博客 Blog

新兴国家是应对气候变化的关键

伦敦经济学院的研究人员上周发表了一些最新发现。新兴经济体——阿根廷、巴西、中国、印度、印尼、南非、韩国、墨西哥和土耳其——对阻止本世纪气候变化起着决定性作用。他们预测,稳定这些国家的温室气体排放将相当于减少发达国家减排量80%的两倍。

中外对话在2008年发表过大卫·惠勒、凯文·乌姆和罗宾·卡夫的文章,他们得出了类似的结论

这个所谓的共识受到了危险的误导,南方不能把减缓工作推给北方,非等到发展成功才担负起责任。实际上,由南方的碳密集发展方式所造成的累积性排放已经达到了一个对威胁南方自身的水平。即使北方立刻消除所有的排放,这个排放量也已经超过了造成全球气候危机的程度。

很快有回应说发达国家应该完成他的份额——尽快严格减排。但是必须指出,即使发达国家啊这么做,主要的发展中国家也必须完成他们的任务。是时候重启会谈讨论什么时候这些国家的碳排放会达到峰值。

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
gaidee

关键在于发达国家,对,发达国家

英国是个民主社会,说什么话的人都有。两周前吧,英国的“经济学人”杂志刊登了一片文章,是芬兰的一个研究所里的Glen Peters博士的研究成果,引起世界哗然。文章说的是,发展中国家的能耗增加当然不假,但是很多部分都是因为发展中国家接收发达国家的排放“外包”,为发达国家加工制造各种五花八门的产品所导致的。而现在,这个知名的伦敦金融学院还是说关键是发展中国家。我看只是托词,或者这些经济学家没有做好自己的“家庭作业”,没有对Peters博士的研究很好的研究和了解,是在是件遗憾的事情。

从全球贸易角度来看,自然发展中国家从发达国家的转移贸易和全球分工中得到了好处,但是得到好处的更多的是发达国家。如果仔细研究起来,认为发达国家得到的好处更多,恐怕是不假。没有好处,谁是雷锋啊,为你穷国着想啊。你以为谁是傻子啊!

现在发达国家的顶尖机构还是病诟穷国,我看不是很合理,也不完全符合事实。如果没有发达国家本国经济增长的需要,如果没有发达国家永无止境的消费欲望(比如苹果的迷人的手机),以及对降低成本的无止境的渴望,我看这些商品留在发达国家生产的话,这些排放可能会比在发展中国家生产更多。

从减排的角度看,无非就是两种。其一,减少发展中国家的生产和消费,其中包括出口的量;其二,逐步提高生产和生活环节的能耗效率,实现节能。从实际情况看,如果能够大幅度减少出口的话,那么发展中国家的减排会大幅度减少,比如中国因为出口而形成的排放据说占了总排放的20%,不是一个小数字。

全球化是西方倡导的,当是不想到还有气候变化这嘛事,我们只能逐步修正全球化,而不是到处指责别人的排放如何如何的。

我个人觉得这对伦敦金融学院来说是件不光彩的事情,也会更加对加重发展中国家对发达国家的“怀疑论”以及“阴谋论”。何况,现在并没有办法来解决这个问题,因为发达国家能做的无非就是把高能耗,低附加值的生产和加工转移到发展中国家而已,并没有为发展中国家在节能减排上做过什么实事。这篇研究也不会如何促进发展中国家的节能减排事业,因为事实很明显,那就是,对大发展中国家来说,我们节能减排的未来在于产业想国外转移,比如未来的非洲,这是从发达国家学来的,无非就是“掩耳盗铃”,自欺欺人而已,解决不了我们全球共享的大气的变化问题。

这些文章的潜台词,实际上也符合有些人的胃口,那就是,把排放的增加归咎为全球化,力图在未来削弱贸易全球化,来占据道德之高点,我认为这实在是个阴谋,大阴谋啊。

关于Glen Peters博士的研究,大家可以上网看这个http://www.cicero.uio.no/employees/homepage.aspx?person_id=1067&lang=EN 或者直接和他联系。

这篇文章也说明,经济学家杂志确实是个很犀利的媒体,让人很向往。

The onus is on developed countries, that's right, developed countries.

Britain is a democratic society, so there will be diverse views and opinions. Two weeks ago, The Economist magazine in Britain published some research results from a Scottish research group led by Dr. Glen Peters, which caused uproar around the world. The research suggested that whilst it is true that energy consumption is massively growing in developing countries, but this in a large part is due developed countries 'outsourcing' their emissions to developing countries, who produce all manner of products to export back to developed countries. And yet, the reputed London School of Economics still persist in saying the crux of the issue is with developing countries. I see these as excuses, or these economists have not done their homework, regretfully, have not given Dr. Peter's work enough consideration and research.

From the perspective of international trade, developing countries do benefit from changing their trade patterns, and the international division of labour. However it is clear that the benefits derived from this are overwhelmingly in developed countries' favour. Careful research would show that developed countries do in fact gain greater benefit. Without such material incentives, who would play Leifeng, thinking of poor countries with such charity? Who do you think is the fool here?

The organisations of developed countries still criticise developing countries: this in my view is not fair, and does not adhere to reality. If the economies of developed countries were not expanding as they are, without the endlessly increasing demand in consumption (such as Apple's i-phones, for example), as well as hopes for lowering the cost limit of production, I reckon that, if manufacturing were left in these developed countries, the carbon emissions that would result would be even higher than in developing countries.

From the perspective of cutting emissions, there are only two. First, the reduction of production and consumption in developing countries will also incorporate export goods. Second, gradual improvements to production, quality of life and energy efficiency, energy-saving.
Realistically, if exports from developing countries were lowered, this would drastically lower emission levels. For example the carbon emissions produced by China for export goods is said to be 20% of its total emissions. This is not a trivial quantity.

Globalisation was an product of the West, at the time climate change was not an issue. We can only try to rectify Globalisation, not to blame others for their emission levels.

Personally, I think the LSE in making these negative assertions will only contribute to the distrust and suspicion of conspiracy of developing countries towards developed countries. Nevermind the fact that there are currently no solutions for this problem, because developed countries can only up their energy, low-value manufacturing moves to developing countries, with no consideration for developing countries in energy-saving or emissions-reduction. This essay will also not promote the task of energy-saving and emissions reduction in developing countries. The reason is obvious: for developing countries, our energy saving and emissions reduction depends on in the future, production moving abroad, perhaps to the African continent. This is burying your head in the sand, but it is what we learned from developed countries, and it cannot solve the climate change problems that globalisation has posed.

The implications of this article are suited to the appetites of some, that is, those who seek to blame the rise of emissions on globalisation. to weaken globalisation and global trade in the future, by taking the moral high ground: this reeks too much of a conspiracy to me.

Regarding Dr. Glen Peter's research, please find on the web: http://www.cicero.uio.no/employees/homepage.aspx?person_id=1067&lang=EN or contact him directly.

This article has also made clear, the Economist magazine is truly an incisive source of media, really inspirational.