以技術革命拯救地球 A moonshot to save a warming planet

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.

每一線光明都伴隨一片烏雲。技術給人類帶來的舒適生活和機遇，是兩百年前無法想象的，這些技術從根本上來說都要依賴大量的能量。而火是能量的來源。但化石燃料的燃燒雖然給我們帶來許多好處，其釋放的二氧化碳卻會威脅氣候穩定。

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.

有些人認爲，解決這一問題的辦法就是安於貧困。但人類不會——也不應當——放棄一些人已經享有、而其他人還極其渴望的繁榮。相反，解決辦法在於打破繁榮與化石燃料之間、化石燃料與排放之間以及排放與氣候之間的聯繫。我們決不能抵制技術，而是要進行技術變革。

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，目前還未形成這種局面。英國石油公司(BP)最新的《世界能源統計年鑑》(Statistical Review of World Energy)顯示，雖然能源效率有所提高，但全球對商業能源的需求仍在繼續增長，主要受新興國家增長的驅動。此外，化石燃料滿足了其中大部分需求。2014年，可再生能源僅佔全球一次能源消費的2%多一點。核電、水電和可再生能源加在一起僅佔14%。（見圖表）

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.”

由英國多位著名科學家和經濟學家撰寫、題爲《應對氣候變化全球阿波羅計劃》(A Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change)的報告，提出了一個大膽的解決方法。該報告認爲，無碳能源必須能夠與化石燃料競爭。“在那種情況下，煤炭、天然氣以及石油就會保留在地下了。”

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，我們需要的是一場技術革命。該報告（根據上世紀60年代的登月計劃命名）認爲，這將要求快速的技術進步。進步正在發生，尤其是光伏電池板價格在大幅下跌。但這還不夠。太陽提供的能源是人類在工業方面的能源需求的5000倍，但我們還不知道如何充分利用太陽能。

Despite the evident need, publicly-funded research and development on renewable energy is under 2 per cent of all publicly-funded R&D. 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.

儘管有明顯的需求，但在公共資金支持的所有研發活動中，可再生能源研發僅佔不到2%。全世界每年僅有60億美元的資金用於可再生能源研發。相比之下，用於補貼可再生能源生產的資金爲1010億美元，補貼化石燃料生產和消費的資金更是高達5500億美元。

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 R&D.

這是一幅怪誕景象。必須在可再生能源研發方面投入更多的資金。長期以來，來自公共部門的資金在實現科學技術突破方面發揮了至關重要的作用。就可再生能源領域來說，考慮到各國協商的減排目標以及能源行業在研發上投入相對較少的事實，公共部門的作用顯得尤爲重要。

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.

該報告中提出的計劃只有一個目的：“開發比化石燃料更便宜的可再生能源。”幾位作者認爲，要做到這一點，應把研究重點放在發電、存儲和智能電網方面。所提議的計劃每年需花費資金150億美元，這樣也僅佔全球產出的0.02%。考慮到該目標的重要性，這是一個最低限度的數額。

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.

任何決定加入該計劃的國家都要承諾將佔國民收入0.02%的資金投入可再生能源研發。雖然各國可自行決定如何使用這些資金，該計劃每年都將發佈一份新的科技突破路線圖，這些突破是維持成本削減步伐所需要取得的。該報告建議各國政府首腦在今年晚些時候巴黎氣候會議召開之前，一致通過這一關於加快和有針對性地進行研究的計劃。

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.

技術水平提高或許會結束我們對燃燒化石燃料的依賴。它或許也會減少伴隨燃燒過程的二氧化碳排放。赫爾諾特•瓦格納(Gernot Wagner)與馬丁•威茨曼(Martin Weitzman)合著的《氣候衝擊》(Climate Shock)指出，新技術也可能打破最後一個聯繫——排放與氣候之間的聯繫。這就引出了實施誘人但危險的“地球工程”(geo-engineering)的可能性——誘人，是因爲它可能看起來便宜；危險，是因爲其後果非常不確定。

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構想接近於碳捕獲和儲存，旨在消除特定設施的排放。去除二氧化碳的做法可能適用於大氣：植物就起到這樣的作用。另一種想法是“海洋施肥”(ocean fertilisation)，加速對二氧化碳的自然吸收。

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.

再現火山爆發對氣候的影響將直接抵消溫室氣體的影響。1991年菲律賓的皮納圖博火山(Mount Pinatubo)爆發所產生的物質使全球氣溫下降了0.5攝氏度。噴發出的2000萬噸二氧化硫在隨後一年裏削弱了來自太陽的2%至3%的輻射。如果我們繼續現在的道路，將來人們很可能會嘗試這類措施。

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.

不難想象此種干預帶來的危險。它不可能是一次性的，因爲排放到大氣中的微粒很快會再次掉下來。所以，隨着大氣中溫室氣體濃度的增加，這樣的行動將不得不以越來越大的規模反覆進行。

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.

這樣一個故意污染全球大氣的計劃很可能被視爲一種戰爭行爲。反覆進行這種大規模行星工程的後果也極難預測。這隻能作爲最後的手段。

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.

應對氣候變化挑戰，最好的方法是改革激勵機制，同時加快創新步伐，使無碳技術能夠與化石燃料競爭。這兩方面都需要更積極的公共政策。擬議的阿波羅計劃將是至關重要的一環。其實施的成本並不大，而潛在的好處是巨大的。成功在於變革。試錯要遠勝於根本不去嘗試。