Saving the Ecological Environment or Saving Capitalism?

After experiencing the economic crisis of the 1970s, capitalist societies turned to an era where neoliberalism dominated economic and social operations. Its blind worship of the "panacea" effect of the free market mechanism led people to mistakenly believe that this trend of thought was dismissive of the ecological crisis. Giddens once pointed out, "The attitude of neoliberalism towards ecological issues is usually hostile. It was once believed that the ecological crisis was exaggerated or did not exist at all, that it was a trick invented by the peddlers of the myth of doomsday; the current evidence, on the contrary, shows that human society is moving towards an era of unprecedented universal prosperity." [1]1 The "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" is a set of 17 global goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015 to be achieved by 2030, covering social, economic, and environmental dimensions. In fact, the viewpoint pointed out by Giddens underestimates the impact of neoliberalism on global ecological environment governance. Since the 1970s, the two trends of thought, neoliberalism and ecologism, have gradually risen and influenced each other, leading to the phenomenon of "neoliberalization" in the field of global ecological environment governance. This article attempts to analyze this phenomenon and its impact, in order to reveal its true nature.

在经历了1970年代的经济危机以后，资本主义社会转向了新自由主义主导经济社会运行的时代，其对自由市场机制“万能药”效用的盲目崇拜让人误以为这一思潮对生态危机不屑一顾。吉登斯曾指出，“新自由主义对生态问题的态度通常则是敌视，曾经有人认为生态危机是被夸大的或者根本就不存在，它是末日审判神话的贩卖者们发明的把戏；现在的证据反倒恰恰表明了人类社会正朝着一个前所未有的普遍繁荣的时代迈进”。实际上，吉登斯所指出的观点低估了新自由主义对全球生态环境治理的影响， 1970年代以来，新自由主义和生态主义两股思潮逐渐兴起并相互影响，导致全球生态环境治理领域出现了“新自由主义化”的现象。本文尝试对这一现象及其产生的影响进行剖析，以揭示其本真面目。

I. Ecological Capitalization: The "Ecological Environment Governance Technique" of Neoliberalism

一、生态资本化：新自由主义的“生态环境治理术”

In the 1960s and 1970s, with the publication of a series of works such as *Silent Spring*, *Only One Earth*, and *The Limits to Growth*, modern ecological thought gradually emerged. [2]2 The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty adopted in 1997 that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the premise that global warming is occurring and human-made CO2 emissions are the primary cause. At the same time, neoliberalism replaced Keynesianism as the mainstream ideology dominating the economic and social operations of capitalism. Under the mutual influence and interaction of these two trends of thought, the hidden environmental ideas of neoliberalism finally surfaced after a long period of dormancy, affecting the ecological environment governance of countries around the world. This is manifested in the protection and restoration of the ecological environment within the framework of capitalism, aiming to achieve the symbiosis and co-prosperity of capitalism and the ecological environment. The basic "governance technique" of this is "ecological capitalization," that is, converting all natural resources in the ecological environment and all the goods and services they provide into capital, and extracting profits from them, claiming that this will bring a win-win situation for the overall social, economic, social, and ecological benefits of the entire society.

20世纪六七十年代，随着《寂静的春天》《只有一个地球》《增长的极限》等一系列著作的出版，现代生态主义思潮逐步兴起，与此同时，新自由主义接替凯恩斯主义成为主导资本主义经济社会运行的主流意识形态。在两股思潮的相互影响和作用下，新自由主义隐匿的环境思想在经历了漫长的沉寂之后终于浮出水面，在全球范围内影响着各国的生态环境治理，表现为在资本主义的框架内保护和修复生态环境，旨在实现资本主义与生态环境的共生共荣，而二者基本的“治理术”就是“生态资本化”，即将生态环境中的一切自然资源及其所提供的一切商品和服务都转化为资本，并从中获取利润，宣称这将带来整个社会经济效益、社会效益和生态效益的多赢。

Ecological capitalization is constructed by a series of specific logics and practical measures. It believes that the reason for the destruction of the ecological environment today lies in the "tragedy of the commons." [3]3 "Tragedy of the commons" is a concept popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, arguing that shared resources are inevitably overexploited unless privatized or regulated. In response, ecological capitalization requires the complete privatization of the property rights allocation of natural resource assets. It holds that under this premise, in order to encourage private owners to protect natural resources, they should be allowed to obtain benefits from the trading of natural resources, that is, to convert natural resources into commodities, and to create related markets for their trading, allowing private owners of natural resources to decide on a series of issues such as "what to produce, for whom to produce, how much to produce, and how to produce" according to the market mechanism. After capitalism entered the stage of financial monopoly, capital gradually flowed into the field of the natural ecological environment, creating many green financial derivatives in the capital market. In short, we can briefly summarize the "ecological environment governance technique" of neoliberalism into four aspects: the privatization, commodification, marketization, and financialization of natural resources. Among them, privatization and commodification are the prerequisites for marketization and financialization, while marketization and financialization are the inevitable results of the development of privatization and commodification to a certain extent.

生态资本化是由一连串具体逻辑和实践举措构建起来的，它认为当今生态环境遭受破坏的原因在于“公地悲剧”。对此，生态资本化要求对自然资源资产产权的配置实现彻底私有化，认为在此前提下，为了鼓励私人所有者保护自然资源，应该允许他们从自然资源的交易中获取利益，即将自然资源转化为商品，并且创建与之相关的市场展开交易，让自然资源的私人所有者根据市场机制去决定“生产什么、为谁生产、生产多少、如何生产”等一系列问题。而在资本主义步入金融垄断阶段之后，资金也逐渐在自然生态环境领域流动，在资本市场创造了诸多绿色金融衍生品。简而言之，我们可以将新自由主义的“生态环境治理术”简要地归结为自然资源的私有化、商品化、市场化和金融化四个方面。其中，私有化和商品化是市场化和金融化的前提，而市场化和金融化是私有化和商品化发展到一定程度的必然结果。

Today, we can already observe the implementation of the "ecological environment governance technique" of neoliberalism on a global scale. In terms of the privatization of natural resources, we can describe the privatization of natural resources in the following two dimensions based on the subjects of natural resource ownership that have been changed, the objects of natural resources, and the different forms of privatization. First, natural resources that were originally owned by the state, collectively, or by no one are converted to ownership by private individuals or private groups. For example, since 1989, England and Wales have sold the original public water authorities to private enterprises, thereby achieving the privatization of services such as water supply and sewage disposal; in the 1980s and 1990s, under the promotion of the World Bank, the Moroccan government legislated to convert originally collectively owned land into private ownership; since the late 1980s, the North Pacific fisheries, originally owned by the state, have gradually been converted to private ownership; since the 1980s, the United States has achieved the privatization of wildlife by issuing hunting licenses and allowing the construction of private hunting farms. Second, the existing forms of natural resource privatization exhibit diversity, including the following three aspects: complete privatization of natural resources, that is, the ownership of natural resources is completely transferred to private hands, including ownership, contracting rights, use rights, management rights, and usufruct rights; functional privatization of natural resources, that is, transferring public functions related to natural resources to private management, for example, in various public-private partnership models (PPP models), the public and private sectors share property rights and usufruct rights according to agreed conditions, each bearing different responsibilities; financing privatization of natural resources, that is, private individuals or private groups provide financial support for public affairs related to natural resources and obtain certain returns in return.

如今，我们已然可以观察到新自由主义的“生态环境治理术”在全球范围内的实施。在自然资源私有化方面，我们可以根据被转变的自然资源所有权主体和自然资源对象，以及私有化的不同形式，对自然资源的私有化做以下两个维度的描述。一是原来隶属于国家、集体或者无人所有的自然资源被转变为私人或私营集团所有。例如，自1989年以来，英格兰和威尔士将原来的公有水务局兜售给私营企业，从而实现了供水和污水处置等服务的私有化；1980—1990年代，在世界银行的推动下，摩洛哥政府以立法的形式将原来集体所有的土地转变为私人所有；自1980年代末以来，原来隶属于国家所有的北太平洋渔业逐步转变为私人所有；自1980年代以来，美国通过发放狩猎许可证和允许私人建设狩猎农场的方式实现对野生动物的私有化。二是现实存在的自然资源私有化形式呈现多样性的特征，包括以下三个方面：自然资源的完全私有化，即自然资源所有权完全转移到私人手中，包括所有权、承包权、使用权、经营权、收益权等；自然资源的功能型私有化，即将关涉自然资源的公共职能转交给私人经营，例如在各种公私合作模式（PPP模式）中，公共部门和私营部门根据约定条件分享产权和收益权，各自分担不同的责任；自然资源的融资型私有化，即私人或私营集团为关涉自然资源的公共事务提供资金支持，并由此获得一定的回报。

In terms of the commodification of natural resources, ecotourism, bioprospecting, and payments for ecosystem services are typical policy measures, which involve the commodification of ecological space, biological genes, and ecological functions. American scholars Jessica Dempsey and Morgan Robertson believe that payments for ecosystem services, even if not the "flagship product" of the neoliberalization of nature, should be regarded as the "pioneering product" of the neoliberalization of nature. As of 2018, there were over 550 payments for ecosystem services programs worldwide, with an estimated annual transaction volume of 36-42 billion US dollars. For nature to achieve true commodification, its value must be expressed in the form of money, that is, the value of nature must be assessed. Although there are issues of how to assess it, the certainty of this premise is a matter that neoliberal economics considers unnecessary to discuss, because in its view, if no assessment is made, the environmental value will default to zero, which will not be conducive to making better decisions. So, what is the total value of the global ecological environment? The most famous assessment comes from American scholar Robert Costanza. Together with many other scholars, he published an article in the journal *Nature* in 1997, "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," which, by assessing 17 types of global ecosystem service functions, concluded that the annual service value provided by global ecosystems is at least 33,268 billion US dollars. In 2014, Costanza, along with other scholars, published an article in the journal *Global Environmental Change*, "Changes in the global value of ecosystem services," updating the data again. Using the same calculation method as in 1997, they estimated that the global ecosystem service value in 2011 was 125 trillion US dollars (assuming updated unit values and biome area changes) or 145 trillion US dollars (assuming only unit values changed).

在自然资源的商品化方面，生态旅游、生物勘探、生态系统服务付费是其中典型的政策举措，这涉及生态空间、生物基因、生态功能商品化的问题。美国学者杰西卡·登普西（Jessica Dempsey）和摩根·罗伯逊（Morgan Robertson）认为，生态系统服务付费即使不是自然的新自由主义化的“旗舰产品”，那也应被视为自然的新自由主义化的“先锋产品”。截至2018年，全球范围内有超过550个生态系统服务付费计划，估计每年交易额为360—420亿美元。自然要实现真正的商品化就必须通过货币的形式表现其价值，也就是必须对自然价值进行估值，尽管存在着如何估值的问题，但对这一前提的确定性是新自由主义经济学认为无需讨论的问题，因为在其看来，如果不进行估值的话，环境价值就将缺省为零，这将不利于我们做出更好的决策。那么，全球生态环境的价值究竟是多少呢？最著名的估值来自美国学者罗伯特·科斯坦萨（Robert Costanza），他和其他众多学者于1997年在《自然》杂志上发表的《全球生态系统服务的价值和自然资本》一文通过对全球17种生态系统服务功能进行评估，得出结论认为全球生态系统每年可以提供的服务价值至少是332680亿美元。2014年，科斯坦萨同其他学者在《全球环境变化》杂志上发表《全球生态系统服务价值的变化》一文，再次更新了数据，他们采取同1997年相同的测算方法，估计2011年全球生态系统服务价值是125万亿美元（假设更新单元值和生物群落的变化区域）或145万亿美元（假设只有单位值发生了变化）。

In the marketization of natural resources, the policies widely used globally mainly include environmental taxes, emissions trading, supporting pollution reduction or providing subsidies for the environmental protection industry, and so on. For example, in emissions trading, the world's largest carbon emissions trading market is the European Union Emissions Trading System, which began trading in 2005, covers the member states of the European Economic Area, limits carbon emissions from nearly 11,000 power plants and manufacturing factories as well as over 500 airlines flying between airports in the European Economic Area, and contributes more than three-quarters of global trading volume. The European Commission's 2018 "EU Carbon Market Report" claimed that the introduction of this system promoted a decline in emissions from market entities. As of 2016, carbon emissions in the European carbon market had been declining for six consecutive years. Although there was a slight rebound in 2017 compared to 2016, an increase of 0.18%, this was mainly because real GDP grew by 2.4% compared to the previous year. According to the World Bank's 2018 "State and Trends of Carbon Pricing" report, as of 2018, 51 carbon pricing initiatives had been implemented or were planned globally. In 2018, the total value involved in emissions trading systems and carbon taxes was $82 billion, an increase of 56% from $52 billion in 2017.

在自然资源的市场化方面，全球广泛使用的政策主要有环境税、排污权交易、支持污染减排或为环保产业提供补贴等。例如，在排放权交易方面，目前世界上最大的碳排放交易市场是欧盟碳排放交易体系，该市场于2005年开始交易，覆盖了欧洲经济区的成员国，限制了近1.1万家发电厂和制造工厂以及500多家在欧洲经济区各机场之间飞行的航空公司的碳排放，贡献了全球3/4以上的交易额。欧盟委员会2018年公布的《欧盟碳市场报告》宣称，该体系的推出促进了市场主体排放量的下降，截至2016年，欧洲碳排放市场的碳排放量已连续6年下降，2017年与2016年相比虽略有回升，增加了0.18%，但主要是因为实际GDP同往年相比增长了2.4%。据世界银行2018年度《碳价现状和趋势》报告显示，截至2018年，全球范围内已经实施或计划实施51项碳定价举措。2018年，碳排放交易体系和碳税涉及的总价值为820亿美元，比2017年的520亿美元增加了56％。

Regarding the financialization of natural resources, broadly speaking, the aforementioned marketization of natural resources is also a component of financialization and can be seen as the initial stage of the financialization of nature. However, before the 2008 financial crisis, the term "financialization of nature" rarely attracted attention. Under the influence of neoliberalism, when financial capital increasingly dominates the entire socio-economic life, the focus of national economic activity shifts from the real economy to the virtual economy, and the financial industry gradually becomes the center and lifeline of the national economy, nature is also incorporated into this process, leading to the development of financialization in environmental protection and restoration. This is prominently manifested in the development of the green bond industry and the insurance industry. In 2001, San Francisco, USA, approved the issuance of $100 million in bonds to fund the development of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. In July 2007, the European Investment Bank issued the first "Climate Awareness Bonds," which are widely recognized as the world's first green bonds. In 1992, after Category 5 Hurricane "Andrew," which swept across the southeastern United States, severely impacted the insurance industry, the Chicago Board of Trade issued catastrophe insurance futures for the first time, officially bringing insurance-linked securities into the capital market. Catastrophe bonds are bonds whose interest payments and principal repayment are determined based on the occurrence of agreed-upon catastrophic losses. Between 1997 and 2011, nearly $40 billion worth of such bonds were issued.

在自然资源的金融化方面，从广义上说，上述自然资源的市场化也是金融化的组成部分，可以视其为自然金融化的初始阶段，但是在2008年金融危机以前，“自然的金融化”这一术语较少引起人们的关注。在新自由主义的影响下，当金融资本日益在整个社会经济生活中起支配作用、国家的经济活动重心从实体经济转向虚拟经济、金融业逐渐成为国家经济的中枢和命脉时，自然也被归入其中，导致了环境保护和修复方面的金融化发展，这突出表现为绿色债券业和保险业的发展。美国旧金山于2001年批准发行了1亿美元的债券，用于资助太阳能、风能等可再生能源的发展。2007年7月，欧洲投资银行发行了第一只“气候意识债券”（climate awareness bonds），该债券被公认为全球首只绿色债券。1992年，在横扫美国东南部的五级飓风“安德鲁”给保险业造成重创之后，芝加哥贸易委员会（Chicago Board of Trade）首次发行了巨灾保险期货，保险连接证券正式进入资本市场。巨灾债券（catastrophe bonds）是一种根据约定巨灾损失的发生情况决定利息支付和本金偿还的债券，在1997—2011年间发行了将近400亿美元。

II. Questioning the Political Legitimacy of the Neoliberal "Ecological Environmental Governance Technique"

二、对新自由主义“生态环境治理术”的政治合法性的质疑

Weber summarized three types of foundations for political legitimacy: the traditional authority type, based on established customs or habits; the charismatic type, based on the extraordinary personality or exceptional charisma of a political leader; and the legal-rational type, based on reasonable rules and procedures. However, as new problems continuously emerge with the development of the times, the factors to be considered in maintaining the foundation of legitimacy are also increasing. Whether a country can effectively address its own ecological and environmental problems has gradually become one of the sources of political legitimacy. At the same time, what laws and regulations a government formulates, what policy tools it adopts, and through which organizations it implements these laws and policies also involve the issue of political legitimacy. This signifies the degree of willingness of stakeholders or the public to identify with and obey these laws, regulations, policy tools, and governance entities. If the former concerns the demand for environmental governance arising from political legitimacy, the latter concerns the demand for political legitimacy arising from environmental governance. There is not necessarily a linear positive correlation between the two. That is, a government's high political legitimacy and high demand for environmental governance do not necessarily mean that the political legitimacy of its environmental governance is necessarily high. Regarding neoliberal ecological environmental governance, the source of its legitimacy has not been strengthened by the neoliberalization of various governments and relevant transnational organizations since the 1970s. We can make a certain judgment on this based on the substantive legitimacy, moral legitimacy, and cognitive legitimacy of environmental governance, thereby questioning the political legitimacy of the market-oriented neoliberal ecological environmental governance.

韦伯归纳了政治合法性基础的三种类型：建立在已经确立的习俗或者习惯基础上的传统权威型、建立在政治领袖的非凡人格或者超凡感召力基础上的个人魅力型，以及建立在合理的规则和程序基础上的法理型等三种类型。但是，随着时代的发展而不断呈现的新问题日益增多，这导致维系合法性基础所要考量的要素也越来越多，能否有效应对本国的生态环境问题逐渐成为政治合法性的来源之一。与此同时，一国政府制定怎样的法律法规、采取怎样的政策工具、通过何种组织实施这些法律和政策同样涉及政治合法性的问题，其所表征的是利益相关者或者公众认同和服从这些法律法规、政策工具以及治理主体的自愿程度。如果前者关涉的是政治合法性对环境治理的需求，后者则关涉的是环境治理的政治合法性需求。二者之间并不必然呈现一种线性的正相关关系，即一国政府的政治合法性很高，对环境治理的需求也很高，但这并不意味着其环境治理的政治合法性就必然很高。就新自由主义的生态环境治理而言，其合法性的来源并不会因1970年代以来各国政府和相关跨国组织的新自由主义化而得到增强，我们可以根据环境治理的实效合法性、道德合法性和认知合法性来对此作出一定的判断，以质疑以市场化为主的新自由主义生态环境治理的政治合法性。

First, from the perspective of the substantive legitimacy of environmental governance, neoliberal ecological environmental governance faces challenges in terms of long-term and overall effectiveness. Although neoliberal ecological environmental governance shows some partial and short-term effects, we must have a clear understanding of these effects. The following two aspects must draw our attention.

第一，从环境治理的实效合法性看，新自由主义的生态环境治理在长远和整体成效方面面临着挑战。尽管新自由主义的生态环境治理显现出一定的局部和短期成效，但是我们必须对这种成效有一个清醒的认识，如下两个方面必须引起我们的重视。

First, overall, the neoliberalization of ecological environmental governance has not brought about significant environmental improvement. The sixth edition of the "Global Environment Outlook" published by the United Nations Environment Programme in 2019 made a pessimistic forecast for current progress: "Overall, at the current pace, the world will find it difficult to achieve the environmental dimension goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as scheduled, nor will it be able to achieve the internationally agreed environmental goals by 2050." In the report's "Projections of global trends towards selected Sustainable Development Goals and internationally agreed environmental goals," the outlook for the "limiting global warming" target element is classified under the "off track" category. Indeed, on a global scale, since the signing and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, market-based mechanisms to address global climate change have not achieved significant practical results. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the carbon dioxide content in the Earth's atmosphere recorded by its Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory reached 414.7 ppm in May 2019, the highest seasonal peak in the observatory's 61-year history. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not only rising each year, but the rate of increase is also accelerating: it increased by about 0.7 ppm per year in the 1970s, 1.6 ppm and 1.5 ppm in the 1980s and 1990s respectively, and increased by 2.2 ppm in the past decade. At the regional level, cases of failure of neoliberal ecological environmental governance are numerous in both developed and developing countries. An example of the former is Walkerton, Ontario, Canada. Since 1990, the region introduced neoliberal measures such as cutting environmental spending and privatizing water supply services, ultimately leading to the most tragic drinking water contamination accident in Canadian history in May 2000. An example of the latter is the Brazilian Amazon region. The privatization of iron ore and manganese mining in the region has been much more effective in protecting the local environment than the previous nationalization. However, this privatization still cannot solve the environmental externalities generated by mining outside the mining area.

一是从整体上看，生态环境治理的新自由主义化并没有带来显著的环境改善。联合国环境规划署2019年出版的第六期《全球环境展望》对当前的进展做出了悲观的预期：“总体而言，按目前的进展，世界将难以如期实现《2030年可持续发展议程》的环境层面目标，也难以在2050年之前实现国际商定的各项环境目标。”该报告在“部分可持续发展目标和国际商定的环境目标的全球实现趋势预测”中，将“限制全球变暖”目标要素的展望归入“偏离目标”类别。的确，从全球范围看，自《京都议定书》签订实施以来，以市场化机制应对全球气候变化并没有取得明显的实效，大气中二氧化碳的浓度还在持续攀升之中。据美国国家海洋和大气管理局（NOAA）称，该局莫纳罗亚大气基线观测站（Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory）记录的地球大气中的二氧化碳含量在2019年5月达到414.7ppm，已达到该观测站61年历史上的最高季节峰值。大气中二氧化碳的浓度不仅每年在攀升，而且增长率也在不断加速：1970年代每年约增加0.7ppm，1980年代和1990年代分别是1.6ppm和1.5ppm，而在过去的10年里则增加了2.2ppm。在地区层面，无论是在发达国家还是在发展中国家，新自由主义生态环境治理失败的案例比比皆是。前者如加拿大安大略省的沃克顿（Walkerton），该地区自1990年以来引入了新自由主义性质的削减环境开支、私有化供水服务系统等举措，最终于2000年5月发生了加拿大历史上最惨痛的饮用水污染事故。后者如巴西亚马逊地区，该地区的铁矿石和锰开采业的私有化在保护当地环境方面要比先前的国有化有效得多，但是这种私有化仍无法解决开采在矿区以外产生的环境外部性问题。

Second, regarding those environmental problems that have already shown clear improvement, the reasons are complex and are not necessarily the result of adopting neoliberal policies. The improvement of air quality in the United States and the reduction of public nuisances in Japan both benefited from command-and-control environmental regulation measures that were adopted before the rise of neoliberalism. Daniel Cole, revisiting the U.S. Clean Air Act, pointed out that due to technical limitations in controlling air pollution (lack of information on air pollution, including severity, required reduction amounts, etc.) and institutional limitations (lack of sufficient personnel to implement air pollution control), the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1977 Amendments employed public property rights and command-and-control regulatory methods in environmental protection. From 1977 to 1990, emissions of all standard pollutants in the United States declined (an average decrease of 24%), air environmental quality improved significantly, and the ambient concentrations of national standard pollutants decreased by an average of 22.6% from 1981 to 1988. Japanese eco-socialist Shigeru Iwasa also pointed out: “The main reason Japan was able to alleviate the public nuisances brought about by high-speed economic growth was precisely the establishment of strict environmental standards, which were strictly implemented. Formulating and enforcing environmental standards can directly regulate pollution sources and sources of destruction; this direct regulation is currently the most effective means of environmental protection.” On the contrary, since the late 1970s, after the United States and Japan advocated neoliberal reforms, policies advocating the relaxation of environmental regulations had a negative impact on environmental improvement. The Reagan administration established the “Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief” in January 1981, began to relax regulations on public nuisances, and cut the budget and staffing of the Environmental Protection Agency, to the point where it could not even publish an environmental white paper. In response, American environmental organizations sharply criticized: the Reagan administration set back the history of regulating public nuisances and improving public health by 30 years. Moreover, during this period, cases of collusion between the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and enterprises also occurred. The same situation occurred in Japan, where the government relaxed regulations on private investment in pollution prevention, relaxed emission standards for nitrogen dioxide, and implemented environmentally destructive development plans such as land reclamation.

二是那些已经明显得到改善的环境问题，原因是复杂的，并不一定是采纳新自由主义政策的结果。美国空气质量的改善和日本公害的减少都得益于新自由主义勃兴之前就已经采取的命令控制型环境管制措施。丹尼尔·科尔（Daniel Cole）重温了美国《清洁空气法》，指出由于控制大气污染的技术限制（缺乏空气污染方面的信息，包括严重程度、所需削减量等信息）和制度限制（缺乏足够的人员来负责实施空气污染管制），1970年的《清洁空气法》和1977年的《修正案》在环境保护问题上实施公共财产权和命令控制型管制方法。从1977年到1990年，美国所有的标准污染物排放量都在下降（平均下降了24%），空气环境质量大幅度提高，国家标准污染物的环境浓度从1981年到1988年平均下降了22.6%。日本生态社会主义者岩佐茂（Shigeru Iwasa）也指出：“日本之所以能够缓解由经济高速增长所带来的公害，主要就是由于制定了严格的环境标准，并得到了严格落实。制定和贯彻环境标准可以直接规制污染源和破坏源，这一直接规制是目前环境保护中最有效的手段。”相反，自1970年代末美国和日本倡导新自由主义改革后，主张放宽环境管制的政策对环境的改善产生了消极影响。里根政府于1981年1月设立了“放宽管制总统特别委员会”，开始着手放宽对公害的管制，削减了环境署的预算和人员编制，由此一来，甚至达到无法发布环境白皮书的境地。对此，美国的环境组织尖锐地批评道：里根政府使管制公害、改善公共卫生的历史倒退了30年。而且，在此期间还发生了环境署长官与企业之间相互勾结的案件。同样的情形也发生在日本，政府放宽了民间对防止公害投资的管制，放宽了二氧化氮的排放标准，导致实施了填海造地等破坏环境的开发计划。

Second, from the perspective of the moral legitimacy of environmental governance, neoliberal ecological and environmental governance faces severe environmental justice challenges. Neoliberalism endows market mechanisms with inherent moral legitimacy, which “is essentially ethical in nature, capable of guiding all human behavior, replacing all previous ethical beliefs.” Looking at the environmental effects produced by neoliberalism, there have been cases of successful governance in different regions. For example, after neoliberal reforms in water policy in England and Wales, water supply services were privatized, and the quality of drinking water for residents improved significantly. However, if such environmental improvement comes at the cost of harming the related interests of others, then this raises the issue of the moral legitimacy of environmental governance, namely, the issue of environmental justice. In the case of water resources in England and Wales, differences emerged between low-income and high-income groups in bearing water and sewage treatment fees. For example, low-income households spent an average of about 4% of their weekly budget on water bills, far higher than the average of 1% for all households. A growing number of studies also show that neoliberal ecological and environmental governance policies primarily harm vulnerable groups such as the economically poor and the politically powerless, whose rights to access resources are often infringed upon by powerful groups. For example, after the U.S. Virgin Islands National Park introduced the private organization “Friends of the Virgin Islands National Park,” although it made up for the lack of national funding and protected the national park, this move still faced numerous controversial issues.

第二，从环境治理的道德合法性看，新自由主义的生态环境治理面临着严峻的环境正义挑战。新自由主义赋予市场机制天生的道德合法性，其“本质上具有伦理性，能够指导一切人类行为，代替所有先前的伦理信念”。从新自由主义所产生的环境效应看，在不同的地区也曾出现过治理成功的案例。例如，英格兰和威尔士在进行水资源政策的新自由主义改革后，实行了供水服务的私有化，居民饮用水的水质有了较大的提高。但是，倘若这样的环境改善是以损害其他人的相关利益为代价的，那么，这就会产生环境治理的道德合法性问题，即环境正义问题。在英格兰和威尔士水资源的案例中，出现了低收入群体和高收入群体在承担水费与污水处理费方面的差异。例如，低收入家庭每周平均花费约4%的预算来支付水费，远远高于所有家庭1%的平均水平。越来越多的研究也表明，新自由主义的生态环境治理政策主要伤害了经济意义上的穷人和政治意义上的无权者等弱势群体，他们在获取资源方面的权利常常被强势群体所侵害。例如，美国的维尔京群岛国家公园（Virgin Islands National Park）在引入私营组织“维尔京群岛国家公园之友”后，尽管弥补了国家资金投入不足的问题，保护了国家公园，但是此举还是存在着大量的争议问题。

Third, from the perspective of the cognitive legitimacy of environmental governance, neoliberal ecological and environmental governance faces challenges from the ecological rationality of traditional and local knowledge. The public’s willingness to identify with and obey environmental governance is influenced by their existing knowledge and belief systems. When the existing knowledge and belief systems themselves are rich in ecological rationality, the forced infiltration of an alternative knowledge and belief system will be resisted, and its legitimacy will be questioned. Neoliberal ecological and environmental governance faces similar problems. If we re-examine the market mechanism means that have recently occupied a core position in the ecologization of capitalism, we will find that this is not the historically dominant method of environmental governance, but a product of the rise of neoliberalism. The potential harm of viewing it as a “natural” governance method is that it obscures the possibility of alternative choices. Among the four aspects of ecological capitalization, the most central is the marketization of natural resources, but market-based environmental policy is only a recent policy, a product of neoliberal politics. In the two waves of the ecologization of capitalism that have occurred in history, we find that the first wave of the ecologization of capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led capitalist countries to attach importance to environmental protection, but market-based environmental governance methods did not become the dominant means. Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service, adhered to utilitarian values in his measures to protect forests, not only advocating that natural resources be shared by all citizens, opposing their ownership by a few people with huge wealth, but also, in terms of environmental governance mechanisms, he did not resort to market mechanisms; instead, he encouraged adopting the opinions of experts, showing a high degree of trust in experts. It was not until the mid-1980s, in the process of rethinking U.S. Forest Service policy, that the idea of protecting forests by introducing free market mechanisms and open competition emerged, and this was precisely the period when neoliberal thought was on the rise. In the second wave of the ecologization of capitalism that emerged in the late 1970s, the use of thorough marketization thinking to govern the ecological environment gradually occupied a dominant position. In 2018, William Nordhaus, who belongs to the “market school” of environmental economics, winning the Nobel Prize in Economics was seen as a symbol of the peak of the dominance of this governance thinking.

第三，从环境治理的认知合法性看，新自由主义的生态环境治理面临着传统和本地知识生态理性的挑战。公众对环境治理的认同和服从意愿会受到其原有的知识和信仰系统的影响，当原有的知识和信仰系统本身富有生态理性时，另一种替代性知识和信仰系统的强行渗入就会受到抵制，其合法性将受到质疑，新自由主义的生态环境治理也同样面临着类似的问题。如果我们重新审视近期在资本主义生态化中居于核心位置的市场机制手段时就会发现，这并不是一直以来占支配性地位的环境治理方式，而是新自由主义勃兴以后的产物，将其视为一种“天然”的治理方式的潜在危害在于，它遮蔽了替代性选择的可能性。在生态资本化的四个方面中，最核心的是自然资源的市场化，但市场化的环境政策只是一种新近的政策，是新自由主义政治学的产物。在历史上曾出现过的两波资本主义生态化中，我们发现，19世纪末20世纪初的第一波资本主义生态化引发了资本主义国家对环境保护的重视，但市场化的环境治理方式并未成为支配性的手段。美国林业局首任局长吉福德·平肖（Gifford Pinchot）在保护森林的举措上秉持的是功利主义的价值观，不仅提倡自然资源由全体公民共享，反对其被少数拥有巨额财富的人拥有，而且在环境治理机制上并未诉诸市场机制，反而鼓励采纳专家的意见，表现出了对专家的高度信任。直到1980年代中期，在反思美国林业局的政策中才产生了以自由市场机制引入公开竞争运作的方式保护森林的思想，而此时也正是新自由主义思潮勃兴的时期。在1970年代后期兴起的第二波资本主义生态化中，以彻底市场化的思维来治理生态环境逐渐占据了支配地位。2018年，隶属于环境经济学“市场学派”的威廉·诺德豪斯（William Nordhaus）获得诺贝尔经济学奖被视为这种治理思维的支配地位发展到顶峰的标志。

If one regards market-based environmental governance mechanisms as something that has always existed, cheers their short-term and partial governance achievements, and then takes this as the “end of green history” for human environmental governance, then the potential danger is to absolve the market mechanism of responsibility for causing the ecological crisis. This would prevent humanity from finding the true root cause of the ecological crisis and would also obscure the effectiveness of other methods in solving it. Japanese scholar Kohei Saito has pointed out that under capitalist conditions, “liberals hope that carbon trading or other market transactions can solve the problem of climate change. This view merely serves as an ideological tool, hindering us from confronting the real dangers and threats, as if the market can automatically solve the problem without our conscious, radical transformation of the existing mode of production. In this regard, liberals are very dangerous.” In fact, beyond market mechanisms, there already exist many modes of production and living that are compatible with ecology. If viewed from the perspective of creating value and capital accumulation, these modes are clearly backward, and therefore face the danger of being eradicated. For example, “for arid and semi-arid regions, nomadic pastoralism is the most ecological and sustainable livelihood method in water-scarce environments. This is why many people in East Africa are pastoralists and have long been successful in this regard. However, when the Kenyan government considers the country’s future development, it believes that nomadic pastoralism has little place and is essentially something that must be eradicated because it is seen as ‘backward’ by certain powerful forces. No government is willing to let 18% of its people live freely and make a living independently. A lifestyle of grazing across the borders of several countries, relatively independent of central government control, is an unconscious challenge to capitalist land-use standards and private property norms.” Therefore, in the face of any traditional mode of production and living, the logic of capital cannot claim to be a panacea, let alone obscure the effectiveness of alternative modes of production and living oriented towards socialist institutional design and values in solving the ecological crisis. Otherwise, human society will go further and further down a seemingly correct but actually wrong path.

倘若将市场化的环境治理机制视为从来就有的机制，并为其取得的短暂和局部的治理成效而欢呼，进而将此视为人类治理环境的“绿色历史的终结”，那么其潜在的危险就是替生态危机的市场机制成因脱责，从而导致人类无法找到生态危机真正的根源性病症，也会遮蔽其他方式在解决生态危机方面的有效性。日本学者斋藤幸平（Kohei Saito）曾指出，在资本主义条件下，“自由主义者希望碳交易或者其他市场交易可以解决气候变化问题，这种观点只是起到一种意识形态工具的作用，阻碍了我们直面真正的危险和威胁，似乎市场可以自动解决问题而无需我们有意识地对现存的生产方式进行激进变革。就此而言，自由主义者是非常危险的”。其实，在市场机制之外，已经存在着诸多契合生态性的生产生活方式，这些生产生活方式如果从创造价值、资本积累的角度看，显然是落后的，因此就有被根除的危险，例如，“对于干旱和半干旱地区来说，游牧是缺水环境下的一种最生态化和最可持续的谋生方法。这就是为什么东非有许多人是牧民，并且他们长期以来在这方面都是成功的。但是肯尼亚政府在考虑本国的未来发展时，认为游牧是没有什么地位的，基本上是作为一种必须被根除的东西，因为在某些强大的势力看来它是‘落后’的。没有哪个政府愿意让18%的人自由生活、独立谋生。在相对独立于中央政府控制的情况下，横跨几个国家的边界进行放牧的生活方式是一种对资本主义土地使用标准和私人财产规范的下意识挑战”。因此，在任何传统的生产生活方式面前，资本逻辑都不可自诩为包治百病的灵丹妙药，更不可遮蔽以社会主义的制度设计和价值理念为旨归的替代性生产生活方式解决生态危机的有效性，否则，将使人类社会在貌似正确的错误道路上越走越远。

III. Saving Capitalism: The True Face of the Neoliberal “Ecological Governance Technique”

三、拯救资本主义：新自由主义“生态环境治理术”的本质面目

Although we can question the political legitimacy of the neoliberal “ecological governance technique” from the three levels mentioned above, neoliberalism may dismiss this, as it assumes the posture of a “savior” “saving the ecology,” claiming its original intention is good, and only the results may be unsatisfactory. However, when we examine the neoliberal “ecological governance technique” more closely, we find that, just as neoliberalism itself is merely a stage in the process of capital accumulation, the “ecological governance technique” it proposes is only an expedient measure for capital to seek further accumulation. As Morgan Robertson pointed out, the neoliberalization of nature is a project to push ecological forces to serve neoliberal hegemony and to establish and stabilize new areas for capitalist activity.

尽管我们可以从上述三个层面质疑新自由主义“生态环境治理术”的政治合法性，但新自由主义对此或许不屑一顾，因为它摆出的是“拯救生态”的“救世主”姿态，宣称自己的初衷是好的，只是结果可能不尽如人意。然而，当我们再细思新自由主义的“生态环境治理术”时会发现，如同新自由主义本身只是资本积累进程中的一个发展阶段一样，其提出的“生态环境治理术”也只是资本寻求进一步积累的权宜之计。正如摩根·罗伯森（Morgan Robertson）所指出的，自然的新自由主义化就是一个推动生态力量为新自由主义霸权服务的项目，是建立和稳定资本主义活动的新领域。

To understand the essence of the neoliberal “ecological governance technique,” we must first reduce this issue to the meta-question of the “relationship between humans and nature.” Starting from this meta-question, we then draw out the issue of the “relationship between capital and ecology,” thereby revealing its essence. Marx and Engels, and subsequent Marxist interpreters, have deeply explored this topic. The view of nature held by Marx and Engels is not only a materialist and dialectical view of nature revealing the mutual permeation between humans and nature, but also a practical materialist view of nature revealing the mutual permeation of nature and society, and that the “mode of existence” of nature changes with the change of social formations. After the relationship between humans and nature is mediated by labor, its pattern changes with the form of labor. Therefore, for Marx and Engels, whether it is humans, nature, or the relationship between humans and nature, they are all objects mediated by historical labor practice.

要理解新自由主义“生态环境治理术”的本质，首先就要将这一问题还原为“人与自然的关系”这一元问题，再从这一元问题出发引出“资本与生态的关系”问题，从而揭示其本质。马克思和恩格斯及其之后的马克思主义诠释者对这一议题进行了深入探讨。马克思和恩格斯的自然观不仅是一种揭示人与自然之间相互渗透的唯物的辩证自然观，还是一种揭示了自然与社会相互渗透，且自然的“存在方式”随社会形态的变迁而变迁的实践唯物主义的自然观。人与自然的关系经由劳动中介后，其样态将随劳动形态的变化而变化。因此，在马克思和恩格斯那里，无论是人、自然，还是人与自然的关系，都是一种被历史性的劳动实践所中介了的客体。

The young György Lukács and Alfred Schmidt of the Frankfurt School inherited the views of Marx and Engels. In his work *History and Class Consciousness*, Lukács defined nature as a social category in the sense of social-historical ontology. Schmidt argued: “Throughout the entire development of matter, Marx firmly grasped the socially mediated character of what is often called nature. What concerned him was less the changing content of natural phenomena than the historical conditions of their change.” Since what Marx was concerned with, the “changing content of natural phenomena,” is merely the result of “the historical conditions of their change,” the problem then transforms into an investigation of the “changing historical conditions.” Following Schmidt, Neil Smith directly entered this level to examine Marx’s discussion on the relationship between humans and nature. Starting from the “changing historical conditions,” he described the historical evolution of the production process as three stages: from “production in general” to “production for exchange” to “capitalist production.”

青年时期的格奥尔格·卢卡奇（Gy?rgy Lukács）和法兰克福学派的阿尔弗雷德·施密特（Alfred Schmidt）承袭了马克思恩格斯的观点。卢卡奇在其著作《历史与阶级意识》中，将自然在社会历史本体论的意义上规定为一个社会概念。施密特认为：“马克思通过物质的全部发展，牢牢抓住常被称做自然的东西的那种被社会所中介的性质，他关心的与其是自然现象的变化内容，不如说是它变化的历史条件。”既然马克思关心的“自然现象的变化内容”只是“它变化的历史条件”的结果，那么，问题就转化为对“变化的历史条件”的考察，继施密特之后，尼尔·史密斯（Neil Smith）就直接进入这一层次考察马克思关于人与自然关系的论述。他从“变化的历史条件”出发将生产过程的历史演变描述为从“生产一般”到“为交换而生产”再到“资本主义生产”三个阶段。

In the stage of “production in general,” the relationship between humans and nature is one of use-value. Humans produce use-values useful to themselves from nature and consume these use-values. In the stage of “production for exchange,” it is the production of use-values useful to others; the products at this stage are transformed into commodities. “Capitalist production” is also a form of production for exchange, but in Smith’s view, its difference from the exchange economy lies in exchange value becoming the form of value. In production, there appears a bourgeoisie that owns the means of production but does not labor, and a proletariat that has lost the means of production and lives by selling its labor power. The bourgeoisie can only survive in competition through continuous capital accumulation; the proletariat can only survive by creating value exceeding the value of labor power. In a society of “production for exchange,” the purpose of production is to create use-values for consumption by others. But in “capitalist production,” the purpose of production is to create value and extract profit from it. These profits are then transformed into means of production. Moreover, everything in nature must be transformed into commodities, tagged with a price, and then traded in the market.

在“生产一般”阶段，人与自然之间是一种使用价值意义上的关系，人从自然界中生产对自己有用的使用价值，并且消费这一使用价值。在“为交换而生产”阶段，是生产对别人有用的使用价值，这时的产品也就转化成商品。“资本主义生产”也是一种交换形式的生产，但在史密斯看来，其与交换经济的差别在于交换价值成为价值的表现形式，生产中出现了拥有生产资料却不劳动的资产阶级，以及丧失生产资料、以出卖劳动力为生的无产阶级。资产阶级只有持续不断地进行资本积累才能在竞争中生存，无产阶级只有创造出超过劳动力价值的价值才能生存。在“为交换而生产”的社会，生产的目的是创造使用价值，并为别人所消费，但在“资本主义生产”中，生产的目的是创造价值，并从中获取利润。这些利润又被转变为生产资料，不仅如此，自然界的一切东西都必须被转化成商品并贴上价格的标签，进而在市场中进行交易。

From Smith’s division of the three stages of production, it is clear that as the purpose of production changes across different stages, the relationship between humans and nature also changes accordingly. Under the production forms aimed at survival and the exchange of use-values, although humans attempt to produce a surplus by altering nature, the appropriation of this surplus at this stage is only for their own survival, and the form of the surplus is merely limited use-values. Therefore, humans do not develop the impulse or obsession to completely transform nature beyond its inherent geographical boundaries and characteristics; humans are still subordinate to nature. However, under the production form aimed at maximizing surplus value, both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat must create value and continuously accumulate capital as necessary conditions for survival. Consequently, humanity inevitably reshapes nature according to this requirement. Nature does not appear according to its original features but according to the features required by the maximization of surplus value. This includes both a quantitative change in nature entering the horizon of human history—bringing nature beyond a certain region into the conditions of capitalist production—and a qualitative change in the way nature manifests its value—nature must be transformed into a commodity with a certain value, expressed as a certain price, to be traded with other commodities in the market. Therefore, in the stage of capitalist production, humans reverse the relationship with nature; they are no longer subordinate to nature, but nature is subordinate to humans. Thus, nature as a whole is objectified as a historical existence.

从史密斯对生产的三个阶段的划分来看，显然，随着不同阶段生产目的的转变，人与自然的关系也随之发生变更。在以生存和交换使用价值为目的的生产形式下，尽管人类试图通过改变自然生产剩余，但此时对剩余的占有只是为了自己的生存，剩余的表现形式也仅是有限的使用价值，因此人类没有产生超出自然固有地域界限和性质而彻底改造自然的冲动和执念，人还是从属于自然。而在以剩余价值最大化为目的的生产形式下，资产阶级和无产阶级都必须以创造价值和持续不断地积累资本为必要条件才能生存下来。由此一来，人类势必按照这一要求去重塑自然，自然也不是按照其本来的面目出现，而是按照剩余价值最大化所要求的面目出现，这既包括了自然进入人类历史视野的量的变化，即将超出一定地区范围内的自然纳入资本主义生产条件中，也包括自然展现其价值的方式的质的变化，即自然必须被转化成有一定价值、表现为一定价格的商品，在市场上与其他商品进行交易。因此，在资本主义生产阶段，人倒转了与自然的关系，不再从属于自然，而是自然从属于人类，从而整体的自然就对象化为历史存在。

In *Capital*, Marx described the change in the subsumption of labour under capital in the course of capitalist development: as the method of producing surplus value shifted from absolute surplus value to relative surplus value, labour also evolved from formal subsumption under capital to real subsumption under capital. Later, Smith drew on this exposition of Marx to correspondingly describe the relationship between capital and nature in the historical development of capitalism as the subsumption of nature under capital, evolving from “formal subsumption” to “real subsumption.” Since labour, as an indispensable constituent element in the capitalist production process, undergoes this change in the relation of subsumption, then nature, like labour, as another indispensable constituent element of the capitalist production process, will also change accordingly. Smith argues that, similar to the quantitative expansion of absolute surplus value through extending surplus labour time and increasing the number of wage workers, the formal subsumption of nature under capital manifests as capital accumulation, by means of colonialism, extracting natural resources such as timber, cotton, coal, and oil from across the globe for use in production activities—a process of continuous quantitative expansion in the acquisition of natural resources. The real subsumption of nature under capital, however, is manifested in the following two dimensions: on the one hand, capital circulates through nature, for instance, unfolding through agricultural production or so-called land “improvement” and similar activities; the real subsumption of nature under capital not only intensifies this type of circulation but also transforms it from an originally “occasional practice” into a “deliberate strategy.” On the other hand, contrary to the former, nature circulates through capital, and this too has shifted from an originally “occasional practice” to a “deliberate strategy.” Biotechnology (such as genetic modification and cloning technology) and various nature-related commodity futures, ecological credits, corporate stocks, and environmental derivatives are the means by which this strategy is implemented. In essence, in both of these modes, nature’s original distinctiveness has been “radically transformed” according to the needs of capital accumulation. What nature is, and which nature is useful, are both determined by the need to maximize surplus value. Capital either uses technological means to create a “nature” that nature originally did not possess, or the overall function of nature is dismembered into one-sided, fragmented elements to be bought and sold. In this way, capital transforms nature according to the needs of profit-making, thereby making nature’s “mode of existence” completely subsumed under capital. As the theoretical reflection of this essence, ecomodernism itself harbours the danger of humanity’s infinite artificialization of nature.

马克思曾在《资本论》中描述了资本主义发展进程中劳动对资本的从属的变化，即随着生产剩余价值的方法从绝对剩余价值向相对剩余价值的转变，劳动也从形式上从属于资本演变为实际上从属于资本。后来，史密斯就借鉴马克思的这一阐述，将资本主义历史发展进程中资本与自然的关系相应地描述为自然对资本的从属，从“形式从属”演变为“实际从属”。既然劳动作为资本主义生产过程中一个必不可少的构成要素会发生这种从属关系的变化，那么自然同劳动一样，作为资本主义生产过程的另一个必不可少的构成要素也会随之发生变化。史密斯认为，同绝对剩余价值通过延长剩余劳动时间、增加雇佣工人这种量的意义上的扩张类似，自然对资本的形式从属表现为，资本积累是借助殖民主义，将全世界范围内的木材、棉花、煤炭、石油等自然资源挖掘出来用于生产活动，这是一个从量的意义上不断进行扩张获取自然资源的过程。而自然对资本的实际从属则表现在以下两个维度上：一方面，资本通过自然进行流通，比如通过农业生产或者所谓土地“改良”等类似活动而展开，自然对资本的实际从属不仅加剧了这种性质的流通，而且将其由原来的“偶尔为之”转变为“刻意战略”；另一方面，与前一方面相反，是自然通过资本进行流通，并且这也已由原来的“偶尔为之”转变为“刻意战略”。生物技术（如转基因、克隆技术）和各种与自然相关的商品期货、生态信用、公司股票、环境衍生品就是这种战略得以实施的方式。从本质上看，这两种方式中的自然，其原本所具有的独特性都已经随着资本积累的需要而“大变脸”，什么是自然，何种自然有用，都取决于剩余价值最大化的需要。资本要么凭借技术手段创造出自然原本所没有的“自然”，要么是自然的整体功能被肢解成单一片面的要素加以买卖，资本就是这样以获利的需要改造自然，从而使自然的“存在方式”完全从属于资本。生态现代主义作为这一本质的理论反映，其本身就存在着人类对自然无限人工化的危险。

At this point, when we review the entire development process of capitalism, we find that, in essence, the neoliberal “ecological environmental governance technique” is less a “saviour” of the ecological crisis than a “saviour” of the capitalist crisis; it is capitalism prolonging its own survival through “ecological restoration.”

至此，我们再回顾整个资本主义的发展历程时就会发现，从本质上看，新自由主义的“生态环境治理术”与其说是生态危机的“救世主”，毋宁说是资本主义危机的“救世主”，是资本主义通过“生态修复”维持自己的苟延残喘。

The essence of capitalism is valorization; “no growth, no survival” is the iron law of capitalist operation, and the maximization of surplus value is the ultimate goal of capitalism. Therefore, maintaining capital accumulation is the law of capitalist survival, and natural resources constitute the basic production conditions for capital accumulation. In this regard, in the early stages of capitalist formation in Western Europe, the extraction of nearly free natural resources by Western European countries from Northeastern European countries was merely the beginning of the formal subsumption of nature under capital. Later, the extraction of natural resources from the vast Third World countries by capitalist countries through colonialism was a continuation of this beginning, merely expanding the geographical scope from Northeastern European countries to the global scale.

资本主义的本质就是增殖性，“不增长，就死亡”是资本主义运行的铁律，追求剩余价值的最大化是资本主义的终极目标，因此维持资本积累是资本主义生存的法则，而自然资源则构成了资本积累的基本生产条件。就此而言，在西欧资本主义形成初期，西欧国家对东北欧国家榨取近乎免费的自然资源只是自然在形式上从属于资本的开端，后来，资本主义国家凭借殖民主义榨取广大第三世界国家的自然资源则是这一开端的延续，只是将地域范围从东北欧国家拓展到全球范围。

However, to sustain continuous capital accumulation, relying solely on this quantitative expansion is insufficient; the subsumption of nature under capital must also evolve from “formal subsumption” to “real subsumption.” This is because capital’s rampant plunder and exploitation of nature on a global scale inevitably raises the price of raw materials, thereby affecting capital accumulation. Therefore, capitalism also relies on technological innovation, continuously shifting the field of capital accumulation in an attempt to maintain its profitability. In different historical periods, the technological carriers and fields for maintaining capital accumulation differ. In the 19th century, the stage of free competition and private monopoly capitalism, the carriers were the steam engine and railway construction. In the Fordist stage before the 1970s, the carriers were fossil fuels and the construction of an “automobile society.” When the role of these technological carriers in aiding capital profitability was nearly exhausted, capital sought “ecology” as a baton, entrusting it with the heavy responsibility of saving the capitalist crisis. This gave rise to the “marriage” between neoliberalism and the field of ecological environmental governance after the 1970s. Unlike the previous quantitative expansion, the status and role of “ecology” in capital accumulation is no longer merely that of a production factor entering the accumulation process as a precondition. Nature is no longer formally subsumed under capital; it itself, according to capital’s profit-making needs, has been dissolved into market transactions through the aforementioned methods of privatization, commodification, marketization, and financialization, wrapped in green cloaks such as ecotourism, biotechnology, carbon emission rights, and green bonds, becoming a “business proposition” for capital profit. Louis Demora, from the largest social movement organization in Latin America—the Landless Workers Movement (MST) of Brazil—angrily stated: “Capitalism causes global warming, and now they want to profit from it, turning the atmosphere into a commodity, privatizing it, marketizing it; they want to put a price tag on everything.”

而要持续不断地进行资本积累，仅靠这种量的意义上的扩张是不够的，还必须将自然对资本的从属从“形式从属”演变为“实际从属”，因为资本在全球范围内对自然的大肆掠夺和剥削势必提高原材料的价格，从而影响资本积累。因此，资本主义还凭借技术上的革新，通过不断转移资本积累的场域，试图维持自己的获利能力。在不同的历史时段，维持资本积累的技术载体和场域是不同的，19世纪的自由竞争和私人垄断资本主义阶段是以蒸汽机和铁路建设为载体，1970年代之前的福特主义阶段是以化石燃料和“汽车社会”建设为载体。当这两个历史时段的技术载体帮衬资本获利的作用行将耗尽之时，资本便寻求“生态”充当接力棒，使其担当起拯救资本主义危机的重担，这便有了1970年代之后的新自由主义与生态环境治理领域的“联姻”。与之前量的意义上的扩张不同，“生态”在资本积累中的地位和作用已不仅仅是作为生产要素起前提作用而进入资本积累过程，自然已经不是从形式上从属于资本，其本身已经按照资本的获利需要，以上述私有化、商品化、市场化和金融化的方式，借助生态旅游、生物技术、碳排放权、绿色债券等绿色外衣消解到市场交易中，变成了资本获利的“生意经”。来自拉丁美洲最大的社会运动组织——巴西无地劳动者运动组织——的路易斯·德莫拉（Louis Demora）愤怒地说：“资本主义导致全球变暖，而现在他们还想从中渔利，把大气变成商品，让其私有化、市场化，他们想给每件事物都贴上价格标签。”

Nature, in real subsumption under capital, has become an important strategic field for capital accumulation. Capital, wrapped in a green cloak, continues to seek the maximization of surplus value, that is, to “repair” its own inherent contradictions and crises through the field of “ecology.” However, the neoliberal “ecological environmental governance technique,” by forcing nature into “real subsumption” under capital in an attempt to save capitalism, will never succeed, because its infinite expansion, with the maximization of surplus value as its fundamental purpose, can never surmount the barrier of the finitude of natural resources.

自然在实际上从属于资本，变成了资本积累的重要战略场域，资本包裹着绿色的外衣继续谋求剩余价值最大化，也就是通过“生态”这一场域来“修复”其本身的内在矛盾危机。但新自由主义的“生态环境治理术”通过迫使自然“实际从属”于资本从而拯救资本主义的企图无论如何都不会成功的，因为其以剩余价值最大化为根本旨趣的无限扩张始终无法逾越自然资源有限性的屏障。

(About the authors: Cai Huajie, Wang Yue, School of Marxism, Fujian Normal University)

（作者简介：蔡华杰、王越，福建师范大学马克思主义学院）

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund Youth Project “The Impact of Neoliberalism on Global Ecological Environmental Governance and China’s Countermeasure Research” (17CKS030))

（本文系国家社会科学基金青年项目“新自由主义对全球生态环境治理的影响及我国对策研究”（17CKS030）的阶段性成果）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心