文章 Articles

中国可成为抗击气候变化的先锋

尽管对于某些政客和闲散市民来说,中国或许已成为他们不积极行动的现成借口,乔纳森·波立德说,但是现在,这种矛盾可能会促使中国成为抗击气候变化的先锋。

Article image

不考虑别的,当我们步入布什任期的最后几个月的时候,你不得不承认布什先生已经很有幽默感了。在过去近七年的时间里,美国总统乔治•W•布什一直在气候变化问题上采取不合作的强硬立场(而迪克切尼则巧舌如簧),但是现在,他在全世界面前俨然使自己成为了全球唯一的领导者,仿佛只有他才能把我们从气候崩溃中拯救出来。在气候变化领导者的竞争中,力挺布什使阿尔戈尔和比尔克林顿(他们的“气候变化倡议”正在开始获得一定收效,对于世界各地的市长们来说尤其如此)的地位遭到了挑战,对此前景,二者一定都感到震惊。

公平地讲,当他仍然完全否定气候变化及其潜在影响的时候,他的所作所为还或多或少地符合他的言论。那时美国人的生活方式以及美国在全球经济中的地位都是极为世人所推崇的。有什么能够危及这个压倒一切的任务呢?即便是世纪末平均 3 摄氏度的温升也不行。

现在布什总统作为气候变化问题的领路人在倡导推行一种“超级修复”政策:在全球范围内为我们营造一个免受气候变化所致灾难的土工工程,而我们不需要改变任何行为习惯。

已有数亿美元投入到这种“超级修复”中去了。有些人喜欢在太空解决问题,在外层空间布置大型的柱面反射镜,反射大量的太阳能入射辐射。其他人则热衷于效仿火山爆发的作用,利用无数高空飞行器将反射太阳光的硫酸小液滴投入大气中。

还有相当一部分人想要改造海洋,其方案是向水中倾倒大量的铁粒子,以刺激浮游生物的大量出现,而这些浮游生物将在沉入海底之前,把大气中的二氧化碳(CO2)吸取出来,然后在海底形成下一个地质年的“多佛白色悬崖”。其他人则想利用一般的肥料来实现相同的作用。该领域的权威、盖亚假说理论家詹姆斯·洛夫罗克已经成功地提出了一项他自己的计划,该计划包括采用数万根大管子把冷水带到海洋表面,以加速二氧化碳的吸收。

洛夫罗克在这点上是正确的:如果我们继续推迟对气候变化采取认真的措施(主要是能效、可再生能源以及碳捕获和碳储存),那么我们将走到最后一步,唯一避免毁灭——人类文明的彻底瓦解——的方法,将是在最后一刻尝试彻底改变濒临毁灭的绝境:成功几率低、代价极其巨大,而很有可能是孩子们在阳光下玩玩具的最后一天。

与直觉无关,我更感兴趣的其实不是美国成为全球领导者的可能性,而是中国。当然在一定层面上,这可能是不着调的言论。在未来的几个月里,中国将超过美国,成为世界上最大的二氧化碳排放国。正如现在全世界都知道的那样,现在中国每周都在建设一个新的燃煤电站。中国正在修建超过20个新的国际机场。中国人像美国人一样,毫无顾忌地喜爱汽车。而中国的环境确实正在崩溃。

对于所有办事拖拉的政治家和闲散而冷漠的市民来说,以上这些事实都是现成的借口,他们可从未打算做点什么。你会听到“朋友,中国每分钟都建成一个新电站,我们做这些又有什么意义呢?”或类似的话。

我还从未听一个政治家提到过,中国正在关闭的电站数量超过建设数量,中国已经拥有了大量的风力发电站,中国在可再生能源项目上是全世界最有进取心的国家,中国已经在提高能源和水利用效率方面确定了一些非常强硬的指标,而且在适当考虑环境和气候代价来衡量 GDP 方面,中国是世界上唯一已经做过一些认真的调查并引入了这个更好的办法的国家。

在这方面还有更多需要了解的事实。跟我们的政治家(更别说我们的市民)不同——他们可真不知道气候变化的影响的急迫性和严重性,中国的政治家绝对意识到了这一点。中国的政治家已经直接体会到这些影响,如沙漠化加速、农业产量下降、盐碱侵入海岸附近的主要地下水层、降水方式改变、暴风雪和干旱出现频率增加等,这些使他们非常痛苦。正如北京市气候中心主任董文杰所说:“百年来最严重的暴风雨、干旱和热浪的纪录正在越来越频繁地被打破。”

很多这些事实已经转化为巨大的经济代价——农业生产力丧失,供水代价提高,而水污染和空气污染则让几千万人遭遇了严重的健康损害。更糟的是,从中国政府角度来说,很多苦难都直接引起社会公众的不满程度急剧上升,同时中国目前大量的群体性事件(据中国公安部的统计,在2005年约有超过8万起)都要归因于对水、土地和污染的抗议。10 15 日,胡锦涛主席在中国共产党全国代表大会的开幕词中,提出了应对可持续发展挑战的严厉手段。

“不可持续”所意味的重大代价正是中国所面临的严重问题。中国的领导人比我们的首脑更清楚这一点。他们的可持续发展问题变得越来越严峻,而这并不意味着他们不承认此事实。只是,解决手段代价不低,并且需要全党和各政府机构下定无与伦比的坚强决心,尤其是他们仍需要设法向民众解释,不能再安于现状了(每天北京的道路上都会增加 1100 辆新车)。但是又有谁做到了这些?

人们可能忽视的一点是,中国已经开始在清洁技术系统创新方面投入了大量的资金——特别是风力、太阳能和水力。这个系统也许会需要一段时间才会起作用,但是中国对未来出口市场的眼光就像发现其国内问题一样的敏锐。现在很多人相信,不久的将来,在光电和氢动力汽车领域里,一些最令人兴奋的潜在创新将来自中国——而不是美国。

鉴于每年教育大概 40 万新的工科大学生——美国这一数字只有7万,中国无疑会制定出合适的宏观经济策略,为这个“世界工业车间”的国家带来更高附加值的、后工业生产成就。

即便各种条件允许,读懂中国国情也是一件极其复杂的事情——在共产主义制度下积极发展的资本主义制度,必定会产生前所未有的不和谐因素,以致矛盾重重。所以,中国非常有可能成为世界上可持续发展程度最低、对环境破坏最为严重的国家,但与此同时,也有可能扭转局面而在可持续发展技术上取得重大突破。

非常有趣的是,我们能够在美国发现几乎完全相同的一对矛盾。尽管布什政府在其他方面一塌糊涂,但其已经在可持续能源和垃圾处理计划上投入了几十亿美元的资金,但同时该政府领导的经济发展每年给世界其他国家带来了更多的垃圾,并且造成更为严重的环境破坏。

难怪,只有像戈尔或克林顿这样的前政客,才会真正重视气候变化方面的领导地位。

乔纳森·波立德未来论坛的创办人和主持人,以及英国可持续发展委员会主席;《资本主义:仿佛世界是举足轻重的》的作者;可在未来论坛网站获取该书的2007年修订版(平装本),Earthscan出版社

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

精彩的文章

这是一篇非常精彩的文章,作者的语言魅力在其英国特有的辛辣讽刺中得到了淋漓尽致的发挥,尖锐的指出了这个常常被忽略的事实,尽管常常被政客和不明真相的人用作挡箭牌,中国正在抗起气候变化中做出巨大的努力。同时指出了中国在决策方面所面临的难以,但绝非不可调和的矛盾,从而指出了在中国问题实行简单主义的幼稚。可惜翻译略显仓促,有些原文中的精彩用词和评论没能体现出来,希望如果有条件的话译者重新修饰一下。

比如“中国每分钟都建成一个新的电站,这意味着什么?”那句本因译为“如果中国每分钟都建成一个新的电站,那我们做这些又有什么意义呢?”另外“我曾经听到一个政治家提到...”其实是“我还从没有听到一个政治家提到过”。时间和篇幅关系,不能一一列举了,希望能有机会看到更好的译文,让中国的读者更好的领会到作者的原意。

王韬 (Tao WANG) Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research & Sussex Energy Group 廷道尔气候变化研究中心和苏塞克斯能源研究小组

Fantastic

This is a wonderful article! The author's language charm has been shown completely in a special British way. A fact which is often ignored is that China is making great efforts against climate change, but many politicians and ignorant people take China as pretext. The article also points out that the problems China is facing in policy-making aren't irreconcilable, and it's naive to resolve China's problems in simply ways. However, the translation is not so good for many terrfic words and comments haven't been embodied in Chinese. I hope the translator can polish it if conditions allow.
For example, “What’s the point, mate, with China building one new power station every minute?” should have been translated into “如果中国每分钟都建成一个新的电站,那我们做这些又有什么意义呢?”and "I have yet to hear a single politician mention..." should be “我还从没有听到一个政治家提到过……". Due to time and lack of space, I couldn't list all. I hope to see better translation, which could make readers better understand the author's meaning.
王韬 (Tao WANG) Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research & Sussex Energy Group

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

感谢王韬的优秀评论

王韬先生的评论非常到位。对我们翻译问题的指正也很切实,因为时间过于仓促,该文的翻译的确存在一些问题,正在重译中。
期待更多关注。

Lucky
北京副总编
中外对话

Sincere thanks to Wang Tao for his excellent comment

Mr. Wang Tao's comment was right on the spot. It was also pragmatic of him to suggest corrections for our translation; since we were pressed for time, the article's translation did contain certain mistakes, and we are currently retranslating it. I look forward to your renewed attentiveness.

Lucky (chief editor at China Dialogue, Beijing office)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

理论上是好的

我非常欣赏波立德先生的这篇文章。他说的很有道理。有趣的是,他的口气听起来像是许多非中国人在说话一样(例如,基于现实情况,中国应该领导……),但其实并没有这么多人(如果我哪里说的不对,敬请批评指正)。
我最近参加了一个由国家政府最高机构、清华大学等高等学府的学者、主要的中外民间非政府组织、大工厂老板以及市政府的官员参与的一个讨论。
奇怪的是,没有人同意中国将在未来成为绿色能源出口国。他们都认为中国应该多吸取西方的先进技术,不要总是模仿,要注重创新。
为什么两边的观点出入会如此之大?虽然中国对此问题很关注,也采取了行动(投资),那为什么还要依靠国外的技术?我还有什么信息不知道吗?

What is good in theory...

I quite appreciate Mr. Porritt's article. What he says is making an awful lot of sense. What is in interesting is that he sounds like what a lot of non-Chinese are saying (i.e. China should be able to lead on..., based on it's situation), but which very few, if any Chinese are saying (and I welcome you to correct me if you have evidence otherwise).

I recently participated in discussions with some of the highest level authorities in national government, some of the most prestigeous academics at Tsinghua and other universities, leading foreign and Chinese grassroots NGOs, large factory owners, and other informed officials in large city governments.

The curious thing is that not one of them agreed that China would become a green technology exporting nation in the near future. They all cited the need for more tech from the west, and that it has always been China's role to replicate, not necissarily to create.

My question is, why does this Chinese view differ so dramatically from what non-Chinese are saying? In spite of all the evidence of knowing and acting (and investing) on this problem in China, why is there still the feeling of reliance on outside technology, outside expertise? Which perspective am I missing?

snicker
[email protected]

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

太精彩了

看完这篇文章,做为一个中国人,觉得很痛快。但是,不论怎样,还是希望中国政府也好、美国政府也好,都能为气候变化做更多的事情。大家面临的是同一个问题,互相指责的态度无计于解决任何问题。正如作者所指出的,中国政府现在面临的,来自国内外的、各方面的环境压力已经迫使他做出更多、更有力度的行动。但是,怎样才能给美国政府更多这样的压力?怎样才能让他成为一个真正的LEADER?

That’s absolutely great!

Being a Chinese, just felt jolly after reading this article. However, by hook or by crook, I still wish that both Chinese and US government are able to have done something to tackle climate change. We are facing the same problem, blaming on each other will not be able to resolve the problem. As pointed out by the author, the Chinese government is currently pressurised by both internal and external environmental stress, which has been forced the government to act vigorously. However, how to present the same pressure against US government? And how to let them to become a real LEADER?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

重心偏移

Snicker,我与4号评论意见一致。我认为全球暖化问题上公众已经走在政府前面了。然而西方政客们仍担心选举失利,中国政客们又担心社会动荡。面对问题的严重性,领导人们的举动远远不够。我相信在这里,人们要指责我“反中国”,但是根据联合国发布的科学调查信息,为什么中国把重心放在登月计划上?这似乎就是一个重心偏移的例子?制造“长征1号”的科学家想必是世界上最聪明的一群人,为什么中国不鼓励他们发展科技应对气候变化呢?西方国家的情况也是如此。美国及其盟国在伊拉克及阿富汗战争中浪费的资金本可以更好地被用于应对气候变化。各国领导人的重心都发生了偏移,情况让人十分痛心。

misplaced priorities

Snicker, and comment no 4

I agree with what you're saying. I think global warming is becoming an issue where citizens are ahead of governments. But Western politicians are scared of being voted out and Chinese politicians are scared of social unrest. Our leaders actions don't match the seriousness of the problem.

I'm no doubt going to be attacked for being anti-China here, but given the scientific information we're receiving from the UN why is China focusing on sending rockets to the moon? Surely this is a case of misplaced priorities? The people who built ChangE1 must be among the brightest minds in the world. Why can't they be put to use to develop technology to fight climate change? The same goes for the West. The amount of money the US and its partners have wasted on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been much better spent on climate change. It really is sad that leaders of all sides have not got their priorities right.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

没必要谴责

首先我想指出的是我发表的(4号)评论相应的翻译有误。我的中文原文是“中国政府也好、美国政府也好,都能为气候变化做更多的事情”(而不是中美两国政府本能做更多的事情)。我想中国人和外国人的看法不一致是很正常的?就算面对同样的问题,我们所持的立场和利益也会有所不同。同时我认为我的评论也有误。没有必要向美国施压让其担起领导一角。互相责备并不能解决问题。如果每个人都能进行自审,并尽可能地改正和改进,应对气候变化并不是不可能的事情。

NO NEED TO BLAME

first I would like to point out there is a mistake of the translation of my comment (no 4). I said in Chinese that both American and Chinese government need to "more" on climate change (instead of are able to have done something).
I think it's natural that Chinese view differs from what non-Chinese are saying? Even when facing the same problem, we have different stands and interests to keep. And I think there is a mistake in my comment. No need to press America to become the leader. Any blame won't do any good on solving the problem. If everybody can check him/herself and make improvements and corections as best as one can, then it won't be impossible to tackle climate change.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

今朝明日

回复评论5,我认为波立德先生及其他很多持类似观点的人们讨论的是未来的情况(希望这距当今还有一段时间),然而中国的读者讨论的是中国目前的技术能力。然而可能还有这样一种战略性的思考,中国在获取环保技术转让方面已经比较吃力,如果想要在绿色科技领域充当领军人物将会更加困难。但是我认为中国在领导开发绿色科技之前尚有一段很长的路要走。科技和知识与其他事物不同,投资及开发并不能保证回报。整个筹备累积的过程非常长,若要等中国单独开发这些科技将浪费我们应对气候变化的宝贵时间。中国可以在应对气候变化中可以带头行动;但是消除技术转让的障碍,开展更广泛、更有建设意义的国际合作对挖掘中国潜力非常重要。王韬---廷道尔气候变化研究中心和苏塞克斯能源研究小组

today and tomorrow

To snicker,

I think Mr Porritt, and many other people holding similar points, are talking about the future, hopefully so far away; while your Chinese audience are talking about current technological capacity of China. But there might be a strategic thinking, as China is already struggle to get more green technology transfer, it might be even harder if they start claiming themselves leaders in green technology. But I think China still has long way to go before leading green technology. Technology and knowledge are like no other, investment and action cannot always guarantee the outcome. The accumulation process is so long that waiting for China to develop these technologies alone is wasting our precious time fighting against climate change. China could lead actions in combating climate change; but removing technology transfer barriers, wider and more constructive international collaboration hold a key to unleash China’s ability.

王韬 (Tao WANG) Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research & Sussex Energy Group

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

求同存异

在一个有多重主要任务的世界,难道致力于同时解决这些主要任务就叫做工作重心偏移吗?如果中国必须得保持经济增长、消除贫困、帮助弱势群体远离贫穷和社会动荡,我便不得不说这些工作都和应对气候变化一样重要。唯一的区别在于前者是国家的问题,而后者是全球议题。中国发展“长征一号”运载火箭不是为了炫耀其空间技术,这也是中国发展计划的一部分。“长征一号”工程及其它航空项目一样,不仅仅是激发了某些科技的发展应用。同样的,美国也不是那么愚蠢,与伊拉克和阿富汗开战是因为钱多地没处花。有趣的是你和另一位读者同时引用了“长征一号”和伊拉克战争,这是十分不恰当的类比。请见http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1440-Ecological-civilisation-is-the-way-forward 我就没有必要重复解释了。中国第一任总理周恩来在1955年召开的万隆会议上提出了一个非常著名的观点:“求同存异”。它和"共同但有区别责任"原则有异曲同工之妙,但是又不径相同。互相指责并不能解决问题,但可惜的是我们很多人都是这样,从对方那里找理由解释自己的不作为,更重要的是,我们缺乏互相了解体谅和“求同存异”的精神。不仅是有些个人用自己的衡量标准对别的国家下定论,国家与国家之间也经常发生这样的事。王韬---廷道尔气候变化研究中心和苏塞克斯能源研究小组

Unity in diversity

In a world when there is more than one priority, does that mean anything focusing on more than one priority is misplaced priority? If China thinks it has to keep economic growth and eradicating poverty, prevent vulnerable people falling back to poverty and social unrest, I am sorry but I cannot see it less justified than combating climate change. The only difference is the first one is national issue while the second one is global.

China develops ChangE1 not just to show off its space technology but part of growth plan. The whole project of ChangE1 as well as other space project is not just a boost to some specific technology. Similarly America is not stupid enough go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan just because it has too much cash to throw. It is such an interesting coincidence that you and another gentleman both cited ChangE1 and Iraq war together, a rather inappropriate analogy. See http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1440-Ecological-civilisation-is-the-way-forward.

There is no need to repeat the same words. China’s first premier Zhou Enlai has a famous viewpoint on the Bandung Conference in 1955, “求同存异(Unity in diversity)”. It has some echo on “Common but Differentiated Responsibility”, but not all the same. We are going nowhere by blaming each other, but sadly that is what many of us are doing, finding excuse from others for our own inaction, and most of all, lack of understanding to each other and the spirit of “Unity in diversity”. Making judgement on other nation using self-centric measurement does not just happen in individuals, but nations too.

王韬 (Tao WANG) Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research & Sussex Energy Group 廷道尔气候变化研究中心和苏塞克斯能源研究小组

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

韬,我赞同应该消除贫困,但是这项工作应以可持续的方式来进行。我们目前的发展模式和脱贫方式都是不可持续的,而据估计本世纪中期全球人口将增加近30亿,这使得资源争夺战愈加激烈。韬,难道你没有意识到如果我们不选择更可持续的道路,并尽快做出这样的选择,所有的新车,靓房,MP3和电脑等都将没有意义吗?因为整个人类正走向自我毁灭。所以解决这个问题的工作是否应该优先于脱贫工作?如果我们赖以生存的星球都不存在了,达到“零贫困”的目标意义何在?更糟的是你似乎没有意识到,最先将生活在不适合居住的环境中的正是中国西部和南部的贫困人群。说到中国应该重新定位工作重心,我并不是要掩盖你所热衷的中国达成的种种成就,我的意思是我们应该共同首先解决全球暖化的问题,否则所有关于发展的努力就将白费。所以,我的确认为人类现阶段的登月计划毫无必要。我并不是在伊拉克战争和长征一号两者间做类比。这不是“类比”这个词的意思所在。我只是列举了一些事例,证明面临此般危险,全球各国正怎样浪费人力和财力的事实。退一步讲,登月计划如何能帮助甘肃的农民脱贫?你不用担心我的矛头只指向中国而忽略自己的国家在保护环境方面的不作为:我已经向英国议员们写过很多措辞严厉的文章。我认为我们的分歧在于我将气候变化看作历史性的灾难,而你的观点却不同。去读读“国际气候变化研究小组”的那些报告吧。

Tao

Tao
I agree that poverty needs to be eradicated, but that needs to be done sustainably. Our current methods of development and poverty eradication are not sustainable and with the global population set to increase by nearly 3 billion by the middle of the century the strain on and competition for resources will be even greater.

Can you not see, Tao, that if we don't move to a more sustainable track and do it soon, then all the new cars, posh apartments, MP3 players and computers will have been for nothing? The human race is heading for self destruction. Surely solving that problem has to come before poverty eradication? What's the point of reaching zero poverty if when we arrive at that destination there isn't a planet left? But worst of all, you don't seem to recognise that it will be those poor people in the south and west of China who will be among the first in the world who will find themselves living in an uninhabitable environment. By saying that China should refocus its priorities, I'm not trying to deprive the country of the greatness you so crave, I'm saying that we need to get this global warming problem sorted first or all our efforts to develop will have been in vain.
So yes, I do see sending a rocket to the moon at this present stage in human history as unnecessary. I wasn't making an analogy between the Iraq war and ChangE1. That is not the meaning of the word analogy. I was listing examples of wastes of brainpower and cash that we are currently witnessing around the world in the face of such danger. Anyway, how does sending a rocket to the moon help the peasants of Gansu?

Don't worry that I'm singling out China and ignoring my own country's lack of environmental efforts: I've written much harsher words than this to British MPs.

I think where we differ is that I see climate change as an emergency of epic proportions, while you don't. Go and read the IPCC reports.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

天高皇帝远

北京的一小部分倍受关注的高官应充分了解即刻行动的必要,并且设立雄心壮志的减排目标,但是是否这只是一种空想,目前并不能下定论。中国也有很多法律保护知识产权,据我所知,国家也禁止司机在自行车道上驾驶。汤姆

the emperor is far away

The small illuminated elitist leadership in Beijing may well understand the urgency of action, and set ambitious green targets, but it remains to be seen if that is anything more than wishfull thinking. There are plenty of Chinese laws protecting IP rights as well, and it is forbidden to drive your car in the bike lane as far as i know.
Tom