【英语科技】东西方在气候变化中对峙

The phrase “climate change denier” has a nasty ring to it. It links those who dispute mainstream science on global warming with “Holocaust deniers”. They are not just wrong, it implies, they are evil.

But the climate change lobby is in the grip of its own form of dangerous fantasy. It is in denial not about science – but about international politics.

At the moment, efforts to deal with global warming are focused on a huge international summit in Copenhagen in December. But the chances of Copenhagen delivering a deal that meets the goals for carbon dioxide emissions set by the United Nations Panel on Climate Change is vanishingly small. In private, many climate change activists will admit this. But Copenhagen is the only game in town – so they keep playing.

The first UN agreement on climate change was struck in Rio back in 1992. But in the intervening years, the rate of CO2 emissions has risen steadily – seemingly undeterred by huge emissions of hot air at UN conferences.

It was convenient to blame the lack of international progress on George W. Bush. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that the arrival of Barack Obama in the White House will not be the game-changer that many climate change activists hoped for. The House of Representatives in Washington has passed a bill to limit carbon emissions. But its provisions are so mild that they seem unlikely to make much impact. The climate change lobby hoped that if the US took the lead with new laws, the rest of the world would respond. There is little sign of this.

When Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, visited India last week and appealed to her hosts to limit emissions she was rebuffed. The Chinese may be a little more polite in Washington this week. But the substance of what they say is likely to be just as unyielding. The Indians and Chinese point out that the vast bulk of the CO2already in the atmosphere has been put there by the industrialised countries of the west. China is now probably the largest emitter of CO2 in the world. But, on a per capita basis, emissions in China are still well below western levels. Why, ask the Indians and Chinese, should Americans and Europeans assume the right to continue using energy at levels that they seek to deny to poorer countries? It is a fair question.

The Indians and the Chinese have so far refused to accept binding targets on CO2 emissions. Even if they change their position during the Copenhagen negotiations – and that is far from certain – that will come at a price. The proposed deal is that rich countries essentially bribe poorer countries to cut emissions and adopt cleaner technologies. China has proposed that developed nations should all agree to contribute 1 per cent of gross domestic product to help poorer nations fight global warming.

Now imagine that you are Mr Obama trying to sell a deal like that back home. The US is running a budget deficit of 12 per cent of GDP. The Chinese are sitting on the world's largest foreign reserves. The president would have to ask the American people to write a large cheque to China to combat global warming – while simultaneously praying that the Chinese graciously consent to keep buying American debt to fund the deficit. It does not sound like a political winner.

Even if a deal is somehow struck at Copenhagen, it will involve promised reductions of CO2 emissions that seem literally incredible. The rich countries that belong to the Group of Eight, including the US, say they want to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 – which will mean a massive
transfer to cleaner sources of energy. As Oliver Morton, the science
writer, points out – “Building two terawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050 – enough to supply 10 per cent of the total carbon-free energy that's needed – means building a large nuclear power station every week; the current worldwide rate is about five a year. A single terawatt of wind – 5 per cent of the overall requirement – requires about 4m large turbines.”

Nicholas Stern, a professor of economics, has issued an influential report arguing that the transition to a low-carbon economy is affordable and compatible with continued economic growth. Leading western politicians say that they believe this and talk airily of the “green jobs” of the future. But there is little sign that they are prepared to back their arguments with deliberate efforts to raise the cost of fossil fuels or to make the necessary investments in alternative energy. All the
politicians involved in the global climate change negotiations know that a country that moves unilaterally risks severely damaging its economy, at least in the short-term – without affecting the global problem.

The state of international negotiations presents a huge dilemma for climate change activists. Most genuinely believe that a failure to achieve an international agreement in Copenhagen would be catastrophic. But they also know that, even if a deal is reached, it is likely to be feeble and ineffective. If they admit this publicly, they risk creating a climate of despair and inaction. But if they press ahead, they are putting all their energy into an approach that they must know is highly unlikely to deliver.

It is a horrible dilemma. But, in difficult situations, it is best to start by facing facts. The trouble is that – in different ways – both sides of the climate change debate are in denial.

“气候变化否认者”一词听上去让人讨厌。它把那些怀疑全球变暖这一主流科学观点的人，与“纳粹大屠杀否认者”联系在一起。该词暗示，气候变化否认者不仅是错误的，还是邪恶的。

但是，气候变化游说者本身也陷入了自我缔造的危险幻觉中。他们否认的不是科学，而是国际政治的现实。

目前，应对全球变暖的努力，聚焦于12月份在哥本哈根举行的大型国际峰会。但在哥本哈根缔结协议、达到联合国政府间气候变化小组制定的二氧化碳减排目标的可能性微乎其微。私下里，许多气候变化活动人士都会承认这一点。但哥本哈根峰会是目前应对气候变化的唯一机会——因此他们将继续努力。

1992年，第一个联合国气候变化协议在里约签署。但在此期间，二氧化碳排放率稳步上升——似乎未受到联合国会议热烈气氛的影响。

简单的做法是把二氧化碳减排缺乏国际效应怪罪到乔治·W·布什(George W. Bush)身上。即使许多气候变化人士曾寄希望于新入主白宫的巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)能够改变全球二氧化碳减排的格局，但越来越明显的是他们的希望不太可能成为现实。美国众议院通过了限制碳排放的法案。但其条款非常宽松，似乎效果不会很大。气候变化游说人士曾希望，如果美国带头制定新的法律，全球其他国家将会响应。但至今几乎都没有这方面的迹象。

当美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)最近访问印度请求东道主限制碳排放时，她遭到了拒绝。本周中国政府代表在华盛顿的态度可能会稍微礼貌一些。但他们表态的实质内容可能同样强硬。印度和中国指出，大气中已经存在的二氧化碳，绝大部分是西方工业化国家排放的。中国目前或许是全球最大的二氧化碳排放国，但按人均计算，中国的碳排放水平仍远低于西方。印度和中国在问，为什么美国和欧洲应当保持现有的能源消耗水平，却不让更贫穷国家的人均能耗提高到这一水平？这是一个关乎公平的问题。

到目前为止，印度和中国拒绝接受有约束力的二氧化碳排放目标。即便他们在哥本哈根谈判期间改变立场（这一点还尚未确定），富国付出的代价也将不菲。拟议的交易实质上是，富国贿赂穷国，让他们削减排放和采用更清洁的技术。中国曾提议所有发达国家拿出本国国内生产总值(GDP)的1%，来帮助穷国抗击全球变暖。

想象一下，如果你是奥巴马，要你来劝说美国民众接受一份这样的协议。当下美国的预算赤字已经占到GDP的12%，而中国坐拥全球最大的外汇储备。美国总统将不得不请求美国人民向中国开出一张巨额支票，来抗击全球变暖——同时祈祷中国大方地同意继续购买美国国债，为美国赤字融资。这听起来不像一个政治上的好主意。

即使与会国家以某种方式在哥本哈根达成协议，协议所涉及的二氧化碳减排承诺亦很难让人信服。八国集团(G8)的富国（包括美国在内）表示，他们希望到2050年减排80%——这意味要大量转为依赖更清洁的能源。正如科技作家奥利弗•莫顿(Oliver Morton)所指出的那样，“在2050年前建造两万亿瓦核电装机容量——足以供应所需非碳能源总量的10%——意味着每周就得建造一座大型核电站；目前全球建造核电站的速度是每年五座左右。建造一万亿瓦风能——非碳能源总需求的5%——需要大约400万座大型风力发电涡轮机”。

经济学教授尼古拉斯•斯特恩(Nicholas Stern)发表了一份很有影响力的报告。他在报告中辩称，向低碳经济过渡是可以负担的，并与持续的经济增长没有矛盾。西方主要政界人士表示，他们相信这一点，并乐观地谈到未来的“绿色就业”。但没有迹象显示他们采取实际行动支持自己的立场，比如刻意提高化石燃料成本，或在替代能源上进行必要投资。参与全球气候变化谈判的所有政界人士都知道，一个国家若单边采取行动，可能会严重破坏本国经济（起码是在短期内），同时也无助于解决全球问题。

这种国际协商形势，使气候变化活动人士处于巨大的尴尬之境。大多数人确实相信，如果在哥本哈根未能缔结国际协议，后果将是灾难性的。但他们也知道，即便达成协议，协议的约束力也可能是微弱和低效的。如果他们公开承认这些，就有可能使大家丧失信心，陷入不作为的氛围。但如果他们继续积极推进，他们肯定知道自己把所有的精力投入到了一个很可能不会实现的目标。

这是一个糟糕的两难处境，但在艰难形势下，最好是直面事实。麻烦在于，气候变化辩论双方（以不同的方式）都陷于鸵鸟心态。

译者/君悦