作者：羅斯葛本斯班
西元2000年9月29日
美國對於氣候危機的否認正在溶化，跟極區9呎厚的冰層狀況相同，而且都是從頂端往下溶化。
 熱水中的南極
去年，保險業者不斷的警告，對許多的石油與汽車業總裁因應全球暖化的態度，產生潛移默化的影響。而這樣的改變正同樣的在影響一般大眾。但是最龐大的否認要塞仍然在政府決策中心裡，競選策略家把總統候選人和大自然越來越大聲的哭喊隔離開來。
氣候正在改變
政府間氣候變遷專家小組的共同主席-哈佛大學的詹姆斯麥卡錫，上個月宣佈在北極發現一哩寬的溶化水域，引起舉國情緒性的反應。儘管仍有爭議，對於氣候變遷的恐懼已經被點燃，而這早就存在，祇是現在才檯面化而已。
從時代雜誌，紐約時報到大衛賴特曼脫口秀，評論家都很關注這個問題。有些恐慌太過誇張；畢竟，關於地球發生了什麼事，極區的溶化不過是另一片罪證確鑿的證據。但海洋變熱的發現一連串累積下來，從南極冰棚崩裂、冰河溶化、凍原解凍、季節時序紊亂，到熱傳染病播散，這個北極來的新消息更加刺激輿論討論。
 吱吱發燙的城市
曾警告全球商業未來衝擊的法人團體，開始預測這項氣候危機產生的牽連。歐洲的產物保險業接獲因極端不穩定氣候事件導致的理賠案件也在增加中。80年代，洪水、乾旱、暴風造成的業界損失平均每年20億元；到了90年代，損失增加超過6倍-每年超過120億元。單1998年就損失890億元，超過80年代的10年總和。
美國再保險協會(the Reinsurance Association of America)主席表示，除非氣候變穩定，否則整個產業會被搞到破產。
至於石油與汽車工業，則大膽投入試驗性的清淨能源技術-部分原因是為了提昇公共形象，但一部分也是為新能源經濟的必然趨勢作準備。馬自達最近加入福特和克萊斯勒的10億元合資計劃，預備在2003年生產燃料電池動力車。英國石油(BP)的新廣告塑造BP成為「超越石油」的新角色，他們預計在未來10年投入每年10億元的經費研發太陽能商業。貝殼石油(Shell)則投資5億元在可更新技術方面。
去年12月，全球氣候聯盟-主要的反全球溫暖化行動工業團體-的成員開始流失，如福特、克萊斯勒、通用汽車、Texaco、南方公司。（最堅強的抵抗者-艾克森美孚在石油業越來越孤立）
2月份在瑞士Davos的世界經濟論壇，經常被談論的議題反而最不受注目。今年的論壇結論裡，全世界前1000大公司的總裁以及許多政府的財政首長，被要求投票選出哪幾項狀況（包括貿易與全球化議題）威脅最大，結果參與投票者拒絕論壇提供的選項，另外選出「氣候變遷」是人類面臨最迫切的問題。
隨後不久，福特汽車總裁亦公開承認福特最賺錢的多功能休旅車也是造成不穩定氣候的元兇之一，這項公開聲明啟動了福特與通用汽車之間的競賽：生產燃料效率更高的汽車。相較之下，否認氣候變遷的死硬派-艾克森美孚石油公司（ExxonMobil）和採煤的西部燃料公司（Western Fuels Association）卻把希望放在總統大選上。
高爾毀了高爾
高爾1992年獲得大眾注目的書：「平衡的地球」（Earth in the Balance）由衷關心全球暖化，但現在他已背叛這個議題。7月白宮發表聲明說，美國對於減少廢氣排放的義務可以藉由多多種樹達成，而非以提高能源效率、使用再生能源以取代煤與石油的使用。因為高爾書中說到將逐步淘汰內燃機引擎，這項聲明是為防喬治布希可能引用來攻擊高爾而先發制人的反擊。但這種政策如同開給癌症病患的處方是修指甲，根本無關痛癢。
 小樹無法解決大問題
當高爾上週要求柯林頓由戰備儲油（the Strategic Petroleum Reserve）釋出百萬桶原油，他再次背叛氣候議題。選舉年的壓力也許迫使他降低原油價格，但他可以利用這個機會將重點聚焦在化石燃料的負面衝擊上，主張以提昇能源效率、節約能源、再生能源為主的長期能源政策。
為避免毀滅性的氣候變遷發生，我們在短期內應將全球的化石燃料廢氣排放量降低70%。即使我們將不毛荒地都種植樹木，並保存現有森林，最佳狀況下這些樹也只能吸收15%的二氧化碳排放量（CO2是氣候改變的指標氣體）。
 高爾只說不做
柯林頓-高爾政府不只是實行京都議定書路上最主要的障礙，種樹計劃簡直是給這項國際氣候變遷公約更致命的一擊。因為美國的毫無行動，歐洲現在是孤軍奮戰。荷蘭在未來40年間預計刪減排放量80%，德國計劃刪減50%，英國誓言在50年內刪減60%。這些目標的達成是靠燃料電池、太陽能、風力、生質能等設備代替石化能源，而不是種種樹。
至於小布希方面，他也承認氣候變遷是個威脅，但仍堅持京都議定書妨礙美國產業發展。在此同時，一些小布希的支持者展開另一回合的資訊消毒戰-這次是扭曲一個由詹姆斯韓森領導的美國太空總署研究成果。
韓森的小組認為，當CO2是溫室效應最主要的影響氣體時，其他的污染物如甲烷、氟氯碳化物、煙塵等，會加速氣候改變的速度。這些氣體捕捉的熱能比CO2多，但在大氣中的停留時間比CO2短。韓森建議先處理這些微量排放，也許可以減緩氣候變遷，爭取到更多時間來研究能源供應的「去碳化」。
可以預期地，有些本來就不相信全球暖化的懷疑論者扭曲這項研究，聲稱因此根本不必刪減煤與石油的使用量。這種謊言和他們的贊助者：艾克森美孚、美國石油研究所、綠色地球協會（也就是西部燃料公司）如出一轍。
清新的機會
事實是，氣候變遷正在加速，主流企業對問題也越來越有認知。如果較受企業支持的布希比高爾更能接受而且採取抑制氣候變遷的行動，這會在歷史上留下十分諷刺的記錄。畢竟，一個整合性的解決方案可以實質擴大國外市場，尤其是發展中國家。
 閃亮又快樂的太陽能板
全球轉化至清淨能源的過程若經適當規劃，將會創造數百萬計的工作機會，使貧窮國家的發展可以不必顧慮大氣排放限制，並解除進口石油的沉重負擔。同時促使起步中的再生能源工業壯大，成為全球經濟的中樞引擎。
下一任美國總統應該展開下列三項簡單實惠的策略：
- 化石燃料業目前每年200億美元的聯邦補助款，把它挪給再生能源（以及採煤礦工的轉職訓練）。此舉將可產生很大的誘因，可促使石油公司，對風力、太陽能及燃料電池技術投入更積極的研究。
- 加強執行京都議定書，對化石燃料的效率訂定時序漸進的嚴格標準。每個國家依規定應提昇燃料效率達70%，因為這需要清淨能源技術的大規模取代才能達到，將促使再生能源變得像化石燃料一樣便宜，打開大眾市場。（國際二氧化碳排放交易在能源市場則是補充、調整的角色）
- 成立高額基金，提供發展中國家清淨能源。如Tobin Tax就是一個很有前景的稅收來源，對國際貨幣交易抽取每元0.25分的稅（相當於0.25%），現今每天有1.5兆交易額，就能產生3000億的稅收，此經費用來提供全球發展中國家的風力農場、太陽能組件及燃料電池工廠。這不是做好事或慷慨捐贈，基於貧窮國家對碳燃料的需求若渴，這項基金正是對我們國家安全的一項重要投資（更詳盡的論述請見同一位作者的文章：Rx for a Planetary Fever）。
否認氣候變遷的聲音已逐漸消失，隨之浮現的是對解決方案----這個非比尋常的承諾的一個認知：急速膨脹的全球經濟財富，以及謀求世界和平基礎條件的增加。
當諾言變得和恐懼一般明顯時，政治和經濟變遷的步調也許終能趕得上氣候變遷越來越快的步調。
註：羅斯葛本斯班（Ross Gelbspan）著有The Heat Is On一書，以及The Heat Is Online網站。他是波士頓全球報、華盛頓郵報等大報的編輯及記者。
全文及圖示詳見: http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/maindish/gelbspan092900.stm
版權歸屬 Grist Magazine 環境信託基金會 (李眉君 譯，林子倫 審校)
中英對照全文：http://news.ngo.org.tw/issue/climate/sub-cc00101701.htm |
|
by Ross Gelbspan
09.29.00
Like the nine-foot-deep blanket of ice at the top of the world, America's denial of the climate crisis is
melting.
And like the North Pole, it is melting from the top down.
In hot water in the Antarctic.Photo: Michael Van Woert, NOAA.
Over the last year, in the wake of steady alarms from leaders of the insurance industry, growing numbers of oil and auto company executives have been undergoing a quiet but profound sea change in their responses to global warming.
At long last, that change is rapidly engulfing the general public.
The most formidible fortress of denial remains at the center of the country's political establishment, where campaign strategists and spin-meisters have insulated the presidential candidates from the increasingly harsh outcries of nature.
The Climate, It Is A-Changin'
When James McCarthy of Harvard University, cochair of a working group for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, announced his discovery last month of a mile-wide stretch of open water at the North Pole, it triggered a national catharsis. Despite controversy over the uniqueness of the polar meltdown, the finding loosed a barrage of pent-up fears about climate change that have been building just below the surface of public discourse.
From Time magazine to the New York Times to the Late Show with David Letterman, commentators began weighing in. Some of the dismay may be a bit overstated. The melting at the pole is, after all, only one more piece of confirmatory evidence of what is happening to the planet. But coming on the heels of an accumulation of findings about the heating of the oceans, the break-up of Antarctic ice shelves, the melting of glaciers, the thawing of the tundra, the changing timing of the seasons, and the warming-driven spread of infectious disease, the news from the far north has at long last galvanized public opinion.
Sizzlin' cities.
The corporate community, ever alert to future impacts on global commerce, has already begun to anticipate the implications of the climate crisis.
The property insurance industry, especially in Europe, has led the charge with a drumbeat of alarms over the increasingly severe losses due to extreme weather events. In the 1980s, the industry lost an average of $2 billion a year because of floods, droughts, and intense storms. For most of the 1990s, that figure increased more than sixfold, exceeding $12 billion a year. The $89 billion in losses just in 1998 surpassed the total of all such losses for the entire decade of the 1980s. The head of the Reinsurance Association of America has said that unless the climate is stabilized, it could bankrupt the entire industry.
For their part, the oil and auto industries have ventured tentatively into clean energy technologies -- partly to improve their public images, but partly to prepare themselves for the inevitable new energy economy.
Mazda recently joined Ford and Daimler-Chrysler in a $1 billion joint venture to produce fuel-cell powered cars by 2003. British Petroleum's new ads portray BP as standing for "Beyond Petroleum." BP now anticipates doing $1 billion a year in solar commerce within the decade, and Shell is investing $500 million in renewable technologies.
Since December, the Global Climate Coalition, the main industry group opposing action on global warming, has seen its membership hemorrhage as Ford, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Texaco, the Southern Company, and others have defected from the group. (The last major holdout -- ExxonMobil -- has become increasingly isolated in the oil industry.)
Even more telling was a little-noticed vote in February at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. At the conclusion of this year's Forum, which includes the CEOs of the world's 1,000 largest corporations as well as many heads of state and finance ministers, participants were asked to vote on which of five scenarios (involving issues of trade and globalization) were most threatening. The participants rejected those choices and voted climate change as the most urgent problem facing humanity.
Soon thereafter came an extraordinary public acknowledgement from William Clay Ford, chair of Ford Motor Co., that the same SUVs that provide the company's largest profit margins are also contributing to the destabilization of our climate. That statement set off a competition between Ford and General Motors to make promises about producing more fuel-efficient vehicles.
By contrast, diehard deniers of climate change like ExxonMobil and the coal-touting Western Fuels Association look downright presidential.
Not Al He's Cracked Up to Be
Al Gore, who cast a spotlight on global warming in 1992 with his heartfelt book Earth in the Balance, has turned his back on the issue.
In July, the White House proclaimed that the U.S. can meet much of its obligation to reduce emissions by planting trees rather than by moving the country away from coal and oil to high efficiency and renewable energy. That announcement was Gore's preemptive defense against the expectation that George W. Bush will attack him by citing the call in Gore's book to phase out the internal-combustion engine. The new White House policy lets Gore shun that position in favor of more tree plantations. That strategy is akin to prescribing a manicure to a cancer patient.
Little trees won't solve big problems.
Photo: Steve Holmer, American Lands.
Gore again turned his back on the climate issue when he asked President Clinton to release millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last week. While election-year pressures may have required him to open the tap to lower heating oil prices, Gore could have used the occasion to highlight the negative impacts of fossil fuels and announce a long-term energy policy based on efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy
sources.
To avert catastrophic climate change, we must -- in a very short time -- reduce global emissions from fossil fuel burning by 70 percent. At best, if we reforested barren areas and preserved existing forests, they would be capable of absorbing only 15 percent of our climate-altering carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Al talk and no action.Photo: Warren Gretz, NREL/PIX.
Not content with being the major obstacle to diplomatic progress toward implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the Clinton-Gore administration could drive the final stake through the heart of the international climate change treaty with this tree-planting scheme.Because of U.S. inaction, European countries are now going it alone. Holland will cut emissions 80 percent in the next 40 years. Germany is planning 50 percent cuts. Britain pledged reductions of 60 percent in the next 50 years. They will meet those goals not by planting trees but by replacing coal and oil power with fuel cells and solar, wind, and biomass facilities.
For his part, George W. Bush has acknowledged that climate change may pose a threat. But he resists the Kyoto Protocol, claiming it would hamper U.S. business. Some Bush supporters, meanwhile, have launched a new round of disinformation -- this time misrepresenting a study by a team of scientists led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Hansen's team argues that while CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, several other pollutants -- methane, CFC's, and soot -- may be seriously accelerating the pace of climate change. These gases trap in more heat than does CO2 but remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time. Hansen et al. suggest that tackling these other emissions first might slow the rate of change and buy more time to deal with the greater challenge of decarbonizing the world's energy supplies.
Predictably, several already-discredited global-warming skeptics distorted the study, saying it proves we don't need to cut our coal and oil use. That dishonesty is consistent with the track record of their sponsors -- ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Greening Earth Society (a.k.a. the Western Fuels Association).
Making a Clean Break
Given the accelerating pace of climate change and the mainstream corporate community's growing acknowledgement of the problem, it could become an irony of history if a business-backed Bush administration proved more receptive than Gore to the kind of sweeping action the climate crisis requires. A comprehensive solution, after all, would substantially enlarge foreign markets, especially in developing countries.Shiny, happy solar panels.Photo: Warren Gretz, NREL, PIX.
A properly framed global transition to clean energy would create millions of jobs all over the world. It would allow poor countries to grow without regard to atmospheric limits -- and without the burden of imported oil. It would transform the fledgling renewable industry into a central driving engine of growth for the global economy.
The new U.S. president could begin with three fairly simple strategies:
- Remove the $20 billion a year in federal subsidies for fossil fuels and put an equivalent amount behind renewable energy (and job retraining for coal miners). That would create an incentive for oil companies to follow the subsidies and become aggressive developers of wind turbines, solar systems, and fuel-cell technologies.
- Promote the adoption in the Kyoto Protocol of a progressively more stringent fossil-fuel efficiency standard, under which every nation would work to improve its fossil fuel efficiency by 70 percent, starting at its current baseline. Because that would require the large-scale substitution of clean energy technologies, it would create the mass market to make renewables as inexpensive as fossil fuels. (International carbon trading could be used to supplement and fine-tune a wholesale energy switch).
- Create a large fund to provide clean energy to developing countries. One promising source of revenue, a Tobin Tax, would extract a quarter of a penny per dollar on international currency transactions that today total $1.5 trillion per day. This $0.0025 tax would yield $300 billion a year to finance wind farms, solar assemblies, and fuel-cell factories in developing nations around the globe. This is not a do-good, liberal giveaway plan. Given the coming pulse of carbon from poor countries, this represents a critical investment in our own national security. (For a more thorough exposition of these strategies, see my article Rx for a Planetary Fever, published in the American Prospect.)
As the general denial of climate change melts, what will soon emerge is a recognition of the extraordinary promise of its solution -- a dramatic expansion of the overall wealth in the global economy and the simultaneous extension of the baseline conditions for a more peaceful world. When the promise becomes as palpable as the fear, the pace of political and economic change may finally match the escalating pace of climate change.
Ross Gelbspan is author of The Heat Is On, and creator of The Heat Is Online website. He has worked as an editor and reporter for the Boston Globe, Washington Post, Village Voice, and Philadelphia Bulletin.
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/maindish/gelbspan092900.stm
|
