任何機構都要戒除能源揮霍癮

Our ancestors lived in eras we call the Stone Age, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Ours is the “fossil-fuel age”. The energy we have extracted from the earth’s reserves of fossilised sunlight has spread (unequally shared) abundance across humanity. Will this continue? Can we manage its impact on our environment? The answers will shape the future of our complex global civilisation.

我們祖先生活的時代，我們稱之爲石器時代、青銅時代和鐵器時代。我們生活的時代是“化石燃料時代”。我們從地球上的化石化太陽能儲量中提取的能量已將富足傳播給整個人類，儘管這種傳播並不均勻。這個時代會延續下去嗎？我們能管控化石燃料對人類環境的影響嗎？這些問題的答案將決定我們複雜的全球文明的未來。

As always, BP’s Energy Outlook provides a glimpse into a possible future. No doubt, its forecasts will be wrong. But it tells us what well-informed people at the heart of the oil and gas industry consider “the likely path of global energy markets to 2035”. It puts forward five important propositions about a plausible energy future.

像以往一樣，BP此次發佈的《能源展望》(Energy Outlook)爲我們提供了一個一睹可能前景的機會。毫無疑問，它的預測將是錯誤的。但它告訴了我們，身處油氣行業核心的消息靈通人士所認爲的“全球能源市場至2035年的可能發展路徑”是什麼。這份報告給出了一個貌似有道理的能源前景，並圍繞這一前景提出了五個重要觀點。

First, global economic output is forecast to rise by 115 per cent by 2035. Asian emerging economies — principally China and India — are expected to generate more than 60 per cent of that increase.

首先，全球經濟產出預計到2035年時將增長115%。亞洲新興經濟體（主要是中國和印度）對這一增幅的貢獻預計將超過60%。

The primary driver of the rise in global output is expected to be a 75 per cent jump in global average real output per head, as the prosperity of emerging economies catches up with that of high-income countries. Population growth plays a distinctly subsidiary role. It is not the number of people, but rather their prosperity, that drives demand for commercial energy.

全球經濟產出增長的主要推動力，預計將來自全球人均實際產出75%的躍升，而新興經濟體的繁榮程度將趕上高收入國家。人口增長起到了明顯的輔助作用。但推動商業能源需求的並不是人類的數量，而是人類的繁榮。

Second, as a result of rapidly rising energy efficiency, energy consumption is forecast to grow by only 37 per cent. This is far less than the rise in output of real goods and services.

其次，由於能效迅速提高，能源消費預計僅將增長37%。這個數字遠小於商品和服務實際產出的增幅。

Third, emissions of carbon dioxide are forecast to grow by 25 per cent, a growth rate of about 1 per cent a year. In terms of the link between output and emissions, this is a huge achievement. But — given the need to cut emissions outright, in order to have a good chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to below 2C — it is wholly inadequate. Thus, in 2035, emissions of CO2 are forecast to be 18bn tonnes above levels suggested by the International Energy Agency’s “450 Scenario”. This seeks to limit atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to the equivalent of about 450 parts per million of CO2. If such targets are to be met, something far more radical needs to occur. (See charts.)

第三，二氧化碳排放量預計將增長25%，即年增長1%左右。就經濟產出與碳排放之間的關聯而言，這是一個巨大的成就。但是，考慮到有必要徹底減排、如此纔有機會將全球平均氣溫升幅控制在2攝氏度以下，這一成就還遠遠不夠。如果真是增長25%，那麼2035年的二氧化碳排放量預計將比國際能源署(IEA)“450情景”建議的水平高180億噸。“450情景”尋求將大氣中溫室氣體的濃度限定在450ppm二氧化碳當量。要實現這樣的目標，就必須作出一些激進得多的努力。（見圖表）

Fourth, improvements in energy efficiency are a far more important driver of the relatively low growth in emissions than shifts in the fuel mix. This is despite a substantial rise in use of renewables. So, between 2013 and 2035, output of renewable energy is forecast to grow by 320 per cent. Even so, its share in primary energy production is forecast to grow only from 2.6 per cent to 6.7 per cent. The combined share of renewables, hydroelectricity and nuclear power grows only from 9 per cent to 19 per cent. This, then, is expected to remain a fossil-fuel age.

第四，能效提高是造成碳排放增長相對較低的主要因素，燃料結構變化則是一個重要性低得多的因素，儘管可再生能源的使用量有大幅增長。2013年到2035年，可再生能源的產量預計將增長320%。儘管如此，可再生能源產量在一次能源產量中的佔比，預計僅會從2.6%升至6.7%。可再生能源、水電和核電產量的合計佔比僅會從9%升至19%。因此，預計到2035年時我們仍將處於化石燃料時代。

Fifth, the revolution in the production of shale gas and tight oil is expected to continue, with their share in primary energy production rising to about 10 per cent. An important result is large shifts in patterns of trade. So the US is forecast to shift from being a net importer of 12m barrels a day of oil in 2005 to being a net exporter by 2035. Meanwhile, China is forecast to shift to being a net importer of more than 13m b/d by 2035 (from self-sufficiency in the early 2000s); and India to being a net importer of about 7m b/d. Such shifts have huge geopolitical implications.

第五，頁岩氣和緻密油的生產革命預計將持續下去，它們在一次能源產量中的佔比將升至約10%。一個重要的結果是貿易格局的大轉變。也就是說，預計到2035年時，美國將從石油淨進口國（2005年日均淨進口石油120萬桶）變爲淨出口國。而中國到2035年時，預計將從2000年代初的石油自給自足變爲一個日均淨進口石油逾130萬桶的國家；印度預計將變成一個日均淨進口石油約700萬桶的國家。這一轉變將產生巨大的地緣政治影響。

It would be wrong to describe these forecasts as simply “business as usual”. They actually imply a faster rise in energy efficiency than between 2000 and 2013. But they are not radical. The world would continue to rely overwhelmingly on fossil fuels and it would emit ever greater quantities of greenhouse gases. Could we do better?

如果把以上預測描述爲就是“一切如常”，那就錯了。實際上，它們意味着能效提高的速度將快於2000年至2013年間。但這不會起到根本作用。世界將繼續嚴重依賴化石燃料，全球溫室氣體的排放量會越來越大。我們能做得更好些嗎？

I start from the presumption that humanity will aspire to and often manage to achieve the prosperity now taken for granted in rich countries. So we need an accelerated technological revolution. At the Oslo Energy Forum last month, I heard Amory Lovins of theRocky Mountain Institute describe just such a revolution. He argued, for example, that US gross domestic product in 2050 could be 2.5 times what it is today, even if the country stopped using oil, coal and nuclear energy altogether and cut its use of natural gas by one-third. This would mean carbon emissions of just one-fifth of their present level. Moreover, he argued, the revolution could well be driven by market forces alone, given the growing economic superiority of the new technologies. There might, he suggests, be no need to to take direct policy action against rising emissions of carbon dioxide.

富國如今存在着一種想當然的推斷，即認爲人類會渴望繁榮並且通常也能實現繁榮。我就從這點說起。因爲渴望繁榮，所以我們需要加速技術革命。在上月召開的奧斯陸能源論壇(Oslo Energy Forum)上，我聽到洛基山研究所(Rocky Mountain Institute)的艾默裏•洛文斯(Amory Lovins)恰巧描述了這樣一場革命。他舉例辯稱，即便美國徹底停用石油、煤炭以及核能、並將天然氣用量削減三分之一，該國2050年的國內生產總值(GDP)也可達到今天的2.5倍。這意味着碳排放量僅爲美國今天水平的五分之一。他還辯稱，考慮到新技術帶來的經濟優勢日益增加，很可能單靠市場力量便可以有效推進這場革命。他暗示，也許沒有必要針對日益增長的二氧化碳排放採取直接政策行動。

The sense of the BP report (not surprisingly, perhaps, given that BP is a fossil-fuel producer) is that such a radical and rapid market-driven revolution is unlikely. The purported obstacles are many: costs, technological limits, slow turnover of the capital stock, inability to implement policy globally and natural inertia. In brief, I fear BP is right about the obstacles. But Mr Lovins might be right about the opportunities, though only if policy makers give them a big push.

BP報告的言下之意是這樣一場徹底、迅速、由市場驅動的革命不太可能發生（考慮到BP是一家化石燃料生產商，它持這樣的觀點或許並不令人意外）。報告聲稱這面臨很多障礙：成本、技術侷限、資本存量週轉緩慢、政策無法在全球範圍內推行以及自然慣性。簡言之，BP對這些障礙的判斷恐怕是正確的。但洛文斯對機遇的判斷可能也是正確的，儘管前提條件是政策制定者大力推動這些機遇。

If governments could agree to implement a tax on carbon, they would give a big impulse towards an energy future that is more efficient and less polluting. Governments should invest strongly in fundamental science and new technologies. Finally, governments can help the spread of new technologies abroad and help finance their uptake at home. With this push, normal market forces should pull the world economy towards a more sustainable future.

如果各國政府能答應實施碳稅，將是對更高效、更低污染能源前景的有力支撐。各國政府應該在基礎科學和新技術領域大力投資。最後一點，各國政府可幫助在海外傳播新技術，併爲新技術在國內的消化吸收提供資金幫助。憑藉這種支持，正常的市場力量將拉動世界經濟走向更可持續的未來。

Mass poverty is not an option. But neither is taking ever-bigger gambles with the climate. The right course has to lie in between. To put ourselves on that course, we need to wean ourselves off the excesses of the fossil-fuel age. It is a daunting challenge. But it has to be met, for our children’s sake.

大規模的貧困不容接受。但是，在氣候方面進行越來越危險的賭博也不是好的選擇。正確的道路必須介於兩者之間。爲了走上正確的道路，我們必須戒除化石燃料時代的各種無節制行爲。這是一項嚴峻的挑戰。但是，爲了我們的子孫，我們必須直面這一挑戰。