中国与世界,环境危机大家谈

china and the world discuss the environment

  • linkedin group
  • sini weibo
  • facebook
  • twitter
envelope

注册订阅每周免费邮件
Sign up for email updates


文章 Articles

书评:绿色的美国梦想家

约翰 格雷

Readinen
Book_hotflat

在全球应对气候变化和能源需求方面,中国和其他发展中国家将发挥主导作用。约翰•格雷对托马斯•弗里德曼《又热又平又挤》一书中所表露的民族主义不能苟同。

《又热又平又挤:世界为何需要一次绿色革命以及我们如何重塑世界未来》
托马斯·弗里德曼 
艾伦莱恩出版社,2008

 

很少有作家像托马斯·弗里德曼那样善于抓住美国人的心理。在1999年出版的《凌志汽车与橄榄树》一书中,这位颇具影响力的《纽约时报》专栏作家以胜利的世纪末方式为全球化的终点就是通通美国化而欢呼喝彩。在2005年面世的《世界是平的》一书中,赞歌还在继续,不过那时候全球化看起来不是这般有利无害了,弗里德曼的礼赞中隐含着全球化对美国生活方式的威胁。该书表达的信息之一,就是美国需要减少对石油进口的依赖。

美国“能源自主”将使美国从全球市场脱钩。这位全球化预言家似乎在表明,美国可以籍此对全球化事实上带来的可怕的非美世界不予理睬。

弗里德曼最近出版的书综合了自伊拉克灾难突显以来在美国散播的各种思想。战争支持者认为,伊拉克的石油一旦被掌握并实现私有化,油价将下降,其中美国前国防部副部长、后来担任世行行长的保罗·沃尔福威茨指出,入侵将自筹经费,并带来全球经济繁荣。实际上,开发伊拉克的石油资产证明是非常困难的,产量比萨达姆·侯赛因统治时期还低,而油价却节节攀升。

在这一点上,即使是至今仍将绿色思想视为卑鄙左翼阴谋的新保守主义者,也变得对节能感兴趣。尽管弗里德曼本人不是新保守主义者——他在很多问题上持有自由主义、甚至是社会民主主义的观点,但在敦促对美国环境政策进行根本的反思这一问题上,他和新保守主义者意见一致,《又热又平又挤》就是这种反思的结果。

此书很“弗里德曼”,笔调极度之乐观,似乎是接连在候机厅里写就的,书中纵览了过去二十年里美国政治的痴心妄想。他告诉读者其所谓的“石油政治第一定律”,宣称油价跌、自由兴。他认为,油价跌至每桶20美元,就会在整个波斯湾地区触发民主革命,而在某种意义上他是对的。油价崩盘将动摇现行政权,并很可能带来民主的传播。但是在多数情况下,当然包括对西方石油供应依然很重要的沙特阿拉伯在内,上台的将会是伊斯兰版的民主——对西方利益不利。

弗里德曼特别强调了巴林的例子,告诉我们石油枯竭的前景正引发民主改革。不过这种民主化的结果尚未可知,所谓的石油政治定律大体上只不过是一厢情愿的说法。

在其他时候,弗里德曼出奇地现实。他写道:“快速的经济增长和人口膨胀正导致森林和其他生态系统以前所未有的速度遭到破坏,破坏这些森林和生物多样性丰富的环境反过来通过释放更多的碳到空气中而促使气候变化的发生。”

这里,弗里德曼认识到环境危机和我们整个行为方式因此有必要转变之间的相互关系。尽管他提出的“能源互联网”(“一个巨大的使用、存储、生产甚至买卖清洁电力的无缝平台”)建议听起来不现实,但他却强有力地认识到,有效应对气候变化必须包括高科技解决方案,譬如核能。

信息技术和能源技术的大规模融合会有诸多的好处,但是在一个各国为能源而竞争并利用这些资源作为地缘政治杠杆的世界里,在全球运作这样的方案没有前途。即便如此,弗里德曼专注于用技术解决环境问题,比依靠政治变革的乌托邦式主流绿色思想更接近现实。

弗里德曼对世界所面临的环境挑战的讨论含有诸多有价值的见解,然而从整部书来看,这些见解几乎是无意中产生的。《又热又平又挤》只不过是附带性地论及环境,其真正的主题不是世界,而是美国,弗里德曼历来如此。结尾段的狭隘主义让人感到困窘:“我们需要重新界定绿色和重新发现美国,籍此重新发现我们自己以及作为美国人意味着什么。我们所有人再次成为清教徒,我们所有人再次在五月花号上航行。”

这种美国中心论在20年前可能还有些意义。当今之世,美国乃一蹒跚大国,这种受到蒙骗的观念实在可笑。在全球应对气候变化和能源需求方面,起决定性主导作用的不是美国,而是新兴国家,尤其是中国,而且中国绝对不是在五月花号上航行。的确,弗里德曼对中国领导人的环境意识给予了勉强的赞扬,只不过前提是中国要变得更像美国:“他们永远不会这么说,但是我认为,随着时间的推移,至少要有少许的橙色——依照乌克兰2004年的橙色革命,否则他们就不能走向绿色。”

自写下那句话以来,事件使局势发生了改变。俄国在高加索的自恃展示了正在塑造世界政治的地缘政治力量,橙色革命的未来不像仅在几个月前那么确定了。确切地说,至少从弗里德曼关注自我的角度来看,美国人如今有其他的考虑。伊拉克溃败之后的环境忧虑,和战争本身一起,正从美国政治的中心淡出,如今是一门心思努力避免灾难性的经济萧条。美国人的心理正在和经济崩溃的担忧作斗争,这种担忧是有根据的,而且很难通过弗里德曼略带绿色的民族主义而为之一振。

结果尚未可知,但是随着担忧的加深,在近海钻探石油和重开煤矿可能是美国所要采取的办法。历史在发展,美国人的心理已然发生转变,这一次弗里德曼可没能抓住。

约翰·格雷的《黑弥撒:宗教的启迪和乌托邦的灭亡》已由企鹅出版社出版。

 

来源:http://www.guardian.co.uk/

 

卫报新闻传媒有限公司2008年版权所有

 

评论 comments

5

评论 comments

中文

EN

嗨 Hi Guest user

退出 Logout /


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

排序 Sort By:

全面的评论

这是一个全面的好评论,看完它我甚至想再阅读一些托马斯•弗里德曼的文章.. 通常我不会想这么做(我不是他的专栏粉丝)。我必须承认,我唯一读过的评论是纽约出版社的这条评论,虽然不免偏颇,但非常有趣。SP

本文由Chen Fangfang翻译

Balanced review

This balanced and well-written review actually made me want to read more Tom Friedman... Something I am not normally tempted to do (I am no great fan of his columns). I have to admit the only review I had read was this rather amusing, if unbalanced one in the New York Press. SP


世界是很热,很挤,但不是平的

我很早就想指出,托马斯•弗里德曼的世界是平的,但是我们发展中国家的人民可不是这么看:世界绝不是平的。互联网改变了很多,可是,互联网的通用语言是英语或者美语,对中国的大多数人民来说,由于语言的不通,结果造成这个世界越来越不平。在我们使用世界语以前,我看这个世界永远“平”不了。

如果我说,语言所造成的问题很大,托马斯•弗里德曼也许不相信。现实是,恐怕,通过翻译出来的先进思想,很大场合都被曲解了。举个例子,去年,世界可持续发展工商理事会发表了全球大企业的CEO给8国集团首脑的一封信,就是关于应对气候变化的政策制定工商界的建议。如果你有幸读过英文版,再看看中文的翻译,你就会发现那简直就是垃圾。中文当然是给中国人看的,可是,可以这么说,那个翻译搞完全曲解了这封信,很多数据,目标,实践都搞错了。我很担心,这种事情是不是在其它重要场合也发生过?!没有英文能力的很多( 绝大多数) 中国人民,实际上还处于文化的“初级阶段”,任由各种垃圾文化所侵扰,得不到真正的,完全的,清晰的信息。托马斯•弗里德曼还谈到了中国的环境以及能源方面的事,我感觉,这个话题他根本没有资格谈。就像他书中提到了很多次的ROB WATSON一样,在中国的环境中,他们的使命注定要失败:后者在中国推广所谓的绿色建筑,这么多年了,也没有什么成效。把中国变绿,我们最需要的是什么?教育。他还没有认识到这一点。至于什么乱七八糟的民主也好,还是革命也好,我们不关心,也关心不了。从专业的角度看这本书,最多就是个启蒙读物,尽管书中列举了那么多专家和顾问。

The world is hot and crowded but it is not flat

For a while I've wanted to say that Thomas Friedman's world may be flat, but we, the people of developing countries don't see it like that: the world is definitely not flat. The Internet has changed many things but the language of the Internet is English or American and as far as the majority of Chinese people are concerned, the result of this language difference is that the world is becoming more and more uneven. Before we used the global language, I thought the world would never be 'flattened'. If I say that language causes a big problem, Thomas Friedman might not believe me. I'm afraid the reality is that in translation sophisticated theories are often misinterpreted. For example, last year the World Business Council for Sustainable Development published a letter from the CEOs of large global corporations to the leaders of the G8 which set out suggestions from the world of industry and commerce in response to policies on climate change. If you were fortunate enough to read the English version, looking again at the Chinese translation you could immediately tell that it was rubbish. The Chinese is of course meant for Chinese people to read, but you could say, the translation completely misinterpreted the letter: many statistics, targets and practices were given incorrectly. I am concerned about whether this has happened before on other important occasions! In reality, many (the overwhelming majority of) Chinese people who have no English language skills remain, in terms of education, in the "elementary stage", are bombarded with all kinds of rubbish culture and cannot get hold of correct, complete, clear information. Thomas Friedman also mentions China's environmental and energy-related matters and I think he is in no way qualified to talk about these matters. It's the same with Rob Watson whom he mentions many times in his book, in China's environment, their mission is doomed to fail: the latter has promoted so-called green buildings in China for many years without results. What do we need the most in order to turn China green? Education. He still has not acknowledged this. Some kind of chaotic democracy or revolution, we don't care, we are unable to care. Looking at this book from an expert's point of view, at most it is basic reading material, although lots of experts and consultants are listed in the book.
(Translated by Jodie Gardiner)


节能需要什么样的教育?

如果我再补充一下我在上文中说的“教育”的话,这个教育具体来说就是指节能的专业的教育。很多人,包括发展改革委员会系统这样主管节能的机构,还回答不了“节能”到底“节”什么这个问题的答案。我们有多少专家搞节能啊?我们有哪所高等院校开展节能的本科教育啊?职业教育有谁提供节能班?没有。日本为什么节能做得好啊,是人家聪明我们笨嘛?不是。我们让数据说话。截止到2006年底,日本全国就有超过65000名日本政府认证的节能专家;连印度这个我们认为落后于我们的国家,到2006年底,也大约有6500名经过国家考试和认证的能源管理师和能源审计师,我们是一个都没有啊。

节能是要“以人为本”,我们不建立节能的专业化队伍,拥有成千上万名节能师,我们恐怕还会重复这样的恶性循环:生意好的时候没时间节能,经济危机的时候没有钱节能。

关于这本书,我还想特别指出来一点就是,弗里德曼先生认为我们中国的建筑能耗占了总用能的40%,据说这是世界的经验。这是个误解,我们的工业使用了超过全国70%的能源,电力所占的比例恐怕还要高。工业是我们的主要矛盾,至于建筑嘛,我们等等看吧。

Saving energy: what kind of education do we need?

If I can add to what I said about 'education' in the text above, this education specifically refers to specialist education regarding saving energy. Lots of people, including officials like those in development reform committee system, are still unable to answer the question what do you actually "save" when you are "saving energy". How many experts do we have engaged in saving energy? Which of our higher education institutions are developing undergraduate level education in energy saving? In vocational education who is providing classes in saving energy? No one. Why is Japan so good at saving energy - is it that they are clever and we are stupid? No. We'll let the statistics speak for themselves. Up until the end of 2006 in Japan there were over 65000 energy saving experts registered with the Japanese government; even India, a country we think of as lagging behind us, had 6500 energy resource management experts and energy auditors who had passed state exams and been certified by the end of 2006, we did not have a single one. Saving energy needs to be people-orientated; if we do not build a specialist team of hundreds of thousands of energy saving experts, I'm afraid we will repeat this vicious circle: when business is good, no time to save energy, in times of economic crisis, no money to save energy. As for this book, I still think a point worth pointing out is Mr Friedman thinks that China's power consumption from construction makes up 40% of the total, allegedly this is the world's experience. This is a misunderstanding, industry uses over 70% of energy nationally; I'm afraid the percentage for electricity consumption is even higher. Industry is our largest contradiction, as for construction, we'll have to wait and see. (Translated by Jodie Gardiner)


节能节什么?

感谢Jodie的翻译。不过我想指出来,我上面说的建筑节能,翻译成energy consumption in buildings而不是construction可能更准确一点。今天我看了一篇文章,说的是低碳生活的事,我也发表了一篇评论。真是不幸啊,真被我言中了!节能节什么这个问题,看来确实是个大问题。我想重申一下,节能就是省钱,节钱,没有其它含义。省钱为“因”,节能为“果”,因果关系不能颠倒啊。我们的节能主管如果能够明白了这个事情,我看不要你天天那个大棒撵别人节能,别人也会大力节能,为什么,有钱赚吗。我们古话说,无利不赶早。没钱赚,谁会积极。没有经济驱动的行为不可能长久,不管是中国还是外国,都一码事。所以,政府也好好事企业也好,你就要设计符合人的本性的政策以及激励制度,从管理上和制度上,发挥个体节能,省钱的积极性才行。那么,这个又印证了我前面的看法,节能教育最重要,人才最重要。

[email protected],

Chief Energy Efficiency Specialist,
China Association of Resources Efficiency
Certified Energy Manager,
Assistant Director,
CEM China Program
Association of Energy Engineers

What does energry saving for?

Thank you Jodie for your translation. But I must point out that in the translation of energy consumption in buildings above, "buildings" is a more accurate translation than the word "contruction". Today I saw an essay about low-carbon living and I wrote a comment about it as well. My words are pessimistic but truthful. Indeed, saving energy is a big issue. I want to reaffirm that energy saving is saving money, that is it. If saving money is the root, then saving energy becomes the fruit, and this causal relationship can't be reversed. If the director of energy reduction can become aware of this fact, then we needn’t make so much effort in saving energy any more. Why? Because of the economic incentive. There is an old saying goes that people won't get up early without money. Who will be active without the incentive of making money? With this in mind, whether it is the government, or enterprises, if you want to work out a policy and incentive system to meet the basic needs of the people, at the administrative and institutional levels, the only way you can do it is by putting into play the individual’s ability to proactively save energy by saving money. This validates my abovementioned point, that education about saving energy is the most important because people are the most important.
[email protected], Chief Energy Efficiency Specialist, China Association of Resources Efficiency Certified Energy Manager, Assistant Director, CEM China Program Association of Energy Engineers
(Translate by Tian Liang)


工业用了多少电,诘问弗里德曼

我们看一下国家电力监管委员会3月16日发布的全社会1-2月份用电的统计数据。
1-2月份,全国全社会用电量4972.18亿千瓦时,同比下降5.22%。第一产业用电量112.41亿千瓦时,同比增长4.88%;第二产业用电量3493.14亿千瓦时,同比下降10.19%;第三产业用电量627.52亿千瓦时,同比增长7.66%;城乡居民生活用电量739.10亿千瓦时,同比增长10.91%。
  1-2月份,全国工业用电量为3436.66亿千瓦时,同比下降10.37%;轻、重工业用电量同比下降分别为10.57%和10.37%。
或者参考http://www.serc.gov.cn/ywdd/200903/t20090316_11136.htm

我算了算,1-2月份工业用电占了全社会用电的69.11%。由于供电部门会自动给企业的用电进行分类,所以这个应该比较准确。数据已经说明了问题,但是也许很多人并没有看过这本有趣的书。

Question Friedman on how much electricity industry uses

We've looked at the statistics on national electricity use for January and February published by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission on March 16. In January and February, total national electricity use was 497218 million kilowatt hours, a decrease of 5.22%; The total electricity used by primary industry was 11241 million kwh, an increase of 4.88%; the total electricity used by secondary industry was 349314 million kwh, an increase of 10.19%, tertiary industry used 62752 million kwh, an increase of 7.66%; domestic use by urban and rural residents was 73910 million kwh, an increase of 10.91%. In January and February, the total electricity used by industry was 343666 million kwh, a decrease of 10.37%; use of electricity in light and heavy industry fell by 10.57% and 10.37% respectively. Or consult http://serc.gov.cn/ywdd/200903/t20090316_11136.htm. I've done the calculations: industry accounted for 69.11% of total electricity use in January and February. Because the power supply department automatically classifies the electricity it provides to industry, this should be fairly accurate. The statistics have already explained the problems, but perhaps many people have not read this interesting book. (translated by Jodie Gardiner)


合作伙伴 Partners

项目 Projects