北京中福银新能源研究院

shunzi

中福银新能源研究院此微信号“国际能源在线”，是北京中福银新能源研究院通过与中国人民大学国际能源战略研究中心合作，最新推出的旨在追踪世界最新的能源动态和最前沿的能源理念，引进、吸收、开发和推广能源技术，努力为解决我国日益严重的清洁能源短缺和雾霾危害做出贡献。欢迎点击顶端蓝字关注我们。作者：Bob Sussman
若中国现在对能源系统开展影响深远的改革，其碳排放将在2030年达到峰值。这就要求中国在各级政府实施强有力的政策措施，同时对中国经济也提出了极大挑战。
中国将采取何种措施使碳排放在2030年达到峰值？
近年来，由于中国经济增长势头强劲，中国在2000年到2011年间，碳排放增长了171%。由于煤炭在发电和制造业的能源供应中占有较高比重，中国的碳排放量势必继续增长下去。
在2009年的哥本哈根气候大会上和在2013年的**上，中国和中国领导人都提出了减排、征收更高资源税、限制煤炭使用等应对措施，这意味着北京和其他高耗煤地区的煤炭消耗将被大幅度削减。
随着中美气候协议的签署，中国将采取更多严格的限制措施。根据协议规定，2030年，中国20%的能源供应将来自核能及可再生能源，而当前中国零碳能源的比重仅为9.8%，因此中国在未来数十年需大力开展核能建设，同时提高风力、太阳能及水力发电能力。此外，中国还将采取碳税及限额交易等一系列新的政策工具。
毫无疑问，这些措施将不可避免地为中国经济带来负面影响。
采矿工人将面临失业困境，高耗煤企业可能利润下降甚至濒临倒闭，核能和可再生能源发电将增加国家电网的运行压力，有些地区由于产业结构、地理位置等原因更易受到影响。这些困难与美国在实施环境保护署的清洁能源计划时所遇到的挑战并无二致。两国减排目标不同，所承担任务却同等重大
一些美国批评家称，中美两国减排速率不同，这使得美国的减排负担重于中国。这种观念荒谬无比，是因为其忽略了中美两国的不同国情。
美国在19世纪末开始工业化革命，并高度依赖化石燃料。至20世纪，美国成为世界第一大化石燃料消费国，其温室气体排放量也相应扶摇直上，直到十年前才出现下降的拐点。从历史人均排放量来看，美国高达26%，中国仅有11%。
中国工业化前温室气体排放量极少，改革开放后大举投资能源基础设施、碳密集制造业和公共运输业，这条与美国当年相似的发展道路使其人均碳排放量陡增，但即使如此，也仅是美国人均排放量的一半。
近年来，美国服务业和信息技术产业逐渐成为经济增长支柱、能源生产和使用效率有所提高、低廉的天然气和可再生能源的大量使用逐步取代了煤炭燃烧，因此碳排放量有所下降。有趋势表明，中国在未来也将走上类似的发展道路，减少碳足迹。但从短期来看，中国仍要竭力发展能源密集型的重工业、消费与服务领域发展较慢、且面临大幅提高GDP的艰巨任务。因此，要求中国在短期内进行大幅减排是不合理的。
美国在2005年达到排放峰值，中国将在25年后，即2030年达到排放峰值，无疑应是倍受欢迎的尽力之举。我们不应该要求中美在减排方面步调完全一致，而应该看到，两国在实现2030年目标上承担着同样巨大的任务，没有哪一方能够轻易搭载顺风车。
总而言之，当前的关注点不应在“美国与中国签订了糟糕的气候协议”，而应确保两国拿出切实行动、兑现气候协议中的宏伟目标与诺言。Bob SussmanBob Sussman is the principal in Sussman and Associates, a consulting firm that offers advice and support on energy and environmental policy issues to clients in the non‐profit and private sectors.Bob recently completed four and a half years of service in the Obama Administration, first as C0‐Chair of the Transition Team for EPA and then as Senior Policy Counsel to the EPA Administrator. In this position, Bob functioned as the Administrator’s principal policy advisor, providing oversight and guidance on the full suite of policy issues across the Agency. Bob worked closely with all of EPA’s senior officials in Washington and the Regions. He also played a key role in EPA’s interface with OMB, CEQ and other White House offices and worked closely with other agencies, particularly the Department of Energy and Department of Interior. Bob served in the Clinton Administration as the EPA Deputy Administrator during 1993‐94. He was the Agency’s Chief Operating Officer and Regulatory Policy Officer, testified frequently before Congress and represented EPA at several international meetings.At the end of 2007, Bob retired as a partner at the law firm of Latham & Watkins, where he headed the firm’s environmental practice in DC for ten years. He joined Latham in 1987 to start its environmental practice in DC after being a partner at Covington & Burling since 1974. Bob worked with a wide range of companies and trade associations on all aspects of energy and environmental policy, functioning as a policy advisor, advocateand litigator.For several years, Bob was named one of the leading environmental lawyers inWashington, DC by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Business Lawyers and The International Who’s Who of Environmental Lawyers. Bob was a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress in 2008, writing and speaking about climate change and energy.Bob is a magna cum laude 1969 graduate of Yale College and a 1973 graduate of Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Bob clerked for Judge Walter K. Circuit Court of Appeals.Bob can be contacted at bobsussman1@comcast  or (202)‐758‐2227 (O) or (202)‐716‐President Obama's critics have lambasted his November 9 climate agreement with President Xi Jinping as an exercise in economic self-destruction. They contend that it sacrifices US jobs and competitiveness in return for a meaningless gesture by China. Senator McConnell, soon-to-be majority leader, put the case starkly: “I was particularly distressed by the deal he’s reached with the Chinese on his current trip, which, as I read the agreement, it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years, while these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states across the country.”That the agreement gives China a blank check until 2030 while the US labors to reduce emissions may be a useful political narrative but it’s not grounded in reality. China's emissions will only peak in 2030 if far-reaching changes in its energy system are implemented now. This will require strong government policies, carried out aggressively at all levels of China's sprawling bureaucracy, which will inevitably place heavy demands on the Chinese economy.What It Will Take to Cap Emissions in 2030Chinese emissions rose by a striking 171 percent between 2000 and 2011 because of a rapid increase in energy consumption driven by strong economic growth. Coal has been dominant in China's energy mix, accounting for a large share of emissions from the electricity and manufacturing sectors. With further increases in coal consumption, China's emissions would likely continue to rise indefinitely.But China is already taking steps to change its emissions trajectory. At the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, China pledged to reduce carbon intensity (the ratio of carbon pollution to GDP) by 40-45 percent and to increase the share of non-fossil energy to 15 percent by 2020. At the 2013 Communist Party Plenum, China’s leaders committed to reduce coal’s share of primary energy below 67 percent by 2017 by implementing higher resource taxes or caps on coal use. Just last week, China's State Cabinet released details of plans to cap coal consumption at 4.2 billion tons in 2020, a limit that will require severe cuts in coal use in Beijing and other large coal-dependent regions.With the US-China climate agreement, more aggressive steps are in the offing. As part of the agreement, China raised its goal for non-emitting power sources (nuclear and renewables) to 20 percent of total energy production, to be achieved by 2030. Since non-carbon energy now represents 9.8 percent of China's energy production, this will require a sharp acceleration of ongoing programs to build nuclear capacity and increase wind, solar and hydro generation. Projections are that nuclear and renewables will account for $ 1.77 trillion in new investment by 2040, representing 79 percent of total funding for new power plants and a sharp shift away from fossil fuels. Chinese experts also predict that new policy tools will be adopted, including a carbon tax and cap-and-trade programs (which are now being implemented in certain regions).Redirecting capital investment away from fossil fuels in the power sector and penalizing carbon-intensive industry will inevitably have far-reaching impacts on China’s economy. Jobs will be lost in mining and other sectors; some enterprises that heavily consume coal may become unprofitable and close their doors; China’s electricity grid may be stressed as it accommodates expanded generation from nuclear and renewable sources; and some regions may fare more poorly than others because of their mix of industry, geography and proximity to coal production. These are the very same challenges that the US faces in implementing EPA’s Clean Power Plan.Equal Burdens, Not Identical Emission Goals Nonetheless, some skeptics in the US argue that, because China and the US will not be reducing emissions at the same rate, the Chinese will bear a smaller burden than the US and our economy will necessarily be at a disadvantage in global markets. This is fallacious thinking that ignores the vastly different circumstances of the two countries. The US began its heavy dependence on fossil fuels in the late 19th century as it rapidly industrialized. In the twentieth century, it was far and away the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels and its emissions of greenhouse gases began a steep unbroken climb that only reversed course in the last decade.Throughout that period, we were the world's top emitter, a position only relinquished to China within the last few years. US emissions account for by far the greatest portion of historic emissions – 26 percent as compared to China’s 11 percent.As the US industrialized, China had a pre-industrial economy and minuscule greenhouse gas emissions. This changed only with China’s remarkable growth spurt in the 1980s, when its heavy investment in energy infrastructure and carbon-intensive manufacturing and transportation mirrored similar trends in the US decades earlier. China’s per capita emissions rose rapidly but, even now, are half of those of the US, evidence that the average American accounts for significantly larger consumption of fossil fuels than the average Chinese.The recent decline in US emissions reflects a host of factors – the movement of heavy manufacturing to low-cost producers like China, the rise of services and information technology as drivers of economic growth, greater efficiency in producing and using energy and, not least, the shift away from coal because of low-cost natural gas and growth in renewable resources. These are also trends that over time will enable China to lower its carbon footprint. But in the near-term, China faces bigger obstacles than the US, including its concentration of heavy industry with high energy intensity, the slow development of its consumer and service sectors, the persistence of widespread poverty and the pressure for high GDP growth.Because of these factors, it would be unreasonable to expect China to make immediate cuts in emissions. However, an aggressive effort to cap and then lower emission no later than 2030, 25 years after the US took the same step, represents welcome progress.We should demand a comparable level of effort in the US and China, not lockstep emission reduction goals. All the evidence suggests that ending emissions growth by 2030 will require a heavy lift by China, much like emission reduction efforts in the US, and that neither country will get a free ride.
Accountability and Transparency
Some have voiced suspicion that China is “gaming” the US and does not intend to fulfill its part of the recent agreement. This seems highly unlikely, given that China's leaders clearly recognize that dramatic changes in energy use are needed to reverse the heavy toll that pollution is taking on public health and political stability (even apart from the threat of global warming).However, the Chinese have not yet detailed the steps they will take to cap emissions by 2030, just as the US has not explained how it will reach the 26-28 percent reduction which President Obama has targeted for 2025.Demanding specifics from all major emitters is critical to ensure seriousness of purpose and good faith. We should insist that countries back up their pledges with action plans and interim milestones and that the climate agreement reached next year in Paris include strong measures for ensuring accountability and tracking progress.In sum, it’s time to stop bashing the US for making a “bad deal” with China and make sure that both countries step up to their ambitious but essential commitments.（来源：布鲁金斯学会，译者：马岩）（由李书瑞摘要）