经济学人下载:联合国气候会谈

As far as the rich world goes, they are right. Canada will fail in its emission-curbing commitment (as will, possibly, Japan). Quitting the UN scheme is a way to avoid the punitive burden that would be carried over into a second round. Nor do the other, non-Kyoto, parts of the UN process look promising just now. Negotiators at last year’s climate summit in Cancun promised up to $100 billion a year to developing countries by 2020 to help them deal with climate change, plus arrangements for monitoring the voluntary mitigation efforts of developing countries. But little has been done since—and, in hard times for the rich world, little of the promised money is likely to be forthcoming in Durban.

就目前发达国家的情况来看，这是正确的。加拿大必定不能兑现减排承诺（日本也同样很有可能失败）。那么，要想回避第二轮会谈中会加重的惩罚性负担，退出联合国计划就是一个出路。如今，对联合国成员中其他的非《京都议定书》缔约方国家而言，他们的情况同样不容乐观。去年，在墨西哥坎昆举行的气候峰会上，谈判方曾承诺，在2020以前，将每年资助发展中国家1000亿美元以帮助他们应对气候变化，同时也监督他们自愿减排的成果。但到目前为止，所做甚少。而当前发达国家又遭受金融危机，德班会议上他们能够兑现已承诺资助的希望渺茫。

The BASIC countries’ attachment to Kyoto is rooted in self-interest. As developing countries, albeit major emitters, they need undertake no mitigation commitment. This was America’s biggest objection to the UN scheme and is, above all, what they seek to preserve. This underpins their show of unity, despite big differences in the size and nature of their emissions. China is the world’s biggest polluter. Its reliance on coal-fired power stations means its emissions per head—at around six tonnes of carbon equivalent a year—are also closing on west European levels. India’s, though large and rapidly rising, are well below two tonnes a head. Brazil’s, largely caused by farming practices and deforestation, should be cheaper to curb.

“基础四国”签订的《京都议定书》附件是出于自身利益的考虑。他们虽然是主要的排碳国，但作为发展中国家，并不需要承担任何减排义务。这是美国拒绝加入联合国减排计划的最主要原因，却也是“基础四国”力图保留的权利。所以，四国纵然在碳排量以及碳排种类上有很大差异，在此问题上却有合作的基础。中国是世界上最大的污染源。经济发展依赖煤电，致使中国人均二氧化碳排量逐渐接近欧洲发达国家水平。如今中国年人均碳排量已将近6公吨。印度，经济发展虽然也在大规模迅速进行，人均碳排量仍很好地控制在2公吨以内。巴西的大量二氧化碳排量主要源于农业生产和滥伐森林，因此它的减排成本比较低。

These distinctions are reflected in the climate-related actions each country volunteered in Cancun. For instance, whereas China promised to reduce the carbon intensity of its output by 40% by 2020, Brazil, with the right assistance, is sworn to reduce its expected emissions by over 36%. These, though hard to monitor, could mean a lot if they work. Yet if the BASIC countries are to persuade the European Union to keep Kyoto alive, they, and especially China and India, must promise more. What this might mean is now being debated in Beijing and Delhi; the EU countries are watching, sceptically.

“基础四国”碳排放特征的差异，也反映在坎昆会议上各国志愿减排方面。如，中国承诺到2020年将碳排量减少40%，而巴西，因其有力后援，宣布减少36%预计碳排量。尽管这些减排难以监测，但一旦付诸实施，意义重大。而如果四国想要说服欧盟，以保证《京都议定书》继续运作，那么他们尤其是中印两国，需要承担更多的责任和义务。中国和印度目前就此问题正在激烈争论，而欧盟国家持怀疑态度，尚在观望中。