從人口膨脹到資源短缺，從氣候變暖到環(huán)境污染……21世紀的人類面臨人口、資源、環(huán)境等諸多難題。如何在資源日益短缺的情況下滿足人口膨脹所帶來的資源需求增長？如何在保持經(jīng)濟增長與生活質(zhì)量的同時減少對環(huán)境的污染和對氣候的影響？本文提供了一個解決方案——在能源與資源效能領域進行創(chuàng)新。也許在不久的將來，這一領域會成為下一個全球性重大產(chǎn)業(yè)。

可下載MP3

Our plan was to meet for lunch at noon in Moscow. It was to be just myself and Fyodor Lukyanov， the editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs. He picked the restaurant. It had been snowing that day， and the Moscow traffic—already nearly impossible because the city， which 15 years ago had 300，000 cars， today hosts nearly four million registered vehicles—was even more impossible than usual. Soon the e-mailing between us started. I was first: “I’m running a few minutes late.” Lukyanov said the same a few minutes later. Then me again: “I am going to be 20 minutes late.” He then saw my 20 minutes and raised me 20. In the end， I was 50 minutes late， and I beat him by two minutes. We sped through an interview about Russian foreign policy in 30 minutes， before I rushed out so as not to be late for my next appointment. As we hurriedly put on our coats， Lukyanov had one piece of advice for me， and it wasn’t that the U.S. should stay out of2) Syria.

It was: “Take the subway.”

True， Moscow’s gridlock3) was not as bad as the August 2010 traffic jam on the main north-south highway from Beijing to Inner Mongolia. Said to be the longest in the history of the planet， that baby4) stretched 60 miles， moved at a speed of 2 miles per day， took 10 days to unsnarl5) and spawned6) its own local economy of noodle sellers.

But this is not a column about traffic—per se7).

This is a column about energy and environment and why we must not let the poisonous debate about climate change so tie us in knots8) that we cannot have any energy policy at all， particularly one focused on developing much more efficient use of resources， through better designs and systems. If you are so reckless as to dismiss9) all climate science as a hoax10)， and do not accept the data that our planet is getting hotter and the oceans rising， I can’t help you. That’s between you and your beach house—and your kids， whose future you’re imperiling11).

But you better believe this: The planet is getting flatter and more crowded. There will be two billion more people here by 2050， and they will all want to live and drive just like us. And when they do， there is going to be one monster traffic jam and pollution cloud， unless we learn how to get more mobility， lighting， heating and cooling from less energy and with less waste—with so many more people. We can’t let the climate wars continue to derail12) efforts to have an energy policy that puts in place rising efficiency standards， for buildings， traffic， housing， packaging and appliances， that will drive innovation—which is our strength—in what has to be the next great global industry: energy and resource efficiency.

This is the theme of two recent books. The first is called The Sixth Wave: How to Succeed in a Resource-Limited World， by James Bradfield Moody and Bianca Nogrady. Moody， who works at Australia’s national research agency， and Nogrady， a science journalist， argue that， since the industrial revolution， we’ve seen five long waves of innovation—from water power to steam to electrification to mass production and right up to information and communications technologies. They argue the sixth wave will be resource efficiency—because rising populations， with growing appetites13)， will lead to both increasing scarcity of resources and dangerously high pollution， waste and climate change.

This will force us to decouple14) consumption from economic growth. In the past， says Moody， “the more we consumed， the more we grew.” And， therefore， there was a tension between green and gold. But that cannot last， says Moody. When you have a global market， with a burgeoning15) population， that faces rising scarcity of resources and still so much waste in how we make and consume things “there is a great market opportunity for innovation.”

“We are going to go from green versus gold to green equals gold，” says Moody. Because the only way to grow without consuming more resources is through systemic breakthroughs in efficiency—developing new business models to deliver mobility， heating， cooling and lighting with dramatically fewer resources and pollution.

Here is a simple example that the energy expert Hal Harvey uses: “Consider a standard incandescent light bulb16)， powered by a coal-fired power plant. If the coal plant is 33 percent efficient (the average in the U.S.)， and the light bulb is 3 percent efficient， then the net conversion of energy to light is just 1 percent. That is pathetic—and typical. An L.E.D. light， powered by an efficient natural gas turbine， converts 20 percent of the total energy to light—a 20-fold increase.” Run it on renewables and it’s carbon-free to boot17).

This is where Amory Lovins， the physicist who is chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute， begins in his new book， Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era. The Rocky Mountain Institute and its business collaborators show how private enterprise—motivated by profit， supported by smart policy—can lead America off both oil and coal by 2050， saving $5 trillion， through innovation emphasizing design and strategy.

“You don’t have to believe in climate change to solve it，” says Lovins. “Everything we do to raise energy efficiency will make money， improve security and health， and stabilize climate.”

我們約定中午在莫斯科共進午餐。我一個，還有《全球事務中的俄羅斯》雜志總編費奧多爾·盧克亞諾夫，就我們兩人。飯店是他挑選的。莫斯科的交通平時就已經(jīng)到了讓人幾乎無法容忍的地步，原因很明顯：15年前這座城市的汽車擁有量為30萬輛，如今登記在冊的車輛卻已接近四百萬輛。那天又碰上一直下雪，交通狀況自然比平常更加糟糕。于是，我們很快開始互發(fā)電郵。首先是我發(fā)的：“我要晚到幾分鐘了。”幾分鐘后，盧克亞諾夫回復了同樣的內(nèi)容。后來我又發(fā)了一條：“我要晚到20分鐘了。”看到我的20分鐘，他向我提出再加20分鐘。結(jié)果最后，我晚到了50分鐘，比他早到兩分鐘。我們用30分鐘的時間快速完成了關于俄羅斯外交政策的訪談。然后我沖出門，以防下一個約會遲到。就在我們急匆匆地披上外套離開時，盧克亞諾夫給我提了一條建議，但并不是關于美國不要插手敘利亞事務的。

他的建議是“坐地鐵”。

的確，相比2010年8月北京至內(nèi)蒙古南北高速公路要道上那次交通擁堵，莫斯科的交通堵塞問題還不算太糟糕。據(jù)說，北京到內(nèi)蒙古那次令人頭疼的擁堵是全球有史以來擁堵隊伍最長的，綿延60英里，車輛每天行進兩英里，歷經(jīng)十天才得以疏通，讓當?shù)刭u面條的商販大賺了一筆。

不過，這篇專欄文章的本意并不是要討論交通問題。

本文要探討的是能源和環(huán)境問題，以及為何我們不能再因為無益的氣候變化爭論而茫然不知所措，以為我們無法制定任何能源政策，尤其是那種著眼于通過完善規(guī)劃和體制來提高資源利用效率的政策。如若你非要不顧后果，認為氣候科學全都是騙人的把戲，對我們的地球正在變暖和海平面正在上升之類的事實熟視無睹，那我?guī)筒涣四?。但這個問題關系到你和你的海邊居所，還有你的孩子們，你的所作所為將危及他們的未來。

不過，請你最好相信這一點：地球正變得越來越平，也越來越擁擠。到2050年，地球?qū)黾?0億人，他們也都想像你我現(xiàn)在一樣生活和開車。如此一來，勢必會引發(fā)可怕的交通堵塞和污染云團，除非我們學會在人口增多的情況下用更少的能源滿足更多的出行、照明、取暖和制冷需求，同時減少排污量。我們不能再讓有關氣候的口水戰(zhàn)繼續(xù)阻礙我們制定能源政策，這一政策著力提高建筑、交通、住房、包裝以及電器的效率標準，它將激發(fā)我們在能源和資源效能領域的創(chuàng)新——創(chuàng)新就是我們的力量。這一領域勢必會成為下一個全球性重大產(chǎn)業(yè)。

新近出版的兩部著作也圍繞這一主題進行了論述。第一部名為《第六次浪潮：如何在資源有限的世界立于不敗之地》，作者是詹姆斯·布拉德菲爾德·穆迪和比安卡·諾格雷迪。穆迪供職于澳大利亞國家級研究機構(gòu)，諾格雷迪是一名從事科技報道的記者。他們認為，自工業(yè)革命以來，我們經(jīng)歷了五次持久的科技創(chuàng)新浪潮——水力發(fā)電、蒸汽動力、電氣化、大批量生產(chǎn)，直至信息通訊技術(shù)。他們認為，第六次改革浪潮將來自資源效率——因為人口增長會帶來需求增長，進而導致資源更加短缺，引發(fā)危險的嚴重污染、廢物排放以及氣候變化問題。

這將迫使我們將經(jīng)濟增長與資源消耗相分離。穆迪表示，在過去，“我們資源消耗越多，經(jīng)濟增長就越多。”因此，環(huán)境保護與經(jīng)濟增長之間就呈現(xiàn)出緊張關系。但是穆迪認為，這種狀態(tài)將不會持續(xù)下去。在人口迅速增長的情況下，如果全球市場面臨資源日益短缺的情況，同時生產(chǎn)與消費過程中仍存在巨大的浪費，那么創(chuàng)新就會迎來絕佳的市場機遇。

“環(huán)境保護與經(jīng)濟增長之間的關系將從對立走向?qū)Φ??！蹦碌险f。這是因為，不增加資源消耗而維持經(jīng)濟增長的唯一途徑就是實現(xiàn)效率上的全面突破，也就是在大幅度降低資源消耗和減輕污染的前提下，發(fā)展新的商業(yè)模式，以滿足人們出行、取暖、制冷及照明的需求。

能源專家哈爾·哈維曾舉過一個簡單的例子：“試想有一盞標準白熾燈，由火力發(fā)電廠供電。假如火力發(fā)電廠的能源利用率為33% (美國的平均水平)，燈泡的能源利用率為3%，那么從能源到照明的凈轉(zhuǎn)化率僅為1%。這一點委實可悲，但卻普遍存在。如果是一盞LED燈，由高效的天然氣汽輪機供電，那它可以將總能量的20%轉(zhuǎn)化為照明——能源利用效率提高了20倍。”如果用可再生能源來供能，還連碳都不用消耗了呢。

這正是落基山研究所所長、物理學家艾默里·洛文斯在他的新書《創(chuàng)新之火：新能源時代商業(yè)模式的大膽探析》中開宗明義之所在。落基山研究所及其商業(yè)合作伙伴闡明了私營企業(yè)——出于利潤動機并依賴于明智政策的支持——如何能夠在2050年之前通過以規(guī)劃和戰(zhàn)略為重點的創(chuàng)新，幫助美國擺脫對石油和煤炭的依賴，而這樣可節(jié)省的資金達五萬億美元。

“解決氣候變化問題，不一定非要相信氣候變化理論，”洛文斯說，“我們?yōu)榱颂岣吣苄龅囊磺卸际强梢再嵉藉X、改善安全和健康狀況并穩(wěn)定氣候的?！?/p>

1.Thomas L. Friedman：托馬斯·弗里德曼(1953～)，畢業(yè)于牛津大學，現(xiàn)為《紐約時報》專欄作家，唯一一個曾三次獲得普利策獎的記者，代表作有《從貝魯特到耶路撒冷》(From Beirut to Jerusalem)、《世界是平的：21世紀簡史》(The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century)等。

2.stay out of：不參與，不插手

3.gridlock [?ɡr?dl?k] n. 交通大堵塞

4.baby [?be?bi] n. 討厭的事務

5.unsnarl [?n?snɑ?l] vt. 把……的糾結(jié)解開

6.spawn [sp??n] vt. 使產(chǎn)生，引起

7.per se [?p?? ?se?] adv. 本質(zhì)上

8.tie sb. in knots：使某人疑惑不解

9.dismiss [d?s?m?s] vt. 不承認，拒絕，拒絕接受

10.hoax [h??ks] n. 騙子

11.imperil [?m?per?l] vt. 危害

12.derail [d??re?l] vt. 使停頓

13.appetite [??p?ta?t] n. 欲望

14.decouple [di??k?pl] vt. 使分離

15.burgeon [?b??d??n] vi. 發(fā)展，繁盛

16.incandescent light bulb：白熾燈泡。incandescent [??nk?n?desnt] adj. 遇熱發(fā)光的，白熾的

17.to boot：而且，此外