手机银行怎么网购:周末双语ZT: 中国三分之一的CO2排放是西方制造

　　希拉里•克林顿关注气候变化的北京之行刚结束，《地球物理研究通讯（Geophysical Research Letters）》刊登的一份新报告就详述西方在购买“中国制造”产品时给中国造成多少二氧化碳。报告称，中国的总排放量中，有9%源于给美国制造商品，有6%源于给欧洲制造产品。但谁要负责呢？他们会如何清理中国的“碳血汗工厂呢”？

　　人们常常提到，中国庞大的二氧化碳排放量，一部分是为西方制造商品的结果，这种现象相当于污染外包，跟西方把用过的中国制造产品运回中国倾倒的做法颇相似。

　　报告强调这种“离岸排放”是一个有待解决的问题。不过，西方把制造业外包到中国的、看不到的成本不仅是温室气体排放，其无意识后果还延伸到非洲等地方，中国到那些地方榨取原料，幷破坏大片森林制造出口到美国的家具。它们还帮助中国获得对美国的经济优势，人权组织指出，美国向中国出售国债，牺牲美国的政治影响力。

　　这些外包的污染如何解决呢？牛津大学经济学教授海尔姆（Dieter Helm）认为，关注碳排放的消费地而不是生产地，是唯一在知性上和伦理上合理的方案。碳进口税可能是一个方案，前提是，在政治和经济上，不会令西方和中国官员及消费者太难接受。

尽管中国为西方制造产品导致排放增加，但要进行精确的测量和分析幷以此为依据对各国征税可能非常困难。英国可持续发展委员会主席波立特（Jonathon Porritt）表示：“最终，唯一计算排放量的地方就是原产地——即中国。否则，双重计算的复杂性会破坏全球温室气体排放统计系统。”

　　而且西方国家不大可能掏钱给中国搞清洁。但像联合国清洁发展机制之类的项目或许有所帮助。

　　西方政治家说，如果中国不实行排放限制，西方的排放限制起不了什么作用，而中国官员则反唇相讥。然而，双方都应该记住，这些污染的工厂如今正在伤害中国。

　　至关重要的是负起责任，像沃尔玛等西方大企业应该在政府行动之前带头行动。互相指责是没有用的。它会把气候变化问题转变成又一个上演政治和文化揭丑的领域。

　　由于最近几个月双方都有了政治意愿和科学共识，这个问题可能比西藏问题等其他争议性讨论更可能产生成果。但要注意：尽管在政治上没有明确，但气候和污染的话题最终关乎一些最根本的人权。

　　近年来，美国的消费者为中国制造产品给美国儿童造成的危险而恼怒。如今他们和他们的政府可能要开始更多地思考这些产品对中国的儿童造成什么影响。

One-Third of China's CO2 Emissions Made by the West
Alex Pasternack

On the heels of Hillary Clinton's climate-focused Beijing visit, a new report details just how much CO2 the West gives to China when it buys "made in China." About 9% of total Chinese emissions are the result of manufacturing goods for the US, it finds, while 6% come from producing goods for Europe. But who is responsible, and how will they clean up China's "carbon sweatshops"?
It's often been noted that China's huge CO2 emissions -- the world's highest -- are partly the result of manufacturing goods for the West. The phenomenon amounts to pollution outsourcing, not unlike the shipping of the West's used Chinese-made goods back to China for disposal.
The new research, reported in the Guardian and due to be published this month in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters, shows that about a third of all Chinese carbon emissions between 2002 and 2005 were the result of producing goods for export.
This comes after recent research by Carnegie Mellon that found that 33 percent of China's emissions come from goods made for export, and findings by the Stockholm Environment Institute that the UK's carbon emissions are actually 49% higher than London claims.
The report underscores that "offshored emissions" is an unresolved issue ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen, where world leaders will attempt to make a deal to replace the Kyoto protocol.
The unseen costs of Western manufacturing in China go beyond greenhouse gas emissions. They extend to unintended consequences in places like Africa, where China unsustainably extracts its raw materials in exchange for controversially lax treaties and assistance, and to the destruction of vast swathes of forest, which provide wood for US-bound furniture.
They have also helped give China an economic edge over the US, which has sold much of its debt to Beijing, at the expense, human rights groups point out, of American political leverage.
Solutions?
How might such outsourced pollution be addressed? The Guardian quotes Dieter Helm, professor of economics at Oxford University, who argues that "focusing on consumption rather than production of emissions is the only intellectually and ethically sound solution."
A carbon import tax could be one solution, so long as it wouldn't be too politically or economically difficult for Western and Chinese officials and consumers. One member of China's delegation to climate talks last year wondered aloud if the West couldn't change its consumption habits for the good of China. Not that other Chinese (or American) officials want that: the economies of China and the US have long been powered by the current "made in China" trade arrangement.
And while manufacturing for the West in China has driven up emissions there, measuring and parsing the precise footprints and taxing countries accordingly could be highly difficult. As Jonathon Porritt, head of the UK's Sustainable Development Commission, says: "Ultimately, the only place to register emissions is in the country of origin - in this case, China. Otherwise, the whole global accounting system for greenhouse gases will be undermined by the complexity of double-accounting."
Meanwhile, it is unlikely that Western countries will give China money to clean up. But programs like the UN's Clean Development Mechanism could help.
Either way, the study highlights the problems of a cap-and-trade system in the US without a stronger international treaty: US officials have said that would give China unfair economic advantages, but it would also drive a shift of even more Western pollution to the East.

Blame Game
While Western politicians have said that their own emissions restrictions won't matter without restrictions in China, more than a few Chinese officials have pointed fingers in the other direction. But both sides should remember that no matter how they got there, wherever they may be, polluting factories and power plants are hurting China right now. And with continued attention to regulation, legal enforcement and civil society, the Chinese government is not incapable of cleaning up the country's mess.
The West certainly has a role to play in China's clean-up too, though what that is remains unclear. Still, recognizing responsibility is crucial, and big Western companies like Wal-Mart have been wise to take the lead ahead of governments (and perhaps are more effective at cleaning up).
But conversely, laying blame, as both sides have done, doesn't go very far. It turns climate change into yet another venue for political and cultural recriminations.
With the political will and scientific consensus that has emerged in recent months on both sides, it looks like it could be much more productive than many other contentious discussions about topics like Tibet. But don't be fooled: it may not be explicitly political, but the topic of climate and pollution is ultimately about some of the most fundamental human rights.
In recent years, consumers in the US huffed over the dangers of Chinese-made goods to kids in the US. Now they and their governments might start thinking harder about what those goods are doing to kids in China.