后哥本哈根：我們必須另謀出路

After 12 days of protests, posturing and seemingly endless palaver, the elephantine gathering that was the Copenhagen climate summit has laboured mightily and brought forth . . . a mouse. As vague as it is toothless, the accord on curbing greenhouse gas emissions that emerged from the Bella Centre this weekend imposes no real obligations, sets no binding emissions targets and requires no specific actions by anyone.

哥本哈根氣候峰會歷時12天，期間抗議不斷，與會者做盡姿態(tài)、說盡空話。為舉辦這次大象級的會議，人們大費周章，取得的成果卻小如老鼠。相關(guān)方面在貝拉中心(Bella Centre)簽署的抑制溫室氣體排放協(xié)議含糊其辭、軟弱無力，既未規(guī)定切實責(zé)任、設(shè)定具有約束力的排放目標(biāo)，也未要求任何一方采取具體行動。

So should we be disappointed? Well, actually, no. It is not that man-made global warming isn't real or that we don't need to take meaningful action to combat it. It is and we do.

那么，我們應(yīng)該感到失望嗎？事實上，不。人類導(dǎo)致的全球變暖并非不是事實，我們也并非無需采取切實行動來應(yīng)對。全球確實在變暖，我們的確需要行動起來。

Nonetheless, the dismal outcome of the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference should make us hopeful. Why? Because its failure may be just the wake-up call the world has needed – the splash of cold water that may finally get us to face the facts about what works and what does not work to cure climate change.

但是，第15屆聯(lián)合國氣候變化會議的可悲成果，仍應(yīng)使我們懷抱希望。為什么呢？因為這次會議的失敗或許正是喚醒世界的一記必要的警鐘——潑到我們頭上的冷水，或許終于促使我們正視現(xiàn)實，明白要抑制氣候變化，什么會起作用，什么不會起作用。

For 17 years now, ever since the Rio “Earth Summit” back in 1992, the effort to combat global warming has been dominated by a single idea – the notion that the only solution is to drastically cut carbon emissions. Anyone incautious enough to suggest that there might be more effective ways of controlling climate change, or that it is simply not politically or economically feasible to try to force a world that gets 80 per cent of its energy from carbon-emitting fossil fuels to suddenly change its ways, was dismissed as a crackpot or, worse, a secret global-warming denier. The fact that the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen approach to global warming was clearly getting us nowhere was apparently one of those inconvenient truths that people prefer to ignore.

自1992年里約“地球峰會”至今已有17年，應(yīng)對全球變暖的努力始終遵循一個單一的思想，即唯一的解決方法就是大幅削減碳排放。如果有人貿(mào)然提議，在控制氣候變化方面也許存在更有效的方法；或提議，試圖迫使這個80%能源來自排放碳的化石燃料的世界驟然改弦易轍，不論從政治上還是從經(jīng)濟(jì)上來說，都是完全行不通的，此人就會被視為瘋子、甚至是暗地里否認(rèn)全球變暖之輩。應(yīng)對全球變暖的里約-京都-哥本哈根路徑顯然毫無成效，對于這個明顯令人不快的現(xiàn)實，人們寧愿不予理睬。

Well, call me a cock-eyed optimist, but Copenhagen's failure strikes me as being too abject to ignore. For all of President Barack Obama's talk of an “unprecedented breakthrough”, all the world leaders really did was try to paper over their differences with a three-page communiqué that basically asks us to cross our fingers and hope for the best. They would have done better to have acknowledged their impotence and gone home empty-handed. Never has the fundamental bankruptcy of the carbon-cutting strategy seemed more obvious.

你可以把我視為一位荒唐的樂觀主義者，但哥本哈根會議失敗得如此之慘，不容我們對此不聞不問。雖然美國總統(tǒng)巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)大談什么“空前的突破”，世界各國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人真正做的，卻是試圖以一份三頁長的會議公報，來掩蓋他們之間的分歧。這份公報基本上是要求我們交叉手指祈禱，并盡量朝好的方面想。他們還不如承認(rèn)自己無能為力、然后空手而回呢。減排策略的徹底失敗從未顯得如此醒目。

So I am hopeful that political leaders may finally be ready to face the truth about global warming – namely, that if we are serious about wanting to solve it, we need to adopt a new approach. Promising to cut carbon emissions may make us feel virtuous, but that is all it does. If we actually want to cool down the planet, we need policies that are technologically smarter, politically more feasible and economically more efficient.

因此我心存希望，在全球變暖方面，政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人或許終于要面對以下事實：如果我們確實希望解決問題，我們就必須采取新的方法。承諾減少碳排放或許會使我們顯得高尚，但其意義不過如此。假如我們確實希望讓這個星球變涼，我們就需要技術(shù)上更高明、政治上更可行、經(jīng)濟(jì)上更有效的策略。

The stark lesson of Copenhagen is that the world is neither willing nor able to go cold turkey when it comes to ending its addiction to fossil fuels. The problem, particularly for China, India, and the rest of the developing world, is that there simply are not any affordable alternatives.

哥本哈根的一大教訓(xùn)是，世界既不愿、也無法驟然中止對化石燃料的依賴。問題在于，根本不存在人們負(fù)擔(dān)得起的替代能源——這一點對中國、印度及其它發(fā)展中國家來說尤其如此。

Keep in mind that global energy demand is expected to double by 2050. What this means is that if we want to reduce (if not actually eliminate) our use of fossil fuels without totally crippling the world economy, we are going to have to increase our reliance on green energy technologies by several orders of magnitude.

記住，到2050年，全球能源需求預(yù)計將會翻倍。這意味著，假如我們希望減少（如果不是全然戒除）對化石燃料的使用，同時避免讓全球經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入癱瘓，我們就必須把對綠色能源技術(shù)的依賴程度提高幾個數(shù)量級。

In a paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Centre in July 2009, Isabel Galiana and Professor Chris Green of McGill University examined the state of non-carbon based energy today – including nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal energy – and came to some disconcerting conclusions. Based on present rates of progress, they found that, taken together, alternative energy sources could, if hugely scaled up, get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a fraction of the way towards stabilisation by 2100. The technology will simply not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, the most basic research and development is still required. We are not even close to getting the needed technological revolution started.

麥基爾大學(xué)(McGill University)的伊莎貝爾•加利亞娜(Isabel Galiana)以及克里斯•格林(Chris Green)教授在2009年7月為哥本哈根共識中心(Copenhagen Consensus Centre)撰寫的一篇論文中，闡述了非碳能源（包括核能、風(fēng)能、太陽能和地?zé)崮埽┑默F(xiàn)狀，得出了一些令人不安的結(jié)論。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，綜合起來考慮，按照當(dāng)前的發(fā)展速度，即便替代能源大幅增加，我們距到2050年保持碳排放穩(wěn)定的目標(biāo)也仍有一大半路要走，距到2100年保持碳排放穩(wěn)定的目標(biāo)則更為遙遠(yuǎn)。在可量測性或穩(wěn)定性方面，技術(shù)屆時肯定不會成熟。許多領(lǐng)域仍需要進(jìn)行最基本的研發(fā)。我們甚至談不上即將展開必要的技術(shù)革命。

The Copenhagen accord attempts to deal with this reality by offering a vague promise that developed nations will eventually contribute as much as 0bn a year to help poor countries cope with climate change. If this money were to be spent on helping developing countries adapt to climate change, the pledge might make sense, since it would be likely to make a real and immediate difference in people's quality of life. But that is not where the money is supposed to go. The text of the agreement specifies that most if not all of the funds are to be spent “in the context of meaningful mitigation.” In other words, the money would be used to subsidise carbon cuts, a pointless exercise that would do nothing to ameliorate current miseries – and at best might reduce temperatures slightly a century from now.

為應(yīng)對這一現(xiàn)實，哥本哈根協(xié)議做出一項含糊的承諾：發(fā)達(dá)國家最終每年將捐出1000億美元，用于幫助窮國應(yīng)對氣候變化。假如這些資金用于幫助窮國適應(yīng)氣候變化，那么這項承諾或許有些意義，因為這可能對人們的生活質(zhì)量產(chǎn)生實質(zhì)而即時的影響。但是，這并非這些資金的預(yù)期用途。根據(jù)協(xié)議文本，大部分資金（如果不是全部）將在“有意義的減排的背景下”使用。換句話說，資金將用于補(bǔ)貼削減碳排放的行為。此舉毫無意義，完全無助于改善當(dāng)前困境——充其量可能在今后一個世紀(jì)內(nèi)略微降低氣溫。

But what if we put these funds to better use? What if, instead of condemning billions of people around the world to continued poverty by trying to make carbon-emitting fuels more expensive, we devoted ourselves to making green energy cheaper? As solutions go, it is quicker, more efficient and far less painful.

可要是我們把這些資金用在更好的地方呢？要是我們致力于降低綠色能源的成本，而非試圖通過提高排放碳的燃料的成本，迫使全世界數(shù)十億人口繼續(xù)生活在貧困之中呢？就解決方法而言，降低綠色能源成本更加快捷、更有成效，所造成的痛苦也小得多。

Right now, solar panels cost so much that only well-heeled, well-meaning westerners can afford to install them. But if we could make them or other green energy technologies cheaper than fossil fuels over the next 20 to 40 years – and there is no reason to think that we cannot – we would not have to force (or subsidise) anyone to stop burning carbon-emitting fuels. Everyone, including the Chinese and the Indians, would shift to the cheaper and cleaner alternatives – solving global warming.

目前，由于太陽能面板成本過高，只有既富裕又好心的西方人安裝得起。但是，如果在今后20至40年內(nèi)，我們能夠使它們或其它綠色能源技術(shù)變得比化石燃料更便宜（沒有理由認(rèn)為我們做不到），我們就不用去迫使（或補(bǔ)貼）人們停止燃燒排放碳的燃料。每個人，包括中國人和印度人，屆時都會轉(zhuǎn)而使用更廉價、更清潔的替代能源——從而解決全球變暖問題。

So how do we get to this happy place? We need to increase spending on green-energy R&D by a factor of 50. For 0.2 per cent of global gross domestic product, or 0bn a year, we could bring about the technological breakthroughs it will take to make green energy cheaper and fuel our carbon-free future. For both developed and developing world governments, it would be a lot more politically palatable than carbon cuts.

那么，我們?nèi)绾蔚诌_(dá)“幸福的彼岸”呢？我們必須把綠色能源研發(fā)支出增加到現(xiàn)在的50倍。用全球年國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)的0.2%（即1000億美元），我們有望取得必要的技術(shù)突破，降低綠色能源的成本，實現(xiàn)無碳未來。對發(fā)達(dá)國家和發(fā)展中國家的政府來說，這在政治上要比減少碳排放可行得多。

The millions of concerned people around the world who put their hopes in Copenhagen may have been bitterly disappointed by the paltry outcome. But the summit's failure could be a blessing in disguise. For the last 17 years, we have been putting the cart before the horse, pretending we could cut carbon emissions now and solve the technology problem later. Perhaps now, as they limp home from Copenhagen, our leaders will recognise the deep flaws in their current approach and chart a smarter course.

全球不計其數(shù)的人曾把希望寄托在哥本哈根上，會議的微小成果或許使他們深感失望。但是，這次峰會的失敗或許是“塞翁失馬”。過去17年里，我們一直本末倒置，假裝我們能夠在今日削減碳排放、在明日解決技術(shù)問題。如今，我們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在從哥本哈根蹣跚而回時，或許會承認(rèn)他們當(dāng)前的做法存在深深的缺陷，并在隨后描繪出一條更為明智的路線。

The writer is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and author of Cool It and The Skeptical Environmentalist

本文作者是哥本哈根共識中心主任，著有《Cool It and The Skeptical Environmentalist》一書。