時事新聞:美國清潔能源立法無損產油國影響力
【英文原文】
Clean Energy And Oil Independence
It seems that energy and climate legislation is increasingly being presented as a plan to curb U.S. dependence on foreign oil. And that - if true - would presumably bring a whole raft of benefits, including a cleaner environment, weakened petro-states, a healthier trade balance, and a tidier foreign policy. If only.
The latest call comes from the left-leaning think tank, Center for American Progress, in a report released today, 'Securing America's Future.' The thrust of the argument is: Clean-energy legislation in the U.S. will lessen the country's dependence on oil, which these days essentially means foreign oil.
Echoing other recent calls by military leaders, CAP says that reducing that dependence would allow the country to sidestep an unattractive future, especially in the national-security sphere:
'[America's] need for steady supplies of oil means it must adjust its behavior and strategies in order to maintain relations with less than-savory regimes including Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia. These countries, as well as smaller nations such as Angola, will therefore hold an increasingly disproportional amount of bilateral and regional power, while the United States has diminished leverage and constrained policy options in strategic regions such as the Middle East and Central Asia.'
That's not even including the potential economic benefits - the U.S. spent $1.5 trillion on oil imports over the past decade, and last year's bill amounted to 2.3% of gross domestic product, a record level, CAP says.
All that is true - but the problem is that the legislation under consideration in Congress wouldn't really do much to dent America's oil appetite. As CAP notes, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce U.S. oil consumption in 2020 by a mere 876 thousand barrels a day, or about 4.5% of total U.S. oil consumption.
And that means that a U.S. oil diet won't necessarily reshape the world or weaken petrostates. CAP argues that lower U.S. dependence would weaken oil producers such as Iran by freeing up China to buy more oil from 'stable nations.' Maybe so - but China has been busy inking oil and gas deals with Iran, Sudan, Myanmar, and Russia, and not just because U.S. demand has been crowding it out of 'friendly' suppliers.
The fact is that China's demand for oil more than tripled over the last 15 years, and few analysts expect the country's double-digit economic growth to eschew a similar demand for oil in coming years. Even if the U.S. cuts back a little on oil consumption, in other words, China (and other developing countries) will more than make up the slack - which will keep today's petrostates in business all the same.
There are plenty of potential benefits in the energy and climate legislation currently in Congress, but disarming the world's petroleum producers doesn't appear to be one of them.
【中文譯文】
看來能源和氣候立法正日益被設想爲遏制美國對海外石油依賴的手段。如果相關立法真能起到這一作用，有可能帶來很多好處，比如更清潔的環境、產油國的實力被削弱、美國的貿易不平衡情況得到緩解，以及更加簡練的外交政策。真要能這樣就好了。
委內瑞拉的原油不愁沒買家最新呼籲來自觀點左傾的智庫美國進步中心(CAP)。該機構在週三發表了題爲《確保美國未來安全》(Securing America's Future)的報告。其主要論點是，美國的清潔能源立法將減少美國對石油的依賴，目前而言實際上就是減少對外國石油的依賴。
CAP呼應美國軍方領導人近來的類似呼籲說，減少對外國石油的依賴將使美國未來得以避免於己不利的局面，特別是在國家安全領域。
CAP的報告說：美國對穩定石油供應的需要意味着，爲了與委內瑞拉、尼日利亞和俄羅斯等不太容易打交道的政權維持關係，美國必須調整自己的行爲和策略。這些國家以及安哥拉等小一些的國家因此將日益擁有與其國力不成比例的雙邊和地區實力，而美國在中東和中亞等具有戰略意義的地區影響力卻會降低，戰略選擇也會受到限制。
CAP稱，美國減少對海外石油的依賴還有潛在的經濟好處。過去10年美國用於進口石油的花費達1.5萬億美元，去年的石油進口支出相當於國內生產總值的2.3%，達到創紀錄水平。
上面說的都不錯，但問題是，國會目前正在討論的清潔能源立法並不能真正有效降低美國的石油消費量。正如CAP所指出的，國會正在討論的Waxman-Markey法案只會使美國2020年時的石油日消費量減少87.6萬桶，大約相當於美國石油總消費量的4.5%。
這意味着，美國的節油舉措未必能夠改變世界格局，或削弱產油國的力量。CAP聲稱，美國降低對石油的依賴，將使中國得以從那些“穩定的國家”購買更多石油，從而削弱伊朗等產油國的力量。或許如此，但中國一直在忙着與伊朗、蘇丹、緬甸和俄羅斯等國家達成油氣供應協議，而這卻並不僅僅是因爲美國的石油需求太多使“友好”產油國無力向中國提供石油。
事實上，中國的石油需求過去15年中增長了兩倍以上，沒有什麼分析師預計經濟增長率達兩位數的中國未來幾年中能把石油消費量增速降下來。換句話說，即使美國略微減少了自己的石油消費量，中國(和其他發展中國家)也足以填補美國留下的缺口，從而使產油國未來繼續保持目前的影響力。
雖然國會目前正在討論的能源和氣候立法有衆多潛在好處，但削弱產油國的力量似乎不再其列。
