文章 Articles

构建公平和可持续的气候制度

未来几年中,发达国家与发展中国家到底可以排放多少温室气体,这是一个被热烈讨论的话题。潘家华、陈迎等提出了一个可行方案。

Article image

2012年后国际气候制度谈判的核心议题,是如何公平地进行减排义务分担,并体现各国具体国情的差异。迄今为止,国际上已经提出许多不同分配方案,但反映发展中国家现实国情和需求的方案少之又少。

为了更好地体现公平原则,维护发展中国家权益,2002年,中国社会科学院潘家华领导的研究团队,以人文发展理论,阐述了温室气体排放权的分配应优先满足人的基本需求,促进低碳发展,遏制奢侈浪费的理念,研究报告在印度新德里召开的第八次缔约方(COP8)上散发。在此基础上,开发的人文发展方案的制度框架,在相关概念、方法论和量化分析方面不断有新的进展,2003年和2006年曾两次举办边会介绍最新研究成果,在国际上获得较好的反响。最近尝试开发了一个具有公平内涵、可量化的排放权分配的新方案,并就资金机制等国际气候制度的相关要素进行了探讨,共同构成了2012年后国际气候制度的一个完整方案,称为“碳预算”方案。

碳预算方案所依据的公平原则,包含几个方面的含义:首先,温室气体排放权是保障生存和发展的基本人权之一,公平的本意是保障人与人之间的公平,并非国与国之间的公平。其次,促进人与人之间的公平,关键是保障当代人的权利,控制人口增长是促进可持续发展,减缓全球气候变化的政策选择之一。第三,考虑到发展过程中伴随温室气体排放的社会财富的积累和传承规律,实现人与人之间的公平是包括历史、现实和未来全过程的存量公平。最后,以满足人的基本需求为优先目标意味着,温室气体排放权的分配,应该客观反映人生活的自然环境的差异。

碳预算方案的研究结果表明:如果仅考虑化石能源相关的CO2排放,假设全球碳排放2015年封顶,2050年相对2005年减排50%,1900-2050年间全球碳预算大约为年人均2.33吨CO2。初始碳预算分配与基年各国人口成正比,考虑各国气候、地理和资源禀赋的自然因素调整后,各国碳预算虽有所差异,例如,俄罗斯、加拿大气候相对寒冷,澳大利亚、加拿大等国地广人稀,南非、中国能源消费的碳排放较高,但综合起来,碳预算的调整幅度有限,大约在-20%-78%之间。但是,发达国家实际历史排放不仅已严重透支其未来碳预算,而且侵占了其他国家作为全球公共资源的排放空间。例如:美国实际历史排放是碳预算的2.97倍。为了保护全球气候安全的共同利益,发展中国家历史排放尽管普遍远低于碳预算,拥有发展和排放的权利,但不得不通过碳预算的转移为发达国家历史上的超额排放和保障未来的基本需求所需碳预算“埋单”。碳预算转移的总规模大约为455.7GtCO2,如果以当前国际市场10欧元/吨CO2估算,其总价值高达近4.6万亿欧元,远远高于目前发达国家履行向发展中国家提供资金援助义务所贡献的份额。

即便有碳预算的转移,保障发达国家未来的基本需求,但由于其现实人均排放较高,未来即使能采取相对严格的减排政策和目标,未来累计排放仍将超过碳预算,其中大约60%需要通过国际碳市场或国际合作进行海外减排。如果仍不能将排放控制在碳预算内,则必须通过累进碳税进行罚款,同时将为实现的减排量计入下个承诺期。

对于中国而言,碳预算方案并不是一个特意优惠中国的方案,实际上,碳预算对中国未来发展是一个紧约束。中国初始碳预算为458.8GtCO2,经过自然因素调整,气候和资源禀赋使碳预算略有增长,而地理因素调整碳有所下降,三因素对中国的综合影响不大,调整后中国碳预算为452.2 GtCO2。中国历史实际排放88.7 GtCO2,未来剩余碳预算365.5 GtCO2。假设中国努力实现低碳发展实现2030年排放封顶,相比2005年增长55%,2050年略有下降达到45%,则未来累计排放刚好能满足碳预算。只有进一步减排才可能有排放额度供出售,否则中国还需要从国际市场购买排放额度。考虑到中国作为世界的加工厂,目前中国国际贸易中内涵能源的净出口大约占碳排放的30%,2030年这一趋势难以根本逆转,因此中国促进低碳发展之路任重而道远。

总之,碳预算方案是基于科学基础,将优先满足基本需求的公平原则与全球的可持续性目标结合起来,为构建2012年后国际气候制度而设计的一个完整方案,对打破当前国际气候谈判的僵局具有较高的政策含义和参考价值。

潘家华教授现为中国社会科学院可持续发展研究中心主任,他的研究领域为环境经济学、可持续城市化、全球变化与世界经济、可持续发展经济学。

陈迎是中国社会科学院城市发展与环境研究中心的副研究员,她的研究方向为可持续发展、环境经济学与全球环境问题。

本文的写作是在其他学者的协助下完成的。

首页图片由zaXzine

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

引人关注的提议

这个提议肯定比多数提议要引人关注。波滋南这儿的争论看来哽上了,过程看来要拉长。问题是,你怎么才能吸纳好的进言并将之写入具体的协定之内?

本评论由Ming Li翻译

Interesting proposal

This proposal is certainly more interesting than most. Here in Poznan, debate seems to be stunted and the process drawn out. The question is - how do you take good suggestions and turn them into a concrete agreement?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

公平?

所有资源的分配都谈不上公平,何谈碳排放?指望发达国家真正担负起义务来?我看希望不大.

Fair?

How can fair carbon emission targets be achieved if all resource allocation is nowhere near fair? I take a dim view that developed countries will genuinely shoulder their own obligations.

Translated by Ming li

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

公平?

在波兹南进展一定是很慢的。但是,举例来说,墨西哥就设置了一个令人印象深刻的自发性目标。虽然墨西哥是一个发展中国家, 他们还是订定了自己的目标。 中国会不会做同样的事情?
(翻译由Michelle Deeter)

Fair?

Progress is certainly slow in Poznan but Mexico, for instance, has set itself an impressive voluntary target, as a developing country. Will China do the same?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

生命是不公平的

单纯使用“碳预算”方案并不是一个解决办法,因为它是基于人民的。如果人口也继续如国家预计的速度增长,以减少的20%为例,与200x相比并没有成效。我们现在已经消耗了更多的世界资源(并把它们转化成CO2)。如果发展中国家首先得到发展,再去降低CO2的排放的话就太晚了。这是不可持续的,尤其是对于那些发展中国家,他们将最先遇到困难,特别是解决食物及饮水问题。生命是不公平的。我们都需要帮助发展中国家使其在一个可持续的途径中发展。和他们分享生态知识并借教育人民。Mirjam女士于上海
本评论由Liu Jingya翻译

Life is not fair

Carbon Budget Proposal alone is not a solution since it is people based. The reduction of 20% for instance compared with 200x doesn't help if the population is also growing ie the budget of the nation is allowed to grow. We already are using up more of the worlds resources (and transform them in CO2) at the moment. If developing nations are first starting to get developed and then starting to reduce the CO2-output it is to late. This is not sustainable especially not for developing nation which are the first to have trouble not to have enough drinking water, floods etc. Life is not fair. We all need to help developing nation develop in a sustainable way. Share eco knowledge and educate people. Mirjam (Shanghai)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

fairness is not the key issue

我个人感觉涉及到公平问题时很多人会以发达国家的援助项目(例如能力建设)相提醒。很难说达到什么程度才是公平。公平常被不同矛盾团体当作发难的武器和政治借口。我认为可持续发展只有在其重视程度超过政治利益的你争我夺时才可真正地打心底地得以推动。我们需要一个强有力的全球领导力,并且必须是来自民众利益的使世界平衡发展的愿景。(樑)
I consider capacity building a term to show somehow "fairness" that developed countries are trying to help developing ones. I don't really like the term "fair" and I quite agree with Mirjam that it's not that easy to define what is fair. The term "fairness" has been used a lot, sometimes as political weapon. For me sustainability can only be pushed from bottom of the heart when it excels differentiated political interests, especially between developed and developing countries. Definitely we are in great need of global leadership, not from one dominating nation, but from the will of making the world balanced. (Liang in Shanghai & Germany)

fairness is not the key issue

I personally feel that when it refers to ‘fairness’, a lot of people will put in mind of assistance programs (such as capacity-building) provided by developed countries. It is hard to say to what extent it can be called fairness. Fairness is often used as weapons of attack and political pretext by different conflict groups. I think that sustainable development can be promoted really only but when it is given more emphasis than political interests. We need a strong global leadership, which must come from the interest of the people and can keep the balance development of the world. (Leung) (Translated by Lanmei)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

生命应当是公平的

我认为这是个很有趣的主意,至少其努力地想站在一个更为公平的台面上,给地球上所有的人谈谈气候变化问题。毫无疑问,已超出了其排放分摊额度的国家应减少其排放,而还未到限的国家则可因此明白其排放是有严格限额的,最好马上就规划和采取行动。这个想法很是务实。 Ziyuan

本评论由Ming Li翻译

Life should be fair

I think this is an very interesting idea, at least it tries to stand on a fairer basis to talk about climate change for all people on this planet. No doubt that those who have exceeded their proportion of emission right should reduce their emission therefore those who didn't reach the roof will understand there is a hard ceiling for their emissions so better to plan and take action from now. This is a very practical way of thinking. Ziyuan

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

表象的公平之争,实质的利益博弈

气候变化谈判为了人类的未来。国际法之所以存在和发展,就是因为人类发现,只有国家和主权不能解决整个地球的问题。然而自1997年以来,气候变化领域的国际法似乎举步维艰。究其原因,可能恰恰是潘家华恰恰不太关注的“国家公平”问题。
公平的概念标准众多,渊源深远:不论是国别公平,还是人别公平;不论是代内公平,还是代际公平;不论是存量公平还是矢量公平;其实,潘家华老师没有注意到国际谈判对于公平问题的焦点到底汇集在哪里?
其实,为人类文明而创建制度,气候变化领域的国际法规则的制定,必须要为各国政治家绘制兼容并包的路径,不能只强调人与人的公平、代内公平和存量公平,必须将视野投向另一方而不是简单的否定它。
我认为,国际气候制度不能框定,主要就是公平问题的不能调和,但是,不论是法学意义上的与正义不可分割的公平,还是经济学意义上与效益唇齿相依的公平,发展中国家和发达国家间需要妥协的就是将上述两种公平充分理解,并应用于实践!
基于此,表面上的公平问题,其实质就是各国的现实利益如何受到重视和保护的问题。一切方案和规划都要先认识到这一点。因此,让发达国家承担历史责任的诸多方案注定不可能得到认可,倒不如展望未来,暂时忘掉历史。毕竟,气候变化担忧的是未来!
作者李威,是华东政法大学国际法学博士研究生,研究重点是国际环境法和法律经济学

Superficial debates about equality cannot cover the real conflicts of interests

Negotiations on climate change benefit the future of all human beings. The fact that we have found out that the problems of this planet cannot be solved with nations and sovereignties alone, is the reason behind existing international laws and their development. International laws for climate change however, have seemed to struggle since 1997 and the causes might just be what Pan Jiahua has paid less attention to--"equality between nations." Definitions of equality are many and complex; no matter whether they are the equalities between nations or between individuals, the equalities within a generation or between generations, or whether the equalities are inventorial or vectorial. Actually, Mr. Pan Jiahua didn't take note of the convergence of different equalities in international negotiations. In fact, the installment of a system for human civilization, or the setup of an internatioanl rule of law for climate change, should map out a compatible and acceptable path for politicians in different countries, not only focus on equality between individuals, equality within a generation and inventorial equality. We have to take on other perspectives, and not just deny them. An international climate rule cannot be framed, I guess, mainly because equality cannot be consistently defined. However, no matter whether it is judicial equality in a judicial sense, or profit-related equality in an economics sense, developed and developing countries need to thoroughly understand these two equalities and strive to put them into practice! So, based on this judgement, the superficial problem of equality is really how to focus on every nation's present interests and protect them. It is necessary to be aware of this before any solution or plan is proposed. For this reason, many solutions asking developed countries to resume their historical responsibilities are bound to be unacceptable. We would all rather look to the future and forget the past. After all, the future is what counts in the worry about climate change! Li Wei

translated by Ming Li