世界如何應(yīng)對(duì)特朗普退出巴黎協(xié)定？

The US is a rogue superpower. Its decision last week to renounce participation in the climate agreement reached in Paris in December 2015 underlined this reality. The question is how to respond.

美國(guó)是一個(gè)流氓超級(jí)大國(guó)。它在上周決定退出2015年12月達(dá)成的巴黎氣候協(xié)定，突顯出這一事實(shí)。問(wèn)題在于如何回應(yīng)。

Denial of man-made global warming is an article of faith for many Republicans: Donald Trump’s hostility to action is no idiosyncrasy. But clever lobbying reinforces disbelief. The debate parallels those on the dangers of lead and tobacco. In those cases, too, lobbies exploited every uncertainty. The arguments for action on climate are quite as strong as on lead and tobacco. But obfuscation has again been effective.

否認(rèn)人為原因造成全球變暖是許多共和黨人的信條：唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)不愿采取行動(dòng)并非特立獨(dú)行。但聰明的游說(shuō)強(qiáng)化了不信任感。這場(chǎng)辯論堪比關(guān)于鉛和煙草危險(xiǎn)的辯論。在后兩場(chǎng)辯論中，游說(shuō)者也曾利用一切不確定性。對(duì)氣候變化采取行動(dòng)的理由之充分，不輸于對(duì)鉛和煙草采取行動(dòng)的理由。但混淆視線的做法又一次起作用了。

American views on the US role in the world also matter. HR McMaster and Gary Cohn, Mr Trump’s advisers on security and economics, have recently written that: “The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, non-governmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.” These, we must remember, are the “adults” in the White House.

美國(guó)人對(duì)美國(guó)在世界扮演何種角色的看法也非常關(guān)鍵。特朗普的安全顧問(wèn)赫伯特•雷蒙德•麥克馬斯特(HR McMaster)和經(jīng)濟(jì)顧問(wèn)加里•科恩(Gary Cohn)最近寫(xiě)道：“特朗普帶著如下清醒認(rèn)識(shí)踏上了他上任以來(lái)的首次出訪之旅：世界并非一個(gè)‘全球社區(qū)’，而是國(guó)家、非政府行為人以及企業(yè)爭(zhēng)奪利益的競(jìng)技場(chǎng)。我們帶到場(chǎng)上的是無(wú)可匹敵的軍事、政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化和道德實(shí)力。我們接受而非否認(rèn)國(guó)際事務(wù)的這種基本特質(zhì)。”我們必須記住的是，這些是白宮里的“成年人”。

The US abandoned such a 19th-century view of international relations after it ended so catastrophically in the 20th. In its place came the ideas, embedded in the institutions it created and the alliances it formed, that values matter as well as interests and responsibilities, as well as benefits. Above all, the earth is not just an arena. It is our shared home. It does not belong to one nation, even such a powerful one. Looking after the planet is the moral responsibility of all.

這種19世紀(jì)的國(guó)際關(guān)系觀在20世紀(jì)以巨大災(zāi)難告終，在那之后，美國(guó)拋棄了這種觀點(diǎn)。取而代之的觀點(diǎn)是：價(jià)值觀與利益同樣重要，責(zé)任與好處同樣重要。這些觀點(diǎn)深植于美國(guó)組建的機(jī)構(gòu)和聯(lián)盟中。最重要的是，地球不僅僅是競(jìng)技場(chǎng)。它是我們共享的家園。它不屬于一個(gè)國(guó)家，即便這個(gè)國(guó)家強(qiáng)大無(wú)比。照料這個(gè)星球是所有人負(fù)有的道義上的責(zé)任。

Hostility to science and a narrow view of interests laid the ground for Mr Trump’s repudiation of the Paris accord. But his speech was also a characteristic blend of falsehood and resentment.

對(duì)科學(xué)的敵意以及狹隘的利益觀點(diǎn)為特朗普拒絕巴黎協(xié)定奠定了基礎(chǔ)。但他的演講也帶有他一貫的虛偽和怨恨。

Thus, Mr Trump stated that “as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country”. Yet a “non-binding” agreement can hardly impose draconian financial and economic burdens. Indeed, the point of the agreement was that each country should come up with its “intended nationally determined contribution”. The underlying mechanism of the Paris accord was peer pressure, aimed at achieving a shared goal. No coercion was involved.

因此，特朗普宣稱，“從今天開(kāi)始，美國(guó)將會(huì)完全停止對(duì)非約束性的巴黎協(xié)定的執(zhí)行，并完全解除該協(xié)定加于我們國(guó)家的嚴(yán)酷金融和經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)”。然而，一個(gè)“非約束性”協(xié)議不可能帶來(lái)嚴(yán)酷的金融和經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)。實(shí)際上，該協(xié)議的要點(diǎn)是，每個(gè)國(guó)家都應(yīng)該提交自己的“國(guó)家自主貢獻(xiàn)”(intended nationally determined contribution)文件。巴黎協(xié)定的根本機(jī)制是旨在實(shí)現(xiàn)共享目標(biāo)的“同儕壓力”。沒(méi)有任何脅迫成分。

Mr Trump also argued that the agreement would have little effect on the climate. As it is, that is true. The main reason for this is that significant players — including the US — would not agree to anything more. Arguing against adhering to an agreement because it is ineffective, when one’s country’s recalcitrance helped make it so, is ludicrous.

特朗普還辯稱，該協(xié)定將會(huì)對(duì)氣候沒(méi)啥影響。實(shí)際上，這話沒(méi)錯(cuò)。這么說(shuō)主要是因?yàn)榘绹?guó)在內(nèi)的主要國(guó)家不同意任何更高的目標(biāo)。他的國(guó)家的頑固在一定程度上導(dǎo)致協(xié)議沒(méi)有效果，他卻以協(xié)議沒(méi)有效果為由反對(duì)遵守協(xié)議，這是荒謬的。

Mr Trump asserted that: “We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. And they won’t be. They won’t be.” That is a paranoid fantasy. The US is the second-largest global emitter of carbon dioxide. Its emissions are 50 per cent larger than the EU’s and its emissions per head are twice those of that bloc or Japan. Far from being exploited by others, as Mr Trump suggests, the US emits exorbitantly. American co-operation is not a sufficient condition for management of climate risks. But it is a necessary one. This repudiation is no laughing matter.

特朗普宣稱：“我們不想再讓其他領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人和其他國(guó)家嘲笑我們。他們也不會(huì)了。他們不會(huì)了。”這是一種偏執(zhí)的想法。美國(guó)是全球第二大二氧化碳排放國(guó)。它的排放水平比歐盟高50%，人均排放量是歐盟國(guó)家或日本的兩倍。美國(guó)排放水平過(guò)高，它遠(yuǎn)非像特朗普說(shuō)的那樣被其他國(guó)家占便宜。美國(guó)的合作不是管理氣候風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的充分條件，但它是必要條件。這種賴賬絕不是什么好笑的事。

Since the agreement is built on national commitments, the sensible path for the US would have been to stay in the process and push for far more ambitious plans all around. It could have linked its efforts to what others, notably China, were willing to do. Yet now, outside the framework, it will achieve nothing of the kind. Nor is there any real chance of negotiating another framework. The commitments should evolve. The framework will not.

鑒于巴黎協(xié)定建立在各國(guó)的承諾之上，美國(guó)明智的做法本應(yīng)是遵守協(xié)定，并爭(zhēng)取更為雄心勃勃的全面計(jì)劃。它本可以將自己的努力與其他國(guó)家(尤其是中國(guó))愿意做的事連接在一起。然而現(xiàn)在的情況是，退出了巴黎協(xié)定的美國(guó)將會(huì)一事無(wú)成。也不會(huì)有談判另一個(gè)協(xié)定的真正機(jī)會(huì)。承諾的內(nèi)容應(yīng)該逐漸改變，框架不會(huì)變。

In the 1920s, the US repudiated the League of Nations. That led to the collapse of Europe’s post-first world war settlement. Now, it is withdrawing from a shared commitment to protect our planet. The echoes are disturbing.

在上世紀(jì)20年代，美國(guó)拒絕加入國(guó)際聯(lián)盟(League of Nations)。這導(dǎo)致了一戰(zhàn)后歐洲安排的崩潰。如今，美國(guó)退出了為保護(hù)我們的星球而作出的共同承諾。這種歷史的相似令人不安。

True, 12 US states, which generate more than a third of gross domestic product, and 187 US cities have pledged to cut their emissions by 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels, by 2025, as the country promised under Barack Obama. Yet, however desirable, that cannot replace a commitment by the US, as former treasury secretary Hank Paulson argues.

沒(méi)錯(cuò)，美國(guó)12個(gè)州(貢獻(xiàn)了美國(guó)逾三分之一的GDP)以及187個(gè)城市已承諾，到2025年將排放降至比2005年低26%-28%的水平，這是美國(guó)在巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)在任時(shí)承諾的。然而，正如美國(guó)前財(cái)長(zhǎng)漢克•保爾森(Hank Paulson)辯稱的那樣，這種做法無(wú)論多么理想，都不可能取代美國(guó)的承諾。

Optimists also argue that technological progress on renewables is so fast that policy decisions may not matter: economics alone will drive the needed de-carbonisation of economies. This still looks implausible. Incentives and other interventions continue to matter, particularly since investment decisions have such a long-lasting effect. The infrastructure we build today will shape energy use for decades.

樂(lè)觀者還辯稱，可再生能源技術(shù)進(jìn)步迅速，政策決定可能并不重要：僅憑經(jīng)濟(jì)因素就將推動(dòng)各經(jīng)濟(jì)體實(shí)現(xiàn)所需的低碳化。這種看法仍顯得不太可能。激勵(lì)和其他干預(yù)措施仍然重要，尤其是投資決策的影響久遠(yuǎn)。我們現(xiàn)在建造的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施將會(huì)左右數(shù)十年的能源使用。

The remaining participants in the accord must stick to their plans. They must also commission an analysis of how to deal with free riders. Everything must be considered, even sanctions.

巴黎協(xié)定的其他簽署國(guó)必須堅(jiān)持自己的計(jì)劃。這些國(guó)家還必須委托擬制一份分析，研究如何應(yīng)對(duì)“搭便車者”。必須考慮采取一切措施，甚至包括制裁。

Meanwhile, those Americans who understand what is at stake need to fight against the irrationality and defeatism that led to this. If any country has the resources to make a success of the energy transition it is theirs.

與此同時(shí)，那些明白這關(guān)系到什么的美國(guó)人，需要反抗導(dǎo)致眼下這種局面的不理性和失敗主義。如果說(shuō)有哪個(gè)國(guó)家有資源能讓能源過(guò)渡成功完成，那就是美國(guó)。

The US cannot be made “great” by rejecting global responsibility and embracing coal. That is atavistic. Mr Trump’s appeal to irrationality, xenophobia and resentment is frightening. The world must struggle on, trusting that Americans will once again be touched, in Abraham Lincoln’s glorious words, by “the better angels” of their nature.

美國(guó)不能通過(guò)拒絕全球責(zé)任和擁抱煤炭而變得“偉大”。這是開(kāi)歷史倒車。特朗普對(duì)不理性、排外和怨恨情緒的呼喚令人恐懼。全世界必須一起努力，相信美國(guó)人會(huì)再次被亞伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)所說(shuō)的他們本性中“善良的天使”觸摸。