以技术革命拯救地球 A moonshot to save a warming planet

本文摘要：Every silver lining has a cloud. The technologies that offer human beings comforts and opportunities that would have been unimaginable two centuries ago ultimately depend on an abundance of energy. Fire is the source of that energy. But th

Every silver lining has a cloud. The technologies that offer human beings comforts and opportunities that would have been unimaginable two centuries ago ultimately depend on an abundance of energy. Fire is the source of that energy. But the burning of fossil fuels, from which we gain so much, also releases the carbon dioxide that threatens to destabilise the climate.每一线光明都预示一片乌云。技术给人类带给的舒适度生活和机遇，是两百年前无法想象的，这些技术彻底来说都要倚赖大量的能量。而火是能量的来源。但化石燃料的自燃虽然给我们带给许多益处，其获释的二氧化碳却不会威胁气候平稳。

For some, the answer to this challenge is to embrace poverty. But humanity will not — and should not be expected to — give up the prosperity that some already enjoy and others greatly desire. The answer lies instead in breaking the links between prosperity and fossil fuels, fossil fuels and emissions, and emissions and the climate. We must not reject technology, but transform it.有些人指出，解决问题这一问题的办法就是先为贫穷。但人类会——也不应该——退出一些人早已拥有、而其他人还极为渴求的兴旺。忽略，解决办法在于超越兴旺与化石燃料之间、化石燃料与废气之间以及废气与气候之间的联系。

我们绝不能杯葛技术，而是要展开技术变革。This is not yet happening. BP’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy shows that global demand for commercial energy continues to grow, largely driven by growth of emerging countries, despite improvements in energy efficiency. Moreover, fossil fuels meet the bulk of that demand. In 2014, renewables contributed just over 2 per cent of global primary energy consumption. Together, nuclear power, hydroelectricity and renewables contributed merely 14 per cent. (See chart.)然而，目前还并未构成这种局面。

英国石油公司(BP)近期的《世界能源统计资料年鉴》(Statistical Review of World Energy)表明，虽然能源效率有所提高，但全球对商业能源的市场需求仍在之后快速增长，主要不受新兴国家快速增长的驱动。此外，化石燃料符合了其中大部分市场需求。2014年，可再生能源仅有占到全球一次能源消费的2%多一点。核电、水电和可再生能源加在一起仅有占到14%。

（闻图表）A report entitled “A Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change”, written by a number of high-profile British scientists and economists, offers a bold answer. It argues that carbon-free energy has to become competitive with fossil fuels. “Once this happened, the coal, gas and oil would simply stay in the ground.”由英国多位知名科学家和经济学家编写、为题《应付气候变化全球阿波罗计划》(A Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change)的报告，明确提出了一个大胆的解决问题方法。该报告指出，无碳能源必需需要与化石燃料竞争。“在那种情况下，煤炭、天然气以及石油就不会保有在地下了。

”The need, then, is to generate a technological revolution. The paper (named after the successful mission to the moon of the 1960s) argues that this will require rapid technological advances. Progress is happening, notably the collapse in the price of photovoltaic panels. But this is not enough. The sun provides 5,000 times more energy than humans demand from industrial sources. But we do not know how to exploit enough of it.所以，我们必须的是一场技术革命。该报告（根据上世纪60年代的登月计划命名）指出，这将拒绝较慢的技术变革。变革正在再次发生，特别是在是光伏电池板价格在大幅度暴跌。

但这还过于。太阳获取的能源是人类在工业方面的能源需求的5000倍，但我们还不告诉如何充分利用太阳能。Despite the evident need, publicly-funded research and development on renewable energy is under 2 per cent of all publicly-funded RD. At just $6bn a year, worldwide, it is dwarfed by the $101bn spent on subsidies for renewable production and the amazing total of $550bn spent on subsidising fossil fuel production and consumption.尽管有显著的市场需求，但在公共资金反对的所有研发活动中，可再生能源研发仅有占到将近2%。

全世界每年仅有60亿美元的资金用作可再生能源研发。相比之下，用作补贴可再生能源生产的资金为1010亿美元，补贴化石燃料生产和消费的资金堪称高达5500亿美元。This is a grotesque picture. Far more money needs to go to publicly funded research. The public sector has long played a vital role in funding scientific and technological breakthroughs. In this case, that role is particularly important, given the agreed goal of reducing emissions and the fact that the energy sector spends relatively little on RD.这是一幅黑色幽默景象。必需在可再生能源研发方面投放更好的资金。

长期以来，来自公共部门的资金在构建科学技术突破方面充分发挥了至关重要的起到。就可再生能源领域来说，考虑到各国协商的排放量目标以及能源行业在研发上投放比较较较少的事实，公共部门的起到变得尤为重要。

The envisaged programme would have a single purpose: “To develop renewable energy supplies that are cheaper than those from fossil fuels.” The authors suggest that to do this, research should focus on electricity generation, storage and smart grids. The suggested programme would amount to $15bn a year, still a mere 0.02 per cent of world output. That is indeed a minimal amount, given the goal’s importance.该报告中明确提出的计划只有一个目的：“研发比化石燃料更加低廉的可再生能源。”几位作者指出，要做这一点，不应把研究重点放到发电、存储和智能电网方面。

所建议的计划每年须要花费资金150亿美元，这样也仅有占到全球生产量的0.02%。考虑到该目标的重要性，这是一个低于限度的数额。

Any country that decided to join would commit to spending this proportion of its national income. While the money would be spent at each country’s discretion, the programme would generate an annually updated road-map of the breakthroughs needed to maintain the pace of cost reduction. The suggestion is that heads of government agree such a programme of accelerated and targeted research by the time of the Paris climate conference later this year.任何要求重新加入该计划的国家都要允诺将占到国民收入0.02%的资金投入可再生能源研发。虽然各国可自行决定如何用于这些资金，该计划每年都将公布一份新的科技突破路线图，这些突破是保持成本缩减步伐所必须获得的。该报告建议各国政府首脑在今年晚些时候巴黎气候会议开会之前，一致通过这一关于减缓和有针对性地展开研究的计划。Improved technology might end our dependence on the burning of fossil fuels. It might also reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide that accompany that burning. But Climate Shock by Gernot Wagner and Martin Weitzman, notes that new technology might also break the final link — that between emissions and climate. This then raises the seductive, but dangerous, possibility of geo-engineering — seductive because it may seem cheap, and dangerous because its results are so uncertain.技术水平提升也许不会完结我们对自燃化石燃料的倚赖。

它也许也不会增加预示自燃过程的二氧化碳废气。赫尔诺特瓦格纳(Gernot Wagner)与马丁威茨曼(Martin Weitzman)年出版的《气候冲击》(Climate Shock)认为，新技术也有可能超越最后一个联系——废气与气候之间的联系。

这就引向了实行诱人但危险性的“地球工程”(geo-engineering)的可能性——诱人，是因为它有可能看上去低廉；危险性，是因为其后果十分不确认。Some ideas for geo-engineering are close to carbon capture and storage, which is aimed at eliminating emissions from specific facilities. Carbon-dioxide removal might be applied to the atmosphere: this is what plants do. Another idea is “ocean fertilisation”, to accelerate natural absorption of carbon dioxide.地球工程方面的一些设想相似于碳捕捉和储存，目的避免特定设施的废气。

除去二氧化碳的作法有可能限于于大气：植物就起着这样的起到。另一种点子是“海洋播种”(ocean fertilisation)，加快对二氧化碳的大自然吸取。

Replication of the atmospheric impact of a volcanic eruption would directly offset the impact of greenhouse gases. The matter emitted by the eruption at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 lowered global temperatures by 0.5C. The 20m tonnes of sulphur dioxide emitted dimmed the amount of radiation from the sun by 2 to 3 per cent in the following year. If we continue on our present path, that is the sort of measure people might well try to replicate.重现火山爆发对气候的影响将必要抵销温室气体的影响。1991年菲律宾的皮纳图博火山(Mount Pinatubo)愈演愈烈所产生的物质使全球气温上升了0.5摄氏度。火山爆发出有的2000万吨二氧化硫在随后一年里巩固了来自太阳的2%至3%的电磁辐射。如果我们之后现在的道路，将来人们很可能会尝试这类措施。

It is not hard to envisage the dangers of such an intervention. It could not be a one-off, since particles put into the atmosphere would quickly fall out of it again. So the actions would have to be repeated on an ever-larger scale, as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increased.不难想象此种介入带给的危险性。它不有可能是重复使用的，因为废气到大气中的微粒迅速不会再度掉落。所以，随着大气中温室气体浓度的减少，这样的行动将被迫以更加大的规模重复展开。

Such a programme of deliberate pollution of the global atmosphere might well be viewed as an act of war. The consequences of repeated large-scale planetary engineering of this kind would also be highly unpredictable. This must be a very last resort.这样一个蓄意污染全球大气的计划很有可能被视作一种战争不道德。重复展开这种大规模行星工程的后果也较难预测。

这不能作为最后的手段。The best way of responding to the challenge of climate change is through changed incentives and accelerated innovation aimed at making carbon-free technologies competitive with fossil fuels. Both demand more active public policies. The proposed Apollo programme would be an essential element. Its proposed costs are modest; its potential upsides are enormous. Success would be transformative. It would be far better to try and fail than not to try at all.应付气候变化挑战，最差的方法是改革激励机制，同时减缓创意步伐，使无碳技术需要与化石燃料竞争。这两方面都必须更加大力的公共政策。

建议书的阿波罗计划将是至关重要的一环。其实行的成本并不大，而潜在的益处是极大的。顺利在于变革。

试错要不亚于于显然不去尝试。

本文来源：爱游戏体育网页版-www.dek-it.com