世界如何应对特朗普退出巴黎协定

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.

美国是一个流氓超级大国。它在上周决定退出2015年12月达成的巴黎气候协定，突显出这一事实。问题在于如何回应。

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.

否认人为原因造成全球变暖是许多共和党人的信条：唐纳德?特朗普(Donald Trump)不愿采取行动并非特立独行。但聪明的游说强化了不信任感。这场辩论堪比关于铅和烟草危险的辩论。在后两场辩论中，游说者也曾利用一切不确定性。对气候变化采取行动的理由之充分，不输于对铅和烟草采取行动的理由。但混淆视线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.

美国人对美国在世界扮演何种角色的看法也非常关键。特朗普的安全顾问赫伯特?雷蒙德?麦克马斯特(HR McMaster)和经济顾问加里?科恩(Gary Cohn)最近写道：“特朗普带着如下清醒认识踏上了他上任以来的首次出访之旅：世界并非一个‘全球社区’，而是国家、非政府行为人以及企业争夺利益的竞技场。我们带到场上的是无可匹敌的军事、政治、经济、文化和道德实力。我们接受而非否认国际事务的这种基本特质。”我们必须记住的是，这些是白宫里的“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.

这种19世纪的国际关系观在20世纪以巨大灾难告终，在那之后，美国抛弃了这种观点。取而代之的观点是：价值观与利益同样重要，责任与好处同样重要。这些观点深植于美国组建的机构和联盟中。最重要的是，地球不仅仅是竞技场。它是我们共享的家园。它不属于一个国家，即便这个国家强大无比。照料这个星球是所有人负有的道义上的责任。

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.

对科学的敌意以及狭隘的利益观点为特朗普拒绝巴黎协定奠定了基础。但他的演讲也带有他一贯的虚伪和怨恨。

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，特朗普宣称，“从今天开始，美国将会完全停止对非约束性的巴黎协定的执行，并完全解除该协定加于我们国家的严酷金融和经济负担”。然而，一个“非约束性”协议不可能带来严酷的金融和经济负担。实际上，该协议的要点是，每个国家都应该提交自己的“国家自主贡献”(intended nationally determined contribution)文件。巴黎协定的根本机制是旨在实现共享目标的“同侪压力”。没有任何胁迫成分。

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.

特朗普还辩称，该协定将会对气候没啥影响。实际上，这话没错。这么说主要是因为包括美国在内的主要国家不同意任何更高的目标。他的国家的顽固在一定程度上导致协议没有效果，他却以协议没有效果为由反对遵守协议，这是荒谬的。

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.

特朗普宣称：“我们不想再让其他领导人和其他国家嘲笑我们。他们也不会了。他们不会了。”这是一种偏执的想法。美国是全球第二大二氧化碳排放国。它的排放水平比欧盟高50%，人均排放量是欧盟国家或日本的两倍。美国排放水平过高，它远非像特朗普说的那样被其他国家占便宜。美国的合作不是管理气候风险的充分条件，但它是必要条件。这种赖账绝不是什么好笑的事。

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.

鉴于巴黎协定建立在各国的承诺之上，美国明智的做法本应是遵守协定，并争取更为雄心勃勃的全面计划。它本可以将自己的努力与其他国家（尤其是中国）愿意做的事连接在一起。然而现在的情况是，退出了巴黎协定的美国将会一事无成。也不会有谈判另一个协定的真正机会。承诺的内容应该逐渐改变，框架不会变。

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.

在上世纪20年代，美国拒绝加入国际联盟(League of Nations)。这导致了一战后欧洲安排的崩溃。如今，美国退出了为保护我们的星球而作出的共同承诺。这种历史的相似令人不安。

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.

没错，美国12个州（贡献了美国逾三分之一的GDP）以及187个城市已承诺，到2025年将排放降至比2005年低26%-28%的水平，这是美国在巴拉克?奥巴马(Barack Obama)在任时承诺的。然而，正如美国前财长汉克?保尔森(Hank Paulson)辩称的那样，这种做法无论多么理想，都不可能取代美国的承诺。

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.

乐观者还辩称，可再生能源技术进步迅速，政策决定可能并不重要：仅凭经济因素就将推动各经济体实现所需的低碳化。这种看法仍显得不太可能。激励和其他干预措施仍然重要，尤其是投资决策的影响久远。我们现在建造的基础设施将会左右数十年的能源使用。

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.

巴黎协定的其他签署国必须坚持自己的计划。这些国家还必须委托拟制一份分析，研究如何应对“搭便车者”。必须考虑采取一切措施，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.

与此同时，那些明白这关系到什么的美国人，需要反抗导致眼下这种局面的不理性和失败主义。如果说有哪个国家有资源能让能源过渡成功完成，那就是美国。

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.

美国不能通过拒绝全球责任和拥抱煤炭而变得“伟大”。这是开历史倒车。特朗普对不理性、排外和怨恨情绪的呼唤令人恐惧。全世界必须一起努力，相信美国人会再次被亚伯拉罕?林肯(Abraham Lincoln)所说的他们本性中“善良的天使”触摸。