of a certain German.
在这里，我并不是要对环保党进行什么非议。把柴静自己曾讲过的这个故事拿出来，无非是想说明，当进行一项公共决策时，我们不能仅仅只是诉诸感情。DDT污染环境好不好？当然不好。但是如果污染环境能够拯救2000万条生命呢？我们这里要问的是“值不值”，而不是“好不好”。所以，光是大骂一样东西“很坏”是不够的。我们至少应该追问三个问题：它“具体有多坏？”，“有没有更坏的？”，以及”没有它会不会更坏？”
But that’s not to say that the environmentalists among us are wrong. In fact, Chai Jing reporting on DDTs is just an example of how our environmental policy needs to look possible knock-on effects. So, are DDTs bad for the environment? Of course they are. But what if you can save 20 million lives because DDTs are particularly good against malaria-causing pests? Now, we need to ask ourselves, what is worth more? What’s the price of a life? We cannot simply say ‘all DDTs are bad.’ And so it’s not enough to say 'something' damages the environment and be done with it. We need to ask three follow-up questions: 1) Exactly how bad is it for the environment and people? 2) Are other options equally bad? 3) If we don’t use it, will things get worse in some way?
雾霾问题也是一样。但凡是个正常人的，恐怕没有谁会喜欢雾霾，谁都知道雾霾对健康不好。但只有定量地做出分析，我们才能搞明白，在公共资源投入上，如何分清轻重缓急。比方说，如果要具体地应对空气对人们的健康影响，我会建议更多地关注吸烟问题。从科学角度来说，吸烟对于健康的影响要远比PM2.5来得明确，在所有的肺癌中，大约60-80%是由于吸烟所引起，而室外大气污染恐怕不到10%。实际上，吸烟也是产生PM2.5的过程，一支烟就能产生浓度相当于633微克/立方米的PM2.5。而中国每年因吸烟而致死的人数，在120万以上。
Smog and air pollution is no different. Who’s not afraid of air pollution? Who doesn’t know at this point that it’s really bad for you? But major changes in public policy and resource investment also require a detailed understanding of exactly what changes in policy will do, not vaguely, but item by item, cost benefit versus cost loss. For example, if you want specific policies to target public health in terms of air, why don't we look more at smoking? Science tells us that the effects of smoking on a person's lungs is much more significant than what we know about PM 2.5 particles floating around in the air. In fact, about 60-80% of all cases of lung cancer can be tied to smoking, whereas only about 10% of cases can be similarly tied to general air pollution. In reality, smoking will make you ingest a lot of PM 2.5 particles, with a single cigarette being apparently equivalent to living in air filled with PM 2.5 particles to the tune of 633 micrograms per cubic metre. And the number of people killed in China from smoking-related illnesses is estimated to lie at more than 1.2 million per year.
有人说，吸烟是个人的自由选择，不能和空气污染相比。但真的是这样吗？中国有88%的人在家里被动吸烟，60%的人在公共场所被动吸烟，30%的人在工作场所被动吸烟。特别是在不吸烟的妇女当中，因为二手烟而患上肺癌的概率，恐怕还要高于大气污染。中国每年有约10万人死于二手烟，光是这一点，就不比燃煤造成大气污染的危害小多少。
Some people would say smoking is a choice, and so you can't compare it to generally poor air quality. But is it? In China, about 88% of the population are 'passive smokers' in their home environment, 60% of us are made into 'passive smokers' in public venues, and 30% likewise at work. If you look especially at the effects of second-hand smoke on women, the harm inflicted by second-hand smoke is likely greater here than the harm inflicted by generally poor air quality. In China, about 100,000 people die every year from passive smoking. This figure, by itself, is not estimably smaller than the number of people threatened by the atmospheric effects of coal consumption.
公共场合禁烟在中国难以彻底贯彻实施
A ban on smoking in public places in China would be hard to implement
可以说，在今天的中国，当你开始担忧孩子的呼吸时，烟草是远比雾霾更严重，也更紧迫的问题。很多人不知道，中国的PM2.5数值在过去的十年中，其实都是逐渐下降的（之所以最近才闹得凶，只不过大家以前不知道而已），但吸烟人数却正好相反，它还在上升，尤其以青少年和女性为甚。
You could say that in China today people are really starting to worry about air quality and its effects on children, whereas the reality is that the effects of cigarette smoking are provably much worse and more harmful. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you that levels of PM 2.5 have actually been going down steadily in the last 10 years (actually people just weren't aware of it before, it hasn't become a big issue because it's somehow worse now). At the same time as the PM 2.5 has been improving, the number of people smoking cigarettes regularly has been getting worse, it's on the increase and particularly among young men and women.
然而在媒体宣传上，雾霾却远比控烟要更受重视。从2012年开始，雾霾就是媒体最喜爱的话题之一，查查百度指数就知道，它受关注的程度远高于控烟。诚然，烟草也是政府垄断，且利益牵涉极广的行业，在现实中也很难一下子改变，但在媒体关注度上有如此巨大的差别，这不免会产生一些误导作用。这里并不是说不能关注雾霾，只是说当我们把健康问题和雾霾挂钩起来的时候，最好有一些定量的概念，才能更客观地进行相关的讨论。
But the media buzz is squarely on smog rather than controlling cigarette smoking. From the beginning of 2012, 'smog' has become a topic much loved by those in the media. A cursory search of China's 'Baidu' search engine will tell you that smog gets far more attention than searches relating to smoking and its ill side-effects. In fact, the government has a monopoly on cigarettes and the money from cigarette consumption lines many a pocket, thus the reality is that changing smoking regulations will be a very difficult exercise in frustration. However, the point is that the media is comparatively indifferent to smoking despite there being no apparent reason why this should be the case. Actually, it's downright misleading. I'm not saying we should ignore or downplay the smog issue, but what I am saying is that we should try to be more comprehensive and rational about the actual factors contributing to health issues at a time when smog has become the 'representative' of ill health.
其次，真正关心公共问题的人应当能够理解，很多事情并不是非白即黑，有百利而无一害。就像DDT的问题上一样，我们要讨论的并不是DDT是否有危害，而应该是DDT带来的好处是否能够抵消，甚至超过它的危害。这就是所谓的tradeoff，或者叫做利害权衡。我们历来的讨论中太缺乏这种精神，一件事情要不就是百分百的伟大光荣正确，要不就是百分百的十恶不赦。我原本期待《穹顶之下》能够更深入、更客观地来比较在雾霾问题上的各种利弊，但是它似乎在这方面并没有做得太多。
Furthermore, people who trying to direct the course of public affairs can't reduce everything to a black and white state of affairs, with minimal trade-offs and obviously right public policy. For instance, just as with DDTs, we need to talk about whether there are any benefits to DDT use as well as harmful side effects, and whether it's possible the benefits could even offset the harmful side effects, and perhaps even exceed them. This is what's known as a 'trade-off', or a 'cost-benefit analysis'. Past discussions in this country have often lacked a willingness to admit of shades of grey on an issue, issues have tended to become either a 'hundred shades of white' or a 'hundred shades of black' . I had originally hoped that 'Under the Dome' would present a deeper, more objective examination of the costs and benefits of 'smog-related industries' in China's fast-developing economy, but there wasn't much examination of other aspects of the issue.
在片中，我们反复看到对于环境问题单方面的大幅渲染。柴静把她的女儿关在屋子里，面对着外面灰蒙蒙的天空：这个城市会伤害我吗？答案是：会。但问题是，它更会在其它方面补偿你。就PM2.5的浓度而言，云南是全国环境第二好的地方，而北京则是倒数第二。然而，北京和云南的人均寿命却恰好倒了个个：北京全国第二长寿，平均寿命80.18岁，云南则倒数第二，平均寿命只有69.54。这就是经济发展，医疗资源的增长带来的好处，它远远地抵消了环境带来的危害。
In the production, you can make out very strongly a particular opinion on the issue. Chai Jing forbids her daughter to leave the apartment, forbids her from going out to face the grey, polluted sky. Will this city hurt you? The answer is: 'It will'. The problem is that it will also make it up to you in other ways. Looking at PM 2.5 levels, Yunnan should be classified as the second cleanest city in the country in terms of air. Beijing would be the second worst. But, actually, in terms of life expectancy, Beijing still leads Yunnan. Beijing has the second highest level of life expectancy in the country, at 80.18 years on average. Whereas Yunnan has the second worst rate, at 69.54 years on average. This is why economic development and the better medicine that money can buy is such a good thing. It's so good, that it can even offset the human cost that a polluted environment can inflict.
如果我能够选择，我情愿让孩子出生在雾霾蒙蒙的北京，而不是山清水秀的云南。这样，如果运气不是太坏的话，他能陪伴自己的家人多度过十个温馨的年头。
If I had a choice, I would rather let my kids live in smoggy Beijing than in clear-sky, clean-water Yunnan. For, luck permitting, they have a better chance of living another 10 years there.
而很显然，大批的人跟我做出了同样的选择。他们顶着雾霾，忍受着高房价，源源不断地从各地向北京涌来，使得北京的总人口在十年内增加了一半。他们是不知道雾霾不好吗？当然知道，只不过他们做出了自己的tradeoff，他们认为相比于其他好处来说，忍受雾霾的代价是“值得付出”的。
It's obvious that most people make the same choice. They put up with the smog and the unreasonably high real estate prices. You can see how a never-ending stream of immigrants to Beijing have multiplied the population of the city by a factor of 1.5 in the last 10 years. Don't they know that smog is bad for their health? They know, of course they know, but they are willing to make a trade-off. They're saying that putting up with smog and air pollution is worth it in comparison to whatever other options they may get on the table.
我一直希望能看到公众进行比较认真的讨论，即从定量角度来看，雾霾到底值得用多少GDP去“换取”？而不是永远单方面的发泄，要不就不惜一切要发展GDP，要不就不惜一切要环保。在经济学上，没有什么东西是值得“不惜一切”，或者以无穷大的代价去换取的，我们的决策也应当是两种诉求的平衡。有人说，用健康来换取经济的发展，又有什么意义呢？但问题是，不发展经济，这也是要用健康，甚至生命的代价来换的啊。
I've always looked forward to having a public debate on whether people would be willing to sacrifice air quality for the sake of economic development that is not part of an impassioned, one-sided analysis where the environment is given an infinitely high value or GDP/growth is given an infinitely high value. In economic terms, nothing is truly of infinite value, or, to put it another way, nothing is worth expending an unlimited amount of resources in acquiring. Our economic policies in this country should likewise admit that both considerations are of value. Some people say that we're sacrificing our health for the sake of economic development, and how pointless is that? But the problem with that is that economic development is a prerequisite to health, wellbeing, and a long life.
正如上面说的，经济水平是决定人均寿命的最重要因素之一，它对于“健康”的影响要远远超出了雾霾的污染值。经济不发达的省份，哪怕再“环保”，你的平均寿命也要比污染大省低。在中国，东部省份平均每个人能比西部多活十几岁。事实上，如果做回归分析的话，各省的PM2.5浓度和人均寿命甚至是正相关的，也就是PM2.5越高的地方，人均寿命反而可能越长。这并不是说PM2.5对健康有好处，而是说在污染高的地方，往往经济也比较发达，它对你健康的“补偿”要大于污染带来的损害。
Or to rephrase the above, economic development is one of the most important factors determining the length of an average person's life in a locale. The positive effects on 'health' of a high GDP is vastly greater than the ill effects on health of pollution. In provinces where economic development has been slow, and people subsist in a poorer economic environment, the lifespan of the average person takes a huge cut, regardless of how great the air is around them, and their situation is worse than for people in big cities with high rates of economic development but terrible air. In China, the average lifespan for a person living in the east is usually several years more than for a 'west Chineser'. In fact, there is a direct correlation between levels of PM 2.5 and average lifespans: the higher your levels of PM 2.5, the more likely you are to live longer. Of course, this isn't to say that PM 2.5 is helpful, rather that places with higher PM 2.5 levels tend to also be places that are more economically developed, and that is actually better for your health than smog is bad for it.
在漫天雾霾的同时，北京也是全国人均寿命最高的地区之一
At a time when smog creeps across the sky of Beijing on a regular basis, the fact is that it's still got one of the highest life expectancy rates of any city in China
关于中国各省经济和平均寿命的关系，有过一些粗略的分析。有人建立过线性模型，大约认为人均GDP每增长1000元，能换来当地0.3岁的寿命增长。而雾霾造成的健康损失呢？之前有科学家发表论文，认为北方因为供暖烧煤导致平均损失5.5年的寿命，但并未获得广泛认可。最近又有人做了推算，认为PM2.5导致了我国74个城市中的居民平均“减寿”1.48岁。
In terms of the relationship between economic development and life expectancy throughout China, we can roughly estimate that for every 1000 Yuan rise in average incomes in a particular place in China, you also see a 0.3 year increase in average life expectancy there as well. What about the effects of smog? One scientist published an analysis estimating that the burning of coal in north China probably takes an average of 5.5 years off the average person's life there. This figure is not widely accepted. Recently another analysis has estimated that PM 2.5 levels have caused the life expectancy rate in 74 cities in China to go down by 1.48 years on average.
把这两个数联系起来，我们会得出很有意思的结论，就是如果我们能以不超过人均5000元GDP的代价消灭“雾霾”的话，那就是划算的（2014年我国人均GDP约4万5）。而如果我们为了消灭雾霾，导致GDP的损失超过了人均5000元，那从“健康”角度来看，反而得不偿失。因为大量的资源花在了环保上，或许会导致医疗卫生设施的不足，反而导致人均寿命降低。
If you compare these two figures, if you treat them as reliable, then you've got quite an interesting conclusion. And that is that 'smog' is worth it if it means getting an increase in per capita income for a city by 5000 Yuan (according to a 2014 report on China's GDP). However, conversely, if tackling smog means taking more than 5000 Yuan off the average person's income, then it wouldn't be worth it. In fact, even from the 'health-orientated' point-of-view, that wouldn't actually do anything. Ironically, giving resources up for the environment might have a negative effect on your 'medical expenditure powers', thus actually decreasing average lifespans in a city.
当然，这只是非常粗略的计算，其中的数字和逻辑显然是不严密的。这里只是想说，雾霾治理问题应当是一个经济学上的收益-损失分析问题，而不是工业党和环保小清新们的整天对骂。这里的损失和收益不仅仅只是钱，谈钱也许太俗，我们来谈命。雾霾会导致人早死，这是命。但是，如果为了消除雾霾造成大面积失业，就不会闹出人命了吗？最近《柳叶刀》的精神病学期刊上发表文章，认为失业率是影响自杀的重要因素之一，在63个国家的调查中，每年大约有4万5千人因为失业而自杀。我们愿意以多少命来换多少命？这就是残酷的现实决策的问题。
Of course, in all of this calculating it seems that the figures and logic are not especially rigorous, and that's because, and this is the point I'm trying to put forward here, solving smog/air pollution should be decided on the basis of economic cost-benefit analysis and not a shouting match between industrialists and environmentalists. Profit and loss also can't be just about money, that would be a bit crass, but also the human costs thereof. Smog causes people to die young, that's an example of a human cost. But if we take away thousands upon thousands of jobs in an effort to eradicate smog, is that not also taking away human life? Recently, The Lancet Medical Journal published an essay arguing that the unemployment rate is a major contributing factor to the suicide rate in a given place, and that after a survey of 63 countries, they estimated that about 45,000 people probably commit suicide every year due to unemployment related issues. So perhaps we should be asking ourselves, are we not sacrificing lives in order to save them? And how many? This is a harsh reality of macro policy-making.
再比如，雾霾是中国快速工业化和城镇化的副产物之一，《穹顶之下》里对如今城镇化的规模进行了质疑，但是，中国真的已经过分城镇化了吗？显然是没有嘛。2014年，中国的城镇化率才54.77%，还远远落后于西方国家。城镇化中涉及的也不仅仅是钱，也有大量的人命。20年前，中国农村女性的自杀率之高，一度引得全球瞩目，而随着快速的城镇化，中国妇女的自杀率快速下降，从每十万近30人下降到如今的每十万不到10人，光这一项，每年就挽救了约6500条生命。当我们抱怨城市化带来污染的时候，也把这些人加到天平上吧。
Again, smog is a side-effect of China's speedy drive towards industrialisation and urbanisation. Under the Dome questions the urbanisation process, but is China really particularly urbanised? Of course not. In 2014, only 54.77% of Chinese people were living in an urban environment, which lags far behind Western countries. Urbanisation has also not just affected the wallets of Chinese people but also their survival. 20 years ago, there was a particularly high rate of suicide for females living in the countryside, at one point attracting world wide attention. With China's fast urbanisation, China's female suicide rate also quickly decreased, from 30 people per 100,000 to today's rate of less than 10 suicides per 100,000. Simply looking at this statistic, urbanisation is saving about 6,500 females every year. As we complain about the environment aftereffects of urbanisation in terms of pollution, perhaps we should also think about what lives it has saved.
还有吗？有的。如今中国每年出生1600万人口，而男女比例竟然达到了惊人的1.17:1，导致未来的“光棍”问题成为热点话题。但在这背后，每年多少女婴还未降生就离开了人世呢？假设正常的男女比例是1.06:1，很容易得出，每年因为“重男轻女”等观念而导致的“被杀女婴”大约有80万之多（“被杀”也包括提前流产等）。这些人的命应该怎么办？慢慢等待观念的改变和风俗的改变吗？也许正如柴静说的那样，我们不应该再等待，不应该再推诿。城镇化是最有效地解决男女歧视问题的方案，通过进一步的快速城镇化，我们可以挽救这每年80万无辜的女孩。如果这会进一步加深环境的污染，这值不值得？
Is there more? There is. At the moment 16 million people are born in China every year, and the male-female ratio has reached an alarming 1:17 males for every 1 female. This in turn has led to the so-called 'bachelordom crisis' among Chinese males, which has become a talking point in news and current affairs. The question is, behind the scenes, just how many female embryos are never born? If we imagine that the typical male-female ratio is 1.06 males for every 1 female, then it is easy to conclude that the 'patriarchal' culture here is most probably 'killing' more than about 80,000 female babies every year ('killing' also including abortion). How should we deal with this massive loss of life? Should we patiently wait for people's backward values and outdated thinking to change naturally? Perhaps we should follow Chai Jing's lead and seize the day, not waiting for change or making excuses for the present system any longer. In fact, urbanisation is the most effective method of dealing with patriarchal cultural values, and by promoting speedy urbanisation in China, we can save the lives of about 80,000 baby girls every year. But if this urbanisation worsens the environment, then is it still worth doing?
女婴往往被提前打胎或抛弃
Baby girls are often deliberately aborted or abandoned
可能又有人要说了，《穹顶之下》正是在告诉我们，追求GDP不一定代表污染，追求经济进步不一定会产生雾霾啊。但正是在这一点上，柴静并没有能够说服我。因为这个口号太诱人了，太理想了，太完美了，太多的人都曾经许诺过这样的乌托邦，所以我不得不以极为警惕的心态来接受，以极为小心的态度来看待她的论证。历史已经告诉我们，当极端的理想主义者影响国家决策时，最终会导致什么样的结局。
Perhaps others might say, one thing 'Under the Dome' is trying to tell us is that increases in GDP don't necessarily mean pollution, nor does economic development always imply smog. But on this point, I would have to say that Chai Jing hasn't convinced me. It's so tempting, so ideal, such a perfect solution. I've seen too many people promise utopian arrangements, making me wary of such ideas. I'm going to be cautious in examining her argument here. History tells us that when the people making policy as dyed-in-the-wool idealists, the results will not be pretty.
但在全片中，我所能归纳出的，无非是这样几条提议：首先是明确执法主体，加强环保部职权，有法必依，对此我举双手双脚赞同。但这究竟会对经济发展造成什么样的影响，并不构成论证关系。从片中我所能得到的结论，无非是众多小钢铁厂如今利润极薄，再一加强环保就要纷纷倒闭了，所以干脆停止补贴，把这些落后产业淘汰，然后就能自动升级为既不污染环境，又能保持经济不倒退的高级产业了。至于新的产业是否能容纳相同的就业人口，能在多久之内完成，是不是符合经济需求，这只能靠自己想象。从欧美的转型历史来看，我对此是抱有怀疑态度的，当然这又是一个很大的话题，在此不详细展开。
In the film, what I can get out of it would be the following several suggestions, the sum of them being: first of all, make the law abundantly clear, strengthen the powers of environmental agencies, enforce the law properly. I wholeheartedly agree. But we still can't be sure of the relationship between doing that and the economy. What we can get from the movie is just that a lot of small steel manufacturers are finding it hard to grind out a profit, and that if environmental protections were increased then they would inevitably go bust, factory by factory. And so, simply putting a stop to government subsidies for those industries should be enough to take out more than a few of such economically backward companies. And then, we would automatically get a cleaner environment along with plenty of economic growth, and that a better kind of economic growth. But as to whether or not the new industries thereby created would be able to provide jobs for the number of people currently looking, how long they would take to set up, and whether or not there really is that much economic demand to make this plan workable, we can't know really at this point in time. Looking at the history of economic restructuring in Europe, it seems like there's not a lot of reason to think it will be easy. Of course, that's a whole 'nother discussion, which I won't start right now.
其次，是能源转型，这条就把我彻底惊住了。作为一个煤多油少的国家，柴静居然建议中国放弃煤炭，而转向需要严重依赖进口的石油和天然气。但这需要多少成本呢？可行性又如何？对此却只字未提。当然我承认，这样庞大的问题不可能在一部短短的纪录片里说清楚，但《穹顶之下》随后抛出的两个说法却有点匪夷所思。首先是认为只要打破“三桶油”的垄断，石油产业就能自己进行创新，提高品质，减少成本。我在这里不去揣摩这是不是适应当下形势的又一盘“大棋”，我也不反对打破石油行业的垄断，但我强烈怀疑打破垄断之后，行业就能自动创新的说法。柴静似乎忘记了，她所反对的煤炭行业，正好是打破垄断，充分竞争的呀，为什么质量越来越差，反而不见创新呢？
Secondly, if we're going to change our energy system, well, I can only say that I am both dumbfounded and impressed at the same time. As a country with more coal than oil deposits, Chai Jing surprisingly suggests that China give up it's reliance on coal, and turn to oil, which will require significant reliance on foreign oil and natural gas imports. But at what cost? How feasible is that? We didn't get the answers. Of course, I can admit, this kind of massive problem cannot be conclusively solved in a short film. But the film's throwaway lines outlining this massive plan is a bit much. First of all, there's the claim that as soon as the 'Big Three Oil' monopoly is broken, then the oil industry will suddenly become much more innovative, produce better quality products, and decrease costs. I'm not going to go and speculate as to whether this is practicable for the current 'setup' in our economy, and I don't oppose breaking up monopolies in the oil industry, but what I am skeptical about is whether, after breaking up said monopolies, the industry really will naturally rise to greater heights of innovation and excellence. Chai Jing seems to have forgotten that the coal industry she strongly opposes is in fact a former monopoly which is now a very competitive field. So why is the quality of our coal getting worse and worse? Why isn't there much innovation?
中国要从煤炭时代进入油气时代？
Shall China move from the 'coal age' to the 'oil age'?
其次，是说打破垄断之后，我们很快就能探明更多的油气储量，天然气产量很快就可以翻番。这番听上去颇有些大跃进气派的言论究竟有何根据，我无从得知。但《穹》片随后用了英国作为论据，说英国自从1952年伦敦污染事件之后，很快从煤炭转型到了石油，并从此实现了环境的改造。事实本身我不否认，但《穹》片没有提到的是，英国虽然在1956年通过了空气清洁法，但直到70年代发现了北海油田之后，石油占能源的总比例才飞速上升。而要把我国的未来能源寄托在发现一个新的，未知的大油田或者大气田之上，我总觉得有些不太可靠。所以不好意思，想要说服大家接受这一点，柴静恐怕还得再举出更多的证据才行。
Secondly, there's the view that after we break up the monopolies, we will quickly be able to track down new oil and natural gas deposits, thus increasing our supply of both many fold. This sounds like a fantastic idea worthy of the Great Leap Forward, but what is the basis for thinking this, exactly? I couldn't find any. But 'Under the Dome' goes on to use England as proof-of-concept. Apparently, after the Great Smog disaster in London in 1952, there was a massive, speedy restructuring from coal-based power sources to oil-based power sources, and this worked wonders for the local environment. I'm not going to disagree with this point, but 'Under the Dome' doesn't mention that although England passed a Clean Air Act in 1956, the proportion of oil used in power generation didn't go up hugely until the 1970s, after the discovery of the North Sea oil reserves. Only then did the use of oil skyrocket. And so, putting our energy policy onto the discovery of as-yet undiscovered and unknown oil or natural gas reserves seems a bit unreliable to me. And so with some embarrassment I'd like to ask everyone to wait until Chai Jing provides more evidence of said reserves before accepting this point.
实际上，从现在的情况来看，用煤还是用石油，这并不对空气污染问题造成本质上的影响。我国的煤电厂，其环评标准本身是极为严苛的，只要能够彻底执行，并不对环境产生大的压力。事实上，今天在英国，煤炭占能源结构的比例反而又在逐渐上升。所以实际地说，要想治理雾霾，并不意味着一定要放弃煤炭。比较有效的办法反而是关停更多的小火电厂，留下少数易于监督管理的大电厂，实行严格的环保标准和监督。原则上，这仍然是一个成本的问题。至于《穹》片中未提到的更多清洁能源，如水电、风电、核电、太阳能等，自然也都可以在考虑之列。
In reality, looking at the current situation, regardless of whether we use coal or oil, it's not going to have a substantial impact on the air pollution issue. Our country's coal plants are governed by quite tight and strict regulations, and it's just their proper and strict implementation that stands in the way of the environment. In reality, right now, the proportion of coal versus other power sources in England's energy network is actually steadily rising. So I think the reality is that tackling smog, doesn't necessarily mean giving up all coal. One reasonably effective thing we can do is close down some of the small electrical power stations and leave relatively bigger, and less numerous, power stations alone under tight supervision - real and environmentally effective supervision. In principle, it's still a matter of cost. As for 'Under the Dome', it doesn't mention clean energy solutions, such as hydraulic, wind, nuclear, and solar power, and of course these can be considered as well.
但这些仍然并没有解决我之前的疑问，也就是《穹》片中并没有提出可靠的证据，来证明中国可以很快地迈入又发展经济，又不产生污染的阶段。因此，作为一种呼吁，我认同柴静的努力，她让更多人开始关注环保问题，这当然是极好的。但对于她的观点，我仍然抱有怀疑的态度。作为一个公共政策的讨论，我希望能看到更多的，更详细的关于雾霾治理的成本和收益讨论，我希望大家能更多地来权衡其中的利和弊，而不要诉诸冲动，理所当然地把“雾霾应该不惜一切代价治理”作为默认前提。
But this doesn't solve the questions I raised earlier, that is to say, 'Under the Dome' hasn't given reliable evidence to show that China is able to both promote economic growth as well as cut pollution significantly at the same time. And as a result, I wholeheartedly applaud Chai Jing's call to action, her efforts and her success in raising the profile of environmental problems to millions. This is obviously fantastic. But as for her overarching point-of-view, I'm still not convinced. In terms of public policy discussions, I would have hoped to have seen more detailed discussions of how to solve smog with respect to manufacturing and economic costs, and I'd hope that the public would also take a look at this aspect of the problem as well, rather than simply trying to throw out the present system under the hidden assumption that getting rid of smog is worth anything and everything.
毕竟情感攻势之后，理性才是实际解决问题的工具。
In conclusion, it's only when people let go of their strong feelings on this issue and evaluate it in a purely rational way, that we can really start to think about practical ways to solve these problems.
To see Chai Jing's world famous documentary with English subtitles, the YouTube video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6X2uwlQGQM
Source: http://news.sina.com.cn/m/2015-03-04/135431566775.shtml