治理環境 不應阻止窮國實現增長

Having failed to stem carbon emissions in rich countries or in rapidly industrialising ones, policy makers have focused their attention on the only remaining target: poor countries that do not emit much carbon to begin with.

在未能限制住富國或快速工業化國家的碳排放後，政策制定者已將注意力放在僅剩的一個限排目標羣體上，也就是那些壓根就不排放多少二氧化碳的窮國。

Legislation to cap US carbon emissions was defeated in Congress in 2009. But that did not prevent the Obama administration from imposing a cap on emissions from energy projects of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a US federal agency that finances international development. Other institutions of the rich world that have decided to limit support for fossil fuel energy projects include the World Bank and the European Investment Bank.

2009年，限制美國碳排放的立法在國會以失敗告終。但這並未阻止奧巴馬(Obama)政府對海外私人投資公司(Overseas Private Investment Corporation)能源項目的碳排放設限。該公司是美國聯邦機構，任務是爲國際開發融資。富裕世界的其他機構，包括世界銀行(World Bank)和歐洲投資銀行(European Investment Bank)，也決定限制對化石燃料能源項目的支持。

Such decisions have painful consequences. A recent report from the non-profit Center for Global Development estimates that $10bn invested in renewable energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa could provide electricity for 30m people. If the same amount of money went into gas-fired generation, it would supply about 90m people – three times as many.

這些決定產生了令人痛苦的後果。非營利組織“全球發展中心”(Center for Global Development)近期的一份報告估計，如果用100億美元投資於撒哈拉以南非洲的可再生能源項目，可讓3000萬人用上電。如果同樣多的資金投資於燃氣發電，則可讓大約9000萬人用上電，爲前一數字的3倍。

In Nigeria, the UN Development Programme is spending $10m to help “improve the energy efficiency of a series of end-use equipment . . . in residential and public buildings”. As a way of lifting people out of poverty, this is fanciful at best. Nigeria is the world’s sixth-largest oil exporter, with vast reserves of natural gas as well. Yet 80m of its people lack access to electricity. Nigerians do not simply need their equipment to be more efficient; they need a copious supply of energy derived from plentiful local sources.

在尼日利亞，聯合國開發計劃署(UN Development Programme)正斥資1000萬美元，幫助“提高住宅和公共建築中一系列終端設備的能效”。作爲一種幫助人們脫貧的方式，這最多隻能算是一個奇特的主意。尼日利亞是世界第六大石油出口國，還擁有巨大的天然氣儲量。但該國卻有8000萬人用不上電。尼日利亞人根本不需要使自己的設備更爲節能，而是需要源自本國豐富資源的充足能源供應。

Or consider Pakistan, where energy shortages in a rapidly growing nation of 180m have led to civil unrest – as well as rampant destruction of forests, mostly to provide firewood for cooking and heating. Western development agencies have refused to finance a project to use Pakistan’s Thar coal deposits for low-carbon natural gas production and electricity generation because of concerns over carbon emissions. Half a world away, Germany is building 10 new coal plants over the next two years.

或者來考慮一下巴基斯坦的例子。在這個擁有1.8億人口、正快速發展的國家，能源短缺已引發民衆騷亂，還導致猖獗的毀林行爲，他們砍伐林木主要是爲了獲取木柴，用於做飯和取暖。出於對碳排放的擔憂，西方開發機構拒絕爲一個利用巴基斯坦塔爾煤礦藏來進行低碳天然氣生產和發電的項目融資。而在地球的另一端，德國將在未來兩年新建10座燃煤電廠。

These examples emerge from a larger, uglier background: a widely shared assumption that poor nations need not aspire to the sort of energy consumption seen in North America, western Europe and other wealthy regions. For example, the World Bank’s action plan for energy access fails to foresee that residents of a poor nation such as Chad might eventually aspire to use more than, say, a 10th of the energy consumption enjoyed by a middle-income nation such as Bulgaria.

這些例子的背後是一個更大、更醜陋的事實：人們普遍認爲，窮國不需要追求北美、西歐和其他富裕地區那種能源消費。舉例來說，世行的能源獲取行動計劃未能預見到：像乍得這樣的窮國，其最終追求的能源消費量，可能會高於像保加利亞這樣的中等收入國家能源消費量的十分之一。

Aspirations are critical here. If two lightbulbs, a fan and a radio are the goal – a standard measure of “energy access” used by the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative – then a couple of solar panels or windmills might do the job. But if the rapidly urbanising poor are to have any chance of prosperity, they need access to energy on the same scale as all modern economies.

在這裏，追求是個至關重要的因素。如果兩個燈泡、一臺電扇和一部收音機就是追求目標（這是聯合國“人人享有可持續能源”倡議(Sustainable Energy for All Initiative)所使用的衡量“能源獲取”的標準指標），那麼幾塊太陽能電池板或幾臺風力發電機可能就足夠應付了。但如果迅速城市化的窮國想有機會實現繁榮的話，那麼它們就需要獲得與所有現代經濟體一樣多的能源。

Climate activists warn that the inhabitants of poor countries are especially vulnerable to the future climate changes that our greenhouse gas emissions will cause. Why then, do they simultaneously promote the green imperialism that helps lock in the poverty that makes these countries so vulnerable?

氣候活動人士警告稱，窮國居民尤其容易受到我們溫室氣體排放導致的未來氣候變化的影響。那麼，他們爲什麼又要推進“綠色帝國主義”(green imperialism)？正是綠色帝國主義幫助固化了貧困，讓這些國家變得如此脆弱。

If, in coming decades, Africa was to achieve rapid economic growth of the kind that China has experienced, it would lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But as the rich world can attest, economic growth both requires energy consumption and leads to more of it – most of which must be provided by fossil fuels.

未來幾十年，如果非洲能實現中國經歷的那種快速經濟增長，數億人將因此脫貧。但正如富裕世界所能證明的那樣，經濟增長既需要能源消費，也會導致更多的能源消費——其中多數必須由化石燃料提供。

Last year China’s 1.4bn people were responsible for more than 10bn tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, while the 1bn people on the entire African continent emitted just a 10th of that amount. Africa’s population could exceed China’s within a decade; it could be double China’s by the middle of the century. The prospects of these billions of people depend in large part on growth in their energy production and consumption.

去年，中國14億人口產生了逾100億噸的碳排放，而整個非洲大陸的10億人口的碳排放僅爲中國的10%。10年內，非洲人口可能會超過中國；到本世紀中葉，非洲人口可能會變爲中國的兩倍。這幾十億人口的前景在很大程度上取決於其能源生產和消費的增長。

Nations such as China and Brazil have big aspirations. They have not accepted a future without fossil fuels. If we are to reduce emissions without condemning vast swaths of humanity to unending poverty, we will have to develop inexpensive, low-carbon energy technologies that are as appropriate for the US and Bulgaria as they are for Nigeria and Pakistan. Even this will involve sacrifice; it will require an investment of significant resources over many decades.

中國和巴西等國有遠大的抱負。它們沒有接受一個不存在化石燃料的未來。如果我們要在不讓大量人口陷入無休止貧困的前提下減排，就必須開發既適合美國和保加利亞、也適合尼日利亞和巴基斯坦的低成本低碳能源技術。即使要做到這一點，也少不了要作出犧牲；它需要在數十年的時間裏投入可觀的資源。

Until these technologies are brought to fruition, we must work with what we have. We in the rich world have chosen economic growth over emissions reductions. It is cruelly hypocritical of us to prevent poor countries from growing, too. If we are forced to adapt to life on a planet with a less hospitable climate, the poor should at least confront the challenge with the same advantages that are enjoyed by the rich.

在這些技術結出碩果之前，我們必須利用現有技術。我們這些富裕世界的人，已選擇將經濟增長至於減排之上。如果我們阻止窮國也實現增長，那將是一種殘忍的僞善行爲。如果我們不得不適應在一個氣候不那麼宜人的星球上生活，那麼窮國至少應在享有與富國同等優越條件的前提下來應對這一挑戰。