文章 Articles

中国前气候大使:人生而平等

刚刚卸任中国气候大使之职的于庆泰本月发表演讲,谈到中国在哥本哈根扮演的角色,并认为发展中国家必须坚持反抗来自发达国家的不公要求。请看中外对话为该演讲编写的概要。

Article image

86日,刚刚卸任中国气候大使之职的于庆泰在北京大学国际关系学院,做了以气候变化谈判:回望与前瞻为题的演讲。他认为中国在哥本哈根大会上发挥了决定性作用,同时认为,人人生而平等,中国不能承担超出其历史责任的义务,在谈判中必须把国家利益放于首位。

 

要不要坚持“共同但有区别的责任”的原则是核心矛盾

 

2007年在巴厘岛召开的缔约方会议,通过了一系列决定,统称为巴厘路线图,拉开了一个为期两年的谈判进程。谈判贯穿始终的核心矛盾是,要不要坚持“共同但有区别的责任”的原则。

发达国家在谈判中的核心立场一直是竭力淡化、重新解读或否定这一原则。作为气候变化问题的主要制造者,发达国家长期排放、积累恶果,法律规定他们应承担率先减排的义务和给发展中国家提供资金和技术帮助其减排的责任。发达国家确实做了一些事情,但远远不如他们渲染的多。

国际金融危机爆发后,发达国家先后进入经济衰退,节能减排成本提高,企业界、经济界抵触情绪越来越大,态度越来越消极,同时千方百计转嫁给发展中国家,要求他们承担大大超出历史责任和现实能力的义务,实际是要牺牲发展中国家的利益,保持并进一步扩大自己的发展优势。发展中国家认为其自私、不合理,必然要抵制。

种种矛盾导致谈判两年没有实质性进展。

 

中国为挽救哥本哈根会议发挥了决定性作用

 

会前,一些发达国家认为如果发展中大国首先妥协,其他国家则不在话下,于是把注意力引向中国,试图以排放最多的发展中国家为突破口,向中国和印度施压,要求其承担更多义务。

哥本哈根会议的实质还是在“共同但有区别的责任”原则上的较量。发展中国家最终有效顶住了来自发达国家的巨大压力,维护了自己的发展权,推动会议取得了积极的阶段性成果。

我认为中国政府积极从容的应对了巨大压力。首先,中国政府进一步向世界展示,中国是负责任的国家,会前就主动宣布了中国未来十年的行动和目标。中国的行动不附加任何条件,因为我们认为不能把人类的共同利益作为讨价还价的筹码。中国的做法与发达国家讨价还价形成了鲜明对照。

第二,中国政府在发展权上决不让步。欧盟说中国的减排目标是照常排放,等于什么都没做。他们不想一想,他们提30%的目标都要附加一堆条件,而我们减40%,他却说我们是照常排放。所以当时温家宝总理明确指出,中国自己提出的目标是在反复论证的基础上确立的,中国提出的目标不容谈判。彻底打消了发达国家不合理的要求。

第三,哥本哈根没有谈崩,中国做出了积极、重要、决定性的努力。温家宝总理在短短三天里,开展了频繁的外交活动,向各方传达:哥本哈根会议已经到了关键时刻,大家应该求同存异,弥合分歧,尽快凝聚共识,为未来合作打下基础。会议后期,温总理本来已经奔赴机场,又决定返回会场,再做一次努力。他紧急联系了巴西、印度、南非首脑。其中有些也是从机场返回。五国(包括美国)就在中国聚在一起,开始讨论核心难点。

谈判中的问题焦点有两处。一个是长远目标。由于二氧化碳在空气中的浓度和到2050年的减排幅度两个指标上争议太大,所以最终决定在协议中不提了,单提出了温控在2度的目标。

其次就是“三可”(可测量、可报告、可核查)问题。发达国家要把核查范围扩大到发展中国家整个国民经济发展过程,要审核其发展规划和碳路径。我的想法是,凭什么?我们未来的发展规划是依靠我们的力量要办的事情,你有什么资格审核我们国家国民经济发展的规划?谁给你权利?最后达成妥协,改为“国际磋商与分析”。中国将向国际社会通报我们采取的行动,欢迎国际社会参与讨论和交流。

哥本哈根结束以后,欧洲人有一些强烈的反应,原因之一是他们认为,气候变化是我在发挥领导作用,哥本哈根是我大力推动的,但是到了关键问题上,我却被边际化了。在关键时刻没有发挥应有作用,所以不满。

 

坎昆会议:共识与矛盾交织,合作与斗争并存

 

我个人感觉,哥本哈根后各方都开始采取更加平和、务实、理性的态度。不会再走哥本哈根会议之前大肆炒作、把期望值推到很高、似乎人类命运就取决于一次国际会议的老路。

期望值降低,实现预期的可能性就增高了。如果能有成果挺好,如果还谈不完,一年以后还有南非会议。各方策略会有调整,比如过去一味向发展中大国施加压力、要他们妥协投降的做法,可能会转变为对话和沟通。但根本上不变的是:

1.各方寻求合作。尽管分歧、利益冲突会长期存在,但气候变化问题本身的全球化特征要求必须全球合作。各方需要寻求最低限度的共识,为合作打下基础。这点各方都不会放弃。

2.矛盾主线仍是共同但有区别的责任,尤其是在实际合作中体现。发达国家会继续转嫁责任,发展中国家也会继续抵制。

3.发展中国家会作为一个整体,继续捍卫自己的发展空间和权利,限制发展中国家不会接受以延续自己的贫困状态为代价应对气候变化。

总之,后哥本哈根时期,将是共识与矛盾交织,合作与斗争并存。长期、基本的态势。

 

发展权问题:人生而平等

 

我在三年气候变化工作中有一些个人体会:关心气候变化和中国作用,一定要放在中国经济社会发展的大进程的背景下,不能忽视基本国情。中国能源结构必然以煤炭为基础,不用煤,一百几十美元一桶的石油,中国人哪买得起?我们有自身的发展制约因素,必须要考虑节能减排的成本和代价,保持经济社会健康发展,因为许多问题必须通过发展来解决。

我们不能盲目谈保护气候是人类共同的利益,必须始终把国家利益放于首位。个人热心保护气候、愿意为之做出牺牲,值得尊重和提倡。我自己平时上班也是走路或乘公交。个人可以不开车,但作为中国不能没有汽车工业。个人可以节约用电,但印度六亿人用不上电,国家就必须发展,满足他们的用电需求。如果这个过程增加了排放,那我个人认为,增加又如何?老百姓要有享受更美好生活的权利。

我曾对一个发达国家学者说,你们每个家庭两辆车,几十年了,排放已经积累在大气中。我们中国很多家庭刚刚买第一辆车,你就告诉我,还是自行车好。没有道理。我们要做的是让大家通过经济的发展有能力买汽车,同时通过政府的税收和补贴政策,鼓励大家购买小排量车、多坐公交。

对于温室气体排放,不能只看当前不看历史、不能只看总体不看人均。中国累计排放只占全球7%。排放的背面是能源消耗,而能源消耗是社会发展的基础。作为一个中国人,不可能接受,一个来自发达国家的人在能源消耗上比我享受更多的权利。人人生而平等,不是空洞的口号。美国人没有理由要求中国人,在能源消耗上只享受美国人20%的权利。我们不希望走你们污染的老路,但是中国人有权利追求更美好的生活。

发达国家应对气候变化的态度,宣讲的有效性往往比我们做得好,但更重要的是观其行。总体来讲,实事求是的说,他们说与做差距很大。

减排方面,有一些欧洲国家做的好,但美国、新西兰、澳大利亚、日本、西班牙、意大利等国家的排放不仅没减少,还大幅度增加,而且丝毫不觉得自己做错了,没有任何愧疚感。

公约到现在将近二十年的时间,基本上没有做什么事情。传统的发展援助,包装一下,贴上“气候”标签,就成为了气候变化援助。技术转让不仅没有有效实现,一些发达国家甚至还想着要借手上掌握的技术,发气候财。

有人问,中国为什么不能对外宣传得热闹一点?我想有文化差异的原因,但也是因为这是我们国家的特性,与其夸夸其谈,不如扎扎实实做事。

 

于庆泰2007年从中国驻坦桑尼亚大使之职调为中国气候大使,参与了巴厘岛、波兹南和哥本哈根的三次缔约方大会,以及期间的多次气候变化谈判。不久前他被任命为中国驻捷克大使。 

首页图片来自Adopt a Negotiator/Fontane Lau

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

让人开眼界的文章

哇,很棒的文章。我还没读过这样一篇如此清晰地叙述中国对于气候变化问题立场的文章。

我觉得,于先生有一些很有价值的观点。不过一个主要缺点就是他说,他们有什么权利估算/报告/证实我们国家在发生什么?

听着,如果哥本哈根协议要求把气温升高控制在2摄氏度以内,那么科学家将会决定排放多少二氧化碳是安全的,我们又需要减排多少。如果我们不能估算出中国现在的排放量(目前是>20%的排放量),就无法确定是否可以将气温升高控制在2摄氏度内。为什么不将MRV透明化,这样中国就能知道欧盟和美国在做什么,反之亦然。我也是在不明白这样怎么就侵犯了中国,作为一个国家,的主权呢?如果中国对自己的行为足够自信(我深知不能做夸大其词的言论),那为什么不邀请外国来测算和确实呢。或者说我们就应该信任你?

我想这对每个国家都一样。全体人类?显然,中国并不关心这个。

本评论由陈丽英翻译

eye opening stuff

wow this is a great article, i've never read the chinese position on climate change so clearly put in one article like this.

i think mr yu makes some really valid points. i would say his one major flaw is in saying "what right do they have to measure/report/verify what's going on in our country?"

listen, if it's in the copenhagen accord to limit to 2 degrees C increase, then the scientists will decide how much more carbon can be released safely and therefore how much we need to reduce emissions. if we can't measure what china is emitting (>20% of emissions now), then we won't be able to know if we are going to keep the temperature within 2 C rise. why not make this MRV transparent so China can see exactly what EU/US is doing and EU/US can see exactly what China is doing? I actually don't understand how this infringes on the sovereign rights of China as a nation. If China is so confident in its actions (and I know so humble, don't make boastful statements blah blah blah), then why not welcome foreign countries to measure and make sure. Or should we just trust you?

Well I guess its every country for themselves then. Humanity as a whole? Apparently, that's not a concern for China.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

这不仅仅是“国家利益”的问题

目前的紧急情况牵涉不相干的历史责任问题。我们不能再相互推诿。

将应对气候变化视作中国国家利益的阻碍是一种短视行为。可持续发展与减排不仅仅是中国的国家利益,也是所有发展中国家和发达国家的国家利益。事实上,像孟加拉这样的发展中国家,最容易遭受气候变化带来的恶劣影响。

所以的确,我们无法谴责“更美好生活的权利”。但是,如果不能够切实减排的话,这种“更美好的生活”就是幻想。

我不想生活在每一个中国人都拥有一辆汽车的世界里。

Beyond "national interest"

The urgency of the present situation renders the issue of historical responsibility irrelevant. We need to move beyond the blame-game.

It is short-sighted to see tackling climate change as a hindrance to China's "national interest". Sustainable development and reduction in emissions is preceisely in the national interest of not just China, but all "developing" and "developed" countries. Indeed, developing countries like Bangladesh are those among the most vulnerable to the effects wrought by climate change.

So yes, no qualms with the "right to a better life". But this "better life" is a fantasy if emissions are not reduced.

I don't want to live in a world where everyone in China owns a car.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

不敢苟同

于先生这样的言论和态度,在其他的官员的公开讲话中经常见到,不足为怪。只是这次他是在北京大学说的这番话,好在北大有兼容并包,自由精神和独立人格的传统。我为中国人之“发展权问题:人生而平等”的态度,对“对于温室气体排放,不能只看当前不看历史、不能只看总体不看人均”的说法感到耻辱,这与中国的历史人文精神传统相去甚远。大气层不知道历史和当前,总体和人均排放,大气层只知道排放到达何种程度回发生什么变化,不可逆转的变化。 王健

I cannot agree

The sorts of views and attitude expressed by Mr. Yu here are unsurprising and they frequently crop up other public speeches by officials. It's just that this particular speech was given at Peking University, where they have a tradition of all-inclusivity, intellectual freedom and independence. I’m embarrassed by Chinese people's "rights to develope: we are created equal" attitude and by the justification that "When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, we cannot simply look at the current situation and ignore history, nor look at overall emissions and ignore per capita figures." Such sentiments are completely at odds with the spirit of China’s history and culture. As far as the atmosphere is concerned there is no present and past, no overall emissions and per-capita figures; what matters as far as the atmosphere is concerned is what will happen when emissions reach a certain level: change that is irreversible.
Wang Jian

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

诉诸民族主义而输掉了辩论

当于庆泰说到中国的利益,他真正指的是地方和国家的政府利益,并非中国人民的利益。他诉诸原始的民族主义表明,他已经输了这场辩论。

于先生,请您积极地为那些弱小的、声音没人听到的、受温室气体影响很大的国家说话,让他们的公民不受温室气体所带来的灾难所困扰——包括一些在中国被淘汰但在别的地方还在被消耗的东西——但请不要说中国有特殊情况。(大多数德国的排放)

如果中国稍微多卖出一些美国国券并缩减军事预算/ 核武库,就就足够确保有关污染的立法(包括在燃煤发电厂方面)被执行,并将因此极大地提高中国在世界上的公共形象和国民生活质量(他们中有几百万人看起来那么不开心,于是选择了在国外生活)——而且还减少了(高碳耗的)军事“需求”。

Resorting to nationalism looses the argument

When Yu Qingtai refers to China's interest he is really referring to the local and state government interest, not that of China or its people. Resorting to raw nationalism as he does is a sign that he has lost the argument.

Please, Mr Yu, campaign vigorously against those countries which are making feeble attempts to ween their citizens off carbon - including that which is emitted in China but consumed elsewhere - but don't say that China is a special case. (Much of Germany's emissions)

If China sold a few more US Treasury Bills and reduced its military budget / nuclear arsenal, there would be more than enough to ensure that its laws concerning pollution (including in coal fired-power stations) were enforced - thereby greatly improving both China's public image worldwide and the life of the Chinese (millions of whom seem so unhappy that they now choose to live outside China) - reducing the "need" for the (very carbon intensive) military.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

坎昆和侃空

我们老家有个词和坎昆很相似,就是侃空,也就是胡扯的意思。对于哥本哈根也好、坎昆也好,我看命中注定就是一场侃空,为什么呢?因为我们一些基本的问题都没有解决,我们需要政治家是不错,但是如果最后就变成政治家在比口才,哪还有什么意义呢?我们的气候专家都是政治家,不是科学家,不是严肃的科学家。他们的水准,也就在国内忽悠忽悠还可以,拿不到国际台面上谈。

Cancun and Kankong

Our old village has a word very similar to Cancun(坎昆); kankong(侃空), which also means baloney. With regard to the Copenhagan agreement, there's nothing wrong with it or with Cancun. I think that fate has doomed us to a load of kankong; why?

Because some of our fundamental problems haven't been resolved. We certainly need politicians, but if all we end up with is politicians competing at speeches, what's the point? Our climate change experts are all politicians, not scientists, not serious scientists. They're good enough to hold some sway domestically, but not to discuss matters on the international stage.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中国式思维

当于庆泰说“凭什么?我们未来的发展规划是依靠我们的力量要办的事情,你有什么资格审核我们国家国民经济发展的规划?谁给你权利?”我的反应是,如果于庆泰援引协议的规定,而不是做这般很“江湖”的发问,也许更能为外界的理性者接受。但语言措辞上的差异其实反应了思维方式的不同。我还记得他说,现在中国不像一百多年前了,那时中国会同意,现在不会了。这种心态大概来自中国过去被列强欺凌的创伤。我想只有当中国不再念念不忘过去的恩怨、建立起平和的心态,才是这个民族真正自信的开始。

Chinese- Style Thinking

When Yu Qingtai says "On what grounds? Our future economic planning is a matter dependent on our own ability to implement it, what qualifications do you have to audit our plans for the development of the national people's economy? Who gave you the right?" My response is that, if Yu Qingtai invoked the stipulations of the agreement, rather than such asking such "jiang hu" questions, perhaps rational people abroad would accept what he has to say.

But the difference in wording actually reflects differences in thinking. I still remember that he said that China today doesn't resemble China of one hundred years ago; at that time China could agree, whereas it cannot now. Such an attitude probably comes from the trauma caused by bullying powers in the past. I think that the beginning of true self- confidence in the Chinese people will only come about when they stop endlessly remembering past resentment, and establish a mild attitude.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

Julian Chen

1)“共同但是有区别的责任”,是不是只有京都议定书这么一种解读?
2)30%和40%的这种比较,把我们都当傻子了。
3)除了“平等”,“透明”也是同样重要的。中国环境数据的准确性透明度的问题,简直是罄竹难书啊。
4)确实要考虑国家利益,因为国家利益就是人类利益的一部分,如果这个政府确实是代表了这个国家人民的利益的话。
5)还是应该以合作态度来应对气候变化,对抗性的互动不会推进进程向前发展。

Julian Chen

1) "However,the CCP has different responsibilities": is that to say that there's only this one kind of interpretation of the Kyoto Protocol?

2) 30% and 40% of this kind of comparison treats us all as idiots.

3) Other than "equality", "transparency" is important in the same way. The problems with the transparency and accuracy of Chinese envronmental data are simply too numerous to mention.

4) Chinese national interests should certainly be considered, because national interests constitute one part of the interests of humanity, as long as a given government really does represent the interests of the people of its' country.

5) We should respond to climate change in the spirit of co- operation; confrontational interaction cannot spur the process onward.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

耐人寻味的标题翻译

中文:人生而平等
英文:China’s interests must come first

Intriguing Title Translation

Chinese: "Men Are Born Equal"
English: China's interests must come first

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

回复7号

我想这个标题肯定不是翻译的。不同语言的读者有不同的阅读思维,两者都是提炼于庆泰的话,角度有区别而已。中外对话很多文章中英文标题都有差异,想必也是这个原因。

Reply to Comment NO.7

I don't think the title was a translation problem. People from different cultures have different reading habits. Both of these two titles are taken from Yu Qingtai's speech, they are just titled in different angles. And many articles at chinadialogue use different titles for English and Chinese versions, presumably this is the same.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

回复8号

中外对话很多文章中英文标题不同,主要是直译和意译的不同。
但这一次,显然不是那么简单。
我更愿意相信,编辑是有意为之!!

Reply to Comment No. 8

Yes, many articles on China Dialogue do have different titles for the Chinese and English versions, mainly according to whether the translator has opted for a literal or a more liberal translation. However, in this case it’s clear the issue isn’t quite so simple. I’m inclined to believe this was a deliberate intervention on the part of the editor.