文章 Articles

携手中国,净化大气

今年,中国的气温打破了161年以来的纪录。奥维尔•斯科勒指出,中国飞速增长的环境后果已经很明显了,而煤炭是问题的核心。
Article image

每年冬天,来自西伯利亚的寒流席卷北京,裹得严严实实的人们在结冰的河面、湖面上滑冰,这是古都最富魅力的风景之一。

然而,北京的气温打破了161年来的最高纪录,才2月初,冰面就融化了。北京街头的年轻女郎们脱下厚厚的冬装,换上了短裙,全球变暖以最直接的形式出现在中国人面前。

的确,在中国任何一个地方,巨大的经济力量所造成的环境后果已经非常明显。最近我做了一次旅行,从北京到西北的产煤大省山西去,一路上看到的风景只有黑白两色,绵延不绝,这是因为电厂、水泥厂和化肥厂都烧煤,毫无控制的空气污染几乎完全遮住了太阳。长江、黄河、湄公河和雅鲁藏布江是亚洲的主要水系,它们都发源于青藏高原顶上的冰川。现在,冰川学家们为这些大河列出近二十年的精算表,并且报告说,冰川正以每年7%的速度融化。2000年,联合国开发计划署的报告指出,每年空气污染导致40万人死亡。这毫不奇怪,因为世界上30个空气污染最严重的城市中,有16个都在中国。

当今的中国,大自然离人们越来越远。中国环境危机的核心问题是煤炭,中国69%的基本能源和52%的电力都来自煤炭。中国每年的煤炭消耗量超过22亿吨(超过美国、印度和俄国的总和),产生的常规有害排放则比美国还多。

明年的某一天,中国的温室气体排放将超过美国,但中国的人均能源消费仍然不到美国的五分之一。如果中国要达到美国的生活水平,煤炭消耗量必须增加三倍,制造出的常规污染物和温室气体也会大大增加。毫无疑问,中国正在逐渐赶上美国。实际上,为了满足巨大的能源需求,中国每周都会有一个新的传统燃煤电厂开工。

这样的国家不止中国。美国在计划中的常规燃煤电厂有100到160座,服务期限都是40年,而且没有任何用以捕获和隔离二氧化碳的设备。确实,由于石油和天然气的价格越来越高,煤炭储量丰富的国家对煤炭的依赖性也越来越强。如果不采取新的“清洁煤”技术,照这个趋势发展下去,将造成可怕的全球性后果。

对有的人来说,气候变化的威胁还很遥远,但他们一直面临着常规污染物的问题。据中国国家环保总局(SEPA)估计,每年仅二氧化硫就使中国损失12%的GDP,和增长率基本相当。

同时,美国退出了京都议定书,而中国只是作为发展中国家签署了议定书,不用履行约束性的减排义务。去年11月,中国做出切实的承诺,到2020年把可再生能源在能源中的比例提高到15%,并在5年之内把每个单位GDP的能源消耗降低20%。但是,去年上半年,北京非但没有实现上述目标,每个单位GDP的能耗反而增加了8%。关于中国的大型水电设施——三峡电站的报告也不令人乐观,长江的水流速度似乎不足以维持涡轮的运转。

为了维护社会秩序,中国的官员很关心保持高经济增长率。联合国政府间气候变化委员会刚刚发布的报告做出了警告性的结论,而官员们最近的活动则在力图缩小这个结论的影响,他们重申不愿意让中国对温室气体排放进行任何限制。

秦大河是一位中国气候变化高级谈判官员,对于中国没有采取减排措施,他解释说:“中国还是一个有着大量发展中人口的国家。”

从中国官方的观点来看,在一定程度上,这是很公平的。毕竟,在一个多世纪里,美国一直肆无忌惮地排放着二氧化碳,它是世界上最大的温室气体制造者,而它继续拒绝面对这个现实。

但是,无论公平与否,中美这两个最大的污染者都不去解决问题,这就是世界所面临的现实。如果美国不带头减排,中国也不会跟着照做。这会带来悲剧性后果,无论中美两国,还是整个世界的遭遇都将非常悲惨。

那么,我们要做些什么呢?

接下来的美国总统大选可能带来一线机会,当然这还要说服候选人进行更多努力,合作解决我们的共同问题才行。

我们的领导人必须联合起来,重新加强全球的领导,带领中美两国和整个世界走出这个死胡同。还有什么方法比这个更有效呢?

我们如何实现这个目标呢?首先建立一个由德高望重的科学家、产业界领袖和政策专家组成的联合机构,和中国的对等机构召开一个高层紧急峰会,然后设法让美国总统候选人们保证把煤炭/气候变化放在优先地位。最终目标是建立起一个250亿美元的联合计划,美国提供资金、技术知识以及创业和管理技能,而中国则提供自身的一些资源、研究、在发展中国家的领导地位、低成本的制造业基础和巨大的市场能力。

这个计划将是我们为解决世界上多数紧迫的长期问题而迈出的令人鼓舞的第一步,不仅如此,它还能通过新的共同努力把中美联系在一起。的确,美国担心中国会成为一个经济或军事上的威胁,同时中国也怀疑美国打算否认其在世界上应有的地位,如果有某种办法,既可以缓解美国的担心,又可以减轻中国的怀疑,全球变暖无疑是一个很好的切入点。

最后,现实主义者们认为这种耗资巨大的工程不可能是什么纯粹的利他主义,他们应该记住,这类行动恰恰会给候选人们带来双赢性的提议,而现在心急如焚的选民们则会踊跃支持。况且,如果中美能够找到一条采取这种联合行动的途径,这不仅是对全球政治领导的一种历史性诠释,而且会使两国成为建设性伙伴,中美将会成为全球经济新的动力和利润中心。

无论我们是否承认,中美两国已经被这个共同的问题牢牢地捆在了一起。无论我们是否喜欢,这两个国家已经成为彼此的依靠,如果我们的领导人不能找到新的途径来合作抵御这个历史性挑战,世界将付出惨痛的代价。


奥维尔·斯科勒,美国亚洲协会中美关系中心主任,长期以来撰写了大量关于中国的文章。

首页图片LHOON

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

中美关系

美国应该改变一贯的观念:认为中国是威胁而非合作对象。在全球变暖问题上,中美两个大国有责任和义务来合作共同解决这个问题。

总是坚持对抗的心态,和揪着意识形态问题而不愿放手和不开拓思路来解决问题,那将会是全球悲剧的开始。

面对气候变化问题,全球利益高于国家利益和地区利益。

Sino-American Relations

America should make some changes to the longlasting belief that China is a threat instead of someone to collaborate. On the issue of global warming, China and America, the two large nations, have responsibility and obligation to work together for a solution. It would be the beginning of a global tragedy if we insist on a conflicting attitude, stick to ideology problems and resist an open mind for problem solving. When we are facing climate change, global interest should be placed above national as well as regional interests.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

保护环境 彰显国力

推荐一篇人民日报的相关文章

Protect the environment, enpowering the nation.

An article from China Daily for recommendation. see
here

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

文中一个比较中美碳排放量的问题

"明年的某一天,中国的温室气体排放将超过美国,但中国的人均能源消费仍然不到美国的五分之一。" 个人认为笔者在上句中总量与人均的比较是不够科学的,会在某种程度上夸大真实问题。在同一个比较的语句中,要么都用总量,要么都用人均,才可以看到真正的差距,据我所知,中国的人均温室气体排放量要比美国低得多,好像是1/3还是 1/5?

About the carbon-emission comparison between China and America in the article

"Sometime next year, China could surpass the United States in greenhouse-gas emissions, but the average person in China still consumes less than one-fifth the energy the average American does." I personally think it would be more logical not to compare a total with an average, which will to some extend exaggerate the truth. The truth difference can only be revealed if, in the clause making comparison, we use two totals, or two averaged. As far as I know, the per capita greenhouse gas emission of China is much lower than that of the America, maybe 1/3 or 1/5?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

为什么非要美国先行动?

感谢清晰的概述,但是下面这句真的一定如此么?“如果美国不带头减排,中国也不会跟着照做。这会带来悲剧性后果,无论中美两国,还是整个世界的遭遇都将非常悲惨。”美国必须带头么?为什么中国不能带头?如果中国带了头,美国会不跟着照做么?

Anthony Barnett

Why must the US lead?

Thanks for clear overview, but must the following claim be the case: "If the United States will not lead, China will not follow, and the results will be tragic: both countries will suffer grievously, and so will the rest of the world"? Does the US have to lead? Why can't China do so? If China did lead, would not the US have to follow?

Anthony Barnett

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

为什么?

让人难过的是不住在中国的人比住在中国的人更加关心中国的环境。

为什么会这样?

让住在中国的人意识到环境保护的重要性不是更关键么?

why?

what I feel really sad about is that people who live outside of china seem care so much more about China's environment than those people who live in the country.

Why is that???

isn't that more important for people who live in the country to realize the importance of protecting the environment????

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

对评论5的回答

答评论5:当你连温饱问题都不能解决的时候,你会去为气候变化担忧么?请试着站在他们的角度考虑问题。不要理所当然地认为他们应该跟你想得一样。

answer to why

a really quick answer to the comment 5 is, will you start worrying about blue sky and future climate change when you cannot have enough money to feed your children and yourself today? try to stand at their position and look at their immediate concerns rather than assuming they should think the same as you.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

谁应该先行动

斯科勒写的这篇文章最先于4月15日在《华盛顿邮报》刊出,所以目标主要是美国读者。对评论4的回复:中国有些做法确实已经领先于美国,比如汽车发动机的功效。但是中国可能还是需要继续从国外进口技术支持。两国人民难道就不能合作起来,促成政治上的主动么?斯科勒的建议应该被广泛地应用,正如我的博客里的文章
“The Gramsci-Schwarzenegger dialectic: China, the U.S. and climate change politics. ”所指出的那样。

Caspar Henderson

who leads?

This article by Schell first appeared in the Washington Post on 15 April, so was largely intended for US readers. In response to comment 4 notes, there are some ways in which China already leads the US - for example vehicle engine efficiency; but it is likely that China will continue to need and benefit from technological input from other nations. In terms of political initiatives, why should they not come from people in both countries, and others, working together. A task force of the kind Schell suggests could be broadened out - perhaps as I have suggested in The Gramsci-Schwarzenegger dialectic: China, the U.S. and climate change politics.

Caspar Henderson

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

对评论6的回答

难道一定要等到温饱问题解决之后才去担心气候变化吗?
事实上如果环境再这么恶劣下去,很多人的生存都成问题,在连生存都成问题的条件下又如何解决温饱问题呢?
还有一个现实问题:越贫穷的人们离污染越近同时对其抵抗力也越差;而那些已经奔向小康的人却恰恰相反,不仅如此,这类人群也对环境污染的贡献也越大。
很多人没有把环保当一回事,那是因为这些人觉得环境保护是政府的事,他们还没有意识到环境的恶劣会威胁到自己的生活。所以提高民众的环保意识太重要了。
Juliet

Re Comment 6

Do we have to wait till adequate food and shelter are being provided before we start caring about climate change? Actually, if the environment worsens like this, it will be an issue of survival for many people. When our survival is endangered, wouldn't food and shelter be luxuries? Another reality is that the poorer are the more vulnerable to polution. And for those people who have achieved moderate prosperity, they are less vulnerable. Furthermore, they are contributing more to the pollution of the environment, even without recognising that a deteriorating environment could actually threaten their own lives. Therefore, it is extremely important to improve public awareness of environmental issues. Juliet

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

对评论8的回复

Juliet,我想你指出了一个事实就是穷人更易受到遭受环境污染带来的灾难,而富人却正在为污染火上浇油。这就是气候变化的真正情况。现在世界上的二氧化碳排放其实是那些发达国家在他们工业化的时候制造的,而不是现在发展中国家的责任,因为二氧化碳会在大气中存在100至200年。

但是不像以前的那些进行工业化的国家,现在的发展中国家更受自然资源和世界环境问题的限制。正如中国的污染问题,中国很大一部分污染都是因为生产出口产品造成的。这样发达国家的人民才能在享受廉价物品的同时还可以免受污染的困扰。这样的“污染出口”也是发达国家能逐步改善其环境的原因之一。

我并不是说中国不用注重保护自己的环境,相反的,没有什么比意识到现状的严重性及行动起来保护环境更重要的了。因为正如你所说的,这是一个马上事关很多人生存的问题。但是另一方面,发达国家就只是催促中国人民和政府保护环境,而他们自己却充当着“道德高尚”的监督员,摆出一幅事不关己的嘴脸,指手画脚颐指气使么?事实上除了盲目的责骂,发达国家可以通过多种办法为他们自己所造成的现状负责,而与发展中国家合作避免悲剧重演的空间也很大。

对于其他人比中国人自己更关注中国的(事实上是整个世界的)环境问题这一点我并不觉得有什么可鄙的。因为中国人到底有多关心他们的生存环境并不能从他们现在的所作所为看出来。当然,大多数人不可能看得太远,而这也包括发达国家的人。我们的决策总是不能避免妥协,人们总是先考虑眼下的需求。饮鸩止渴不能解决问题,但是这却正是现在很多人正在做的。你了解的越多,就会越迫切地觉得要尽快帮助人们摆脱这种两难境地。但是这需要更加富有,更加发达,并且幸运的话,更加文明的国家的帮助和行动。

王涛

Re Comment 8

Juliet, I think you pointed out a reality, that the poorer are the more vulnerable to pollution, and the richer are less vulnerable and contribute more to the pollution. This is true to the climate change. The CO2 emission that have taken the world to today's dangerous situation was by majority produced by developed countries during their industrialisation rather than the developing countries today, because CO2 stays in atmosphere for 100-200 years for its warming effects.

But unlike early industrialisation countries, today's developing countries are more constrained by natural resources and international environment issues. Similar to other pollution in China, a large proportion of the pollution generated in China is from manufacturing export products; therefore people in developed countries can enjoy cheap goods without suffering from pollution they cause. This kind of "pollution export" has been part of the reasons for the improved environment in developed counties.

I am not saying that Chinese people should not care about their own environment. Rather, nothing can be more important for us to realize the serious situation and to react to save our own environment, because as you say, it will be an issue of survival for many people soon. But on the other hand, shall people in developed just urge Chinese people and Chinese government to be more responsible, while themselves only remain as a "morally superior" international environment watchdog, pointing out this and that wrong with their clean hand? There are many ways for the developed countries to be more responsible for what they have caused and there is large scope to collaborate with the developing countries to avoid repeating the same mistakes again, for our own common environment, but scolding without considering their situation certainly isn't one of them.

I wouldn't feel really sad if there are people caring more about China's (but in fact it is the whole world's) environment than Chinese people themselves. In fact, how much Chinese people care about their living environment cannot be simply judged by what they are doing. Most of us, wherever, are unfortunately short-eyesight animal, not just in China or developing countries. Compromise is always made in our decision, and immediate demand always comes with high priority. 饮鸩止渴 is not a right thing to do, but is now a real thing done in many places. The more you know, the more urgent you will feel to help them out of the dilemma situation. But that need real actions from the more wealthy, more developed and hopefully more civilized countries.

Tao Wang

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

很好的评论!!!

我强烈支持评论9中的观点!!王涛做得好!环境问题是全人类的问题,合作才能找到解决的办法。

Good comment!!!

I strongly support the opinions elaborated in Comment nine!! Well done, Tao Wang. Environmental problems face all human beings, thus coordinated efforts are needed to find solutions.