哥
本哈根气候变化峰会时不时能制造出一些新闻，从"草案门"到警方镇压气候变化活动人士。不过在这些新闻的背后，一场站不住脚的争论围绕着一个看似神秘的问题展开，而这个问题实际上却是全球碳排放论战的核心所在，这就是：中国是在担负起更大的责任还是在逃避责任？
中国在哥本哈根峰会前宣布碳排放计划时──到2020年前把经济的碳强度降低40%-45%，外界对此褒贬不一。
一些人认为，这是中国向前迈出的一大步；以往中国一直抗拒发达国家让中国解决自身排放问题的举措。包括美国官员在内的一些人则对此不以为然，他们认为中国提出的目标过低。
卡内基国际和平基金会(Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)能源及气候项目主任钱德瑞(William Chandler)说，实际上，中国最新的承诺可谓重大。
问题是，对中国经济来说，到底什么是"照常发展情景"？对中国计划持怀疑态度的人以国际能源署(IEA)的估计数字为证，称中国实际上是承诺继续做已经在做的事情，因此不应该被视为在哥本哈根峰会前的一项足以"改变游戏规则"的承诺。
钱德瑞说，这是一个明显的错误。他的理由是：2000年以来，重工业和制造业使中国的能源使用大幅增加，然而中国经济不像过去那么"能源密集"了。只是最近几年的严厉措施才使得这一趋势有所转变，让中国走上了更清洁的经济发展道路。
因此他说，把最近减少能源使用的做法视为"照常发展情景"是不公平的。
他说，中国的政策催生了数百个详尽的工业效率标准，其程度是世界上任何其他国家都望尘莫及的。中国的政策迫使数万个没有达到标准的工厂、发电厂和生产线关闭。很难想像美国是否能实施这样的政策，更不用说要再持续10年了。像国际能源署那样把这称为是"参考案例"，这种做法可谓大错特错。
他说，这意味着中国的承诺应该被视为是向前迈出了一大步，而且应该促使美国也采取更有力的措施。
这是一场非常重要的战斗。美国在全球气候变化协议上的立场主要取决于中国的所作所为，或外界眼里中国的所作所为。美国首席气候谈判代表斯特恩(Todd Stern)周三在哥本哈根说，对发展中国家不设限制是无法解决这个问题的。
Keith Johnson
The climate conference in Copenhagen has it share of flaps to keep headlines moving, from 'Draftgate' to police crackdowns on climate campaigners.
Behind the scenes, though, there's a wonky battle playing out over a seemingly arcane issue that is actually at the heart of the global debate over what to do about carbon emissions: Is China stepping up to the plate or shirking its responsibilities?
When China announced plans just before the summit to curb the 'carbon intensity' of its economy by 40% to 45% by 2020, there was a mixed reaction.
Some saw it as a huge step for a country that had been pushing back against rich-world efforts to get China to deal with its emissions. Others, including U.S. officials, yawned at what they see as a do-little proposal.
In fact, China's latest pledge is a very big deal, says William Chandler, Energy and Climate Program director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
At issue: Just what, exactly, is 'business as usual' for the Chinese economy? Folks skeptical of Chinese plans point to estimates by the International Energy Agency to argue that China is essentially promising to keep doing what it is doing already--so it shouldn't be seen as a game-changer ahead of Copenhagen.
That is 'demonstrably false,' says Mr. Chandler. His argument: The Chinese economy got less energy intensive since 2000, as heavy industry and manufacturing caused a big jump in energy use. Only 'draconian' measures in recent years have turned that tendency around and put China on the path to a cleaner economy.
So it's not fair to consider the recent crackdown on energy use 'business as usual,' he says:
'The policy imposes hundreds of detailed industrial efficiency standards to a degree unparalleled in any other country in the world. The policy has forced closure of tens of thousands of factories, power plants, and production lines that failed to meet the standards. It is unimaginable that such a policy could ever be enacted in the United States, much less be continued for another decade. It's a non-trivial error to call it a 'reference case,' as the IEA has done.'
Which means that Chinese promises should be embraced as a big step forward--and should prod the U.S. to take strong steps too, he says.
It's a hugely important fight. The U.S. position on the global climate deal largely depends on what China does--or is perceived to be doing. Chief U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern said today in Copenhagen, 'There is no way to solve this problem by giving developing countries a pass.'
Keith Johnson
Behind the scenes, though, there's a wonky battle playing out over a seemingly arcane issue that is actually at the heart of the global debate over what to do about carbon emissions: Is China stepping up to the plate or shirking its responsibilities?
When China announced plans just before the summit to curb the 'carbon intensity' of its economy by 40% to 45% by 2020, there was a mixed reaction.
Some saw it as a huge step for a country that had been pushing back against rich-world efforts to get China to deal with its emissions. Others, including U.S. officials, yawned at what they see as a do-little proposal.
In fact, China's latest pledge is a very big deal, says William Chandler, Energy and Climate Program director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
At issue: Just what, exactly, is 'business as usual' for the Chinese economy? Folks skeptical of Chinese plans point to estimates by the International Energy Agency to argue that China is essentially promising to keep doing what it is doing already--so it shouldn't be seen as a game-changer ahead of Copenhagen.
That is 'demonstrably false,' says Mr. Chandler. His argument: The Chinese economy got less energy intensive since 2000, as heavy industry and manufacturing caused a big jump in energy use. Only 'draconian' measures in recent years have turned that tendency around and put China on the path to a cleaner economy.
So it's not fair to consider the recent crackdown on energy use 'business as usual,' he says:
'The policy imposes hundreds of detailed industrial efficiency standards to a degree unparalleled in any other country in the world. The policy has forced closure of tens of thousands of factories, power plants, and production lines that failed to meet the standards. It is unimaginable that such a policy could ever be enacted in the United States, much less be continued for another decade. It's a non-trivial error to call it a 'reference case,' as the IEA has done.'
Which means that Chinese promises should be embraced as a big step forward--and should prod the U.S. to take strong steps too, he says.
It's a hugely important fight. The U.S. position on the global climate deal largely depends on what China does--or is perceived to be doing. Chief U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern said today in Copenhagen, 'There is no way to solve this problem by giving developing countries a pass.'
Keith Johnson
没有评论:
发表评论