退出《巴黎协定》将使美国企业遭受重创

2015年，全球195个国家齐聚一堂，签署了旨在应对气候变化的成因及其影响的《巴黎协定》。而现在美国总统特朗普正在考虑退出这一历史性的协议，这不仅会阻碍新能源技术的发展，同时也会给美国的经济发展进程造成不利影响。

退出《巴黎协定》意味着美国从此不必再削减其碳排放，进而意味着美国也不必再对风能、太阳能以及各种节能减排技术进行投资，而这些领域恰恰正是新增就业岗位的聚集地。比如根据美国能源部发布的《2017年美国能源与就业报告》显示，去年一年，光是与太阳能有关的就业岗位就增长了25%——因为这个行业需要大量人员在屋顶上安装太阳能电池板。同时风能行业的工作机会也增长了32%。如今这两个行业在美国的就业人数已经超过了50万人。而相比之下，煤炭行业已经基本实现了机械化，目前美国煤炭行业的就业人数仅有7.4万人，比2009年下降了39%。也正是由于煤炭行业的高度机械化，即便我们对煤炭的消耗增加了，这些被砍掉的就业岗位也不会回来。风能和太阳能才是能够增加就业机会的行业，而如果我们不继续削减碳排放，它们的增长速度就快不起来。

在通信和国防等行业，美国通过引领技术进步，已经创造了无数的就业机会和巨大的财富。而特朗普政府却要开历史的倒车，妄图扼杀风能、太阳能、新型电池、智能电网和电动汽车等新能源技术的创新，这道理无论如何也讲不通。

如果美国真的退出了《巴黎协定》，那它注定将沦为孤家寡人。根据国际能源署的统计，《巴黎协定》的其他194个签约国对气候变化都极为重视，从2016年到2040年，各国累计将向新能源技术投入7.4万亿美元的资金。因此，这是一个极其庞大且增长极快的市场。美国应该鼓励新能源技术的发展，从而为美国带来新的就业机会以及税收和利润来源。正当其他国家都投身于21世纪的未来技术时，美国却要重新拾起20世纪的能源技术，这样做的意义何在？特朗普当局应该重新审视自己的政策取向，采取着眼美国长远发展的经济政策。

目前，世界各国都在快速采用新能源技术，这首先是由于新能源的成本很低。世界银行的数据显示，1990年，全球仅有1100万部手机，而现在则已经增长到了70亿部。为什么呢？因为蜂窝技术实现了规模化，从而变得更便宜了，同时市场也得到了扩展。

同样的情况也正发生在新能源产业上。据彭博新能源财经（BNEF）报道，1990年，制造太阳能电池组件的成本高达7.57美元每瓦特。而到了2016年，这一成本已经急剧下跌了95％，成本仅有0.41美元每瓦特，而且预计还将进一步降低。海岸风能和锂离子电池（可用于储存太阳能和风能）等技术的成本也出现了类似的下降。这些技术如果与低成本的传感器、云计算软件和智能电表等技术相结合，美国就可以建立起一个低碳、数字化、弹性和经济的电力系统。

这些新能源技术系统如果美国不建立，也自然会有其他国家愿意建立，届时美国必将失去新能源领域的竞争优势。据国际能源署预测，从现在起到2040年，全球发电能力投资的75％以上将流向新能源领域，而化石燃料领域只占了不到25％。另据彭博新能源财经预测，到2040年，电动汽车将占市面上销售的所有轻型车辆的35%。

美国拥有世界上最好的研究型大学、企业家和风险投资家。但如果美国国内没有部署新能源的市场，其技术和制造业人才就会流向海外。如果美国积极发展新能源技术，它完全可以成为该领域卓越的创新和制造引擎，并且创造数十万个就业机会。特朗普政府妄图对抗新技术的成本曲线，这无疑是一场愚蠢的战争。

那么，华盛顿的共和党人在做什么呢？旧产业的既得利益者（也就是煤电和化石燃料行业）但凡感受到了新能源的威胁，就会让政客们出面扼杀这些新技术。比如在2018年美国政府的预算草案中，特朗普就提议将能源部高级研究计划署（ARPA–E）的预算砍掉93%。美国能源部长里克•佩里近日要求对间歇性可再生能源对电网的影响进行研究，这项研究在很大程度上是在为能源部采取反可再生能源的政策开路。而美国环境保护署署长斯科普•普雷特则正在考虑取消燃油经济性标准——此举将减少美国对外国石油的依赖，但却对美国干净的空气和水质形成了严峻的威胁。

然而美国也并不是非走这条路不可。在上世纪80年代，有线电话行业的既得利益者也曾妄图限制蜂窝技术公司的竞争能力，但里根总统并没有理睬他们，而是大力鼓励无限通讯技术的发展。如果联邦政府在80年代阻碍了蜂窝技术的发展，苹果和高通等美国企业现在就不可能成为美国无线通信行业的领袖。同样，现在的特朗普政府也不应该向化石燃料行业低头，或是损害新能源技术的发展。

值得欣慰的是，各州的共和党籍州长及州立法机关还是对新能源技术表示了欢迎的态度。比如密歇根州州长里克•施耐德、俄亥俄州州长约翰•卡西奇、伊利诺斯州州长布鲁斯•劳纳等共和党籍州长最近都签署了代表两党的折衷方案，鼓励新能源技术在有关各州进一步发展。内华达州的立法机关目前也正在审议若干件与新能源技术有关的两党议案。由于有选民的支持，这些州都对新能源技术持鼓励态度。

再回来说说《巴黎协定》。特朗普政府即使退出《巴黎协定》，也无法阻止新能源技术在全球的繁荣发展。但通过退约和阻碍新能源技术在美国的部署，特朗普政府却必将削弱美国企业在快速增长的新能源市场上与其他194个签约国竞争的能力。这还是特朗普标榜的“美国第一”吗？抑或是将旧能源产业的既得利益者放在了第一位，将美国的利益放在了倒数第一位？究竟何去何从，特朗普必须做出选择。（财富中文网）

本文作者Jeff McDermott是美国绿色科技资本咨询公司（Greentech Capital Advisors）任事股东，曾任瑞银投行部门全球联合主席。

译者：朴成奎

Adopted in 2015, the historic Paris Agreement brought together 195 nations to ambitiously address the impacts and causes of climate change. Donald Trump is now considering withdrawing from it, which would not only have ramifications on new energy technology efforts, but on American economic progress.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement means the country won’t have to reduce its carbon emissions, which means it won’t have to invest in new wind, solar, or energy-efficiency technologies. But those technologies are where the job growth is. Solar jobs—which require lots of people to put panels on roofs—grew 25% last year, while wind jobs grew 32%, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report. Those two industries now employ nearly a half million Americans. Coal mining is mostly done by machine, and now employs just 74,000 people, a decline of 39% from 2009. Because coal mining is largely mechanized, those jobs are not coming back even if we burn more coal. Wind and solar are where the jobs are, and if we don’t have to reduce emissions, they won’t grow as fast.

In communications, defense, and other industries, America has created jobs and enormous wealth by leading in technology advancement. It makes no sense for the Trump administration to throttle new energy technology—wind and solar, batteries for electricity storage, smart grids, and electric vehicles, among others.

If America walks away from the Paris Agreement, it will walk away alone. According to the International Energy Agency, the other 194 signatory countries believe in climate change and, collectively, will invest $7.4 trillion from 2016 through 2040 in new energy technologies—a large and fast-growing market. The U.S. should encourage new energy technology for American jobs, tax revenue, and profits. What purpose does it serve for America to double down on 20th-century energy technology, like coal and gas, when the rest of the world is committed to a future with 21st-century technology? The Trump administration should embrace economic policies that put America first.

Countries are rapidly adopting new energy technology, and it’s all thanks to cost. World Bank data shows that in 1990, there were 11 million cell phones globally. Today, there are more than 7 billion. Why? Cellular technology scaled and became cheaper, and the market expanded.

This is happening right now with new energy technology. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), in 1990, the cost to manufacture solar modules was $7.57 per watt. By 2016, the cost had plummeted nearly 95% to $0.41 per watt, and is set to decline further. Similar cost declines are true for onshore wind power, and lithium ion batteries, which enable solar and wind energy to be stored. Wrap these technologies up with cheap sensors, cloud-based software, and smart meters, and America can build a low-carbon, digitized, resilient, and economic electricity system.

If America does not build these new energy technology systems, it will lose its competitive advantage to countries that will build them. The International Energy Agency projects that from now until 2040, over 75% of all investments in global power generation capacity will be new energy, with fossil fuels only 25%. Similarly, Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that electric vehicles will account for 35% of all light-duty vehicles sold in 2040.

America has the best research universities, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists in the world. But if it doesn’t have the necessary deployment markets at home, its technology and manufacturing jobs will go overseas. If America embraces new energy technology, it can become a dominant engine of innovation and manufacturing excellence, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Fighting the cost curve of new technology is a foolish battle.

So what are the Republicans in Washington doing? Whenever threatened by these new energy opportunities, the old industry incumbents (in this case, coal-burning utilities and the fossil fuel industry) turn to politicians to thwart new technology. In the current 2018 budget plan, Trump proposes to slash funding to the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E) by 93%. Rick Perry, the head of the DOE, recently ordered a study on the impact of intermittent renewable energy on the electricity grid, which is largely anticipated to serve as a justification for the DOE to take an anti–renewable position. At the Environmental Protection Agency, administrator Scott Pruitt is considering walking away from the fuel economy standards—which were set forth to make America less dependent on foreign oil—and dismantling key protections to clean air and water.

It does not have to be this way. In the 1980s, President Reagan did not heed the landline telephony incumbents when they tried to limit the ability of cellular companies to compete with them; instead, he encouraged new technology. Apple (aapl, +0.27%), Qualcomm (qcom, +2.36%), and others would certainly not be global leaders if the federal government had obstructed new cellular technology in the ‘80s. Similarly, Trump’s administration should not give in to the fossil fuel industry or damage the growth of new energy technology today.

Thankfully, Republican governors and state legislatures are embracing new energy technology. Gov. Rick Snyder (R-Mich.), Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio), and Gov. Bruce Rauner (R-Ill.) recently signed bipartisan compromises that advance new energy technology in their states, and several bipartisan new energy deals are working their way through the Nevada State Legislature right now. These states are encouraging new energy technologies because their voters want them.

Which brings us back to Paris. The Trump administration cannot stop global growth in new energy technology by leaving the Paris Agreement. But by leaving the agreement and damaging U.S. deployment, the Trump administration will cripple American businesses' long-term ability to compete in the large and rapidly growing new energy technology market created by the other 194 signatory countries. Will it be America first? Or old energy lobbyists first, and America last? President Trump must decide.

Jeff McDermott is the managing partner at Greentech Capital Advisors and the former joint global head of investment banking at UBS.