First, the climate "war"
On September 22nd, the United Nations Climate Change Summit was held in new york, USA, which was the largest international conference on climate change in the history of the United Nations. All 65,438+092 Member States of the United Nations were represented, including more than 90 heads of state or government, which proved the importance of the summit.
Behind the global concern about climate change is a set of disturbing figures. Today, the world emits more than 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. Since industrialization, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air has increased by 36%. Human beings have produced a large number of greenhouse gases, and the disasters they have caused are constantly threatening human beings. According to statistics, in the 1990s, the number of major meteorological disasters in the world was five times that in the 1950s. It is predicted that if the situation is not contained, the global average temperature will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius in the next 50 years; Drought and floods caused by climate warming will displace 200 million people. A series of chain reactions will, like dominoes, push mankind into an embarrassing situation that is difficult to develop.
Fortunately, more and more countries are beginning to realize this and start to solve this problem from their own national conditions. One of the main topics of the UN Climate Change Conference from time to time is to formulate emission reduction tasks for all countries, and at the same time, it requires developed countries to provide corresponding funds and technologies to developing countries to help reduce emissions. However, at every meeting, once the issues of emission reduction targets and capital technology transfer are mentioned, they will immediately become the focus of debate between developed and developing countries.
From 65438 to 0997, the United Nations Climate Conference adopted the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement aimed at controlling global greenhouse gas emissions. Yang Fuqiang, director of the Global Climate Change Response Program of the World Wide Fund for Nature, said that developed countries should first make political commitments, set emission reduction targets and absolutely reduce emissions. Of course, developing countries should also formulate corresponding and appropriate national emission reduction plans, so these two emission reduction targets are different. We voluntarily and relatively reduce emissions. They are mandatory, but they are definitely emission reductions. Of course, there is a great struggle.
However, in 200 1 year, after taking office, President Bush announced that the United States would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that "it has brought an excessive burden to the economic development of the United States" and that "developing countries should also undertake the obligation to reduce and limit greenhouse gases", which means that the United States will no longer undertake the responsibility of reducing emissions. Yang Fuqiang, director of WWF's global climate change response program, said: "Of course, the United States wants to say that it wants to pull China and India in despite its promise. He thinks that India and China will emit so much in the future. We strive to create emissions, and as a result, they will emit more in the future. "
According to the Kyoto Protocol, by 20 10, the emissions of six greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in all developed countries will decrease by 5.2% compared with 1990. As the largest economy in the world, the United States accounts for only 3% of the global population, but its carbon dioxide emissions account for more than 25% of the global emissions. At that time, the emission reduction task of the United States was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7% by 20 12. On the issue of emission reduction, China has long adhered to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", that is to say, developing countries bear the same responsibilities on climate issues, but limited by the stage of economic development and strength, they should not bear the same legally binding responsibilities as developed countries. On the issue of responsibility, the United States and other developed countries insist that the total carbon emissions of some developing countries are increasing rapidly, among which China has surpassed the United States to become the country with the largest carbon dioxide emissions in the world, so it should bear important responsibilities. Developing countries believe that developed countries have emitted a lot of greenhouse gases as early as the industrial revolution, which is the initiator of current climate warming. Yang Fuqiang, director of the Global Climate Change Response Program of the World Wide Fund for Nature, said that developed countries should shoulder historical responsibilities. Historically, they emitted too much carbon dioxide, which led to our climate change today and affected our agriculture, water, resources and public health. Historically, it was caused by developed countries, so we hope, that is, developed countries must make a commitment to provide funds and technology to support developing countries.
On the afternoon of June 5438+February 65438+May 2007, after more than ten days of marathon negotiations, the United Nations Climate Change Conference finally adopted a resolution called "Bali Road Map". The resolution emphasizes the "technology development and transfer issues and financial issues" that were neglected in previous international negotiations. On this issue, developing countries believe that developed countries should provide financial support of 0.5% ~ 1% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, but when it comes to practical actions, developed countries have been slow to take action. Yang Fuqiang, director of the Global Climate Change Response Program of the World Wide Fund for Nature, said that at present, the commitments of emission reduction targets in developed countries such as the United States are too low, and the funds given have not yet been settled. We estimate that it should be $65.438+065 billion per year, so we can't even see the shadow of $ 654.38+0 at present. Pan Jiahua, Institute of Sustainable Development of China Academy of Social Sciences, also said: "In fact, China has done better than any other country in the world in the utilization of renewable energy, the development of nuclear energy and the improvement of energy efficiency. We did it, and the facts were there. Second, we want to do better, but we don't have the capital technology, such as this kind of fan and electronic control equipment. Give us, we can do better, bring, we can do it. "
As an environmental economist, Pan Jiahua believes that in order for developing countries to play a role in international climate issues, developed countries such as the United States must take the lead in setting an example, otherwise it will be difficult to gain a reputation. Pan Jiahua, Institute of Sustainable Development of China Academy of Social Sciences, said: "We want to do better, but we don't know how to do it. Please show it to me, right? " Now no one in America, Europe and Japan dares to say what I did, just like I did. Clapping my chest like me, I can't shoot it. "
Although there is no substantive action in terms of technical and financial support, the successive coming to power of Obama and Yukio Hatoyama has made the United States and Japan show a more positive attitude on emission reduction than their predecessors. This also makes China feel more and more pressure to reduce emissions. Jiang Yong, director of the Economic Security Research Center of China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, stressed: "Nothing is more lethal than climate change. Personally, I think this is a major consideration for the strategic shift of the United States."
To this end, at the new york Climate Summit, China responded: China will strive to significantly reduce its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 2020 compared with 2005. By 2020, non-fossil energy will account for about 15% of primary energy consumption. Only by reducing energy consumption, China can save 620 million tons of standard coal in five years, which is equivalent to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 65.438+500 million tons. All these commitments show China's positive attitude towards climate change. Yang Fuqiang, director of WWF's global climate change response plan, said that China's current emission reduction target, such as 20% energy saving, is 6543.8+0.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which is the national target with the largest emission reduction among countries in the world.
In February 65438, the United Nations will hold a climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, which is another historic global climate conference after the Kyoto Protocol, which came into effect in 2005. By then, the participating countries will reach an agreement on the new global arrangement to deal with climate change after 20 12. However, just as politicians of various countries were preparing to book air tickets to Copenhagen, the first ones to arrive in Copenhagen were clouds of dark clouds. The Economist magazine wrote, "The future of Copenhagen is still uncertain. In the climate conference held in new york, US President Barack Obama hardly proposed specific measures except expounding the harm caused by climate change, and what he said was extremely empty. " However, recently, constrained by the issue of medical reform, the US government has not taken a more active attitude on the issue of climate change, but has issued a retrogressive voice, which has brought many rounds of talks before the Copenhagen Conference to a standstill. All these signs make the upcoming climate negotiations foggy.
When it comes to emission reduction in developed countries, we can't help but mention that the United States, as the world's largest economy and a big emitter of greenhouse gases, will play a decisive role in global emission reduction. After Obama took office, he changed the negative attitude of the Bush administration and launched a huge new energy development plan. What impact will this plan have on the global energy pattern and even the economy?
Second, the new overlord plan
In February 2009, in his first week in office, Obama signed two executive orders, demanding that the United States improve fuel efficiency and allowing state governments to set standards for carbon dioxide content in automobile exhaust that are higher than national standards. He said at the press conference held at the White House that day: "The United States is ready to lead the world again in new energy." US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu visited China together. One of the key words mentioned most by the two ministers on this trip is also new energy. U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told us that as the two most productive and innovative economies in the world, the United States and China have unique positions in developing solar energy, wind energy, biomass energy and other renewable energy technologies that the world urgently needs.
It is also a new energy source. In February this year 1 1 The Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 passed by the United States, about $50 billion was used to improve energy efficiency and expand the production of renewable energy. Among the plans involving new energy sources, 654.38+0 billion yuan is used for smart grid construction, creating material conditions for new energy sources to access the fire network, and the remaining 40 billion yuan is used to support new energy sources such as solar energy, wind energy and geothermal energy. There are indications that the world's largest economy has put the development of new energy to an unprecedented strategic height. Zhang Haibin, a professor at Peking University Institute of International Relations, said that it was not the United States, Japan and the European Union that first promoted the new energy process, but actually took the lead. But it has not formed a strong trend. After being promoted by the Obama administration in the United States, it has aroused great concern all over the world.
Historically, the United States has never relaxed its control over energy. George W. Bush, who launched the Iraq war, was once dubbed the "oil guy"-the oil man. As early as when he took office, at the White House cabinet meeting in April, 20001,he made such a resolution: "Because Iraq may have an unstable impact on the oil market, which is an unacceptable risk for the United States, military intervention is necessary." Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who worked for the US government for many years, also bluntly pointed out in his memoirs that the root cause of the Bush administration's Iraq war was oil. He wrote in his memoirs: "If you say that the United States sent troops to Iraq to have more oil, then someone should ask,' Then why is the oil price as high as $80?' So the reporter asked: "If we don't send troops to Iraq, then our current oil price should reach $ 130 and $ 140 per barrel, right?" "He replied," Yes, that's right. The reporter asked suspiciously, "Are you sure? Greenspan replied: "Of course, this is the purpose of attacking Saddam Hussein. "
It can be said that the United States has never given up its control over energy, and its means have been constantly innovated from military strikes to financial control. However, during George W. Bush's second term, his views on energy began to change quietly.
Jiang Yong, director of China Economic Security Research Center of China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said that the early focus of the United States was to safeguard homeland security and prevent terrorist attacks. Later, with the changes in the international economic environment and competition order, as well as changes in international interest groups, the Bush administration is also revising its energy policy. Zhang Haibin, a professor at Peking University Institute of International Relations, said: "During the Bush administration, although the Kyoto Protocol played little role in the construction of the global climate system, it even adopted a unilateralist approach; However, please note that during the Bush administration, US$ 5 billion to US$ 6 billion was invested annually in research and development of energy-saving and emission-reduction technologies. "
In 2007, the most powerful measure put forward by the Bush administration in terms of new energy was the corn ethanol processing technology that was vigorously promoted. The United States plans to increase the output of biofuels such as corn ethanol to five times that of then by 20 17. Jiang Yong said that the rise of corn ethanol in that year made American financial capital with a keen sense of smell earn a lot of money in controlling corn futures. However, bioethanol technology has also been widely criticized for aggravating the global food price increase. Some people use car wheels to hit the poor people's jobs to describe this move. Jiang Yong, director of China Economic Security Research Center of China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said: "The last round was the increase in world food prices in 2007 and 2008, so people generally accused the United States and Europe of engaging in bioenergy, because corn is used to process ethanol. The United Nations, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, accused Europe and the United States of this behavior, which is anti-human and extremely inhuman.
Nowadays, many people think that the promotion of corn ethanol in the United States is not only to develop clean energy, but also the shortage of corn is not just a simple agricultural problem. Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, famously said in the 1970s: Control oil, and you control this country; If you control food, you control human beings. The background of Kissinger's remarks comes from a research report of the US National Security Council from 65438 to 0974. According to the report, the population of developing countries will expand, so the political, economic and military power will be strengthened soon. This is naturally a threat to the United States. Therefore, by controlling grain exports, we can force those countries to implement birth control policies and limit the growth of national strength. This report was also regarded as the policy source of the food crisis in the United States.
Jiang Yong, director of China Economic Security Research Center of China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, believes that the energy policies of the United States in different periods are not as intimidating as the new energy strategy under the climate topic. So, what impact will Obama's new energy policy bring to the world? He said: "New energy, it has been pan-politicized. Now it is obviously pan-politicized. If you don't do it, it will affect the national image. /When developing the country and solving the basic survival problems in the future, then they will use this banner, so in this respect, we feel that its ability to set issues is too strong, which is their right to speak. "
At the beginning of April this year, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu called on the United States to "give up oil" and "take control of its own energy destiny" in Newsweek. Zhang Haibin, a professor at Peking University Institute of International Relations, said with a smile: "There is a very interesting phenomenon. As you can see, the United States hit Iraq in 2003, and its national strength was greatly affected and weakened. On the other hand, we can see that Venezuela and Russia in Latin America are actually playing the energy card, that is, oil. And Iran. He often talks about threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States can't bear the weight of the world. The Obama administration should consider energy security, that is, the reliable supply of oil, natural gas and traditional fossil fuels is a big problem. The greater the dependence of foreign countries on this issue, the more fragile the country is, and the more difficult it is for you to follow the interests and policies of the country. "
"A country that can't control its own energy can't control its own future." In his autobiography "Fearless Hope", Obama expressed his new views on American energy policy with sharp strokes: on the one hand, he continued to increase the control of foreign oil through war and financial means, on the other hand, he accelerated the research and development of new energy sources and occupied the commanding heights of technology. In the future,150 billion US dollars will be used to fund the research of alternative energy sources. These two aspects work together to get rid of the high dependence on oil exporting countries as soon as possible. Yang Fuqiang, director of the Global Climate Change Response Program of the World Wide Fund for Nature, said that the United States wanted to develop renewable energy because it found that it had not responded to climate change at that time and had fallen behind in the technological development of renewable energy after withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, Obama proposed a new energy policy, of course, there are domestic reasons. He wants to use renewable energy and then replace a large number of oil imports. Because the United States has been clamoring for decades to reduce the threat of oil supply security, but this threat has always existed, the United States said it would eventually try renewable energy. Zhang Haibin, a professor at Peking University Institute of International Relations, also said that if the United States occupies the commanding heights of new energy technologies, it will undoubtedly consolidate and maintain its hegemonic position, which is very important.
It can be seen that one of Obama's important goals of waving the green banner and striding forward is to make those countries that take oil as strategic resources and dare to challenge the United States politically gradually lose their right to speak. Next, the United States will firmly grasp the dominance of the world economy again by formulating the rules of the game of new energy.
When it comes to new energy, we have to mention one word: carbon trading, which has a popular name CDM in the international market. CDM stands for clean development mechanism. 1The Kyoto Protocol adopted by the United Nations Climate Conference in 1997 stipulated the compulsory emission reduction tasks of developed countries in the next few years. In order to accomplish this task, developed countries need to pay a high cost. For example, Japan needs $234 to reduce emissions 1 ton of carbon dioxide, and the United States also needs $ kloc-0/53, while the average cost of reducing emissions in developing countries is only a dozen dollars, in China. It only costs $20 to reduce one ton of carbon emissions. It is this huge cost difference that makes developed countries keen to find emission reduction projects in developing countries. CDM is such a mechanism to exchange funds for carbon emissions. Broadly speaking, any technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be carried out as a CDM project, such as new energy. At present, many domestic wind power enterprises have begun to benefit from it.