世界如何應對特朗普退出巴黎協定

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.

美國是一個流氓超級大國。它在上週決定退出2015年12月達成的巴黎氣候協定，突顯出這一事實。問題在於如何迴應。

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.

否認人爲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)不願採取行動並非特立獨行。但聰明的遊說強化了不信任感。這場辯論堪比關於鉛和菸草危險的辯論。在後兩場辯論中，遊說者也曾利用一切不確定性。對氣候變化採取行動的理由之充分，不輸於對鉛和菸草採取行動的理由。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.

美國人對美國在世界扮演何種角色的看法也非常關鍵。特朗普的安全顧問赫伯特?雷蒙德?麥克馬斯特(HR McMaster)和經濟顧問加里?科恩(Gary Cohn)最近寫道：“特朗普帶着如下清醒認識踏上了他上任以來的首次出訪之旅：世界並非一個‘全球社區’，而是國家、非政府行爲人以及企業爭奪利益的競技場。我們帶到場上的是無可匹敵的軍事、政治、經濟、文化和道德實力。我們接受而非否認國際事務的這種基本特質。”我們必須記住的是，這些是白宮裏的“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世紀的國際關係觀在20世紀以巨大災難告終，在那之後，美國拋棄了這種觀點。取而代之的觀點是：價值觀與利益同樣重要，責任與好處同樣重要。這些觀點深植於美國組建的機構和聯盟中。最重要的是，地球不僅僅是競技場。它是我們共享的家園。它不屬於一個國家，即便這個國家強大無比。照料這個星球是所有人負有的道義上的責任。

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.

對科學的敵意以及狹隘的利益觀點爲特朗普拒絕巴黎協定奠定了基礎。但他的演講也帶有他一貫的虛僞和怨恨。

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，“從今天開始，美國將會完全停止對非約束性的巴黎協定的執行，並完全解除該協定加於我們國家的嚴酷金融和經濟負擔”。然而，一個“非約束性”協議不可能帶來嚴酷的金融和經濟負擔。實際上，該協議的要點是，每個國家都應該提交自己的“國家自主貢獻”(intended nationally determined contribution)文件。巴黎協定的根本機制是旨在實現共享目標的“同儕壓力”。沒有任何脅迫成分。

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，該協定將會對氣候沒啥影響。實際上，這話沒錯。這麼說主要是因爲包括美國在內的主要國家不同意任何更高的目標。他的國家的頑固在一定程度上導致協議沒有效果，他卻以協議沒有效果爲由反對遵守協議，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導人和其他國家嘲笑我們。他們也不會了。他們不會了。”這是一種偏執的想法。美國是全球第二大二氧化碳排放國。它的排放水平比歐盟高50%，人均排放量是歐盟國家或日本的兩倍。美國排放水平過高，它遠非像特朗普說的那樣被其他國家佔便宜。美國的合作不是管理氣候風險的充分條件，但它是必要條件。這種賴賬絕不是什麼好笑的事。

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.

鑑於巴黎協定建立在各國的承諾之上，美國明智的做法本應是遵守協定，並爭取更爲雄心勃勃的全面計劃。它本可以將自己的努力與其他國家（尤其是中國）願意做的事連接在一起。然而現在的情況是，退出了巴黎協定的美國將會一事無成。也不會有談判另一個協定的真正機會。承諾的內容應該逐漸改變，框架不會變。

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20年代，美國拒絕加入國際聯盟(League of Nations)。這導致了一戰後歐洲安排的崩潰。如今，美國退出了爲保護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.

沒錯，美國12個州（貢獻了美國逾三分之一的GDP）以及187個城市已承諾，到2025年將排放降至比2005年低26%-28%的水平，這是美國在巴拉克?奧巴馬(Barack Obama)在任時承諾的。然而，正如美國前財長漢克?保爾森(Hank Paulson)辯稱的那樣，這種做法無論多麼理想，都不可能取代美國的承諾。

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.

樂觀者還辯稱，可再生能源技術進步迅速，政策決定可能並不重要：僅憑經濟因素就將推動各經濟體實現所需的低碳化。這種看法仍顯得不太可能。激勵和其他干預措施仍然重要，尤其是投資決策的影響久遠。我們現在建造的基礎設施將會左右數十年的能源使用。

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.

巴黎協定的其他簽署國必須堅持自己的計劃。這些國家還必須委託擬製一份分析，研究如何應對“搭便車者”。必須考慮採取一切措施，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，那些明白這關係到什麼的美國人，需要反抗導致眼下這種局面的不理性和失敗主義。如果說有哪個國家有資源能讓能源過渡成功完成，那就是美國。

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.

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