Pay China to cut emissions

 
By Eric Posner and Cass Sunstein 
Thursday, August 09, 2007
 
 
Last month China said it would reject any international effort to limit its greenhouse gas  emissions. The announcement came on the heels of a report that China has become the world's emissions leader, overtaking America.

China's recalcitrance is not unique. With strong bipartisan support, US president George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it would cost too much and deliver too little. Although European nations proclaim their enthusiasm for Kyoto, several key signatories seem unlikely to comply with it by 2012, when it runs out. Although most nations now consider climate change a serious problem, they cannot agree on how to tackle it.

The US has been made out as the chief bad guy, but here is an open secret: most of the world's significant operators have been motivated by self-interest. The US would have had to bear up to two-thirds, or more, of the cost of Kyoto – probably more than all other nations combined. According to current projections, the biggest losers from a warmer planet, in terms of economics and health, will be Europe and developing nations; hence the stronger stands in those parts of the world.

China and the US appear to be less vulnerable, and Russia might even gain from increased agricultural productivity. Russia did ratify Kyoto, but only because it was essentially paid off with rights to emit greenhouse gases that are worth a fortune.

Nations usually enter treaties to help themselves, not others. In 1987, the US pushed hard for the Montreal Protocol, which restricted ozone-depleting chemicals. It did so not out of altruism but after a cost-benefit analysis convinced President Ronald Reagan that the US would gain far more than it would lose. Bans on ozone-depleting chemicals were not burdensome for US companies. By contrast, developing nations strongly resisted the protocol. They demanded and received a large side payment from the rich nations.

These side payments are not unusual. When a group of nations needs the co-operation of another nation in some area of international relations, and that nation does not gain through the proposed agreement, then some kind of payment or exemption is typically arranged. With its explosive emissions growth, China is by far the world's biggest problem for climate change. Like it or not, the only way for other nations to ensure Chinese co-operation is through a special inducement, such as cash or extra emissions rights.

Here is the harder question: should the US also be paid for its participation? No one is suggesting such an approach and this should be puzzling. When the US defended Kuwait during the first Gulf war, other nations chipped in for a significant portion of the cost. What is different about climate change?

There are two possible answers. The first is that the US is rich while the nations most at risk from global warming are poor. The idea seems to be that rich countries should bear a disproportionate cost of protective actions that benefit all. It is an appealing thought. But if the real goal is to help poor countries then the better approach is for the US substantially to increase its development aid. If redistribution is what is sought, it seems odd to suggest that the US should bear the bulk of the cost of a climate change agreement.

The second answer is that the US is disproportionately responsible for the stock of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. The US has produced about 30 per cent of the existing stock (compared with 8 per cent for both Russia and China, and 6 per cent for the UK). As a matter of corrective justice, perhaps the US has a special obligation to reduce the problem.

This argument closely resembles claims about reparations for historical injustices and has the same weaknesses. Nations are not individuals but collections of individuals. Most of those responsible for the current stock of greenhouse gases are dead. And if the world wants to blame all the industrial countries, above all the US, for warming the climate, the theory of corrective justice suggests that it ought to offset the benefits these countries have produced as well, including technological diffusion that has greatly enhanced the well-being of people all over the globe.

The debate about climate change has finally produced an understanding that the world as a whole would benefit from an emissions control agreement. The next stage is to recognise that a warmer planet presents much greater problems for some countries than others; that emissions controls would cost some nations much more than others; and that no nation is going to spend a lot in return for a little.

It is time for the world to take steps to pay China for its participation in an agreement. The richer US is unlikely to receive such payment or even to ask for it. Even so, we fear that if the world does not persuade the US that it has more to gain than to lose from a deal on climate change, an effective agreement will prove to be impossible.

The authors teach at the University of Chicago Law School

[用户系统信息]Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

出钱让中国减排

 
作者：埃里克•波斯纳(Eric Posner)、卡斯•桑斯坦(Cass Sunstein)为英国《金融时报》撰稿
2007年8月9日 星期四
 
 
上月，中国表示将拒绝国际上任何旨在限制其温室气体排放的努力。就在宣布这一决定前不久，一份报告称，中国已超越美国，成为全球第一大温室气体排放国。

这种反抗并非中国所独有。在两党的强力支持下，美国总统乔治•布什(George W. Bush)以事倍功半为由，拒绝签署《京都议定书》(Kyoto protocol)。尽管欧洲各国表现出了对《京都议定书》的热情，但几个关键的签字国似乎不太可能在2012年前履行。尽管大多数国家现在都将气候变化视为一个严峻问题，但它们却无法在解决该问题上达成共识。

美国已被视为首恶，但有一个公开的秘密：全球多数重要国家都受到自身利益的驱使。美国（如果签署《京都议定书》）就可能要承担《京都议定书》三分之二、甚至更多的成本，或许高于所有其它国家的总和。根据目前的预计，在经济和健康方面，全球变暖的最大受害者将是欧洲和发展中国家；因此姿态较为强硬的国家都在此列。

中国和美国似乎不会受到太大的影响，俄罗斯甚至有可能从农业生产率的增长中获益。俄罗斯的确批准了《京都议定书》，但只是因为这实际上能使其获得排放温室气体的权利，那能带来一笔财富。

国家通常都会签署对本国（而非他国）有利的条约。1987年，美国大力推动签署限制排放破坏臭氧层化学物的《蒙特利尔议定书》(Montreal Protocol)。美国这么做并不是出于利他主义，而是因为一项成本-收益分析使罗纳德•里根(Ronald Reagan)总统确信，美国从中所得到的东西，将远远大于失去的东西。禁止排放破坏臭氧层的化学物质并不会给美国公司造成负担。相反，发展中国家就强烈反对这个议定书。它们要求并从富国得到了巨额补偿性支付。

这些补偿性支付并不是非同寻常。在国际关系的某些领域，如果一些国家需要别国的合作，而那个国家又不能通过拟议中的协议受益，那么往往会安排某种偿付或豁免。由于（温室气体）排放量的爆炸性增长，到目前为止中国成了全球气候变化最重要的问题。无论你是否愿意，其它国家确保中国合作的唯一途径，就是运用一种特殊的刺激，比如现金或额外的排放权。

这里有一个难度更大的问题：美国是否也应该因自己的参与得到补偿呢？没人建议使用这种方式，而且这会让人觉得莫名其妙。当美国在第一次海湾战争期间保卫科威特时，其它国家承担了其中很大比例的成本。气候变化问题又有什么不同呢？

答案可能有两个。第一，美国是富国，而在全球变暖中处境最危险的是穷国。因此，似乎富国应在有利于所有国家的保护行动中承担大部分成本。这是个很吸引人的想法。但如果真正的目的是帮助穷国，那么对美国而言，更好的方法是大幅增加发展性援助。而如果追求的是财富重新分配，那么建议美国承担气候变化协议的大部分成本，似乎就有点怪异。

第二个答案是，美国应为大气中的存量温室气体承担大部分责任。在现有（温室气体）存量中，美国排放了其中约30%（而俄罗斯和中国的排放比例均为8%，英国为6%）。就矫正正义而言，或许美国有减轻这一问题的特别义务。

这种争论与针对历史不当行为提出的索赔极为相似，而且也有着相同的弱点。国家不是单个的个人，而是个人的集合体。大多数应对现有温室气体存量负有责任的人，现在都已过世。如果国际社会要为气候变暖问题谴责所有工业国（首先是美国），那么矫正正义理论认为，应同时抵扣这些国家创造的利益，其中包括大幅提高全球人民福祉的技术扩散。

有关气候变化的争论最终引出了这样一种谅解：世界作为一个整体，将从控制排量协议中获益。下一步是，意识到一个更为温暖的地球给某些国家造成的问题会比其它国家大得多；控制排量给某些国家造成的成本会比其它国家多得多；而且没有哪个国家会做事倍功半的事情。

现在到了全世界为中国参与协议而采取步骤掏钱的时候了。较为富裕的美国不太可能获得这样的偿付，甚至不会去要求得到这种偿付。即便如此，我们还是担心，如果国际社会不能让美国相信，它从气候变化协议中的所得大于所失，那么将不可能得到一个有效的协议。

作者在芝加哥大学法学院(University of Chicago Law School)任教。