溫室氣體減排：妖魔化中國的新話題
氣候變暖，是否是二氧化碳排放引起的，還是一個問題，筆者并不相信，曾在《博客中國》上轉(zhuǎn)載幾篇文章分析。就是成立，造成大氣二氧化碳濃度從100多年前290ppm升高到現(xiàn)在390ppm，也主要是西方發(fā)達(dá)國家的貢獻(xiàn)。從歷史來看，中國人均貢獻(xiàn)不到美國等發(fā)達(dá)國家?guī)资种弧，F(xiàn)實來看，中國人均排放也僅相對于美國四分之一到五分之一。即使不追究發(fā)達(dá)國家歷史上向大氣排放的大量二氧化碳，也應(yīng)當(dāng)是西方首先削減二氧化碳排放，使人均排放等于中國人均水平，才有資格討論中國的減排問題。但是，西方輿論不是這么給西方的老百姓解釋的，而是宣傳，最近幾年二氧化碳排放量增加很快，主要是中國經(jīng)濟(jì)高速發(fā)展，帶來二氧化碳排放量高速增長的結(jié)果，將矛頭指向中國。其實中國人生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品，40％銷售給美國等發(fā)達(dá)國家，主要為發(fā)達(dá)國家服務(wù)，換回美元欠條，眼看著美元貶值，還無法使用，等于免費奉送。老百姓當(dāng)牛做馬，累死累活，連個溫飽都談不上，中國社會科學(xué)院最新報告顯示，85％老百姓買不起房子。所謂的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展，不過是精英們在吹牛，欺騙老百姓。由于外資在中國的資產(chǎn)還超過23000億美元，辛辛苦苦積累的23000億美元外匯儲備，實際還是屬于外國資本家，因為外國資本家將其在中國的資產(chǎn)兌現(xiàn)，就抵消了外匯儲備。但是西方卻抓住精英們吹牛，大肆宣傳，中國經(jīng)濟(jì)所謂的高速發(fā)展是氣候變暖的主要禍?zhǔn)字??！ ?/p>
此次哥本哈根會議之前，中國就高調(diào)宣布溫室氣體減排措施，到2020年單位國民產(chǎn)值排放二氧化碳降低40－45％，而美國卻不愿承諾，1997年京都協(xié)議書通過的國際協(xié)定，而是搞了一個無約束的哥本哈根協(xié)議。美國作為這個世界的黑社會老大，就是承諾了，如曾簽署了京都協(xié)議書，2002年小布什宣布作廢，各國也沒有什么辦法。但是，美國媒體卻不忘抓住哥本哈根會議妖魔化中國。筆者在紐約時報和華盛頓郵報上僅僅各看了一篇報道，就看到了西方記者精彩的妖魔化中國的文章，其中華盛頓郵報說中國長期以來反對確認(rèn)（削減排放），將其看成是對主權(quán)的侵犯（當(dāng)然美國是贊成的，全文附后，有多處妖魔化中國的評述）。新加坡聯(lián)合早報也加入到妖魔化中國的大合唱，說：設(shè)定減排年限是先進(jìn)國的要求，但遭到中國的強(qiáng)烈反對?！ ?/p>
西方要求中國參加減排，其根本目的，并不在于中國減排多少，而是非常在意監(jiān)控中國減排，從而讓中國重蹈伊拉克的覆轍。中國一天不上套，這個扯皮會就不會結(jié)束。哥本哈根協(xié)議成功地讓中國在這個方向上前進(jìn)了一步（答應(yīng)減排，同時答應(yīng)交流通報減排措施，筆者另文分析其后果）。下面且看西方媒體的表演：
紐約時報
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/12/05/world/climate-graphic-players.html
China
China, with the world’s largest population and largest emissions of greenhouse gases, could be viewed as one of two 800-pound gorillas in the room, with the United States. A developing nation, China has refused to accept firm limits on its emissions but has instead proposed a “carbon intensity” target, reducing its emissions per dollar of economic output by 40 to 45% by 2020.
中國是世界上人口最多的國家和排放溫室氣體最多的國家，可以看成是房間中兩個800磅大猩猩中的一個，另一個是美國。作為發(fā)展中國家，中國拒絕接受確實的排放限制，而是提出了一個所謂“碳強(qiáng)度”目標(biāo)，到2020年減少每美元經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)出所排放的40－45％
United States
The other 800-pound gorilla, the United States ranks among the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide per capita of any large country. (Certain small countries like Qatar emit more per person.) With the Senate unable to pass climate legislation before the Copenhagen meeting, the Obama administration will be limited in what it can offer. Yet President Obama has signaled a greater willingness to cooperate with international efforts to reduce emissions than his predecessor, George W. Bush
另一個800磅大猩猩，美國是大國中人均排放二氧化碳最多國家（還有一些小國，如卡塔爾人均排放更多）。由于在哥本哈根會議之前，參議院沒有通過氣候法案，奧巴馬總統(tǒng)所能采取的措施有限，但是奧巴馬總統(tǒng)簽署了一個同國家社會合作減少排放的協(xié)議，比其前任布什總統(tǒng)前進(jìn)了一大步。
新加坡聯(lián)合早報：http://www.zaobao.com/gj/gj091220_001_1.shtml
《哥本哈根協(xié)議》也并未列明各國的減排目標(biāo)，支持協(xié)議的國家只承諾把全球暖化的幅度限制在攝氏2度。設(shè)定減排年限是先進(jìn)國的要求，但遭到中國的強(qiáng)烈反對。
但《哥本哈根協(xié)議》倒是詳細(xì)列出了富國會給予窮國的援助數(shù)額，以協(xié)助它們應(yīng)付氣候變化所造成的海平面上升、水災(zāi)、旱災(zāi)、風(fēng)暴等。富國承諾在2010至2012年之間，提供300億美元的援助，其中110億美元來自日本、106億美元來自歐洲聯(lián)盟、36億美元來自美國。各國還定下到了2020年援助數(shù)額達(dá)1000億美元的長期目標(biāo)?！ ?/p>
奧巴馬同四個發(fā)展中大國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人會談后曾說，此項協(xié)議是一個起點。他說：“這樣的進(jìn)度得來不易，但我們也知道，單有這樣的進(jìn)度是不足夠的?！彼矎?qiáng)稱協(xié)議提供了日后加強(qiáng)對抗氣候變化的工具，算是取得“空前突破”?！ ?/p>
華盛頓郵報
Copenhagen climate deal shows new world order may be led by U.S., China
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900687.html
By Anthony Faiola, Juliet Eilperin and John Pomfret
Sunday, December 20, 2009
COPENHAGEN -- If the talks that resulted in an imperfect deal to combat global warming provided anything, it was a glimpse into a new world order in which international diplomacy will increasingly be shaped by the United States and emerging powers, most notably China.
View Only Top Items in This Story
Friday"s agreement, sources involved in the talks said, boiled down to President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao personally hammering out a pact both could live with, even if many other leaders could not. Wen even squelched his own negotiator"s protests.
What Obama heralded as a "breakthrough" -- after getting India and other rising powers to sign on -- was decried by some nations as too little, too late. The leaders of Europe, Japan and other countries at the summit were largely left to rubber-stamp the deal. The Swedish prime minister"s office dubbed it "a disaster."
Ever since the concept of a G2was proposed this year by former U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the idea that the United States and China together are going to solve all the world"s problems has been pooh-poohed by both American and Chinese officials. China hated the notion because it put too much responsibility on a country that has done very well rising in the shadows. Many U.S. officials opposed the idea on the grounds that the best way to influence China was through multinational partnerships.
So, more than anything else, critics said, Friday"s climate agreement reflected the domestic political realities in Washington and Beijing. Both nations, the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, remain more cautious than, say, the governments of Europe about establishing a strict set of international rules to combat global warming. Not coincidentally, the agreement allows nations to set their own emission reduction targets and provides no deadline for signing a binding international accord.
A shifting relationship
As such, the deal may portend how issues from world trade to nuclear proliferation will be negotiated in the years ahead, with China leading a caucus of rising powers on one side and the United States on the other.
"The mark is being stamped on a new political world," said Duncan Marsh, who directs international climate policy for the Nature Conservancy. Said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Fund: "Coming into this conference, it was about 193 countries, and coming out of it, it clearly came down to a conversation between the leaders of those two superpowers."
Orville Schell, a longtime China watcher who is director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society, said the erratic dance between China and the United States is another example of how the bilateral relationship is at a tipping point. China is becoming a major player, albeit reluctantly; the United States, with similar unease, is making room for China at the table of world leaders.
"We"re not exactly partners, but we"re much more equals," Schell said. "The Chinese miss the idea that there"s some grander, stronger authority. They are not used to this role of actually helping to fashion and form things."
Indeed, the events at the summit showed how the U.S.-China relationship remains stormy and complex, constructive and adversarial. At one point in Friday"s tense talks, for instance, China"s top climate change negotiator exploded in rage at U.S. pressure after Obama walked in on the Chinese while they were holding talks with the Indians, South Africans and Brazilians. After Obama asked whether the Chinese could commit to listing their climate targets in an international registry, Xie Zhenhua launched into a tirade, pointing his finger at the U.S. president.
A compromise from China
The United States had made any deal contingent on international verification of emission cuts made by nations, seeing it as key to winning over skeptical lawmakers on Capitol Hill who are still resistant to sweeping climate change legislation at home. But there was no way China would agree to international verification, Xie told the Americans.
It was a position that China had held to closely over months of negotiations with the United States and other countries. China"s vice minister of foreign affairs, He Yafei, had reiterated it just hours earlier.
But this time, something different happened, according to Chinese and Western sources close to the talks. Wen instructed his Chinese interpreter not to translate Xie"s fiery remarks. When Xie erupted again, Wen, who was chairing the meeting, ignored him. After Wen handed Obama a draft text of an agreement that included verification language Obama couldn"t abide by, the two men led a lengthy debate that ended in a working compromise, sources said.
View Only Top Items in This Story
China has a long history of opposing verification, seeing it as a violation of its sovereignty（中國長期以來反對確認(rèn)（排放削減），將其看成是對其主權(quán)的侵犯）. It has also used the sovereignty argument as a way to cover up for failures or weaknesses. When China tracked air pollution in Beijing in the run-up to the 2008 Summer Olympics, for instance, authorities in the capital moved monitoring stations into areas with less congestion to get positive ratings. When the U.S. Embassy in Beijing established an air-quality monitoring site on its grounds -- and began sending pollution readings out on Twitter -- the Chinese took umbrage and implied that the action was an interference in their country"s internal affairs. Twitter later was blocked nationwide.
But on Friday, Wen ultimately agreed to stronger verification language. By the nature of the agreement, however, China"s participation will be voluntary.
The fate of any future global climate change treaty will now effectively rest in the hands of the two largest emitters. For at least the next several years, the lack of a binding international treaty may result in a piecemeal response to the problem, with action being taken largely on a national and regional level.
Yet proponents of the Copenhagen agreement stress that the Obama administration is taking unprecedented action at home, pushing for a national switch to green energy and for a cap-and-trade system that could help dramatically curb emissions.
Wen, according to several Americans who have interacted with him on this issue, is also passionate about climate change. He chairs a high-level Communist Party group on climate change, which sets policy and makes major decisions.
In addition, Ken Lieberthal, a former senior director for Asia at the National Security Council who is now a China expert at the Brookings Institution, said that for China to even tentatively agree on an international verification regime and on the necessity of registering its climate goals marks substantive movement.
"Of course you could say, "It"s just words; they won"t do anything," " Lieberthal said. "But words matter internationally. You can hold people to their words and shame them if they don"t comply."
Pomfret reported from Washington.