文章 Articles

欲加之罪:美国新能源反补贴调查

美国最大的工会组织向奥巴马施压,要求其启动对中国清洁技术补贴的调查。这一保护主义举动只会阻碍绿色进程,助长气候怀疑论。文佳筠撰文。

Article image

9月9日,美国最大的一个工会组织,美国钢铁工人联合会根据《1974年美国贸易法案》第301节的规定,提交了一份长达5800页的诉状,指责中国政府违反了国际贸易法,向绿色科技生产商及出口商提供数千亿美元的不正当补贴。他们要求美国政府对此展开调查,并将此案提交给世界贸易组织。上周五(10月15日),奥巴马政府宣布将对反补贴诉讼展开调查。

一个美国的工会投诉中国没有参与寻底竞争?这听起来让人感到震惊。确实,中国在可再生能源方面的投入要超过美国。据美国非营利组织皮尤公益信托基金的一份报告显示,2009年,中国在清洁能源领域的投入达346亿美元(2310亿元),而美国仅投入了186亿美元(1240亿元),分别占两国GDP的0.39%和0.13%。然而,在化石燃料替代能源领域进行大量的投资不正是各国为了降低温室气体排放以及创造绿色就业机会所需要做的吗?就这一点而言,西班牙2009年在清洁能源领域的投入占其GDP的0.74%,而英国则占0.51%。这两国均位于世界前列。

9月22日,包括美国钢铁工人联合会以及蓝绿联盟(由美国钢铁工人联合会及塞拉俱乐部发起的劳工环境联盟组织)的专家在内的专家组在华盛顿特区联合召开了“创造公平的竞争环境——中国清洁能源补贴:美国钢铁工人联合会301条款申诉新闻发布会”。人们不禁要问:一个只是在嘴上空谈可再生能源及低碳发展的重要性,却不采取行动的“公平竞争环境”是否是我们真正需要的?为何美国钢铁工人联合会不能督促奥巴马政府停止空谈,采取切实行动支持绿色产业就业?相反,却对做了正确决策的中国横加指责,而这一决策正是美国自己本应做的。

为了公正起见,蓝绿联合会仍然在努力充实其申诉书,从而突出美国国内对采取行动的迫切需要。9月9日的一次新闻发布会上,该组织称:“美国钢铁工人联合会今天所提出的301条款申诉强调了美国迅速采取行动利用清洁能源经济增加就业机会的重要性。美国延迟行动的每一天就是中国利用清洁能源技术进行生产创造就业机会的每一天。而这些技术的开发、生产、及推广本来可以,而且也应该在美国进行。 ”

然而,不幸的是,事实并没有因此而改变。在这份长达5800页的申述书中,大部分内容都是在针对中国,而不是探讨美国国内的政策究竟出了哪些问题。您可以试想一下结局。人类的天性几乎就是如此,如果可以将问题算到“别人头上”(此次事件中,是中国的头上),那么人们就会失去从自己本国寻求解决办法的动力。问题真正出在哪里非常明显:美国缺乏雄心,而且国家政策缺乏连贯性。

一位德国朋友在谈论这一问题时说道:“有些人愿意安装风力涡轮机或制造太阳能板,而有些人则愿意纸上谈兵。美国的问题是,在这个充斥着律师的国家里,愿意纸上谈兵的人越来越多。如果甚至连工会都只会长篇累牍地纸上谈兵,而不是促进风力涡轮机的推广的话,美国制造业还会有什么希望?”虽然2009年卫报曾对一些潜在的积极改变进行了报道,如蓝领工人推动绿色就业等,但是,这一潜在趋势却还没有成为现实。在许多观察家看来,这份长篇累牍、推卸责任的文件让希望破灭了。

老实说,中国在可再生能源,特别是太阳能行业的快速发展确实会导致一些问题。尽管中国最近加大了对太阳能光伏电板家庭用户的补助,然而其制造的太阳能电板有超过90%依然是销往国外市场,其主要原因是与传统能源相比,太阳能发电的价格过高。鉴于制造光伏电池板高昂的能源成本,以及相应的污染,一些中国专家对光伏行业所谓的环保提出了质疑,甚至认为对中国而言,其只不过是一个新兴的低端制造业而已。

显而易见,中国政府需要针对这些担忧对其可再生能源政策进行调整。然而,就全球范围而言,中国的发展方向无疑是正确的。UNDESA在2009年发表的一份报告中呼吁全球达成新的绿色协议,从而调动大量的公共资源——每年约5000亿到6000亿美元(3.3万亿到4万亿元)——以解决能源匮乏的问题,并同时在未来10到15年的时间里使可再生能源的价格降到可以与化石燃料媲美,并且让全球的贫困人口也能够用得起的水平。对于中国尽一己之力严肃地履行其在可再生能源领域的承诺,我们应该感到高兴。尽管在气候变化的巨大挑战面前,这也许是微不足道的,但是,与美国的不作为相比,却熠熠生辉。然而,美国的工会却伺机为此惩罚中国,这是多么的讽刺啊!

为了减缓、并最终扭转气候的危险变化,我们需要良性竞争,需要力争上游、向着未来进发的竞争。而在这里就意味着,与其指责别人,美国工人更应该要求他们自己的政府在支持可再生能源的力度上赶上中国。美国作为世界上最富裕的国家,本应做出更多的贡献。鉴于美国政府在银行业投入的紧急援助及巨额的补助,制造业的工人们有理由抱怨,游说得到更多的支持。在这一点上,他们应该得到同情。然而,他们抱怨目标却选择的大错特错了。

一位美国朋友表示,中国处在一个令人匪夷所思的位置:“要么(中国)不采取措施应对气候问题,我们就对你的进口采取BTA(国境税调整)措施。要么你采取措施,我们就对你支持绿色技术提出挑战。”她此番话没错。哥本哈根会议之后,中国气候变化怀疑论者的人数有所增加,其中绝大部分都是出于对中国依然执着于这一问题的不理解。对于马克•莱纳斯的那篇抨击中国是导致峰会流于无果的原因的广为人知的文章,一个令人不安但却普遍的反应就是:“让我们与美国右翼联合起来,捣毁欧洲愚蠢的气候议程。” 毋庸说,这个不经大脑的反应在很多方面都是错误的。然而,这并没有改变这样一个令人悲哀的现实,那就是马克•莱纳斯的文章在中国人中间所造成的对气候问题的不信任要比所有西方怀疑论者人数的总和还多。

我上个月在中国花了很多时间与多名怀疑论者交流。我向他们描述了气候变化对农业及农村人口的生计所造成的负面影响,而这些都是我在中国很多农村地区亲眼目睹的。我试图借此传达这样一个信息,那就是,尽管气候政治问题百出,气候变化科学依然站得住脚。目前,我非常担心美国气候保护主义的这一新举动会使人们更加远离正确的方向。如果中国无论采取何种气候政策都会备受指责的话,那么还有什么比这更好的证据能够让人们相信气候变化只不过是西方国家为了抑制发展中国家增长的阴谋而已。

我的很多中国环保主义者朋友以及我本人都在尽我们最大的努力拯救气候变化议事日程的公正性。而在这种情况下,这份申诉书真的无异于是插入我们背后的一把钢刀。我认为,对于所有关注气候变化,以及整个环境的可持续性问题的人而言,这是一场挑战。在过去的两年里,气候政治被美国的国内政治挟持,越来越严重地影响了气候问题的公正性。一位怀疑主义者曾这样对我说:“美国的这个工会责备中国过多地支持可再生能源。这一点也不奇怪。你的西方环保朋友对此有何看法?”在此,我不得不停住笔头,将这个问题留给所有致力于环保的朋友:您对这个问题的回答是什么?我们每个人都应该用我们的语言和行动表明,气候问题是全人类所面临的共同问题,而不仅仅是环保游说组织、可再生能源游说组织、或者是其他特殊利益群体的问题。

 

文佳筠,就职于全球化国际论坛

首页图片来自share8888

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 thumb avatar
pauljoy1

能力,偏好和感知

在制定国际政策的时候,对本国国家政策和国内环境的考虑总是放在头位的。因此,倘若说气候变化已被多国政府用作经济增长的工具,理智的政治观察家也不该改到惊讶。不但失业率上升到两位数的美国有自己国内的顾虑,中国也会有。只是中美的国内担忧大不相同。美国政府给所有国民(考虑到她庞大的选举代表团)以大量的公共物品(如住房、清洁的环境、教育等)。中国政府则给少部分有优越社会关系的人以私有物品
来支撑其权力结构。如果要给所有中国人清洁的空气和水,对中国领导人来讲成本太高了,而且也不能对他们的权利稳固有任何帮助。这也是为什么中国的太阳能板总是“太贵”的原因。因此美国才会有心生怀疑。

Power, Preferences, and Perceptions

Domestic considerations regarding national policy have always been and will continue to be at the forefront of international policy-making. As such, it should come as no surprise to rational, non-emotional observers of political outcomes that the climate change issue is now morphing into a tool used by a wide number of governments to create more favorable economic conditions. This is true not only of the U.S., which is experiencing double-digit unemployment, but also China, which has its own 'domestic' concerns. But Chinese domestic concerns are extremely different than American ones. American leaders must give all the people (given its large selectorate) a large amount of public goods (like housing, clean environment, education, etc.). The Chinese government stays in power by giving private goods to a smaller number of well-connected people. Giving all the Chinese people clean air and water is too expensive for Chinese leaders, and doesn't improve their political survival. That is why solar panels in China continue to be 'too expensive.' Or why policy written in Beijing is difficult to enforce anywhere else. And hence the reason for skepticism in the US.

Default thumb avatar
jsg

风力发电是把双刃剑

在美国有这样一种说法,如果现在的红色中国我们都害怕的话,那就等着瞧绿色中国吧。文小姐提出了有力的论据,而且看着美国在纸上谈兵拖后腿真难受。作为一个民主党员,奥巴马需要取悦他的领导班子,包括工会。如果我们之前就把更多的资金投入到可再生能源而非化石燃料开采上,工会现在就不会有抱怨了。

无可否认,中国正在加速发展可再生能源技术,把这些新技术低价出口到世界对全球气候变化的控制能起到重要作用。但另一方面来说,我们都知道中国在人为地压低人民币价值,从而保持出口产品价格的低廉,这将间接导致世界清洁技术发展的停滞。我们需要清洁技术在价格上比化石燃料更具竞争性,但同时我们也需要所有国家都参与进绿色技术的研发过程中来。

A double-edged wind turbine blade

In the US, it has been said that if we fear Red China now, just wait until we see Green China. Ms. Wen makes a strong argument, and it is frustrating to see America dragging its feet and "pushing paper" instead. As a democrat, Obama needs to keep his political base happy, and that includes the labor unions. If we had instead invested more money into renewable energy technology instead of fossil fuel exploration, the unions might not have had anything to complain about.

Nobody will deny China's ability to quickly scale up renewable energy technologies and deliver them to the world at low cost is a great asset in the global effort to mitigate climate change. On the other hand, it is no secret that China has kept its currency artificially low to keep exports cheap. This may be indirectly leading to stagnation in green technology development around the world. We need to have the technology price competitive with fossil energy, but we also need to have a world where we are all participating in its research and development.

Default thumb avatar
gaidee

不做亏心事,不怕鬼敲门

据国家能源局澄清,我们国家现在对美国提出的要求是调查“应该透明”,不过我很不明白这个要求是怎么回事。另外,还居能源局透露,实际上我们国家出口美国的风力发电机极少,相反是美国出口了不少给我们( 比如GE),我们不用怕。但是美国一个文件长达5800页,想必是对中国方方面面的情况进行了仔细的调查研究吧,自己拿过来看看,也未尝不是件好事。干事总有个目的,这么费劲的事情,不会空穴来风,否则,这么讲究低碳的美国是不会花这么多纸,做这样的是吧!

Commit no shameful act and have no fear of ghosts knocking on your door

According to a clarification by the National Energy Bureau, China is now seeking “transparency” on this demand raised by America - nonetheless though, we really aren’t clear on what exactly this demand is. In addition, also leaked from the Energy Bureau, in reality China exports very few of its wind power generators to America, but conversely, America exports a lot to China (e.g. GE), so we needn’t fear. However, one of America’s documents ran as long as 5,800 pages, and it is presumably investigative research which goes into minute detail about all aspects of China’s situation. When we look at this ourselves, this is not necessarily not a good thing. The administrative chief has an objective , a very tough matter to handle, and it cannot be pulled out of thin air, otherwise low-carbon America would not have used that much paper for this kind of thing!

Default thumb avatar
reduce

美国伪善

美国政府一直在试图建立有利于美国的全球贸易规则,试图维持其最大经济体的地位。当美国不再是老大,他们是竞争呢,还是起诉呢?

对于中国工业化进展之迅猛,美国不是迎上去挑战,反而露出害怕的神情。美国需要意识到,他们在可持续能源的发展上已然落后,应当下力气加紧追上中国、德国和巴西等国。由于私营企业在美国国内的投资热情不高,联邦政府需要在可持续技术领域挺身而出。中国和其他国家都已然做到了这一点,美国需要效仿才能保证自身的竞争力。不管中国是否触犯了国际贸易规则,美国发起这种针对中国的调查丝毫不能帮助降低温室气体的排放量,也不会帮助美国提升自己可持续能源产业。

American Hypocrisy

The US government has tried to build global trade regulations in favor of the US to try to maintain its standing as the largest economy. When the US is no longer top dog, do they compete or do they sue?

China has quickly industrialized, and the US is scared and not up for the challenge. The US needs to come to terms that they have fallen behind in sustainable energy production, and should make a big push to catch up with China, Germany, Britain, etc. Since the private industries are not investing enough domestically, the federal government needs to be the investor in sustainable technology. China and other countries have done just that, and the US needs to do the same in order to compete. Regardless of whether or not China has violated international trade laws, an investigating of a violation of international trade laws will not help lower greenhouse gas emissions, nor will it help the US improve its sustainable energy sector.

Default thumb avatar
luciagw

我同意

Dale,好文章!我觉得本文一针见血的点出了美国在制定贸易和气候政策时的虚伪。

那些批评中国补贴的人都犯了短视的毛病,这十分危险。他们没能认识到一点,即虽然个别国家可能不惜代价给予补贴,但从整体上来说世界是迫切需要这些国家。通过资助绿色技术,中国帮了美国和世界一个大忙。

也许正是处于当下的这种情况,我们需要重写WTO规则。毕竟,如果50年之后我们都不得不在水下生活,谁要研读5800页的文件来计算中国是否存在贸易违规行为?

请移步到我的文章了解我的详细观点:
http://luciagreenweiskel.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2010/10/04/in-defense-of-china%E2%80%99s-green-technology-subsidies/

I concur....

Great article, Dale. I think this points out the hypocrisy of US trade policy and US policy toward climate change more generally.

Those who criticize China’s subsidies are taking a dangerously short-sighted perspective and failing to realize that while individual countries may balk at subsidies, the world as a whole desperately needs them. By subsidizing green technology, China is doing America and the world a huge favor.

Perhaps it is the WTO rule in this case that needs to be rewritten. After all, if we are all underwater in 50 years, who will be left to pore over 5,800 page documents to calculate China’s trade violations?

I wrote more about this here:
http://luciagreenweiskel.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2010/10/04/in-defense-of-china%E2%80%99s-green-technology-subsidies/

Default thumb avatar
yfl

美国的工会政治很不进步!

感谢你的文章和批评。美国钢铁工人联合会的态度让人生气又失望。这不是美国大工会第一次扮演非进步角色了。给我们提出了一个重要问题:美国的主流工会(包括美国钢铁工人联合会)到底有没有表达工人自治意愿的政治理念和能力。我为《读书》撰写的罗伯特·芬奇的《出卖团结》一书的书评(“美国劳工运动中的病症——评《出卖团结》”,《读书》2006年11期)对于工会政治提出了尖锐的见解。

不知道美国的左派有没有对美国钢铁工人联合会的请愿活动提出批评。如果有的话,最好可以转发过来。

美国的工会政治很不进步!

Thanks for writing the essay and raising the criticism. The position taken by the United Steelworkers is both upsetting and disappointing. This is not the first time that big unions play less than progressive roles. It points to an important question of whether mainstream US unions, including the United Steelworkers, have the political will and ability to articulate autonomous working class positions. Robert Fitch's book _Solidarity for Sale_ (2006), which I reviewed for Dushu (“美國勞工運動中的病症--評《出賣團結》”,《读书》2006年11期 ), offers a sharp look inside the union politics (the author himself is a union member).

I don't know whether there has been any critique of the United Steelworkers petition from the left in the US. If there is, it would be good to link up.

Default thumb avatar
lana707

震撼于美国的伪善

我是一名英国人,但我却十分震撼于美国及其奥巴马政府的欺骗行为.
最近发表的GSI报告(全球补贴倡议)指出全球对新能源的补贴仅270亿美元每年.
相比而言,根据国际能源机构数据显示,2007年和2008年对矿物燃料的补贴分别是3420亿美元和5570亿美元.此外,对制造商也提供每年1000亿美元的补贴;因此对矿物燃料的补贴将达到近7000亿美元每年,或者说是全球GDP的1%.
更何况对矿物燃料,包括石油开采技术的补贴程度都已超过了历史水平。
我敢打赌,现在写请愿书的大多数钢铁工人是完全不知道这个事实。
当然,美国钢铁行业都非常害怕被要求减少其排放量,并被牵连到较弱环境法规的游说中。可以说,这是美国钢铁工业在愤世嫉俗地企图颠覆气候变化的会谈(但这可能吗?)。

Absolutely shocking hypocrisy from the USA

I am from the UK and absolutely shocked by the immense duplicity by the US and the Obama Administration.

The recent report by the GSI (Global Subsidies Initiative) points out that the subsidies for renewable energy globally are only $27Bn per year.

By comparison, global fossil fuel subsidies were $342Bn USD in 2007 and $557Bn in 2008 according to the International Energy Agency. In addition, subsidies provided to producers were in the order of $100 billion per year; so total fossil fuel subsidies were almost $700 Billion per year, or one percent of global GDP...

This is not to mention the level of historical subsidies that have gone towards fossil fuel, including oil extraction technologies, throughout history.

I bet that most of the steelworkers who started this petition were completely unaware of this fact.

Of course, the steel industry in the US is afraid of being asked to reduce its emissions and has been implicated in lobbying for weaker environmental regulation. It could be argued this is a cynical attempt by the steel industry in the US to subvert the talks on climate change (possible?).

Default thumb avatar
pericles

停止美国争论,看一看大局吧

美国钢铁工会的指控和奥巴马政府对此的支持是虚伪了吗?是。但中国政府对其国内清洁能源产业的大力、特殊的支持合理吗?不然。中国的确是应该鼓励清洁能源发展,但不应该为他们的国内企业在世界的竞争舞台上提供不公平的竞争优势。相反,他们应该促进像碳税
、限制碳排放、碳交易方面的政策,这样可以在所有公司中形成公平竞争,而不仅仅把机会留给中国效率低下的国企。由于中国的清洁能源保护主义,受到美国钢铁工人联合会的指控是自然而然的。

在这个问题上,虚伪的不止美国一个。中国参加联合国气候变化框架公约的谈判,提出发展清洁能源把中国置于经济劣势地位,有钱的国家应该对清洁发展进行补贴,再大力支持其国内清洁能源企业,提供给它们在国家战略和经济上的优势,使之立足于“接下来的全球性的庞大产业”中。至少,美国没有阻止沈阳电力集团对美国得克萨斯州的风电场提供中国制造的风力发电机。

董鹤冰译

Let's stop US bashing and look at the whole picture

Is the United Steel Workers accusation and the Obama Administration's support of it hypocritical? Yes. But is the Chinese government’s substantial and exclusive support to its domestic clean energy companies justified? No. China should be encouraging the development of clean energy, but not in a way that gives its companies an unfair competitive advantage on the world stage. Instead, they should be promoting policies like a carbon tax or cap and trade, that would create fair competition between all companies, not just China's highly inefficient State Owned Enterprises. By engaging in clean energy protectionism, China has invited this accusation by the USW.

The US is not the only one that's being hypocritical here. China goes to the UNFCCC negotiations arguing that developing clean energy puts it at an economic disadvantage and that rich countries should basically subsidize its clean development, and then it exclusively supports its own domestic clean energy companies to give it a national strategic and economic advantage in the "next great global industry." At least the US didn't block the Shenyang Power Group from supplying Chinese-made wind turbines to a Texas wind farm.

Thumb original linden photo
linden.ellis

美国媒体的回应

yfl-你的评论我理解。这儿是我-一个美国人的简短回应。在国际专业领域内,我工作的关注中国的企业中,找不出一个人支持美国钢铁工人的请愿的。他们都觉得这样的抗议是无稽之谈,不会被提交的世贸组织。有些人确信一场贸易战不可避免。很多主流媒体报道了中国的回应,说调查是不负责任的。

差不多所有主要论坛的评论都是反对美国工会的要求的。
其他国家政府迫使美国关注清洁能源。说实话,我喜欢这个。http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/15/energy-a-clean-tech-trade-war-begins-to-heat-up-with-china/#ixzz149g9cApl

又是一个美国把自己制造出来的问题推卸到别人身上的例子。http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/124471-white-house-launches-probe-of-chinas-green-trade-practices
中国补贴那些把太阳能设备安装在中国国内的太阳能制造商的做法没有错;而当这些受补贴的中国的太阳能制造商把95%的产品出口时,问题就来了。
http://www.huffingtonpost.com

董鹤冰译

American media response

yfl--Your comment is well taken. As an American, here is a short response. Within the professional circle on international, China-focused enterprises that I work in, I couldn't find a single person who supported the petition. They all think it is nonsense and will not be brought to WTO. Others are convinced that trade war is inevitable. There have been a lot of reports in mainstream media about China's response calling the investigation irresponsible.

Almost all comments on major forums are against the petition:

The US attention being forced on to clean energy practices by another government. Frankly, I like this. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/15/energy-a-clean-tech-trade-war-begins-to-heat-up-with-china/#ixzz149g9cApl

Here is the US again looking for someone else to blame for problems of their own creation. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/124471-white-house-launches-probe-of-chinas-green-trade-practices

There's nothing wrong with China subsidizing it's solar manufacturers for solar products installed within China; the problem occurs when a subsidized Chinese solar company is exporting up to 95% of its product. http://www.huffingtonpost.com