文章 Articles

碳关税博弈,中国应有长远战略

许多中国时评员担心美国引入碳关税可能带来的的风险,然而储昭根建议他们应该看得更长远一些。

Article image

7月14-17日,美国两位华裔部长,即能源部部长朱棣文将与商务部部长骆家辉,首次联袂访华,寻找中美在清洁能源领域广阔的互惠前景与合作关系。

此前几周,美国国会众议院通过一项美国清洁能源与安全法案,又称《瓦克斯曼-马凯气候变化议案》。如果该议案最终成功立法,就意味着一套碳排放“限量及交易”(cap-and-trade)机制将被设立。它甚至可能包含美国有权对包括中国在内的不实施碳减排限额国家的进口产品征收碳关税的严厉条款。随后,中国国内学者一片反对声,甚至有人预测所有发展中国家都会起来反对。

可以说,这些意见多少是缺乏深谋远虑或深入研究的结果。中国其实未必要在美国碳关税问题上持完全否定的态度,而完全忽略自身的主动性。

首先,低碳化是大势所趋。从1992年《联合国气候变化框架公约》(UNFCCC)签订,到1997年《京都议定书》签署,再到2005年该议定书正式生效,低碳经济逐渐步入历史舞台。今年12月将在哥本哈根举行的全球气候变化谈判,会上各国将就《京都议定书》到期(2012年)以后的碳减排义务达成新协议。削减向大气中排放的温室气体数量,保护人类的共同利益,已成为共识。

就具体行动来讲,欧盟已把低碳经济作为未来发展方向,提出了三个20%的目标:2020年温室气体排放量比1990年减少20%,一次能源消耗量减少20%,再生能源比重提高至20%。美国出台《新能源法》,加快可再生生物能开发,《气候安全法案》将在全美引入“限排交易体系”。日本则承诺,到 2050年减排60%~80%,建立核证减排量交易市场。中印等发展中国家也已制定有关发展可再生能源的法律和计划。

就是说,世界经济在历经工业化、信息化之后,正在走向“低碳化”,低碳化已成世界经济的大势。

其次,低碳化是中国发展的内在需要。我国的人口、资源、环境结构比发达国家要紧张得多,资源禀赋与人口不断增长之间的矛盾将长期存在。多年来,中国政府一直呼吁经济结构的升级与转型,走内涵式发展道路,并把建设资源节约型和环境友好型社会确定为中长期发展的一项战略任务。数据显示,2006年中国GDP总量占到世界总量的5.5%左右,但为此消耗的标准煤、钢材和水泥,分别约占全世界消耗量的15%、30%和54%。由于经济增长方式的粗放,中国现在经济增长成本高于世界平均水平25%。

据计算,中国现在每百万美元GDP所消耗的能源数量是美国的3倍,德国的5倍,日本的近6倍。中国一吨煤产生的效率仅相当美国的28.6%,欧盟的16.8%,日本的10.3%。高投入、高消耗必然带来高污染和低效益。同时,中国已近1/3的国土被酸雨污染。

我们不可能模仿发达国家走“先发展后治理”的老路,建设资源节约型和环境友好型社会是中国实现可持续发展的唯一出路。这就是说,碳关税将成为中国及相关发展中国家经济转型、升级的外部压力,这未必全是坏事。在将压力变成动力的同时,自身也要加大碳税征收的力度,实现向资源节约、环境友好的增长方式和消费模式转变。

第三,低碳化对中国总体上讲利大于弊。实际上,美国自身与中国也面临相同的问题:高排放量及相关企业可能受重创。这也是美国前总统布什一直拒签《京都议定书》的原因。在美国国内环保主义蔚然成风的情况下,现奥巴马政府积极推动国会对气候问题进行立法,依然困难重重,在众院也是涉险过关。

最后,征收碳税是最具市场效率的经济措施,受到经济学家和国际组织的推崇。目前丹 麦、芬兰、荷兰、挪威、意大利、瑞典以及美国和加拿大部分地区等发达国家和地区已征收碳税。中国跟上国际减排潮流也是树立国家形象的需要,这比拿出大笔钱进行对外形象宣传要有效得多。即便美国前总统小布什也无法否认拒签京都议定书让自己形象大大受损。更为关键的是,如果中美等资源消费大国走上低碳经济之路,世界上油气、资源等大宗商品的价格将会大幅下降,廉价的资源又反过来进一步有利于促进中国自身的发展,更不用说碳交易及其相关技术形成的产业链所带来的收益了。

当前,低碳化已成世界经济新趋势,减排问题上,中国应在维护自身长远利益的基础上有所作为。因为这是事关“拯救人类共同家园”这一大业,事关人类的未来命运。当然,认同低碳化并不等于认同美方的碳关税。中国应毫不犹豫地占据道德高地及话语权,展现大国的责任与勇气,同时提出维护自身利益的要求与主张,力促全球减排国际规则的制定与通过,以实现中美在全球合作中双赢。


作者:储昭根,供职于浙江省社会科学院。专栏作家,多家知名媒体特约撰稿人,致力于美国外交、国际政治问题研究与分析。

本文转自:《东方早报》


首页图片由 MatthewBradley

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

不赞同

作者应该清楚,碳税不等同于碳关税。中国应该尽快实施低碳经济战略,但事实是,中国温室气体排放的高峰要到2020年才能到来。美国单方面的,凌驾于UNFCCC之上的措施不值得推崇。

I disagree

The author should make it clear that carbon taxes are NOT carbon tariffs. China should implement the low-carbon economy strategy as soon as possible. But the fact is that the peak of China's greenhouse-gas emissions will not come until 2020. Therefore, we cannot agree with US's unilateral action to go above UNFCCC.

Translated by Catlin Fu

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

逻辑有误

作者究竟想要讨论什么,让人很是一头雾水!
从标题到开头两段,作者似乎是要讨论中国对碳关税应该持的态度,并且直接断定国内的反对之声实际上“深谋远虑或深入研究”。
然而从那以后,作者整篇都在讨论中国为什么需要低碳化。但反对碳关税和反对低碳化和低碳发展是两个完全不同的概念。碳关税既不是低碳发展的充分条件,也不是充要条件,而是在气候变化的大背景下可能采用的具有多重目的和很大副作用的一种贸易措施。陈述大多数都同意的低碳发展的必要性并不能支持低碳关税的合理性。作者还在倒数第二段把低碳税与低碳关税混为一谈。
这样混乱的讨论之后,作者在最后一段又回到了“当然,认同低碳化并不等于认同美方的碳关税”,将前面的讨论几乎一笔勾销,没有任何明确的观点或立场。我只能说,“不知所云!”

Wrong Logic

What on earth does the author want to say? I cannot find any clue!
In the first two paragraphes, he seems to be discussing the stance China should take on carbon tariff. The author claims that the opposition against the bill is based on "in-depth consideration or research".
However, the assertion is followed with a long sermon on why China must be low-carbon. To me, opposing carbon tariff and opposing low carbon or low carbon development are different. Carbon tariff is neither necessary, nor sufficient for low-carbon development. Rather, it's a trade-related measure, which is possibly imposed against the backdrop of climate change and may have multiple purposes and side effects. In most part of his speech, the author argues that it is imperative to promote low-carbon development. But this does not necessarily mean imposing carbon tariff is reasonable. In the second paragraph from bottom, the author mistakenly takes carbon tax as the same with carbon tariff.
After the perplexing discussion, the author says in the last paragraph "of course, one can advocate a low-carbon future without supporting US carbon tariffs", undoing everything he preaches in the previous paragraphes. Seeing no clear perspective or position, I'm completely at sea!

Translated by Yina

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

内涵式发展道路

文中提到中国走“内涵式发展道路”,这是个新提法,还是翻译有误啊?

the conotation styled

Is it uncertain whether the Chinese development pattern of “the conotation styled” mentioned in the article a new term or nothing but an incorrect translation?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

作者的意思

我觉得作者的意思是,碳关税是可以考虑的低碳发展策略之一,我们不能因为美国所提的碳关税办法不可行就否定碳关税,需要全世界共同探讨可行的碳关税办法。

What the author means to say

I think what the author means to say is, carbon tariff is one of the considerable low-carbon developing strategyies. We can’t reject carbon tariff just because the US-proposed carbon tariff solution is not doable. The whole world need to explore together the feasible carbon tariff approach.

(translated by Fangfang CHEN)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

未知之路

我曾经听过法国人类学家Anne Cheng (http://www.college-de-france.fr/media/his_int/UPL59895_J24LICHENG.pdf) 的一个讲座,她说,美国和中国的广泛交流正 “从机动车道升级到高速公路”。很难相信,美国碳关税的威胁会成为中国不采取减排措施的主要原因.

(translated by Fangfang CHEN)

the unknown freeway

I have been listening to the conference made by the French sinologist Anne Cheng (http://www.college-de-france.fr/media/his_int/UPL59895_J24LICHENG.pdf) and she said that the university exchanges between USA and China were running on a "freeway updated every day motorway". It's hard to believe that the threat of an American carbon tariff is the chief reason China shouldn't adopt emissions reductions measures.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

糊涂作者

中国社科院就这个水平?的确,中国的GDP耗费的能源和产生的二氧化碳要远远大于美日欧,这既有生产力水平的问题,也有产业结构的问题。请问,如果考察下中国的制造业产值所产生的二氧化碳,中国和世界发达国家差距又有多大?中国高耗能产业和外国高耗能产业差距又有多大?
如果把中国的高耗能制造业都转移到美日欧,结果又会怎样?

Confused author

This article is far below the standard what China Academy of Social Sciences can do. Indeed, The energy consumpted and carbon emissed per GDP in China are much higher than those of the US,Japan and Europe. it's not only an issue of productivity, but also referred to the industrial structure. If we take a look at the carbon emissions from manufacturing, what is the gap between China and the developed countries? Is there much difference in China's and rich countries' high energy-consuming industries?

What will happen if we move all the high energy consuming industries out of China to US, Japan and Europe?

(translated by Fangfang CHEN)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

幼稚的想法

在高碳经济与低碳经济之间,不是一蹴而就的,需要有长期的过渡和缓冲。其中,最为关键的是资金和技术。
低碳经济这么好,难道中国政府不知道,不懂?作者的想法虽然很好,但显然非常幼稚。人云亦云,落入少数国家的话语圈套了。

Naive thinking

The shift from high-carbon economy to low-carbon is a long period of transition, which cannot be reached at a single leap. Capital and technology are the key elements.

How can Chinese government not understand the advantage of low-carbon economy? The view of the authoris good. But it sounds naive to me. Led by other people's view, the author has fallen into the trap of a few countries advocate.

(Translated by Fangfang CHEN)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

名称不同而已

对国内产品征收的称为碳税,而对国外产品征收的叫碳关税。作者眼光很长远!

The names are different, that’s all

The domestic goods tariff is called a carbon tax, and the foreign goods tariff is called a carbon tariff. The author sees the long term view! (Translated by Michelle Deeter)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

新瓶装旧酒

自由贸易,全球一体化,知识产权保护协定,到目前的碳排放税/关税。什么也没有改变,所有这些都是发达国家提出并极力推行的,目的就是为了盘剥,是的,盘剥发展中国家。制定这些贸易规则只能利于富者。中国唯一恰当的对策就是弄清游戏规则,而且将游戏玩得比美国佬更好。
(王蕾译)

New Bottle, Old Wine

Free trade and globalization, protection of IP, now this Carbon tax/tariff. Nothing has changed, all of these are proposed and promoted by the developed world to rip off, yes, rip off, the developing countries. They are trade rules designed to benefit the rich. China's only proper response would be to learn how the game is played, and play it better than the Yanks.