文章 Articles

通向哥本哈根之路的全球减排路线图之二

为了实现低碳发展,中国必须完成并改善它的节约能源计划,胡鞍钢在他的三篇连载文章中的第二部分提到。

Article image

[本文由本网站和美国鲁特格斯大学的气候变化和社会政策行动合作刊发]

目前中国实施了最积极的节能减排政策,其目标极具挑战性,难度非常大。中国“十一五”规划(2006-2010)目标是5年内单位GDP能耗下降20%,即达到单位GDP能耗从1.22吨标准煤下降到0.97吨标准煤的水平。根据十五时期中国GDP增长速度,即便“十一五”期间中国GDP增长率平均按10%的速度增长,那么全国能源消费总量的年均增长速度不能超过5.2%。2006和2007两年的能源消费增长速度和GDP增长速度已经显示,这一调整幅度太大,不容易完成。相比之下,欧盟只承诺到2020年用15年的时间使单位GDP能耗下降20%。

但中国能源消耗与主要污染排放出现了拐点,开始下降,这为下一届政府奠定了基础。2006年提出单位国内生产总值能耗下降1.23%,2007年进一步下降3.2%,这是近几年来能耗首次下降;2007年两类主要污染物(二氧化硫与化学需氧量)的排放量也分别下降4.66%与3.14%。

一般来说,从政策的制订到实际效果显现需要较长时间。而由于存在基础设施惰性,从节能降耗政策措施的出台实际效果的显现需要一定时间,因此,“十一五”头两年未能完成预定目标也是正常的。

中国大幅度降低能耗是有历史借鉴的。中国在“六五”期间年均GDP能耗下降5.2%,“八五”年均下降5.7%,“九五”年均下降8.0%。因此,2008-2010年实现年均单位GDP 能耗降低5.4%的目标是可能的。需要指出的是,“十一五”期间中国的经济发展阶段、工业结构、城市化水平、贸易结构等与以往不同,这给节能减排带来很大难度。但“十一五”期间所面临的国际环境、政府政治意愿、经济投入和行政推动力也都是空前的。因此,“十一五”期间乃至今后的经济发展阶段,中国是有可能实现较低能耗目标的。

实际上,“十一五”期间降低能耗20%的目标已经不仅仅是一个经济目标,而且成为中国政府对世界和本国人民做出的政治承诺,它显示了中国政府推动节能减排,应对气候变化,发展低碳经济的政治意愿和决心。这一目标是中国迈向低碳经济之路的第一次大规模尝试,其政治意义远大于经济意义。

但中国在减排方面的国际政策并没有与世界同步。中国至今仍以发展中国家的资格,不承担具体减排任务,没有做出公开承诺,没有为全球减排协议的达成做出贡献。

如果公开对全世界做出减排承诺,并由中央政府设定减排的国家目标,将极大推动中国国内的减排进度。中国参与气候变化的国际谈判和全球治理,接受某些气候规则可以成为实现能源政策和环境政策良治的推动力和契机。更重要的是,严峻的气候变化形势将加剧各国在减排上的压力。不积极主动加入全球减排行列意味着选择一场公共资源战争,也是一场没有硝烟的黑色战争。

从长远来看,公开承诺减排与中国中央政府提出的科学发展观和建设生态文明的理念是一致的,其内涵、目标和过程也与保障国家能源安全、应对气候变化和建设资源节约型、环境友好型社会的内涵、目标和过程是一致的。

目前,全球减排的路线图已经非常明确,即:
•到2020 年 – 二氧化碳当量应达到峰值。
•到2030 年 – 年排放量应低于350 亿吨。
2050 年 – 年排放量应低于200 亿吨。

我认为,中国减排的路线图应当与全球路线图同步,并分为“三步走”或三个阶段:
•到2020 年 – 二氧化碳当量应达到峰值。
•到2030 年 – 年排放量应低于22亿吨。实现碳排放的大幅度下降,达到1990年的排放水平。
•到2050 年 – 年排放量应低于11亿吨。实现碳排放总量下降到1990年排放水平的一半。

中国是否公开承诺减排并公布减排路线图,涉及到中国未来长期发展的重大战略决策,其本质是中国国家利益是否与人类发展的利益相一致。

中国承担这样一个严肃性的减排任务涉及到两个问题:第一步是承诺,第二步才谈如何做。现在中国领导人的决策将为中国今后的发展指明方向。

1987年根据邓小平的指示,提出了“三步走”的设想:“第一步,实现国民生产总值比1980年翻一番,解决人民的温饱问题。这个任务已经基本实现。第二步,到本世纪末,是国民生产总值再增长一倍,人民生活达到小康水平。第三步,到下个世纪中叶,人均国民生产总值达到中等发达国家水平,人民生活比较富裕,基本实现现代化。然后,在这个基础上继续前进”。现在看,三步走的目标基本实现,特别是小康目标已经基本达到。面对质疑,邓小平说,也许下一代比我们更聪明些,会找到实际解决的方法。

在这样的重大决策面前,中国现在的领导人应当向邓小平学习,明确国家发展的战略方向,相信后代比我们更聪明。在减排承诺问题上,现在的领导人在任至多10年,不可能在任期内完成减排承诺,他也没必要做到。但是,他提出这个设想却是需要几代人不断的持续努力做到,他只需承诺就够了。

从1750年以来,世界进行了四次工业革命:第一次就是英国工业革命,中国失去了机会。第二次是十九世纪下半叶美国的工业革命,中国也同样失去了机会。第三次工业革命,是20世纪后半叶出现的信息革命。当时中国的领导人敏锐地认识到了这一重大历史变化,中国抓住了这次信息革命的重大机遇。

进入二十一世纪,人类迎来了第四次工业革命——绿色工业革命。可以说这一次全球减排,就是绿色工业革命的标志。如果说第一次、第二次工业革命我们失去了机会,第三次工业革命我们是追随者的话,我们希望这一次工业革命要成为领导者、创新者和驱动者,和美国和欧盟和日本站在同一起跑线上领导这场革命。

可以预见,今后中国发展的最大国际和国内背景就是气候变化。在这一背景下,中国领导人面临两大迫切问题:一是如何实现中国经济转型,即从高碳经济转向低碳经济;二是如何参与全球治理,即从国家治理转向地区治理、全球治理。

世界潮流,浩浩荡荡。顺之则昌,逆之则亡。中国现在的领导人要意识到这个历史的趋势,与世界同步,与人类同步。因此,中国的减排路线图就应当是世界的路线图。

下一篇:中国对世界的贡献


胡鞍钢是中国著名经济学家,任中国科学院和清华大学教授、国情研究中心主任,是一流的政策智库成员。他同时任供政府高级官员阅读的参考刊物《中国国情研究报告》主编。

本文由本网站和美国鲁特格斯大学的气候变化和社会政策行动合作刊发

首页图片由kongharald

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 avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

哥本哈根,没戏

节能减排难不难,我看不难。咱们中国人大部分用上太阳能,一部分风能,不就可以解决大部分减排的目标了?把咱们国家每年出口的16亿只节能灯装在自己家里,洗衣机电冰箱电视全用上节能型的,电机用最好的,节能减排很容易啊。可是,谁来出这个钱,这个多出来的钱呢?所以,节能减排是个经济学问题,很大程度上不是技术问题,技术咱们大部分都有。但是这个帐很难算,就是干这样的事,对我们国家的利益,人民的利益,发展的利益究竟有没有好处,净收益多大,这个投资多长时间能收回来,这个我们需要下大力气,尽快研究,解决。我们国家现在还是犹豫不决,因为看不透这个问题,不知道怎么办。不管你是向发达国家讨说法,算老帐也好,还是联合发展中国家不认账也好,都不是长久之计。即使今年哥本哈根达不成协议,我看这种机会很大,我们也需要面对这样的现实,就是我们迟早都要承担绝对减排量这个责任。当然了,那总要等到我们国家足够富裕了以后。不过,那个时候再来承担责任的时候我敢说,代价会比现在高得多的多。鞍钢同志说得太宏观,我觉得这个承诺到底包括什么,需要说得具体一点。我们千万不能被2008年中国的大幅度节能所迷惑,那不过是由于经济危机导致的工业生产活动减弱造成的短暂假象,不是因为我们节能工作取得的多么大的突破带来的必然结果。但是,问题在于,工业产出的下降速度大于节能的成就,说明这么个问题,就是我们的节能实际上是倒退了,而不是进步了。就拿今年前两个月来说,工业用电大幅下降,但是第一和第三产业用电还在增长,你能说我们的用电效率大幅提高了嘛,反而是下降了!我们不能被表面现象迷惑啊。说得重一点,节能是对我们民族智慧的考验,不是计划生育,我们一声令下就全国开展起来的。我们需要全民动员,找出我们复兴的机会。既然别人那么大力提倡节能减排,总有别人的道理,世界上没有傻子,也没有真正的雷锋。这个道理到底是什么,就是仁者见仁,智者见智了。

Copenhagen: a lost cause

I think saving energy is not difficult. We, the Chinese people, mostly use solar energy, and use some wind energy. Isn’t that enough to achieve most of the reduction targets? If we put the 1,600,000,000 exported compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) in our own houses, along with the washing machines, refrigerators, televisions, and other top notch energy saving models, saving energy would be very easy. But who will pay for it, and who will pay extra for it? Therefore, saving energy to reduce emissions is an economic issue, and to a large extent is not a technological issue. We mostly have the technology. However, it’s very difficult to balance this account. Doing things in this way, it would benefit our country and our people. Ultimately, are there really benefits to development? Figuring out how much profit is necessary, and how long it will take for an investment to pay off is something we need to make an effort to study harder and to solve as quickly as possible. Our country is still hesitant because we can’t solve this problem, so we don’t know what to do. No matter from which developed country speaking style you use, no matter whether you say calculating old debts is good or lumping together developing countries and saying they are not admitting to their faults is good, it still isn’t a long time to calculate. Even if Copenhagen doesn’t come to an agreement this year, I can see that this kind of meeting is tremendous, and we do need to face this kind of reality. Sooner or later we will all need to fully assume our responsibility to reduce emissions. Of course, that always needs to wait until our country has accumulated enough wealth. But at that time, I think that assuming our responsibility will cost far more than it would right now. Comrade Angang (the author) uses too wide of a focus, I think it is unclear what this undertaking ultimately includes, and we need to be a little more specific. We the millions should not be confused by the huge margin of energy savings made by China in 2008; that was only because of the economic crisis which caused production to slack off, which created a temporary facade. They were not because we achieved a huge breakthrough in our energy saving efforts which inevitably caused such an outcome. However, in relation to this question, if the rate of decrease in production is faster than the rate of energy saving accomplishments, then it totally proves this point: our energy saving appliances are falling back, and are not making progress. Just take the first two months of this year. Energy usage by the industries decreased substantially; however the first and third sectors of the economy increased their energy usage. Can you say that our energy usage has become increased in efficiency instead of decreased in efficiency? We cannot be confused by surface appearances. More importantly, energy saving puts our indigenous wisdom to the test, not the one child policy. We started to develop at the first sounding of the bell. We need to mobilize the entire population and find an opportunity to rejuvenate ourselves. Even though others strongly advocate saving energy to reduce admissions, they are always using other people’s logic. In this world there are no fools and no Lei Fengs (ideal communists who serve their country). What is this reasoning, ultimately? Everyone sees what they want. (Translated by Michelle Deeter)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

由于不景气或是政策成功实施废弃排放减少

经济不景气对工业国包括中国废气排放的影响将会被政治家用作显示他们“绿色政策”的成功推行。工业由中国迁往更清洁国家可能会影响到中国。一定要使那些持久性排放物急剧下降,尤其是从燃煤的发电厂排放出来的,因为这些排放物没有满足约束的规格;或者是由森林转变为种植园或其他农业经济而带来的的排放。这么做将显示出政府推行该政策的诚意和效力。

本评论由陈丽英翻译

Emissions reduction due to recession or policy success

The impact of recession on the emissions of industrial countries - including China - will be used by politicians to demonstrate the success of their green policies.

China might also be affected by the re-location of industries from China to cleaner countries.

Steep reductions in emissions from persistent sources of emissions must be made, particularly those (a) from coal-fired power stations which do not meet legally binding specifications for emissions, and (b) caused by the conversion of forest (especially that on peat) to plantations or other agribusiness. Doing so would demonstrate the sincerity and effectiveness of government policies.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

理念很好啊!

学者的理念很好啊。
可全球气候变化的筹码到底有多大呢?
谁能够推动这场绿色变革呢?到底由谁推动最有效呢。

Fantastic ideas!

This academic's ideas are really fantastic. However, how many eggs are we to put in the global climate change basket? Who can drive the green revolution into effect? And who will be the best promoter of it?
(translated by diaoshuhuan)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

绿色崛起

文中作者的意思是要中国抓住绿色工业革命的机会崛起,从此踏入世界治理的舞台。从历史发展角度来说,这是一个难得的机会,民族的复兴在望,但恐怕掌握不好的话,复兴无望,还要栽个跟头。所谓的绿色工业革命是不是一个机会还要深思

The Rise of Green

The writer of the article wants China to seize the opportunity in taking part in the rise of the Green Industrial Revolution, and from here enter the world stage. Speaking from a historical angle, this is a difficult opportunity to obtain. Civilian revival is in sight, but if they are too afraid to take control the revival will have no future and will fall flat. The so-called Green Industrial Revolution is an opportunity we must still reflect on.

This article was translated by Kate Truax.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

需要实事求是

在支持自己的建议时,需要实事求是。作者说,“目前,全球减排的路线图已经非常明确”。不知这个已经“明确”的路线图从何而来?是谁制定的?联合国谈判中还在进行中,IPCC也没有给。不知从何而来?
按照作者的意思,中国可以先承诺,再行动。现在的领导人只管承诺,不管能不能做得到,反正自己已经不在位了。撇开公平不谈。首先,不分析可能性就承诺,本身就是不负责任的。其次,这种心态要不的。“我死后,哪管它洪水滔天”。提的专家可以很潇洒地不管,负责任的政府必须管。哪里热门往哪里去是可以的,但基本的功课还是要做的,研究者更是如此。

We need to seek truth from facts

When supporting one's arguments, one needs to seek truth from facts. The author stated that "Currently the road map for global emissions reductions is clear". I am not sure where this "clear" map comes from. Who made it? The negotiations in the United Nations is still in process, and IPCC has not offered any map. Where exactly does this map come from?

According to the author, it seems that China can make a commitment first, and then start actions later. The current leaders may only make promises without even considering the possibilities of keeping them, as they will not be in office by then. Fairness aside, it is already irresponsible to make a promise without analysing its feasibility. Secondly, this way of thinking is not to be tolerated: "After me, the flood". The experts who made the proposal may not care about the result, but a responsible government must. It is OK to go for the hot subjects, but one must do some basic homework. This is even truer for researchers.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

直觉和自觉

我们很多人凭直觉评论,不自觉减排。我们很多专家,要么是知名经济学家,要么是不知名但是想知名的经济学家和学者,但现实是,我们需要气候经济学家,还要经验丰富的,知名的。可惜,我们没有。所以,都是瞎谈,凑热闹。就是有100万个跟帖,也解决不了任何问题。谈判的成员到底是谁我们都不知道。

Instinct and Consciousness

Many of us criticise instinctively, but don't consciously reduce our emissions. We have many experts, whether they are famous economists or unknown ones who want to be famous, but in reality we need climate economists who are experienced and famous. Unfortunately, we don't have them. So, all the discussion is nonsense. Even one million comments won't solve any problems. We even don't know who the members of the discussion are.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

回“直觉和自觉”一评论

你说的挺对的,搞清楚到底是什么人在参与讨论会有所帮助,不过我并不认同说这样的谈论毫无重点。我们并没有要求评论者必须表明他们的身份,但如果他们愿意的话,中外对话的编辑队伍肯定欢迎至极,当然包括评论6的作者。——伊莎贝尔·希尔顿Isabel Hilton
(translated by diaoshuhuan)

re Instinct and Consciousness

You are right that it would be good to know who is posting in this discussion, though I do not agree that discussion is pointless. We do not require contributors to sign their comments, but the editorial team at chinadialogue would certainly welcome it if they did, including, of course, the author of comment number 6

Isabel Hilton

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

给Isabel的话

我真正想要说的是,我们对于出席波恩、哥本哈根或者其他的国家气候变化会议的代表团成员完全不知情。正因为如此,我很想知道他们都是谁,他们是否有资格代表国家发言。和往常一样,翻译上出现了一大堆问题。而在今天的中国,翻译是最最重要的事情。
(translated by diaoshuhuan)

Message to Isabel

What I have actually meant above is that we even don't know who are the members in our national climate change delegate in Bonn and Copenhagen or anywhere.That is why I am curious who are they, are they qualified enough to speak on behalf of the state. There are many mistakes of the translation, as always. And translation is above all the most serious issue today in China.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

为了看着好看而伪造

能源工业的内部人士都知道在过去的三年中许多企业都在能源效率提升方面都有伪造。我们已经准备好一切包括能量守恒定律,还有我们在全国范围执行对消耗能源大户的能源审核,例如,任何一个总的消耗超过10,000二乙双酮的公司。突然间许多能源审核的公司迅速成长起来,也通过审核服务赚了不少钱,价格差不多是每件案子50,000人民币,而这种价位是远低于西方公司的标准,但是对于中国公司而言已经是可观的利润了。唯一一年危害到每年的能源节约目标就是2008年。很大程度上是由于制造业经济的衰退,而不是因为我们在能源效率方面取得了什么重大的成绩。从这个角度来看,仍然有可疑之处,不能因为我们在第一个五年计划中有强制的能源计划-20%的节约,我们就此得出结论我们也可以在国际范围内强制减少排放。这就是说我们不能用任何手段推行这一目标。更糟糕的是,我恐怕.....

本评论由陈丽英翻译

Cook the book to look good

It is known to energy industry insiders that many firms have cooked their books to look good in regard to energy efficiency improvements in the past 3 years. We have almost everything in place including the Energy Conservation Law and we have enforced a nation-wide energy audit of large energy consumers, for example any firm with a total consumption exceeding 10,000 TOCE. Suddenly a lot of energy auditing firms sprung up and made a fortune by auditing service, with a price roughly 50,000RMB per case, which is much much lower in western standard but huge profitable for these Chinese firms. The only year that actually hit the annual energy reduction target is the year 2008, and it is largely due to the economic recession in the manufacturing sectors, not because we have significant achievements on the energy efficiency part. By this sense it is also dubious that as we have the mandatory energy targets during the 11th 5-year plan which is a 20% reduction,yet we can not come to the conclusion that we can have a mandatory emission reduction for the international community. It means we actually can not deliver that target in whatever means. And what is worse, I am afraid that the....

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

意见

我想上面评论者的意思是中国节约能源法而不是能量守恒定律吧。那个定律是普遍使用的...

An Opinion

I think that the meaning of the commentator above is that China's economic energy laws isn't actually about energy conservation laws. That law is for universal use...
(Translated by Braden Latham-Jones.)