对话伦敦政治经济学院副校长：逆全球化与短视主义，正阻碍人类应对气候危机

2026-3-13 09:11| 发布者: 迈克尔| 查看: 1

专题：对话ESG全球领导者文 | 新浪财经李欣然在气候变化日益严峻、地缘政治裂痕不断加深的当下，全球可持续发展之路正面临着前所未有的复杂挑战。一方面，气候行动已在国际社会凝聚广泛共识，以中国为代表的新能源革命正在重塑全球产业格局；另一方面，逆全球化浪潮暗流涌动，民粹主义政治的抬头给多边合作蒙上阴影，欧盟的碳边境调节机制等政策也在“绿色”与“贸易保护”之间引发激烈争论。与此同时，人口老龄化、AI 的爆发式发展等深层社会趋势，正深刻重塑着经济发展与环境保护之间的传统关系。AI究竟是助力绿色转型的利器，还是加剧资源消耗与环境负担的推手？在老龄化社会，我们又该如何平衡创新动能与可持续的未来？带着这些问题，近期新浪财经与伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）副校长、著名环境经济学教授Eric Neumayer展开了对话。作为长期深耕可持续发展领域的顶尖学者，Neumayer教授剖析了气候政策、全球合作与未来趋势之间的复杂交织，并分享了他对如何构建一个既经济高效又绿色普惠的可持续未来的独到见解。以下为对话原文：新浪财经：当前社会上仍有观点认为气候变暖是一场骗局。即使在那些承认全球变暖的人当中，也有人将应对气候变化的行动视为经济发展中优先级较低的事项。您如何看待环境保护与经济发展之间的关系？在您看来，应当如何妥善处理这一关系，才能使气候行动真正助力经济增长？ Eric Neumayer教授：无论大西洋彼岸传出怎样的声音，气候变化绝非一场骗局。令人倍感欣慰的是，无论是在中国，还是在绝大多数接受并承认气候变化真实存在的国家，几乎听不到此类质疑的声音。气候变化就在眼前，而且是一个切实的问题。因此，在我看来，这是本世纪人类面临的决定性挑战之一。作为一名受过专业训练的经济学家，我们喜欢说天下没有免费的午餐。应对气候变化需要付出代价，治理环境污染也需要付出代价。但这并不是说，从长远来看，气候行动不能产生积极的经济溢出效应。再以中国为例。中国如今无疑是生产和供应价格极具竞争力的太阳能电池板和风力涡轮机的世界领导者。这对世界其他地区来说是一个重大的积极利益。许多本身没有机会生产这些可再生能源技术的地方，现在可以从中国以可负担的价格获得它们，从而能够以更低的总成本向更可持续的能源未来转型。但我想说，这对中国经济也是有益的，因为这是一个新的增长产业。当许多其他较老旧的产业不再那么有前景时，这个产业可以成为经济的一个重要驱动力。我的同事尼古拉斯·斯特恩教授喜欢说，这甚至可能引发一种新型的工业革命——特别是借助可再生能源技术。当然，这一点还有待讨论。但无论如何，极其重要的是，我们要尽可能高效、低成本地向更可持续的经济转型。这意味着要拥抱市场友好型的政策——环境税、可交易的排污许可证——而不是老式的命令控制型政策。这些工具将帮助我们以低得多的成本实现我们想要达到的目标。新浪财经：当前，许多国家和地区都制定了可持续发展领域的相关政策，但其中一些政策也引发了争议。例如，欧盟的《企业可持续发展报告指令》被一些企业，尤其是中小企业，认为增加了它们的披露负担和运营成本；而欧盟的《碳边境调节机制》则被部分国家视为一种贸易保护主义行为。在可持续发展领域，您有哪些政策建议或思路可以分享？ Eric Neumayer教授：我先从欧盟的《企业可持续发展报告指令》谈起。我确实认为这可能是一项考虑欠妥的政策。它显然给企业带来了相当沉重的官僚主义负担。任何此类政策要想有价值，都应该能轻松通过成本效益分析——也就是说，它带来的环境效益必须远大于其施加的成本。而我并不认为这项指令能够通过这样的成本效益检验。它不仅浪费资源，还会引发阻力,而且是相当大的阻力，从而可能动摇未来人们对其他政策的支持。所以，我认为我们在采纳什么政策的问题上需要非常审慎地思考，因为我们只有一次机会把事情做对。我们没有无穷无尽的时间。欧盟的《碳边境调节机制》是一个复杂的问题。一方面，我完全理解为什么中国和其他国家可能将此视为披着环境政策外衣的贸易保护主义。我理解这种看法。另一方面，在全球化的世界经济中，如果世界贸易体系中的其他参与方不采取行动，或者不同时采取足够有力的行动，那么任何单一行为体都不可能真正有效地应对气候变化，这也是事实。因此，现实地看，如果没有这个边境调节机制，欧洲很可能就无法出台并推行雄心勃勃的气候政策。当下，解决这个问题的最佳途径，是中国、越南、印度尼西亚、巴西、南非以及其他地区——很遗憾，如我们所知，美国不在此列——与欧盟委员会携手合作。我们应当在国际层面协同努力，坚持维护以规则为基础的世界秩序，尽管我们眼下正目睹着各种挑战这一秩序的事件发生。这是国际合作前行的唯一道路。所以，我某种程度上支持这一政策——但或许是有条件地认可，并且始终铭记：最佳路径永远是国际合作，这样我们就不需要依赖这些单边措施来支撑单边政策了。新浪财经：可持续发展被视为一个全球性议题。然而，逆全球化的趋势正在逐渐显现。您认为当下的国际环境是否对可持续发展构成了挑战？ Eric Neumayer教授：首先，我认为我们正生活在一个逆全球化的阶段。当然，这并非史无前例。世界在过去也经历过全球化和逆全球化的周期。第一次世界大战前有过一波全球化浪潮，两次世界大战期间则是大规模的逆全球化，二战后全球化重新兴起。但在过去十年左右的时间里——以及现在随着特朗普总统的贸易和关税政策，全球化进程正在急剧倒退。我写过一本关于绿色贸易与投资的书，探讨全球化对环境的影响。当然，全球化确实带来了一些问题。但我也必须非常明确地指出：逆全球化对环境不利，对可持续发展也不利。我们面临的挑战，无论是环境方面的还是其他方面的，本质上都是全球性的。只有我们携手合作，才能应对这些挑战。这需要一个更加全球化的世界，而不是一个逆全球化的世界。我们需要所有国家紧密合作。我们绝不能陷入一个完全由狭隘国家利益驱动的世界。如果一切都以"美国优先"、"中国优先"或"欧洲优先"为出发点，我们就忽略了真正重要的东西。我们应当追求的是"人类优先"、"地球优先"、"全球携手"，而不是单个国家优先。如果我们落入那个陷阱，对环境和可持续发展来说将是极为不利的消息。我明白，将全人类利益置于首位很难，几乎是不可能做到的。国家领导人通常首先考虑本国人民的福祉，这完全是正常且可以理解的。然而，关键在于他们必须明白一点：如果他们狭隘且自私地追求自以为的国家利益，从长远来看，其结果很可能并不符合国家的真正利益。因此，我们必须认识到，为了实现所有国家长远上更好的共同未来，我们需要搁置一些狭隘、短期的国家利益。我们命运与共。如果我们选择对抗而非合作，未来的处境都会糟糕得多。我想指出的是，中国和中国领导人常常展现出相当长远的目光。我认为这一点非常可贵。他们能够看到更长远的图景，而非仅仅执着于短期利益。新浪财经：展望未来，您认为哪些大的社会趋势会影响经济发展？在您看来，要实现可持续发展，最需要把握的核心是什么？ Eric Neumayer教授：我们已经讨论过逆全球化，这是一个我们需要努力去扭转的消极趋势。人口老龄化是另一个问题——这一现象正在全球范围内发生，在许多发展中国家，就如同在欧洲一样。事实上，很多地方的生育率都远低于2.1这一人口更替水平。我认为这对可持续发展来说并不是什么特别好的消息。当然，从某种意义上说，如果把其他所有因素都抛在一边，也可以辩称这也是个好消息，因为从理论上讲，人口减少意味着污染减少。但人口老龄化令人担忧，因为它削弱了通常由年轻人带来的创新能力。而我们需要创新来克服环境问题，这需要更便宜、更好的技术。 AI则是一个有趣的话题。它是一把双刃剑。一方面，我们知道它可能对环境造成灾难性影响，因为它极其依赖电力。如果电力还是由煤炭、石油或天然气等化石燃料提供，而非来自可再生能源，那将是个可怕的消息，因为我们将会看到更多的温室气体排放和空气污染。另一方面，AI也蕴藏着巨大的希望。它可以被用来应对和解决各种问题和挑战，开发新技术。也许它甚至能帮助我们找到更便宜的低碳或零碳技术。 AI已经发挥作用的一个领域是更有效地管理电网，以平衡供需。这只是一个例子。所以，就像许多事物一样，世界是复杂的。没有简单的答案。问题不在于AI是坏还是好——AI的价值取决于我们如何使用它。目前，我认为它对环境的影响总体上还是负面的。但如果我们能实现更负责任地使用AI，那么我认为它可以成为一种积极的力量。我对AI的担忧不止于环境影响。最让我担心的是它对就业，尤其是对毕业生就业的颠覆性冲击。我们需要为人们找到新的工作，因为工作的意义远不止于提供一份收入。它还构建了生活秩序，赋予了人生意义。所以，我认为我们需要更认真地看待AI的发展。我们必须思考，如何引导AI走向创造就业的轨道，而不是让它摧毁就业。此外，我非常担忧超级智能的出现，这或许在未来某个时候将会发生。我认为它将给人类带来绝对的生存风险。试想一下：一个远比我们聪明的实体，何曾为比它低等的生物带来过福祉？当我们创造、设计出比我们聪明得多、并且会为自己攫取自主权的东西时，可能会出什么问题？我知道这听起来像科幻小说。但让我担心的是，如此多的AI科学家本人都指出这是一个非常重大的风险。而目前，美国只是一味地发展AI，将所有的安全顾虑都被抛诸脑后。我希望作为AI竞赛中另一个主要参与者的中国，能够采取更为审慎的态度，认真思考伴随超级智能而来的、关乎全人类的生存风险。以下为英文原文： Q: There remains a prevailing view that climate warming is a hoax. Even among those who accept global warming, some consider climate action a low-priority option for economic development. How do you perceive the relationship between environmental protection and economic development? In your view, how should this relationship be managed to ensure that climate action genuinely contributes to economic growth? A: Climate change is not a hoax at all, despite what we hear from across the Atlantic. And it is really heartening to see that we don't see anything like this coming out of China—or, in fact, out of the vast majority of countries, which do accept and acknowledge that climate change is real, is here, and is a problem. So, to me, it is one of the defining challenges of humankind in this century. As a trained economist, I like to say there's no such thing as a free lunch. It is costly to address climate change. It is also costly to tackle environmental pollution. But that's not to say that, in the longer run, it cannot even have positive economic spillover effects. Take China again as an example. It is now undoubtedly the world leader in producing and supplying cheap solar panels—and, increasingly so, my understanding is, also wind turbines. Now, this is a major positive benefit to the rest of the world. So many places that would stand no chance of producing these renewable energy technologies on their own can now source them cheaply from China and therefore transition much more affordably toward a more sustainable energy future. But it's also economically beneficial for China, because this is a new growth industry. While many of the older industries are no longer as promising, this one can be a major driver for the economy. In fact, one of my colleagues, Professor Nicholas Stern, likes to say that this could even spark a kind of new industrial revolution—particularly with renewable energy technologies. Now, that is debatable. But in any case, it is super important that we make the transition to a more sustainable economy as efficient and as cheap as possible. That means embracing market-friendly policies—environmental taxes, tradable pollution permits—rather than the old command-and-control policies. These tools will help us achieve what we want to achieve at a much lower cost. Q: Currently, many countries and regions have formulated policies in the field of sustainable development. However, some policies have also drawn criticism. For instance, some enterprises, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, argue that the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) has increased their disclosure burdens and operational costs. The EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is also viewed by some countries as a form of trade protectionism. What policy recommendations or ideas do you have in the field of sustainable development? A: Let me start with the EU's CSRD. I do think this might be an ill-thought-through policy. It apparently imposes quite a significant bureaucratic burden on companies. For any policy of this kind to be worthwhile, it should easily pass a cost-benefit analysis—meaning it needs to deliver much more environmental good than the costs it imposes. And I am not convinced that this directive achieves or passes that cost-benefit test. Not only does it waste resources, but it also creates resistance—much more resistance—which could undermine support for other policies down the line. So I think we need to think very carefully about what policies we adopt, because we only have one shot at getting these things right. We don't have an endless amount of time. The EU's CBAM is a complex issue. On one hand, I totally understand why China and other countries might view this as trade protectionism disguised as environmental policy. I understand that perspective. On the other hand, it is also true that in a globalized world economy, no single actor can meaningfully address climate change if other participants in the world trade system do not act, or do not act with sufficient ambition at the same time. So, realistically, there will probably be no ambitious European climate policy ratcheting up without this border adjustment mechanism. Now, the best way to deal with this is for China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, and other places—unfortunately not the U.S., as we know—to work together with the European Commission. They should collaborate internationally to insist that there is still such a thing as a rules-based world order, despite everything we are seeing happening at the moment. That is the only way forward for international cooperation. So, I would kind of endorse it—but perhaps conditionally, always keeping in mind that the best approach is always international cooperation, so that we don't need these unilateral measures to back up unilateral policies. Q: Sustainable development is regarded as a global issue. Yet, trends of deglobalization are gradually emerging. Do you believe this broader international landscape poses challenges to sustainable development? A: I think first of all, it is fair to say that we are living in a phase of deglobalization. Now, this is not entirely new. The world has gone through phases of globalization and deglobalization in the past. There was a major wave of globalization before the First World War, then massive deglobalization between the wars, and renewed globalization after the Second World War. But over the last ten years or so—and now very dramatically with President Trump's trade and his tariff policies—globalization is in retreat. I have written a book on greening trade and investment, about the effect of globalization on the environment. And of course, there are problems. But let me be crystal clear: deglobalization is not good for the environment, and it is not good for sustainable development. The challenges we face, both environmental and otherwise, are typically global in nature. One can only address them if we all work together. That requires a more globalized world, not a deglobalized one. We need all countries to work hand in hand. What we cannot afford is a world driven solely by national interest. If it's all about "America First" or "China First" or "Europe First," we lose sight of what matters. It should be humanity first, the globe together, the planet first—not individual countries first. If we fall into that trap, it will be very bad news for the environment and for sustainable development. Humanity first is hard, almost impossible, to achieve, I know. It is entirely normal that national leaders will, first and foremost, put the welfare of their own country first. However, it is critical that they understand something: if they narrowly and selfishly pursue what they think is the national interest, it may well turn out not to be in the national interest in the longer term. So it is important that we recognize the need to set aside some of our narrow, short-term national interests in order to achieve much better outcomes for all nations in the long run. We are all in this together. And if we fight instead of cooperate, we will all be so much worse off in the future. I will say that China and the Chinese leadership can—and often do—take a rather long-term perspective. And I think in this respect, that can be really useful. They are able to see the longer-term picture and are not solely focused on short-termism. Q: Looking ahead, what megatrends do you foresee impacting economic development? In your opinion, what is the most crucial core to grasp in order to achieve sustainable development? A: We've already spoken about deglobalization as a negative trend that we need to try to reverse. Aging population is another issue—one that is happening across the world, in many developing countries just as it is here in Europe. In fact, almost everywhere, fertility rates are now well below 2.1, which is the replacement rate. I don't think this is particularly good news for sustainable development. Of course, in some sense, if you put all other things aside, you could argue fewer people are good news for the environment as they would, in theory, generate less pollution. But an aging population is concerning, as it diminishes the innovative capacity that young people typically bring. And we need innovation to overcome environmental problems, which require cheaper and better technologies. Now, AI is an interesting one. It is a double-edged sword. On one hand, we know it can be a catastrophe for the environment because it is so electricity-hungry. And as long as that electricity doesn't come from renewable sources—if it is fueled by fossil fuels like coal, oil, or gas—then that is terrible news, because we will see even more greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. On the other hand, AI also holds great promise. It can be used to fight and solve all sorts of problems and challenges, and to develop new technologies. Perhaps it can even help us find much cheaper low-carbon or zero-carbon technologies. One area where it is already helping is in much better management of the electric grid to balance supply and demand. That is just one example. So, like with many things, the world is complex. There is no simple answer. It's not that AI is bad or AI is good—AI is what we make of it. At the moment, I would say it is still overwhelmingly bad for the environment. But if we achieve a more responsible use of AI, then I think it can become a positive force for good. My concerns about AI go beyond its environmental impact. What worries me most is its disruptive impact on employment, especially for graduates. We need to find new jobs for people, because work serves a purpose far beyond simply providing an income. It also creates structure and gives meaning to people's lives. So that is something I think we really need to start taking much more seriously. We need to think about how we channel AI into job-creating pathways and away from job-destroying ones. And then, I am very worried about superintelligent AI, which will come at some point. I think it will pose an absolute existential risk to humankind. Because, think about it: when has a much more intelligent entity ever done good things for a less intelligent one? What could possibly go wrong as we create, as we design, something that is much more intelligent than us and that will seize autonomous agency for itself? I know that sounds like science fiction. But it does worry me that so many AI scientists themselves say this is a very significant risk. And again, the Americans at the moment are just gung-ho—all safety concerns have gone out the window. I would hope that China, which is the other major player in the AI race, takes a much more cautious view and really thinks carefully about the existential risk to humankind as a whole that comes with superintelligence. 新浪财经ESG评级中心简介新浪财经ESG评级中心是业内首个中文ESG专业资讯和评级聚合平台，致力于宣传和推广可持续发展，责任投资，与ESG（环境、社会和公司治理）价值理念，传播ESG的企业实践行动和榜样力量，推动中国ESG事业的发展，促进中国ESG评估标准的建立和企业评级的提升。依托ESG评级中心，新浪财经发布多只ESG创新指数，为关注企业ESG表现的投资者提供更多选择。同时，新浪财经成立中国ESG领导者组织论坛，携手中国ESG领导企业和合作伙伴，通过环境、社会和公司治理理念，推动建立适合中国时代特征的ESG评价标准体系，促进中国资产管理行业ESG投资发展。

文章来源于网络，若侵犯了您的合法权益，请来信通知我们，我们会及时删除，给您带来的不便，我们深表歉意。

对话伦敦政治经济学院副校长：逆全球化与短视主义，正阻碍人类应对气候危机

相关分类