The below is her CD released before:
Tuesday 27 December 2005
Young and Talented Saxophone Player: Yano Sario
One of the best sax player in Japan, and she is only 18 years old!! Her performance is quite similiar to a sophisticated sax performist whom used to play the instrument for more than 30 years. When U listen for the first time U would identify she was a experienced sax player instead of a young and beautiful girl~~
The below is her CD released before:
The below is her CD released before:
Thursday 15 September 2005
最熟悉的陌生人
詞：姚謙 曲：柯肇雷 唱：蕭亞軒
還記得嗎 窗外那被月光染亮的海洋
你還記得嗎 是愛讓彼此把夜點亮
為何後來我們 用沉默替代依賴
曾經朗朗星空 漸漸陰霾
心碎離開 轉身回到最初荒涼裡等待
為了寂寞 是否找個人填心中空白
我們變成了世上 最熟悉的陌生人
今後各自曲折 各自悲哀
只怪我們愛得那麼洶湧 愛得那麼深
於是夢醒了 擱淺了 沉默了 揮手了 卻回不了神
如果當初在交會時能忍住了 激動的靈魂
也許今夜我不會讓自己在思念裡 沉淪
我們變成了世上最熟悉的陌生人
今後各自曲折 各自悲哀?
還記得嗎 窗外那被月光染亮的海洋
你還記得嗎 是愛讓彼此把夜點亮
為何後來我們 用沉默替代依賴
曾經朗朗星空 漸漸陰霾
心碎離開 轉身回到最初荒涼裡等待
為了寂寞 是否找個人填心中空白
我們變成了世上 最熟悉的陌生人
今後各自曲折 各自悲哀
只怪我們愛得那麼洶湧 愛得那麼深
於是夢醒了 擱淺了 沉默了 揮手了 卻回不了神
如果當初在交會時能忍住了 激動的靈魂
也許今夜我不會讓自己在思念裡 沉淪
我們變成了世上最熟悉的陌生人
今後各自曲折 各自悲哀?
Monday 29 August 2005
Ned Kelly's Live Jazz
上星期六晚一伙人去聽 Live Jazz Band，但主要是看 saxophone 手的即興獨奏。雖然因星期日當更而提早離開，但他們的演出實令我非常滿足，氣紛非常良好。然在坐者絕大多數是外國人，難道 Jazz 在香港真是小眾嗎...
Sunday 21 August 2005
Friday 12 August 2005
Poem by Wislawa Szymborska
TRUE LOVE
True love. Is it normal,
is it serious, is it practical?
What does the world get from two people
who exist in a world of their own?
Placed on the same pedestal for no good reason,
drawn randomly from millions, but convinced
it had to happen this way – in reward for what?
For nothing.
The light descends from nowhere.
Why on these two and not on others?
Doesn’t this outrage justice? Yes it does.
Doesn’t it disrupt our painstakingly erected principles,
and cast the moral from the peak? Yes on both accounts.
Look at the happy couple.
Couldn’t they at least try to hide it,
fake a little depression for their friends’ sake!
Listen to the laughing – it’s an insult.
The language they use – deceptively clear.
And their little celebrations, rituals,
the elaborate mutual routines –
it’s obviously a plot behind the human race’s back!
It’s hard even to guess how far things might go
if people start to follow their example.
What could religion and poetry count on?
What would be remembered? What renounced?
Who’s want to stay within bounds?
True love. Is it really necessary?
Tact and common sense tell us to pass over it in silence,
like a scandal in Life’s highest circles.
Perfectly good children are born without its help.
It couldn’t populate the planet in a million years,
it comes along so rarely.
Let the people who never find true love
keep saying that there’s no such thing.
Their faith will make it easier for them to live and die.
========================================================
Here is my amateur translation of the said extract into Chinese. PLS kindly comment
「真愛」，它是否很平常？
是否認真？是否實際？？
為何身處在不同世界的
他和她會不期然地走在一起？
沒有什麼原因把他倆放在相同基座之中，
從千萬人中挑選（出來），但
確信（彼此）它就是這麼樣出現/發生
獎勵與誰？虛無。
它的光遺傳自何方？
為何偏偏發生在這兩人身上，而非其他？
它是否觸犯正義/法律？毫無疑問。
它是否破壞我們艱苦豎立的原則，
及將道德置於一旁？毫無疑問兩者皆有關係。
請看看那一對熱戀的情侶。
他們至少不會為了朋友
去隱藏那些哀愁的情緒，去欺騙他們！
聽聽他們的笑聲 – 這是一種侮辱。
他們對話的語言 – 虛偽地般清楚。
看他們（倆）每個細小的慶祝、儀式
和詳盡預備的各種的例行公事 –
就像人類回歸根本的一個故事情節。
如果人們開始學習他們，
我們（確是）非常困難去估計這進程需時多久，
把宗教信仰和詩詞計算在內？
什麼人和事需要銘記於心？什麼雖受遣責？
誰人希望/願意站在介限之中？？
真愛，是否必須？
得體的言行和常識已經知會我們去平靜地跨過，
如像生命巨輪中發生的醜聞一樣。
完美無暇的孩子們在不需要它的協助下誕生。
在千百萬年內它不會遍佈人間，
它只會稀有地出現……
就讓那些不曾找尋真愛的人
繼續地高呼：「世間無真愛」。
或許他們（這個）的信念會讓他們輕鬆點面對生存和死亡。
True love. Is it normal,
is it serious, is it practical?
What does the world get from two people
who exist in a world of their own?
Placed on the same pedestal for no good reason,
drawn randomly from millions, but convinced
it had to happen this way – in reward for what?
For nothing.
The light descends from nowhere.
Why on these two and not on others?
Doesn’t this outrage justice? Yes it does.
Doesn’t it disrupt our painstakingly erected principles,
and cast the moral from the peak? Yes on both accounts.
Look at the happy couple.
Couldn’t they at least try to hide it,
fake a little depression for their friends’ sake!
Listen to the laughing – it’s an insult.
The language they use – deceptively clear.
And their little celebrations, rituals,
the elaborate mutual routines –
it’s obviously a plot behind the human race’s back!
It’s hard even to guess how far things might go
if people start to follow their example.
What could religion and poetry count on?
What would be remembered? What renounced?
Who’s want to stay within bounds?
True love. Is it really necessary?
Tact and common sense tell us to pass over it in silence,
like a scandal in Life’s highest circles.
Perfectly good children are born without its help.
It couldn’t populate the planet in a million years,
it comes along so rarely.
Let the people who never find true love
keep saying that there’s no such thing.
Their faith will make it easier for them to live and die.
========================================================
Here is my amateur translation of the said extract into Chinese. PLS kindly comment
「真愛」，它是否很平常？
是否認真？是否實際？？
為何身處在不同世界的
他和她會不期然地走在一起？
沒有什麼原因把他倆放在相同基座之中，
從千萬人中挑選（出來），但
確信（彼此）它就是這麼樣出現/發生
獎勵與誰？虛無。
它的光遺傳自何方？
為何偏偏發生在這兩人身上，而非其他？
它是否觸犯正義/法律？毫無疑問。
它是否破壞我們艱苦豎立的原則，
及將道德置於一旁？毫無疑問兩者皆有關係。
請看看那一對熱戀的情侶。
他們至少不會為了朋友
去隱藏那些哀愁的情緒，去欺騙他們！
聽聽他們的笑聲 – 這是一種侮辱。
他們對話的語言 – 虛偽地般清楚。
看他們（倆）每個細小的慶祝、儀式
和詳盡預備的各種的例行公事 –
就像人類回歸根本的一個故事情節。
如果人們開始學習他們，
我們（確是）非常困難去估計這進程需時多久，
把宗教信仰和詩詞計算在內？
什麼人和事需要銘記於心？什麼雖受遣責？
誰人希望/願意站在介限之中？？
真愛，是否必須？
得體的言行和常識已經知會我們去平靜地跨過，
如像生命巨輪中發生的醜聞一樣。
完美無暇的孩子們在不需要它的協助下誕生。
在千百萬年內它不會遍佈人間，
它只會稀有地出現……
就讓那些不曾找尋真愛的人
繼續地高呼：「世間無真愛」。
或許他們（這個）的信念會讓他們輕鬆點面對生存和死亡。
Saturday 6 August 2005
心情
戀愛很遠 Candy Lo Hau Yim
成全我 遺忘我 別再敲 門已鎖
門匙掉了密碼 都經已改過
無人陪伴我 仍然能渡過 幾多渴望陪伴晚上
練習未夠多 原諒我 遺忘怎麼探戈
*情感那麼遠（戀愛很遠）
孤獨是這麼親近 遍地落空的飛吻
伴我歸去 是我的一行腳印（伴侶得我 及我的一行腳印）*
^誰人 路過也別行近 別要給我著燈 生活習慣黑暗
承擔得起傷心 或者應該單身 別怨憤 ^
勞煩你 同情我 待我好 憑甚麼
情人又哪裡夠孤單 信得過
長年陪住我 從來無別個 只得我和沉默宇宙
現在做到得的 無謂錯 寂寞簡單更多
repeat *
#誰人 路過也別行近 被愛感覺陌生 孤獨更加吸引
莫非孤單一身 毋須這麼擔心（路太暗）#
repeat # * ^
成全我 遺忘我 別再敲 門已鎖
門匙掉了密碼 都經已改過
無人陪伴我 仍然能渡過 幾多渴望陪伴晚上
練習未夠多 原諒我 遺忘怎麼探戈
*情感那麼遠（戀愛很遠）
孤獨是這麼親近 遍地落空的飛吻
伴我歸去 是我的一行腳印（伴侶得我 及我的一行腳印）*
^誰人 路過也別行近 別要給我著燈 生活習慣黑暗
承擔得起傷心 或者應該單身 別怨憤 ^
勞煩你 同情我 待我好 憑甚麼
情人又哪裡夠孤單 信得過
長年陪住我 從來無別個 只得我和沉默宇宙
現在做到得的 無謂錯 寂寞簡單更多
repeat *
#誰人 路過也別行近 被愛感覺陌生 孤獨更加吸引
莫非孤單一身 毋須這麼擔心（路太暗）#
repeat # * ^
Wednesday 3 August 2005
寫文章
一直有個念頭：想把自己所思所想用文字表達。但數年來也未成事，不知是自己覺得這樣太費時間，還是在思考之餘好讓腦袋休息休息...
有時覺得過去幾年的生活及經歷歷令我感到太累...
時間是不等人的，對嗎？
有時覺得過去幾年的生活及經歷歷令我感到太累...
時間是不等人的，對嗎？
Tuesday 28 June 2005
"Economist" article ~
GLOBAL WARMING
Apr 21st 2005
Market forces could prove the environment's best friend--if only greenscould learn to love them"THE environmental movement's foundational concepts, its method forframing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded.Today environmentalism is just another special interest." Those damningwords come not from any industry lobby or right-wing think-tank. Theyare drawn from "The Death of Environmentalism", an influential essaypublished recently by two greens with impeccable credentials. Theyclaim that environmental groups are politically adrift and dreadfullyout of touch.They are right. In America, greens have suffered a string of defeats onhigh-profile issues. They are losing the battle to prevent oil drillingin Alaska's wild lands, and have failed to spark the public'simagination over global warming. Even the stridently ungreen GeorgeBush has failed to galvanise the environmental movement. The solution,
and policies and "energise" ordinary punters with talk ofglobal-warming calamities and a radical "vision of the futurecommensurate with the magnitude of the crisis".Europe\'s green groups, while politically stronger, are also starting tolose their way intellectually. Consider, for example, their invocationof the woolly "precautionary principle" to demonise any complextechnology (next-generation nuclear plants, say, or geneticallymodified crops) that they do not like the look of. A more sensiblegreen analysis of nuclear power would weigh its (very high) economiccosts and (fairly low) safety risks against the important benefit ofgenerating electricity with no greenhouse-gas emissions.SMALL VICTORIES AND BIGGER DEFEATSThe coming into force of the UN\'s Kyoto protocol on climate changemight seem a victory for Europe\'s greens, but it actually masks alarger failure. The most promising aspect of the treaty--its innovativeuse of market-based instruments such as carbon-emissions trading--wasresisted tooth and nail by Europe\'s greens. With courageous exceptions,American green groups also remain deeply suspicious of market forces.If environmental groups continue to reject pragmatic solutions andinstead drift toward Utopian (or dystopian) visions of the future, theywill lose the battle of ideas. And that would be a pity, for the worldwould benefit from having a thoughtful green movement. It would also beironic, because far-reaching advances are already under way in themanagement of the world\'s natural resources--changes that add up to adifferent kind of green revolution. This could yet save the greens (aswell as doing the planet a world of good)."Mandate, regulate, litigate." That has been the green mantra. And itexplains the world\'s top-down, command-and-control approach toenvironmental policymaking. Slowly, this is changing. Yesterday\'s",1]
);
//-->
argue many elders of the sect, is to step back from day-to-day politicsand policies and "energise" ordinary punters with talk ofglobal-warming calamities and a radical "vision of the futurecommensurate with the magnitude of the crisis".Europe's green groups, while politically stronger, are also starting tolose their way intellectually. Consider, for example, their invocationof the woolly "precautionary principle" to demonise any complextechnology (next-generation nuclear plants, say, or geneticallymodified crops) that they do not like the look of. A more sensiblegreen analysis of nuclear power would weigh its (very high) economiccosts and (fairly low) safety risks against the important benefit ofgenerating electricity with no greenhouse-gas emissions.SMALL VICTORIES AND BIGGER DEFEATSThe coming into force of the UN's Kyoto protocol on climate changemight seem a victory for Europe's greens, but it actually masks alarger failure. The most promising aspect of the treaty--its innovativeuse of market-based instruments such as carbon-emissions trading--wasresisted tooth and nail by Europe's greens. With courageous exceptions,American green groups also remain deeply suspicious of market forces.If environmental groups continue to reject pragmatic solutions andinstead drift toward Utopian (or dystopian) visions of the future, theywill lose the battle of ideas. And that would be a pity, for the worldwould benefit from having a thoughtful green movement. It would also beironic, because far-reaching advances are already under way in themanagement of the world's natural resources--changes that add up to adifferent kind of green revolution. This could yet save the greens (aswell as doing the planet a world of good)."Mandate, regulate, litigate." That has been the green mantra. And itexplains the world's top-down, command-and-control approach toenvironmental policymaking. Slowly, this is changing. Yesterday's
have been driving public policy quietly towards market-basedapproaches. One example lies in the assignment of property rights over"commons", such as fisheries, that are abused because they belong atonce to everyone and no one. Where tradable fishing quotas have beenissued, the result has been a drop in over-fishing. Emissions tradingis also taking off. America led the way with its sulphur-dioxidetrading scheme, and today the EU is pioneering carbon-dioxide tradingwith the (albeit still controversial) goal of slowing down climatechange.These, however, are obvious targets. What is really intriguing areefforts to value previously ignored "ecological services", both basicones such as water filtration and flood prevention, and luxuries suchas preserving wildlife. At the same time, advances in environmentalscience are making those valuation studies more accurate. Marketmechanisms can then be employed to achieve these goals at the lowestcost. Today, countries from Panama to Papua New Guinea areinvestigating ways to price nature in this way (see article[1]).RACHEL CARSON MEETS ADAM SMITHIf this new green revolution is to succeed, however, three things musthappen. The most important is that prices must be set correctly. Thebest way to do this is through liquid markets, as in the case ofemissions trading. Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that goalis achieved is up to the traders.A proper price, however, requires proper information. So the secondgoal must be to provide it. The tendency to regard the environment as a"free good" must be tempered with an understanding of what it does forhumanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentand the World Bank\'s annual "Little Green Data Book" (released thisweek), that is happening. More work is needed, but thanks totechnologies such as satellite observation, computing and the internet,",1]
);
//-->
failed hopes, today's heavy costs and tomorrow's demanding ambitionshave been driving public policy quietly towards market-basedapproaches. One example lies in the assignment of property rights over"commons", such as fisheries, that are abused because they belong atonce to everyone and no one. Where tradable fishing quotas have beenissued, the result has been a drop in over-fishing. Emissions tradingis also taking off. America led the way with its sulphur-dioxidetrading scheme, and today the EU is pioneering carbon-dioxide tradingwith the (albeit still controversial) goal of slowing down climatechange.These, however, are obvious targets. What is really intriguing areefforts to value previously ignored "ecological services", both basicones such as water filtration and flood prevention, and luxuries suchas preserving wildlife. At the same time, advances in environmentalscience are making those valuation studies more accurate. Marketmechanisms can then be employed to achieve these goals at the lowestcost. Today, countries from Panama to Papua New Guinea areinvestigating ways to price nature in this way (see article[1]).RACHEL CARSON MEETS ADAM SMITHIf this new green revolution is to succeed, however, three things musthappen. The most important is that prices must be set correctly. Thebest way to do this is through liquid markets, as in the case ofemissions trading. Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that goalis achieved is up to the traders.A proper price, however, requires proper information. So the secondgoal must be to provide it. The tendency to regard the environment as a"free good" must be tempered with an understanding of what it does forhumanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentand the World Bank's annual "Little Green Data Book" (released thisweek), that is happening. More work is needed, but thanks totechnologies such as satellite observation, computing and the internet,
Which leads naturally to the third goal, the embrace of cost-benefitanalysis. At this, greens roll their eyes, complaining that it reducesnature to dollars and cents. In one sense, they are right. Some thingsin nature are irreplaceable--literally priceless. Even so, it isessential to consider trade-offs when analysing almost all greenproblems. The marginal cost of removing the last 5% of a givenpollutant is often far higher than removing the first 5% or even 50%:for public policy to ignore such facts would be inexcusable.If governments invest seriously in green data acquisition andco-ordination, they will no longer be flying blind. And by advocatingdata-based, analytically rigorous policies rather than pious appeals to"save the planet", the green movement could overcome the scepticism ofthe ordinary voter. It might even move from the fringes of politics tothe middle ground where most voters reside.Whether the big environmental groups join or not, the next greenrevolution is already under way. Rachel Carson, the crusadingjournalist who inspired greens in the 1950s and 60s, is joining handswith Adam Smith, the hero of free-marketeers. The world may yetleapfrog from the dark ages of clumsy, costly, command-and-controlregulations to an enlightened age of informed, innovative,incentive-based greenery.
Apr 21st 2005
Market forces could prove the environment's best friend--if only greenscould learn to love them"THE environmental movement's foundational concepts, its method forframing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded.Today environmentalism is just another special interest." Those damningwords come not from any industry lobby or right-wing think-tank. Theyare drawn from "The Death of Environmentalism", an influential essaypublished recently by two greens with impeccable credentials. Theyclaim that environmental groups are politically adrift and dreadfullyout of touch.They are right. In America, greens have suffered a string of defeats onhigh-profile issues. They are losing the battle to prevent oil drillingin Alaska's wild lands, and have failed to spark the public'simagination over global warming. Even the stridently ungreen GeorgeBush has failed to galvanise the environmental movement. The solution,
and policies and "energise" ordinary punters with talk ofglobal-warming calamities and a radical "vision of the futurecommensurate with the magnitude of the crisis".Europe\'s green groups, while politically stronger, are also starting tolose their way intellectually. Consider, for example, their invocationof the woolly "precautionary principle" to demonise any complextechnology (next-generation nuclear plants, say, or geneticallymodified crops) that they do not like the look of. A more sensiblegreen analysis of nuclear power would weigh its (very high) economiccosts and (fairly low) safety risks against the important benefit ofgenerating electricity with no greenhouse-gas emissions.SMALL VICTORIES AND BIGGER DEFEATSThe coming into force of the UN\'s Kyoto protocol on climate changemight seem a victory for Europe\'s greens, but it actually masks alarger failure. The most promising aspect of the treaty--its innovativeuse of market-based instruments such as carbon-emissions trading--wasresisted tooth and nail by Europe\'s greens. With courageous exceptions,American green groups also remain deeply suspicious of market forces.If environmental groups continue to reject pragmatic solutions andinstead drift toward Utopian (or dystopian) visions of the future, theywill lose the battle of ideas. And that would be a pity, for the worldwould benefit from having a thoughtful green movement. It would also beironic, because far-reaching advances are already under way in themanagement of the world\'s natural resources--changes that add up to adifferent kind of green revolution. This could yet save the greens (aswell as doing the planet a world of good)."Mandate, regulate, litigate." That has been the green mantra. And itexplains the world\'s top-down, command-and-control approach toenvironmental policymaking. Slowly, this is changing. Yesterday\'s",1]
);
//-->
argue many elders of the sect, is to step back from day-to-day politicsand policies and "energise" ordinary punters with talk ofglobal-warming calamities and a radical "vision of the futurecommensurate with the magnitude of the crisis".Europe's green groups, while politically stronger, are also starting tolose their way intellectually. Consider, for example, their invocationof the woolly "precautionary principle" to demonise any complextechnology (next-generation nuclear plants, say, or geneticallymodified crops) that they do not like the look of. A more sensiblegreen analysis of nuclear power would weigh its (very high) economiccosts and (fairly low) safety risks against the important benefit ofgenerating electricity with no greenhouse-gas emissions.SMALL VICTORIES AND BIGGER DEFEATSThe coming into force of the UN's Kyoto protocol on climate changemight seem a victory for Europe's greens, but it actually masks alarger failure. The most promising aspect of the treaty--its innovativeuse of market-based instruments such as carbon-emissions trading--wasresisted tooth and nail by Europe's greens. With courageous exceptions,American green groups also remain deeply suspicious of market forces.If environmental groups continue to reject pragmatic solutions andinstead drift toward Utopian (or dystopian) visions of the future, theywill lose the battle of ideas. And that would be a pity, for the worldwould benefit from having a thoughtful green movement. It would also beironic, because far-reaching advances are already under way in themanagement of the world's natural resources--changes that add up to adifferent kind of green revolution. This could yet save the greens (aswell as doing the planet a world of good)."Mandate, regulate, litigate." That has been the green mantra. And itexplains the world's top-down, command-and-control approach toenvironmental policymaking. Slowly, this is changing. Yesterday's
have been driving public policy quietly towards market-basedapproaches. One example lies in the assignment of property rights over"commons", such as fisheries, that are abused because they belong atonce to everyone and no one. Where tradable fishing quotas have beenissued, the result has been a drop in over-fishing. Emissions tradingis also taking off. America led the way with its sulphur-dioxidetrading scheme, and today the EU is pioneering carbon-dioxide tradingwith the (albeit still controversial) goal of slowing down climatechange.These, however, are obvious targets. What is really intriguing areefforts to value previously ignored "ecological services", both basicones such as water filtration and flood prevention, and luxuries suchas preserving wildlife. At the same time, advances in environmentalscience are making those valuation studies more accurate. Marketmechanisms can then be employed to achieve these goals at the lowestcost. Today, countries from Panama to Papua New Guinea areinvestigating ways to price nature in this way (see article[1]).RACHEL CARSON MEETS ADAM SMITHIf this new green revolution is to succeed, however, three things musthappen. The most important is that prices must be set correctly. Thebest way to do this is through liquid markets, as in the case ofemissions trading. Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that goalis achieved is up to the traders.A proper price, however, requires proper information. So the secondgoal must be to provide it. The tendency to regard the environment as a"free good" must be tempered with an understanding of what it does forhumanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentand the World Bank\'s annual "Little Green Data Book" (released thisweek), that is happening. More work is needed, but thanks totechnologies such as satellite observation, computing and the internet,",1]
);
//-->
failed hopes, today's heavy costs and tomorrow's demanding ambitionshave been driving public policy quietly towards market-basedapproaches. One example lies in the assignment of property rights over"commons", such as fisheries, that are abused because they belong atonce to everyone and no one. Where tradable fishing quotas have beenissued, the result has been a drop in over-fishing. Emissions tradingis also taking off. America led the way with its sulphur-dioxidetrading scheme, and today the EU is pioneering carbon-dioxide tradingwith the (albeit still controversial) goal of slowing down climatechange.These, however, are obvious targets. What is really intriguing areefforts to value previously ignored "ecological services", both basicones such as water filtration and flood prevention, and luxuries suchas preserving wildlife. At the same time, advances in environmentalscience are making those valuation studies more accurate. Marketmechanisms can then be employed to achieve these goals at the lowestcost. Today, countries from Panama to Papua New Guinea areinvestigating ways to price nature in this way (see article[1]).RACHEL CARSON MEETS ADAM SMITHIf this new green revolution is to succeed, however, three things musthappen. The most important is that prices must be set correctly. Thebest way to do this is through liquid markets, as in the case ofemissions trading. Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that goalis achieved is up to the traders.A proper price, however, requires proper information. So the secondgoal must be to provide it. The tendency to regard the environment as a"free good" must be tempered with an understanding of what it does forhumanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentand the World Bank's annual "Little Green Data Book" (released thisweek), that is happening. More work is needed, but thanks totechnologies such as satellite observation, computing and the internet,
Which leads naturally to the third goal, the embrace of cost-benefitanalysis. At this, greens roll their eyes, complaining that it reducesnature to dollars and cents. In one sense, they are right. Some thingsin nature are irreplaceable--literally priceless. Even so, it isessential to consider trade-offs when analysing almost all greenproblems. The marginal cost of removing the last 5% of a givenpollutant is often far higher than removing the first 5% or even 50%:for public policy to ignore such facts would be inexcusable.If governments invest seriously in green data acquisition andco-ordination, they will no longer be flying blind. And by advocatingdata-based, analytically rigorous policies rather than pious appeals to"save the planet", the green movement could overcome the scepticism ofthe ordinary voter. It might even move from the fringes of politics tothe middle ground where most voters reside.Whether the big environmental groups join or not, the next greenrevolution is already under way. Rachel Carson, the crusadingjournalist who inspired greens in the 1950s and 60s, is joining handswith Adam Smith, the hero of free-marketeers. The world may yetleapfrog from the dark ages of clumsy, costly, command-and-controlregulations to an enlightened age of informed, innovative,incentive-based greenery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)