Thursday, April 22, 2021

世界地球日新聞轉發:氣候峰會

本文內容轉自台灣《工商時報》的報道。這一視訊會議由美國總統拜登主持,率先提出美國要在2030年以前減少碳排放50%以上。中國大陸習近平主席也做出承諾,要爭取在2060年之前達到碳中和--也就是碳排放量與碳吸收量相當。

美國總統拜登主導召開的線上全球氣候峰會,在22號「世界地球日」登場,拜登除宣示美國2030年前減碳50%以上,2035年前實現發電淨零碳排,也將施壓其他國家加碼減碳對付氣候變遷。

台北時間周四晚間8時揭幕的全球氣候峰會為期2天,採視訊方式進行,40國領袖共襄盛舉,近來與美國關係緊張的中國國家主席習近平及俄國總統普丁也確定與會。

拜登趁此全球商討如何積極減少碳排放的場合,宣布美國的減碳新目標,務使2030年排碳量,較2005年減少50%到52%。

拜登政府新設的減碳幅度,幾乎是前總統歐巴馬主政時期的2倍,奧巴馬要求2025年前的排碳量,須比2005年少26%至28%。蘋果、強生、沃爾瑪等美國企業巨頭,都為50%減碳目標背書。

拜登周四在峰會上指出:「這是具決定性的10年,我們必須下定決心避免氣候危機帶來的最糟後果。」

根據氣候行動追蹤組織(Climate Action Tracker)分析,美國若要在2050年前實現碳中和,未來10年須減碳57%到63%。

拜登的減碳努力也包括制定乾淨電力標準(Clean Electricity Standard),務求2035年前達成發電淨零碳排,提升建築的能源效率,減少運輸部門的碳排放。

美國財長耶倫周三在國際金融協會(IIF)演說時即透露,拜登總統擘劃雄心勃勃的抗暖化策略,要讓美國轉型為淨零碳排的經濟體,動員整個政府部門達成此目標。

不過這幾十年來,美國氣候政策隨著政權更迭常出現一百八十度大轉變,多國領導人因而對拜登的氣候承諾持質疑態度。像小布希時期拒認1997年的《京都議定書》,川普總統退出奧巴馬主導於2015年締結的《巴黎氣候協定》。

全球最大二氧化碳排放國中國及眾多開發中國家,長期以來對於歐美要求他們在對抗氣候變遷上有更積極的作為,多半持抗拒態度,指控富國這數十年來工業化過程中,毫無節制排放溫室氣體才是禍首。

大陸國家主席習近平22日晚間出席由美國總統拜登主持的全球領導人氣候峰會時表示,中國承諾實現從碳達峰到碳中和的時間,遠遠短於發達國家所用時間,並提出人與自然作為生命共同體的六個堅持。

習近平表示,構建人與自然生命共同體,要堅持人與自然和諧共生,堅持綠色發展,堅持系統治理,堅持以人為本,堅持多邊主義,堅持共同但有區別的責任原則。習近平重申,中國將在2030年前碳達峰,並推動2060年前實現碳中和。

談及國際合作,習近平指出,發達國家應該展現更大雄心和行動,同時幫助發展中國家提高應對氣候變化的能力和韌性,為發展中國家提供資金、技術、能力建設等方面支持,避免設置綠色貿易壁壘,幫助他們加速綠色低碳轉型。

此外,中國歡迎美方重返多邊氣候治理進程,中美日前共同發布「應對氣候危機聯合聲明」,中國期待與包括美國在內的國際社會共同為推進全球環境治理而努力。

習近平指出,中國將碳達峰和碳中和納入生態文明建設整體佈局,正在製定碳達峰行動計劃,廣泛深入碳達峰行動,支持有條件的地方和重點行業、重點企業率先達峰。

中國也將嚴控燃煤發電,於「十四五」時期嚴控煤炭消費增長、「十五五」時期逐步減少。此外,中國已決定接受「蒙特婁議定書修正案」,加強非二氧化碳溫室氣體管控,還將啟動全國碳市場上線交易。

弟兄姊妹們你們讀這篇文章感受如何?要不要切切地為這件事禱告?中國領導人說話總是帶有某種說大話、空話的味道。我查了一下甚麼是「碳達峰」,原來是他們承諾在2030年前達到二氧化碳的排放不再增長。意思就是他們的碳排放量還要繼續增長,只不過增長速度要降下來,並在2030年以前達到碳排放的最大峰值,然後才開始減碳。

他們現在還在到處興建煤發電站,當然無法把碳排放立即降下來!天知道他們能用甚麼魔術在前面9年不立即減碳,而能在後面的30年內達到碳中和。OK,他們「正在製定...計劃」,八字還沒有一撇。

當然,美國也正在製訂計劃,所有的關注都放在實現減碳的詳細具體方案的發表,據說拜登政府「雄心勃勃」。至於你和我,我們也有不少事可以做。大手大腳鋪張浪費的美國人需要立即改變許多消費習慣,隨時考慮環境保護!

3 comments:

  1. Don't listen to what they said, but see what they did. (Quoted from a speaker in Taiwan talk show)

    ReplyDelete
  2. 說比不說好。不說不表態的人肯定不會帶來實際改變,說了不等於所有人都會參與,但總有人會積極獻策獻計。下面是我寫給"有關部門"的電子信,投給任何可能關注的人,反對垃圾郵件:
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I have been bothered by the huge amount of paper advertise/fund raising mails to my mail box. Many of those sent to an addressee marked as "Or Current Resident". One of the organizations I supported told me that with "Or Current Resident" label, they don't have to pay for the return. No wonder I received so many ads addressed to a number of previous residents, some are high quality paper magazines! But the material I regularly expect to receive is in Chinese. If I move and forget to inform them promptly, it most likely would send to a non-Chinese resident. It is so much waste to print, mail/transport them to someone who doesn't read it and cannot to return / let the sender adjust their mailing list.
    I understand that advertising expenses are counted as tax deductible for business/non-profits, that's why they may feel this is somewhat government paid expenses. Can we adjust the policy so that business is not allowed to use "or Current Resident" for irresponsible ad spending, for example tax them to give to paper recycling companies? They should pay at least half the cost before the expenses should be deducted from tax.
    I don't know where to send this suggestion, therefor try here. Thanks for your attention.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you XXXX for letting me know about solutions! I read the link you sent to me, and still have some confusions/suggestions.

    Okay, it seems I can just mark every piece of unsolicited mails with "REFUSED" and put right back to the mail system? But there seems some mails I cannot refuse: "Response mail to a sales promotion, solicitation, announcement, or other advertisement that was not refused when offered to the recipient." Does this mean the first time I receive it from an organization, I had to refuse it, otherwise I cannot refuse it anymore? What about I responded to a fundraising organization years ago, now I just changed my mind and do not wish to receive them anymore? I received too much calendars, note pads, address labels than I could use, and now I just hate to see all the waste.

    The second is about registering my address for some kind of "Do Not Mail" list, to remove my name from one or many mail lists. First of all I don't know where did they get my name and address, there are always new organizations found me, second I have to pay a certain "processing fee" (for each mail list? to whom?) which I don't even know it works or not. From environmental protection point of view, why don't our government just makes it easier for everybody to refuse unwanted mails? I visited the DMA link, it seems serve those who have a business interest to send unsolicited ads, what would motivate them to hear my requests of stopping mails? Not much.

    I would suggest making up new policies that require businesses pay at least half of the costs to make such paper wastes(don't grant them full cost deductions for tax purpose), and pay returns. And if they use colorful glossy paper, they should be charged more to send out such unsolicited ads.

    Thank you for your attention!

    ReplyDelete