任何机构都要戒除能源挥霍瘾

Our ancestors lived in eras we call the Stone Age, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Ours is the “fossil-fuel age”. The energy we have extracted from the earth’s reserves of fossilised sunlight has spread (unequally shared) abundance across humanity. Will this continue? Can we manage its impact on our environment? The answers will shape the future of our complex global civilisation.

我们祖先生活的时代，我们称之为石器时代、青铜时代和铁器时代。我们生活的时代是“化石燃料时代”。我们从地球上的化石化太阳能储量中提取的能量已将富足传播给整个人类，尽管这种传播并不均匀。这个时代会延续下去吗？我们能管控化石燃料对人类环境的影响吗？这些问题的答案将决定我们复杂的全球文明的未来。

As always, BP’s Energy Outlook provides a glimpse into a possible future. No doubt, its forecasts will be wrong. But it tells us what well-informed people at the heart of the oil and gas industry consider “the likely path of global energy markets to 2035”. It puts forward five important propositions about a plausible energy future.

像以往一样，BP此次发布的《能源展望》(Energy Outlook)为我们提供了一个一睹可能前景的机会。毫无疑问，它的预测将是错误的。但它告诉了我们，身处油气行业核心的消息灵通人士所认为的“全球能源市场至2035年的可能发展路径”是什么。这份报告给出了一个貌似有道理的能源前景，并围绕这一前景提出了五个重要观点。

First, global economic output is forecast to rise by 115 per cent by 2035. Asian emerging economies — principally China and India — are expected to generate more than 60 per cent of that increase.

首先，全球经济产出预计到2035年时将增长115%。亚洲新兴经济体（主要是中国和印度）对这一增幅的贡献预计将超过60%。

The primary driver of the rise in global output is expected to be a 75 per cent jump in global average real output per head, as the prosperity of emerging economies catches up with that of high-income countries. Population growth plays a distinctly subsidiary role. It is not the number of people, but rather their prosperity, that drives demand for commercial energy.

全球经济产出增长的主要推动力，预计将来自全球人均实际产出75%的跃升，而新兴经济体的繁荣程度将赶上高收入国家。人口增长起到了明显的辅助作用。但推动商业能源需求的并不是人类的数量，而是人类的繁荣。

Second, as a result of rapidly rising energy efficiency, energy consumption is forecast to grow by only 37 per cent. This is far less than the rise in output of real goods and services.

其次，由于能效迅速提高，能源消费预计仅将增长37%。这个数字远小于商品和服务实际产出的增幅。

Third, emissions of carbon dioxide are forecast to grow by 25 per cent, a growth rate of about 1 per cent a year. In terms of the link between output and emissions, this is a huge achievement. But — given the need to cut emissions outright, in order to have a good chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to below 2C — it is wholly inadequate. Thus, in 2035, emissions of CO2 are forecast to be 18bn tonnes above levels suggested by the International Energy Agency’s “450 Scenario”. This seeks to limit atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to the equivalent of about 450 parts per million of CO2. If such targets are to be met, something far more radical needs to occur. (See charts.)

第三，二氧化碳排放量预计将增长25%，即年增长1%左右。就经济产出与碳排放之间的关联而言，这是一个巨大的成就。但是，考虑到有必要彻底减排、如此才有机会将全球平均气温升幅控制在2摄氏度以下，这一成就还远远不够。如果真是增长25%，那么2035年的二氧化碳排放量预计将比国际能源署(IEA)“450情景”建议的水平高180亿吨。“450情景”寻求将大气中温室气体的浓度限定在450ppm二氧化碳当量。要实现这样的目标，就必须作出一些激进得多的努力。（见图表）

Fourth, improvements in energy efficiency are a far more important driver of the relatively low growth in emissions than shifts in the fuel mix. This is despite a substantial rise in use of renewables. So, between 2013 and 2035, output of renewable energy is forecast to grow by 320 per cent. Even so, its share in primary energy production is forecast to grow only from 2.6 per cent to 6.7 per cent. The combined share of renewables, hydroelectricity and nuclear power grows only from 9 per cent to 19 per cent. This, then, is expected to remain a fossil-fuel age.

第四，能效提高是造成碳排放增长相对较低的主要因素，燃料结构变化则是一个重要性低得多的因素，尽管可再生能源的使用量有大幅增长。2013年到2035年，可再生能源的产量预计将增长320%。尽管如此，可再生能源产量在一次能源产量中的占比，预计仅会从2.6%升至6.7%。可再生能源、水电和核电产量的合计占比仅会从9%升至19%。因此，预计到2035年时我们仍将处于化石燃料时代。

Fifth, the revolution in the production of shale gas and tight oil is expected to continue, with their share in primary energy production rising to about 10 per cent. An important result is large shifts in patterns of trade. So the US is forecast to shift from being a net importer of 12m barrels a day of oil in 2005 to being a net exporter by 2035. Meanwhile, China is forecast to shift to being a net importer of more than 13m b/d by 2035 (from self-sufficiency in the early 2000s); and India to being a net importer of about 7m b/d. Such shifts have huge geopolitical implications.

第五，页岩气和致密油的生产革命预计将持续下去，它们在一次能源产量中的占比将升至约10%。一个重要的结果是贸易格局的大转变。也就是说，预计到2035年时，美国将从石油净进口国（2005年日均净进口石油120万桶）变为净出口国。而中国到2035年时，预计将从2000年代初的石油自给自足变为一个日均净进口石油逾130万桶的国家；印度预计将变成一个日均净进口石油约700万桶的国家。这一转变将产生巨大的地缘政治影响。

It would be wrong to describe these forecasts as simply “business as usual”. They actually imply a faster rise in energy efficiency than between 2000 and 2013. But they are not radical. The world would continue to rely overwhelmingly on fossil fuels and it would emit ever greater quantities of greenhouse gases. Could we do better?

如果把以上预测描述为就是“一切如常”，那就错了。实际上，它们意味着能效提高的速度将快于2000年至2013年间。但这不会起到根本作用。世界将继续严重依赖化石燃料，全球温室气体的排放量会越来越大。我们能做得更好些吗？

I start from the presumption that humanity will aspire to and often manage to achieve the prosperity now taken for granted in rich countries. So we need an accelerated technological revolution. At the Oslo Energy Forum last month, I heard Amory Lovins of theRocky Mountain Institute describe just such a revolution. He argued, for example, that US gross domestic product in 2050 could be 2.5 times what it is today, even if the country stopped using oil, coal and nuclear energy altogether and cut its use of natural gas by one-third. This would mean carbon emissions of just one-fifth of their present level. Moreover, he argued, the revolution could well be driven by market forces alone, given the growing economic superiority of the new technologies. There might, he suggests, be no need to to take direct policy action against rising emissions of carbon dioxide.

富国如今存在着一种想当然的推断，即认为人类会渴望繁荣并且通常也能实现繁荣。我就从这点说起。因为渴望繁荣，所以我们需要加速技术革命。在上月召开的奥斯陆能源论坛(Oslo Energy Forum)上，我听到洛基山研究所(Rocky Mountain Institute)的艾默里•洛文斯(Amory Lovins)恰巧描述了这样一场革命。他举例辩称，即便美国彻底停用石油、煤炭以及核能、并将天然气用量削减三分之一，该国2050年的国内生产总值(GDP)也可达到今天的2.5倍。这意味着碳排放量仅为美国今天水平的五分之一。他还辩称，考虑到新技术带来的经济优势日益增加，很可能单靠市场力量便可以有效推进这场革命。他暗示，也许没有必要针对日益增长的二氧化碳排放采取直接政策行动。

The sense of the BP report (not surprisingly, perhaps, given that BP is a fossil-fuel producer) is that such a radical and rapid market-driven revolution is unlikely. The purported obstacles are many: costs, technological limits, slow turnover of the capital stock, inability to implement policy globally and natural inertia. In brief, I fear BP is right about the obstacles. But Mr Lovins might be right about the opportunities, though only if policy makers give them a big push.

BP报告的言下之意是这样一场彻底、迅速、由市场驱动的革命不太可能发生（考虑到BP是一家化石燃料生产商，它持这样的观点或许并不令人意外）。报告声称这面临很多障碍：成本、技术局限、资本存量周转缓慢、政策无法在全球范围内推行以及自然惯性。简言之，BP对这些障碍的判断恐怕是正确的。但洛文斯对机遇的判断可能也是正确的，尽管前提条件是政策制定者大力推动这些机遇。

If governments could agree to implement a tax on carbon, they would give a big impulse towards an energy future that is more efficient and less polluting. Governments should invest strongly in fundamental science and new technologies. Finally, governments can help the spread of new technologies abroad and help finance their uptake at home. With this push, normal market forces should pull the world economy towards a more sustainable future.

如果各国政府能答应实施碳税，将是对更高效、更低污染能源前景的有力支撑。各国政府应该在基础科学和新技术领域大力投资。最后一点，各国政府可帮助在海外传播新技术，并为新技术在国内的消化吸收提供资金帮助。凭借这种支持，正常的市场力量将拉动世界经济走向更可持续的未来。

Mass poverty is not an option. But neither is taking ever-bigger gambles with the climate. The right course has to lie in between. To put ourselves on that course, we need to wean ourselves off the excesses of the fossil-fuel age. It is a daunting challenge. But it has to be met, for our children’s sake.

大规模的贫困不容接受。但是，在气候方面进行越来越危险的赌博也不是好的选择。正确的道路必须介于两者之间。为了走上正确的道路，我们必须戒除化石燃料时代的各种无节制行为。这是一项严峻的挑战。但是，为了我们的子孙，我们必须直面这一挑战。