多年来,各国的领导人一直在讨论要采取措施减缓气候变化,但进展缓慢,令人沮丧。世界仍然离不开依赖化石燃料,俄乌冲突更加凸显了由此引发的地缘政治风险。
联合国(United Nations)在上周发布的一份重要报告显示,气候变化对地球施加影响的速度已经超出了科学家的预期。这份由67个国家的270名研究人员撰写的报告表示,除非迅速减少温室气体排放,否则人类和大自然就将无法适应这些变化。
但世界仍然十分依赖化石燃料。以至于在俄乌冲突开始后,西方大国回之以严厉的制裁时,都要小心翼翼地避免影响了俄罗斯的能源出口。
制裁使卢布跌至历史最低点,俄罗斯股市暴跌,德国等国家的供热严重依赖俄罗斯,就连美国的制裁措施里也把石油和天然气排除在外。这些大国似乎怀有巨大的恐惧,担心普京会将俄罗斯储量丰富的天然气和原油作为反击武器,而欧洲大部分地区都需要依赖俄罗斯的这些资源。
俄罗斯是全球第二大石油生产国,如果它有意收紧供应,全球油价就将大幅飙升,最终伤害的还是本来就不好过的消费者。摩根大通(J.P. Morgan)在今年2月的一份报告中提出警告,如果俄罗斯的石油出口减少一半,油价就将上涨41%,至150美元每桶。
虽然美国几乎不从俄罗斯进口石油,但全球性的影响可能会引发天然气价格暴涨。过去一个月,天然气价格已经大幅上涨了约25美分。
“普京可能会设法给西方国家造成巨大痛苦。”加拿大皇家银行资本市场(RBC Capital Markets)的全球大宗商品策略主管赫利玛·克罗夫特在2月27日的一份报告中写道,“他的反击手段可能会让大宗商品的价格也感受到影响。”
环保活动人士希望,俄乌冲突以及即将与俄罗斯发生的对峙可以加快推动各国对可再生能源的使用,减轻全球对化石燃料的依赖。
在2月28日的一次全球气候会议上,乌克兰代表斯维特拉娜·克拉科夫斯卡称俄罗斯的军事行动与天然气有关。“人类造成的气候变化和乌克兰战争有同一个根源,那就是化石燃料以及我们对它们的依赖。”她说。
“由于对化石燃料的过度依赖,世界正在受到胁迫。”密歇根大学环境与可持续发展学院(School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan)的院长乔纳森·奥弗派克在最近的一篇评论文章中写道,“避免未来的战争和石油引发的杀戮——这个理由已经足够充分,让我们告别化石燃料,转向可再生能源、能源存储和广泛电气化。”
但美国的共和党人和油气行业的代表却有不同想法。气候变化活动家说,石油和天然气行业正在“利用”消费者的恐惧,提倡人们加大对化石燃料的使用。
3月1日晚上,科罗拉多州共和党国会女议员劳伦·伯贝特披着一条写着“继续开采吧,宝贝”(“Drill baby drill”)的披肩听取了总统的国情咨文演讲。
美国石油协会(American Petroleum Institute)的主席兼首席执行官麦克·萨默斯在上周的一份声明中指出:“限制美国天然气和石油开发的政策与目标背道而驰。事实上,目前最最重要的就是保障美国消费者和盟友们的能源安全。”
在俄乌冲突发生之日,密苏里州共和党参议员乔希·霍利在佛罗里达州举办的保守派政治行动会议(Conservative Political Action Conference)上发言,称拜登“叫停了美国能源生产,为俄罗斯能源生产大开绿灯。”
当天,霍利的同事、田纳西州共和党参议员玛莎·布莱克本向保守派媒体Newsmax表示,拜登在能源问题上做出的几个决定“是美国的绊脚石”,比如叫停Keystone XL输油管道,比如停止在联邦土地上钻探。布莱克本说,普京正是看到了这一点,才得出结论:“拜登很软弱。我要继续前进。”在她的职业生涯中,布莱克本从石油和天然气行业共收到超过80万美元的捐款。
面对低到谷底的支持率、高破天际的油价以及即将到来的中期选举,美国总统乔·拜登可能会觉得,为了能够快速解决问题,哪怕以气候变化为代价也值得冒险。拜登在3月1日晚上发表的长达一个多小时的国情咨文中,仅两次提到气候变化,分别谈到了创造就业机会和为家庭削减能源成本。甚至在俄乌冲突之前,对通货膨胀的担忧就已经导致油气开采增加了。2021年12月,美国能源部部长詹妮弗·格兰霍姆呼吁美国石油生产商增加产量,让它们“增加钻机数量”。
围绕增加化石燃料开采的讨论在美国已经变得越来越政治化,与此同时,联合国报告中的科学预测显示,到本世纪末,将有76%的人暴露在致命热浪中,而此前的预测是30%。
牛津大学环境变化研究所(Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute)的生态系统科学教授亚德文德·马里在给《财富》杂志的一份声明中说:“这份报告不加掩饰地告诉我们,气候变化的影响已经十分严重,可能过不了多久,我们的适应能力就会超出安全极限。”(财富中文网)
译者:Agatha
多年来,各国的领导人一直在讨论要采取措施减缓气候变化,但进展缓慢,令人沮丧。世界仍然离不开依赖化石燃料,俄乌冲突更加凸显了由此引发的地缘政治风险。
联合国(United Nations)在上周发布的一份重要报告显示,气候变化对地球施加影响的速度已经超出了科学家的预期。这份由67个国家的270名研究人员撰写的报告表示,除非迅速减少温室气体排放,否则人类和大自然就将无法适应这些变化。
但世界仍然十分依赖化石燃料。以至于在俄乌冲突开始后,西方大国回之以严厉的制裁时,都要小心翼翼地避免影响了俄罗斯的能源出口。
制裁使卢布跌至历史最低点,俄罗斯股市暴跌,德国等国家的供热严重依赖俄罗斯,就连美国的制裁措施里也把石油和天然气排除在外。这些大国似乎怀有巨大的恐惧,担心普京会将俄罗斯储量丰富的天然气和原油作为反击武器,而欧洲大部分地区都需要依赖俄罗斯的这些资源。
俄罗斯是全球第二大石油生产国,如果它有意收紧供应,全球油价就将大幅飙升,最终伤害的还是本来就不好过的消费者。摩根大通(J.P. Morgan)在今年2月的一份报告中提出警告,如果俄罗斯的石油出口减少一半,油价就将上涨41%,至150美元每桶。
虽然美国几乎不从俄罗斯进口石油,但全球性的影响可能会引发天然气价格暴涨。过去一个月,天然气价格已经大幅上涨了约25美分。
“普京可能会设法给西方国家造成巨大痛苦。”加拿大皇家银行资本市场(RBC Capital Markets)的全球大宗商品策略主管赫利玛·克罗夫特在2月27日的一份报告中写道,“他的反击手段可能会让大宗商品的价格也感受到影响。”
环保活动人士希望,俄乌冲突以及即将与俄罗斯发生的对峙可以加快推动各国对可再生能源的使用,减轻全球对化石燃料的依赖。
在2月28日的一次全球气候会议上,乌克兰代表斯维特拉娜·克拉科夫斯卡称俄罗斯的军事行动与天然气有关。“人类造成的气候变化和乌克兰战争有同一个根源,那就是化石燃料以及我们对它们的依赖。”她说。
“由于对化石燃料的过度依赖,世界正在受到胁迫。”密歇根大学环境与可持续发展学院(School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan)的院长乔纳森·奥弗派克在最近的一篇评论文章中写道,“避免未来的战争和石油引发的杀戮——这个理由已经足够充分,让我们告别化石燃料,转向可再生能源、能源存储和广泛电气化。”
但美国的共和党人和油气行业的代表却有不同想法。气候变化活动家说,石油和天然气行业正在“利用”消费者的恐惧,提倡人们加大对化石燃料的使用。
3月1日晚上,科罗拉多州共和党国会女议员劳伦·伯贝特披着一条写着“继续开采吧,宝贝”(“Drill baby drill”)的披肩听取了总统的国情咨文演讲。
美国石油协会(American Petroleum Institute)的主席兼首席执行官麦克·萨默斯在上周的一份声明中指出:“限制美国天然气和石油开发的政策与目标背道而驰。事实上,目前最最重要的就是保障美国消费者和盟友们的能源安全。”
在俄乌冲突发生之日,密苏里州共和党参议员乔希·霍利在佛罗里达州举办的保守派政治行动会议(Conservative Political Action Conference)上发言,称拜登“叫停了美国能源生产,为俄罗斯能源生产大开绿灯。”
当天,霍利的同事、田纳西州共和党参议员玛莎·布莱克本向保守派媒体Newsmax表示,拜登在能源问题上做出的几个决定“是美国的绊脚石”,比如叫停Keystone XL输油管道,比如停止在联邦土地上钻探。布莱克本说,普京正是看到了这一点,才得出结论:“拜登很软弱。我要继续前进。”在她的职业生涯中,布莱克本从石油和天然气行业共收到超过80万美元的捐款。
面对低到谷底的支持率、高破天际的油价以及即将到来的中期选举,美国总统乔·拜登可能会觉得,为了能够快速解决问题,哪怕以气候变化为代价也值得冒险。拜登在3月1日晚上发表的长达一个多小时的国情咨文中,仅两次提到气候变化,分别谈到了创造就业机会和为家庭削减能源成本。甚至在俄乌冲突之前,对通货膨胀的担忧就已经导致油气开采增加了。2021年12月,美国能源部部长詹妮弗·格兰霍姆呼吁美国石油生产商增加产量,让它们“增加钻机数量”。
围绕增加化石燃料开采的讨论在美国已经变得越来越政治化,与此同时,联合国报告中的科学预测显示,到本世纪末,将有76%的人暴露在致命热浪中,而此前的预测是30%。
牛津大学环境变化研究所(Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute)的生态系统科学教授亚德文德·马里在给《财富》杂志的一份声明中说:“这份报告不加掩饰地告诉我们,气候变化的影响已经十分严重,可能过不了多久,我们的适应能力就会超出安全极限。”(财富中文网)
译者:Agatha
World leaders have discussed taking measures to slow climate change for years, with frustratingly slow progress. But Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is putting the geopolitical dangers of dependence on fossil fuel into sharp relief.
The effects of climate change are accelerating faster than scientists had originally anticipated, according to a major United Nations report out last week. Unless greenhouse gas emissions are quickly reduced, the report by 270 researchers from 67 countries found, humanity and nature will be unable to adapt to the changes.
But the world remains dependent on fossil fuel. So much so that when Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, and Western powers responded with severe sanctions, they were careful to avoid disrupting Russian energy exports.
Sanctions have pushed the ruble to record lows, the Russian stock market is nose-diving, and Putin’s economic ambitions for his country are being crushed. But countries like Germany rely heavily on Russia for their heat, and even the U.S. has carved out exceptions for Russian oil and gas in its sanctions. There’s a huge fear among world powers that Putin will fire back by weaponizing Russia’s vast supply of natural gas and crude oil, upon which much of Europe relies.
Russia is the world’s No. 2 oil producer, and if it were to intentionally hold its supplies, oil prices around the globe would skyrocket, further hurting already ailing consumers. A note from J.P. Morgan in February warned investors that oil prices would grow by 41% to $150 a barrel if Russia’s exports were cut in half.
While the U.S. imports very little oil from Russia, the global impact would likely increase gas prices, already up about 25 cents in the past month, significantly.
“Putin could seek to inflict significant pain on Western nations,” Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, wrote in a note on February 27. “And commodity prices may feel the impact of his countermeasures.”
Green advocates hope that this invasion of Ukraine and the impending standoff with Russia will hasten the use of renewable energy and mitigate the globe’s dependence on fossil fuels.
At a global climate meeting on February 28, the representative from Ukraine, Svitlana Krakovska, made a connection between the invasion and natural gas. “Human-induced climate change and the war on Ukraine have the same roots—fossil fuels—and our dependence on them,” she said.
“The world is being blackmailed, thanks to an over-reliance on fossil fuels,” wrote Jonathan Overpeck, dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan, in a recent opinion piece. “Avoiding future wars and petro-thuggery is reason enough to move beyond the era of fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy, storage, and the electrification of almost everything.”
But Republicans in the U.S., as well as oil and gas representatives think differently. Climate advocates say that the oil and gas industry is “taking advantage” of consumer fears to advocate for an increase in fossil fuel usage.
Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) wore a shawl with the words “Drill baby drill” to the State of the Union in March 1 evening.
In a statement last week, the American Petroleum Institute’s president and CEO Mike Sommers argued, “Policies that restrict U.S. natural gas and oil development are steps in the wrong direction. Indeed, few things are more critical right now than providing energy security to American consumers as well as our allies abroad.”
Last Thursday, the same day Russia invaded Ukraine, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida, noting that Biden “shuts down American energy production and green-lights Russian energy production…Is it any wonder that Vladimir Putin feels emboldened to do whatever the heck it is he wants to do?”
Hawley’s colleague, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), told conservative outlet Newsmax the same day that Biden had made several decisions on energy “that really hindered the U.S.,” such as stopping the Keystone XL pipeline and ending drilling on federal lands. According to Blackburn, Putin saw this and concluded, “Joe Biden is weak. I am going to move forward.” Blackburn has received more than $800,000 in donations from the oil and gas industry throughout her career.
But President Joe Biden, facing an exceptionally low approval rating, record-high gas prices, and an impending midterm election, may decide that a quick fix at the expense of the climate is worth the risk. Biden mentioned climate change just twice during his hour-plus State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, in connection to job creation and cutting energy costs for families. Even before Russia’s invasion, inflation fears have prompted an increase in drilling. In December, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm urged American oil producers to increase output, telling them to get “rig counts up.”
As the debate around increasing fossil fuel extraction in the U.S. becomes increasingly politicized in the U.S., the science in the United Nations report, which predicted that the percentage of people who are exposed to deadly heat stress could increase from 30% to 76% by the end of the century, remains firm.
“The report makes bleak reading in that the effects of climate change are already severe and may soon stretch our ability to adapt beyond safe limits,” said Yadvinder Malhi CBE, a professor of ecosystem science at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, in a statement to Fortune.