|
|
支持.........
PS: 有史以来第一次坐上了站长家的沙发
========================（借楼层用一下）========================
Dale Wen：COP 15 - proposed U.S. emission cuts lower than China's in absolute terms
文佳筠：哥本哈根大会，在绝对数值上美国的减排标准低于中国。
[flv]http://video1.accn.com/Dale.flv[/flv]
文佳筠博士：中国科学技术大学毕业，加州理工博士。为发展中国家农业、环保、气候长期奔走。长期在中国农村工作。2009年12月，文博士作为观察员在哥本哈根会议上郑重声明：西方国家试图将中国塑造成破坏哥本哈根会议的黑手，完全是指鹿为马，颠倒黑白。中国减排力度大大强于美国。
视频文字中英文对应（中文字幕版视频稍后放出）
So we are in Cop15, and today is Dec 15, the negotiations， in my opinion, looks rather disappointed.
我们现在是在哥本哈根大会，今天是12月15日。谈判在我看来，非常让人失望。
for example, last night, we stayed here in Bella center until midnight listening to the number group, the group which are supposed to give us numbers, the annex I countries proposed to commit in the second commitment period in Kyoto protocol.
比方说，昨晚，我们在Bella中心待到半夜，听数据组的报告，这个组应该拿出，根据《京都议定书》附录一缔约国在第二承诺期应履行义务的数据。
But until midnight not a single number was put on the table.I would say we are in this deadlock, largely because US is leading the risk to the button.
但是直到午夜也没有一个数字能拿到台面上来。我想说，让我们陷入僵局大部分是由美国造成的。
The US more or less wants to be treated as a developing country, without international binding target, or with very very low target while more of less understandably.
美国多半是想得到发展中国家待遇，不签署具有约束力的国际条约，或者获得一个可理解的非常非常低的减排目标。
Japan EU and Canada, don't want to push up their efforts without US coming on board. The general talking among EU governments and among many knowns NGOs is that we are in this deadlock because US and China.
日本、欧盟和加拿大不想在美国确定之前努力推动。在欧盟政府和知名NGO之间都说，我们陷入僵局是因为美国和中国。
And here actually I want to set the record straight. I think it's not the issue of US and China. It's all US. And I think we should stop the green washing.
这里我想澄清一下真相。我认为这不是美国和中国的问题，这完全是美国的问题。我们应该停止粉饰和掩盖真相。
First, let me represent you with some numbers.
首先，让我来阐述一些数据。
So, the Chinese has announced their deviation from business as usual, means 40%-50% cut in term carbon intensity between year 2005 and 2020.
中国宣布了将会在2020年以前碳排放减少40%-45%的目标， 这一目标背离了正常情况下中国应该定的目标（30%）。
And in the US the proposed cut between 2005 and 2020 is 15% according to the Waxman Bill.
美国根据Waxman法案提出在2020年前减排15%的目标。
And we can do some calculations how to compare these two targets.
我们可以做一下计算来对比这两个目标。
So, in the last decade, the US GDP growth was 1.9%. So let's say between 2005 and 2020 the US GDP growth at similar but a slightly higher rate 2%.
过去十年中，美国的GDP增长率为1.9%。所以我们假定2005年到2020年，美国的GDP增长率会保持在一个相似或稍高一点的2%。
And then we can calculate the compound GDP growth between 2005 and 2020 is about 35%. And with 17% cut as promise by the Waxman bill, you can do the calculation, that means, the US carbon intensity cut would only be 38% below the 40-45 target announced by the Chinese.
这样我们就能计算出，从2005年到2020年，美国的GDP总增长为大约35%。如果按照Waxman法案（见附注）承诺的减排17%，你可以计算出，这意味着，美国减少的碳排放只有38%，低于中国宣布的40%到45%。
And not to mention that, the Chinese target is a hard target without any offsetting while the US target is a soft target with offsetting like CDM, LULUCF and many other loopholes the US negotiators are trying very hard to push through.
更不用说，中国的目标十分艰难，还没有任何补助。美国却是一个容易实现的目标，还有一些类似CDM、LULUCF（见附注）机制用来抵消。美国的谈判代表还在努力去钻一些法律漏洞。
And even with 20% target, some of the US NGOs saying they are campaigning for.The US carbon intensity cut would only be steadily about 40.6% and lower than the Chinese target.
即使是许多美国NGO努力争取的20%的目标，美国减少的碳排量也只可能稳定在40.6%， 仍低于中国提出的目标。
So what we are talking about, let's forget about historical responsibility, let's forget about climate debt, even let's forget about common but differentiate responsibility which all these things we shouldn't forget.
所以我们现在说的是，即使让我们抛开历史责任，抛开我们欠下的环境债务，甚至让我们抛开共有的但有区别的责任，这些是我们不应该忘记的东西。
But very now even if we forget all of these, the US target is still inferior to the Chinese target.
即使此时此刻即使我们把这些都抛开，美国的目标仍然低于中国。
So as somebody who has worked hard in last several years to promote no carbon development in China, now I have absolutely no position to campaign Chinese government, further to say they can do better or they should do better.
作为一个近年来为中国低碳发展努力四处奔走的人，现在我完全没有立场说中国政府，能做得更好或应该做得更好。
Because what is US offering, and what is EU offering. Because I feel many EU governments and international NGOs are still being dishonest to say the China and US are the problem.
因为美国到底提供了什么，欧盟又提供了什么。因为我觉得，很多欧盟政府和国际NGO，仍然很不诚实地说中国和美国是问题的来源。
Is that really the case?
事实真的是这样的吗？
附注：
LULUCF
中文意义：土地利用、土地利用变化及森林
英文全称：Land use, land use change and forestry
词条简介：2000年11月13日至25日，于荷兰海牙《气候变化纲要公约》第六次缔约国大会，希望各争议问题如遵约体制（Compliance system）、京都机制（Kyoto mechanism）、能力建设（Capacity building）及技术转移（Technology transfer）、土地利用变更和森林（Land use, land use change and forestry，LULUCF）等能在COP-6讨论完成并加以定案。
CDM
中文意义：清洁发展机制
英文全称：Clean Development Mechanism
词条简介：清洁发展机制（CDM）是《联合国气候变化框架公约》第三次缔约方大会COP3（京都会议）通过的附件I缔约方在境外实现部分减排承诺的一种履约机制。其目的是协助未列入附件I的缔约方实现可持续发展和有益于《公约》的最终目标，并协助附件I所列缔约方实现遵守第三条规定的其量化的限制和减少排放的承诺。 CDM的核心是允许发达国家和发展中国家进行项目级的减排量抵销额的转让与获得。
Waxman Bill
中文意义：瓦克斯曼 法案
词条简介：This is the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill, known for short as "ACES," that includes a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce ??economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. Other provisions include new renewable requirements for utilities, studies and incentives regarding new carbon capture and sequestration technologies, energy efficiency incentives for homes and buildings, and grants for green jobs, among other things. |
|
[复制链接]
狗仔卡
发表于 2009-12-17 16:32
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2009-12-17 16:46
发表于 2009-12-17 16:50
发表于 2009-12-17 21:15
