第六季第50集：统一的全球碳市场

你真的在谈论实现一个能够真正对降低全球排放、迈向净零产生影响的规模。

You're really talking about getting to a scale that could actually have some impact on bringing down the global emissions towards net zero.

我们真正关注的是规模问题，以及如何达到能够产生显著差异的规模。

We're really driven by the scale issue and how do we get to the scale that would actually make a significant difference.

欢迎来到Vox发展论坛。

Welcome to Vox Dev Talks.

我叫蒂姆·菲利普斯。

My name is Tim Phillips.

在全球各地，碳市场正在兴起，试图建立机制来为我们的经济脱碳，并将资金引导至最高效的项目以实现这一目标。

Everywhere carbon markets are springing up in an attempt to create mechanisms to decarbonize our economies and to direct funding to the most efficient projects that will achieve this.

但如果这一过程要有效、可信且公平，我们是否应该转向建立一个统一的全球碳市场？

But if this process is to be effective, credible, and fair, should we instead aim for a unified global carbon market?

如果是这样，我们该如何创建它？

And if so, how do we create it?

伦敦政治经济学院的罗宾·伯吉斯和耶鲁大学的罗希尼·潘迪是这一提案的两位作者，该提案提出了如何设计和实施这一市场。

Robin Burgess, the London School of Economics, and Rohini Pandey of Yale are two of the authors of a proposal that sets out how this market could be designed and implemented.

如果他们现在加入我们，罗宾，你好。

And if they join me now, Robin Hi.

还有罗希尼。

And Rohini as well.

你好。

Hi.

很高兴来到这里，蒂姆。

Good to be here, Tim.

那么告诉我，碳市场的目的是什么？

Now tell me, what is the purpose for carbon market?

碳市场的目的——我们将具体讨论合规性碳市场——是建立一种机制，确保市场中所有参与者的总排放量不超过某一上限。

The purpose of a carbon market, and we are going to be talking specifically about compliance carbon markets, is to have a mechanism to ensure that the total emissions of the set of players who are in the market is kept below a certain cap.

因此，碳市场的目标是以最经济有效的方式实现这一排放上限。

So the aim of the carbon market is to ensure that you reach this emission cap in the most cost effective way possible.

市场允许参与者交易减少排放的机会，或交易排放一定量碳的权利，而交易的单位通常被称为碳配额。

So what a market will allow you to do is to have the market players trade opportunities to either reduce their emissions or trade the right to emit a certain amount of carbon, and the unit you trade is usually known as a carbon permit.

我们如何知道这些碳市场是有效的？

How do we know that these carbon markets work?

我想世界上主要的例子是欧盟碳排放交易体系，今年英国也将加入其中。

I guess the main example in the world is the EU ETS, which The UK will be becoming part of this year.

那里的证据非常充分，通过允许欧盟内的工业企业进行交易，欧盟的总排放量已显著下降，有些人认为比没有碳市场时降低了多达50%。

And the evidence there is pretty overwhelming that by allowing trading between industrial firms in the EU, that the total emissions from the EU have come down quite significantly, some saying up to 50 lower than had there not been a carbon market.

因此，这是目前世界上最具说服力的实证，而且规模也相当可观。

So that's the best proof of concept in the world right now, and one that is of a considerable scale as well.

所以这并不是一个试点项目。

So it's not a pilot.

它已经成功运行了相当长的一段时间。

It's really something that's worked over quite a considerable period now.

那么，欧盟排放交易体系确实存在。

Well, have the EU emissions trading scheme.

我们还有许多其他零散的排放交易体系。

We have a patchwork of many other emissions trading schemes.

我们也有自愿市场。

We have voluntary markets as well.

这些市场缺乏什么？

What do these markets lack?

它们有哪些缺陷，导致无法实现我们期望的功能？

What flaws do they have to stop them doing what we want them to do?

那么我们先说说好消息。

So let's start with the positive news.

嗯。

Mhmm.

目前，多个国家已经建立了合规市场，还有更多国家承诺将建立此类市场。

So we have compliance markets now in several countries and many more promise to come up.

我认为，正如罗宾所说，这些合规市场有充分的证据表明，它们能够有效减少所覆盖行业的排放。

And I think these compliance markets, as Robin said, we have good evidence that they will, for the sectors covered, reduce emissions.

而诸如防止森林砍伐、鼓励植树造林，或可能使用清洁炉灶及其他可再生能源等解决方案，通常发生在自愿碳市场中。

Now solutions such as trying to prevent deforestation or encourage growing of trees or possibly clean cook stoves or other forms of renewables, this tends to happen in the voluntary carbon market.

这个市场运作得并不好。

And that market is not working so well.

在某些方面，它甚至不是一个具有统一价格的市场。

In some ways, it's not even a market with a single price.

相反，它是一系列双边交易的集合。

Rather, it's a set of bilateral trades.

因此，一家大公司或单个个人会说，我想减少自己的碳排放，我会去这个市场购买一些碳抵消额度，以某个定制的价格成交，而这个价格仅适用于该特定产品。

So a big company will say, or a single individual will say, I want to reduce my own emissions, and what I will do is I will go out and buy some carbon offsets in this market at some bespoke price, which is true for only that product.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这在多个方面都运作不佳。

And that doesn't work well for several reasons.

其中一个原因是，购买这些抵消额度的决定与实现任何碳排放上限的目标之间没有关联。

One reason it doesn't work well is that there is no link between the choice to buy these offsets and trying to hit any kind of emission cap.

这个市场中没有碳排放上限。

There is no emission cap in this market.

需求源于企业希望树立自己在管理碳足迹方面的声誉。

Demand is driven by a firm's desire to have a reputation as someone managing their carbon footprint.

也可能源于个人对自己频繁飞行感到内疚。

It could be driven by an individual who's feeling bad about how much they're flying.

但这些都不一定能汇聚成实现全球净零排放所需的成果。

But none of that is going to necessarily add up for anything we need for the global net zero.

此外，这个市场的监管非常薄弱。

In addition, there is very little regulation in this market.

因此，许多不同的参与者使用不同的标准和不同的测量与核查体系，导致透明度相对较低。

So you have many different players using different standards, different measurement verification systems, and so there's also relatively little transparency.

这导致了不同产品以不同价格交易，随后像2022年《卫报》发布的报告那样，市场因信任崩塌而崩溃。

And what that has meant is that we see different products trading at different prices, and then you have reports come out like it came out in the Guardian in 2022, and then the market just crashes because trust is gone.

是的。

Yeah.

正如你所说，在2022年《卫报》报告之后，引发了巨大反响，许多人试图整顿并提升自愿市场的可信度。

After that Guardian report in 2022, as you say, there was a huge reaction to it, and there were many attempts made to try and clean up, improve the integrity of the voluntary market.

你需要市场诚信和信用诚信。

You want market integrity, credit integrity.

这意味著什么？

What does that mean?

我们所主张的是，仅仅改变一些原则或声称我们想要高诚信的碳信用，是无法实现规模化的。

What we are arguing is that you cannot get at scale by simply changing a few principles or saying that we want to have high integrity carbon credits.

我们需要认识到，必须建立一个市场，在这个市场中，可再生能源提供者或森林产品提供者必须遵守与工业企业相同的规则。

What we need to do is recognize that we need to have a market in which the providers of renewables or the providers of forest products are held to exactly the same rules that an industrial firm is held.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这意味着，你可能作为一个政治管辖区，声明自己拥有一片森林，并以某种速率进行砍伐。

What this means is that you enter possibly as a political jurisdiction saying that I have a certain amount of forest that I am deforesting at a certain rate.

这意味着你拥有一定数量的砍伐许可，但你可以选择不砍伐，而是出售这些许可。

That means that's the number of, let's say, permits I have to deforest, but I can choose to not deforest and sell those permits.

因此，这将是一个没有抵消和许可的市场。

So that would then be a market that doesn't have offsets and permits.

它将只有一种产品：配额。

It would have a single product of permits.

所有人都将通过司法管辖区进入，并遵循相同的规则。

Everyone will enter through jurisdictions and be held to the same rules.

实际上，我们试图在自愿市场的一些理念基础上进行拓展，例如在自然类产品上进行国际交易，但将其纳入一个具有交易对象标准化可信度的体系中。

In effect, what we're trying to do is build on some of the ideas that were in the voluntary markets where you could trade internationally, for example, in nature based products, but actually to bring them into a system where there's credibility in the standardization of the thing being traded.

如果你想象任何市场，比如金融市场，你总是需要有这种标准化和测量的方面。

If you imagine any market like a financial market, you're always going to have to have that standardization measurement side of things.

但因为我们面对的是一个全球市场，我们希望利用一些国家的比较优势，这些国家可能以自然为基础，例如印度尼西亚、巴西或刚果拥有大量森林，或者如果你拥有大片沙漠，就可以建设太阳能电站，让人们交易他们最擅长生产的碳市场项目产品。

But we do wanna basically, because it's gonna be a global market, use the comparative advantage of some countries that may be nature based, for example, if they have a lot of forests in Indonesia or Brazil or The Congo, or if you have a lot of desert, you can build solar parks into so that people can then trade whatever they're best at producing in terms of these carbon market projects.

我认为最大的区别在于，我们现在讨论的是政治管辖区。

And the big difference I think is now we're talking about political jurisdiction.

所以你真正讨论的是达到能够对降低全球排放、实现净零目标产生实际影响的规模，这实际上是由规模问题驱动的——我们如何达到能产生显著差异的规模？

So you're really talking about getting to a scale that could actually have some impact on bringing down the global emissions towards net zero were really driven by the scale issue and how do we get to the scale that would actually make a significant difference.

所以，正如我之前所说，如果以欧盟碳排放交易体系为例，它确实已经产生了影响。

So if you take the EUTS, as I was saying before, it really has made a difference.

在许多方面，中国、巴西、印度、印度尼西亚等这些快速发展的大国的加入，让我们意识到，如果我们能将工业可再生能源和基于自然的方案纳入其中，这确实是一件非常重要的事情。

And in many ways, the entrance of China into this, the entrance of Brazil, India, Indonesia, these big fast growing nations makes us think this is really quite a significant thing if we can include the industrial renewables and nature based in this.

但它必须在一个所有人都清楚自己交易内容且具有可信度的市场中实现。

But it does have to happen within a market where everyone understands what they're trading and that they're credible.

因为你说得对。

Because you're right.

如果没有这种可信度，那么它就不会奏效。

Without that credibility, then it's not gonna work.

为什么必须是一个全球市场？

And why does it have to be a global market?

为什么必须将所有这些市场统一起来？

Why does it have to unify all these markets?

我们生活在一个有两个真实事实的世界中。

So we're living in a world where there are two facts that are true.

第一个事实是，如果我们想限制全球变暖，就必须限制温室气体排放，而这些温室气体排放来自哪里并不重要。

The first is if we want to limit global warming, we need to cap greenhouse gas emissions, and it doesn't matter where these greenhouse gas emissions come from.

因此，刚果民主共和国减少温室气体排放所产生的效果，与美国减少排放的效果相同。

So reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the DRC will have the same effect as those if you reduce those in The United States.

同时，我们目前面临的气候融资也非常有限。

It also happens to be case that we are working with limited climate financing right now.

可用资金出现了巨大缺口。

There's a huge crunch in the funds available.

因此，作为经济学家，我们知道这意味着在每个时期，我们都希望实现最具成本效益的减排。而如今，无论是基于自然的解决方案还是可再生能源，最具成本效益的减排都发生在低收入国家。

So as economists, we know that what this means is that in every period, you want to have the most cost effective emission reductions, And the most cost effective emission reductions today, both in terms of nature based solutions and renewables, are in lower income countries.

你应当先通过减少那些成本低廉的排放来腾出空间，希望在未来十到二十年内，减排技术能够进步或出现新技术，从而让我们能够开始处理那些目前成本极高的排放。

You want to create some space by first reducing emissions that are cheap to reduce and hope that over the next ten and twenty years, either the abatement technologies will improve or new technologies will come in, and then we can start reducing those emissions that are right now very expensive to do.

因此，从如何在有限预算下最大化减排量的角度来看，你需要将资金从富裕国家转移到低收入国家，而一个统一的全球碳市场可以帮助你实现这一点。

So really from the perspective of how do we maximize the number of emission reductions for a limited budget, you need to be transferring money from rich countries to lower income countries, and a unified global carbon market can let you do that.

我认为还有一个关于谦逊的问题。

I think there's also a point about humility.

如果你查看任何关于预测排放的报告，即使所有国家自主贡献（NDCs）都完全实现，你也无法接近1.5摄氏度的目标，更不用说2摄氏度了。

If you look at any of the reports on the projected emissions, then even if you were to satisfy all of the NDCs, the national defined contributions, you're not gonna get anything close to never mind 1.5 even two.

因此，在当前这一刻，存在某种政治意愿，希望通过国内碳市场来实现这些减排空间，正如你所说。

So this is one route in which at this point in time, there's a kind of political will to do some of these spaces, as you say, in domestic carbon markets.

但要真正实现全球排放的最大幅度减少，从而扭转这一趋势——这实际上是维持曲线的平缓，你必须利用不同市场之间的贸易收益。

But to really get the maximal reduction in global emissions to bend that curve, which is about bending, it's sort of sort of maintaining the curve, you're gonna have to exploit the gains from trade across different markets.

例如，新加坡希望从巴西购买森林碳汇。

So for example, Singapore wanna buy in forests from Brazil.

欧洲可能希望从摩洛哥购买可再生能源。

Europe might wanna buy in renewables from Morocco.

因此，我们背后的动机是，尽管现在关于气候变化的讨论很多，各种话题层出不穷，但真正能有效扭转这一趋势的可行途径却很难看到。

And so that's sort of the motivation we had is we feel like there's a lot of discussion about climate change and the thing of our time and all that, but it's very difficult to see credible ways in that would actually bend that curve.

无论是否存在这个市场，可再生能源的普及目前正是推动这一趋势的主要力量。

The spread of renewables with or without this market right now are the thing that is driving much of that.

因此，我们努力关注的重点是如何加速曲线的扭转。

And so a big part of what we're trying to focus on is how to accelerate the bending of the curve.

随着曲线开始扭转，创新和其他因素可能会降低高排放富裕国家的减排成本。

As the curve bends, innovation and other things may reduce abatement costs in the richer, higher emission countries.

但你需要创造空间，才能让这种创新发生，我们必须立即开始弯曲曲线，而不是等待。

But you need to create the space in order for that innovation to happen, and it's imperative that we start to bend now rather than to wait.

你能将这条曲线弯曲多少？

How much can you bend this curve?

一个统一的全球市场可能实现什么目标？

What can a unified global market potentially achieve?

这其中的大部分显然取决于我们未来设定排放上限的速度。

A lot of it, obviously, is gonna depend on the rate in which we are going to set the emission caps over time.

我们实际上已经开发了一个简单的模拟器，用于思考哪些国家会加入、不同国家的减排成本差异，以及随着时间推移排放上限的严格程度。

We actually have put together a simple simulator that says if you think about what are the set of countries that join, what are the differences in the cost of emission abatement, and then also how tight the cap is over time.

这三者共同决定了结果。

Those three things together are going to determine it.

是的，你完全可以弯曲这条曲线，但要求明天就设定如此严格的排放上限可能是不现实的。

So yes, you could completely bend the curve, but it may be an impossible thing to ask for an emission cap that's so tight tomorrow.

但你应当明确的是，无论你希望在欧盟排放交易体系内实现何种排放上限，如果将刚果民主共和国等国家也纳入该市场，实现目标的成本会更低。

But what you should certainly take away that for any emission cap that you want to say achieve just within the EU ETS, it's going to be cheaper to achieve it if you also include, let's say, DRC in that market.

您是如何被委派负责起草这份提案的？

How is it that you were tasked with producing this proposal?

是什么样的情况让您走到这一步的？

What sort of circumstances led you to this place?

我们非常幸运，因为有几位人士具有远见，意识到与学术经济学家合作的潜在价值。

We were very lucky in that there were a couple of other people who had the the foresight to think about the possible value of engaging with academic economists.

首先，我们要感谢的是COP30主席科雷·德·拉戈大使，他决定在这届气候大会上，作为主席，一方面聘请一组经济学家，另一方面聘请一组科学家提供咨询。

So the first person we have to thank is the president of COP thirty, ambassador Corre de Lago, who decided that at this COP, he, as the president, wanted to be advised by a group of economists on one hand and a group of scientists on the other.

对我们来说，另一件幸运的事是，他请了备受尊敬的金融经济学家何塞·谢因克曼教授组建一个经济学家委员会。

The second piece of, I think, good fortune for us was that he asked professor Jose Scheinckman, who is an extremely respected financial economist, to put together a committee of economists.

然后，我们很幸运的是，谢因克曼教授邀请了金融经济学家罗宾·梅、玛丽安·法尔布迪，以及两位年轻经济学家露西·佩奇和阿格尼斯·诺里斯凯拉，共同思考如何改革碳市场，其明确目标是实现向全球净零排放目标迈进。

And then I guess we were lucky in that professor Shankman asked Robin May, a financial economist called Mariam Farboudi, and two young economists, Lucy Page and Agnes Norriskela, to think about how to reform carbon markets with the explicit goal of saying that we need to reduce emissions towards a global net zero target.

什么样的碳市场才能以成本效益的方式实现这一目标？

What kind of carbon market can do that cost effectively?

现在，请描述一下这个方案。

Now let's describe this.

你的提案中有两个支柱。

You have two pillars in your proposal.

第一个是自愿参与的合规市场。

The first is an opt in compliance market.

那是什么意思？

What does that mean?

合规部分指的是什么？

What does the compliance part mean?

为什么它必须是一个合规市场？

Why does it need to be a compliance market?

因为如果不是合规市场，就无法设定一个真正减少排放的总量上限。

Because if it's not a compliance market, you can't have a cap that reduces basically.

目前，我们所提到的所有市场都不具备这一特点。

So at the moment, all the markets we're referring to don't have that feature.

因为对世界而言，重要的是全球总量上限并逐步降低它。

Because what matters for the world is the global cap and bring it down.

因此，在一个单独的合规市场中，比如欧盟，你正在降低这一上限，迫使企业投资于所需的技术以实现这一目标。

So being in an individual compliance market, say in the EU, you're bringing that cap down so firms have to invest in whatever technologies that are needed to bring that cap down.

但现在我们讨论的是将这些合规市场连接起来，从而降低全球上限。

But now we're talking about linking those compliance markets so you're bringing the global cap down.

这才是创新之处。

That's the innovation.

对。

Right.

合规市场和自愿市场交易的资产类型不同。

Compliance and voluntary markets have different types of assets that are traded.

那么，为什么合规市场需要特定类型的交易资产呢？

What's the difference here that we need to have particular type of traded asset in the compliance market?

这与设定上限的理念密切相关。

It's very much linked to this idea of having a cap.

对吧？

Right?

所以如果你设定了一个上限，比如说，总共只能排放100个单位。

So if you have a cap so if I say, let's say, total, they're only let's take a number, a 100 units that can be emitted.

市场中的参与者必须确保总排放量不超过100个单位，这意味着每个人都需要拥有一定数量的排放权。

The players in the market have to not do more than a 100 units, so their emissions have to add up to a 100 units, which means each of them needs to have a right to emit certain number of units.

因此，你一开始会发放总共100个单位的排放配额，分给10个参与者。

And so you will start the market by giving, let's say, it's a 100 units of emissions, 10 players.

你每人发放10个许可，规定每个许可允许排放一单位的二氧化碳。

You give them each 10 permits, and you say each permit allows you to emit one unit of CO two.

嗯。

Mhmm.

现在可能有人想排放11个单位。

Now maybe someone now wants to do 11 units.

他们突然发现了一个非常有利可图的机会。

They've suddenly found that they have a very productive opportunity.

他们想生产更多的钢铁。

They want to produce more steel.

他们可以去找另一个生产纸张的参与者，因为纸张的需求不高，然后说：你看。

Well, they can go to another player who is maybe producing paper, which doesn't have a lot of demand and say, look.

我能从你这里买一个配额吗？

Can I buy one permit from you?

这就会形成我们所说的碳的边际减排成本，因为纸张生产商可能会说：现在纸张行业不太景气，或者我有低成本的机会来改变我的生产方式。

And that's going to give us what we would call, in some ways, the marginal abatement cost of carbon because the paper units will say, Paper isn't doing so well right now, or I have a cheap opportunity to change how I produce paper.

所以，我卖给你一个配额。

So let me sell you one permit.

这就是市场中通过交易获得收益的方式。

So this is how you get gains from trade in the market.

有些企业对产品的需求不同，其技术的减排成本也不同。

You have firms who have different demand for their product and different abatement costs for their technology.

我们正是利用这种异质性来创造交易收益，但总体排放量是有一个上限的。

And we live off this heterogeneity to create gains of trade, but there is a single cap.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这是合规部分，你需要一个单一的单位进行交易，以便监管机构在周期结束时确保仅排放了100个单位。

That's the compliance part, and you need a single unit to trade so the regulator at end of the period can make sure it was only a 100 units that were emitted.

现在引入自愿市场的抵消额度的问题在于，它们实际上没有任何上限。

The problem with now bringing in offsets from the voluntary side is that they don't actually have any cap on them.

因此，我可以作为一个森林提供者，在每个周期都持续供应10个单位的森林抵消额度。

So I could be a provider of forest who every period just keeps supplying 10 units of forest into it.

那这个的上限在哪里？

Well, where's the cap on that?

这实际上将排放总量从100增加到了110。

That just effectively increases the amount from a 100 to a 110.

也许我可以在某个周期限制供应，但在下一个周期又生产更多的森林抵消额度。

Maybe I can even limit in one period, but I can produce more forest next period.

因此，如果你希望一个真正具有约束力的合规上限，那么我们就需要全面了解所有市场参与者的排放情况，包括可再生能源和森林领域，并让整个市场的上限随时间逐步降低。

So that's the sense in which if you want to have a compliance cap that truly binds, then we need to see the full emissions profile of all market players, including those who are in renewables and forests, and then have the entire cap move down over time on the market.

这些市场的发展历史是否导致了不同市场之间的价格差异？

And has the history of how these markets have evolved, has it led to differing prices between the markets?

确实如此。

Very much so.

事实上，讽刺的是，目前有些市场允许一定配额的自愿碳市场交易产品进入。

And in fact, ironically, right now, there are some markets that allow a quota of voluntary carbon market traded goods to come in.

因此，如果你拥有大片森林，一部分卖给合规市场，另一部分卖给自愿市场，那么同一种产品实际上以两种价格出售。

And so you can imagine if I have access to a large forest and I sell some of it in the compliance market and some of it in the voluntary market, then literally the same good is selling at two prices.

你希望只有一个市场，这个市场有单一的配额和单一的价格，对吧？

You want a single market, and that will have a single cap and a single price, will it?

是的。

Yes.

就配额而言，是的。

In terms of permits, yes.

正如罗宾所说，目前英国和欧盟的碳排放交易体系价格不同。

As Robin said, right now, in The UK and the EU ETS, there's a different price.

事实上，英国排放交易市场的价格略低于欧盟。

In fact, the price in The UK emissions trading market is slightly lower than that in the EU.

但一旦它们连接起来，就会有相同的价格。

But once they're linked, they will have the same price.

对。

Right.

现在这也是自愿加入的。

Now this is opt in as well.

谁可以自愿加入？

Who can opt in?

任何政治管辖区都可以自愿加入。

Any political jurisdiction can opt in.

所以它不一定是国家。

So it doesn't have to be a country.

它可能是一个地区。

It could be a region.

这之所以重要是因为，显然，从国际上出售这些配额中获得资金是有价值的。

And the reason that that's important is that obviously there's value in getting the money from selling these permits internationally.

我们在COP30期间看到，卢拉总统宣布成立一个关于碳合规市场的开放联盟，当时政治意愿非常强烈。

We saw when we were in COP thirty that president Lula announced an open coalition on carbon compliance markets, and there was enormous political appetite.

嗯。

Mhmm.

显然，这就像我们提出的自愿加入方案。

Obviously, that is like, you know, our proposal of voluntary opt in.

但一旦你加入，就必须遵守该市场的规则，而该市场确实设有全球总量上限。

But once you opt in, you do then have to follow the rules of that market, and that market does have a global cap.

因此，你实际上是承诺遵守这个全球总量上限。

So you're really committing to that global cap.

另一方面，你也承诺遵循一套规则，确保该市场中出售的项目所对应的配额是可信的，而这与测量方式的革命密切相关，不同类型的项目在测量上差异很大。

On the other hand, you're committing to a set of rules that mean the projects being sold in that market, the permits are credible permits, And that goes back very much to the kind of measurement revolution, which is very different for different types of projects.

例如，在中国、欧盟以及越来越多的印度，企业正在应用连续排放监测系统，使得企业排放的测量不仅更加准确，而且更加频繁。

So for example, in China, The EU, and increasingly India, the continuous emission monitoring systems that are applied to firms are meaning that the measurement of emissions from firms has become not just much more accurate but much more frequent.

此外，在森林再造和防止森林退化导致碳流失的碳储存测量方面，也取得了进展。

There's also improvements in the measurement of carbon storage from reforestation and prevention of carbon loss from conservation of forests.

而且越来越重要的是，正如我之前所说，可再生能源是创新的主要推动力。

And increasingly, and very, very importantly, because as I said before, renewables are the main moving part in terms of innovation.

另外，如果我作为一个政治管辖区没有投资太阳能电站，那么我的排放量就会多得多。

Also figuring out, had I not invested in a solar park as a political jurisdiction, then I would have this much more emissions.

因此，我就可以将这些减排量出售到市场中。

So I'd be then selling that emissions reduction into the market.

这对于那些希望实现电网电气化、交通系统电气化、供暖系统和房屋、烹饪及空调电气化的国家或地区来说，极具吸引力。

And that becomes incredibly attractive for those sets of countries or regions that want to electrify their grids, want to electrify their transport systems, the heating systems and houses, cooking and air conditioning.

这些能源都来自清洁能源。

It's coming from clean energy.

我认为，这些测量手段真正提升了该市场内交易项目的可信度。

I think these measurement things really mean that you begin to have much more credibility in terms of the projects that are being traded within this market.

如果我选择加入并同意遵守你们的规则，我能获得什么好处？

If I opt in and I agree to follow your rules, what are the benefits to me?

对于高收入国家和中低收入国家来说，这些好处是否有所不同？

Are the benefits different if you're a high income country or a low middle income country?

是的。

Yes.

思考这个问题的方式，我认为这也回到了设计市场的一个关键原则。

The way to think about it, and I think this comes back to a key principle also of how you design markets.

从某种意义上说，谁更有可能需要购买配额？

In some ways, who is more likely to have to buy permits?

这显然可以通过配额的分配方式提前定义。

This obviously can be defined upfront by how you allocate the permits.

现在，我认为一个关键原则是，大多数气候协议都秉持着‘共同但有区别的责任’这一理念。

Now in a key principle, I'd say, most climate agreements has been this idea of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

即富裕国家对大量的历史排放负有责任。

The idea that rich countries are responsible for a lot of historic emissions.

它们需要向低收入国家提供一定数额的气候资金。

They need to be providing some amount of climate finance to lower income countries.

那么，如何通过市场来实现这一点呢？

So how can you do this through a market?

你可以通过市场来实现这一点：比如，向富裕国家发放相对较少的配额，向较低收入地区发放相对较多的配额，那么富裕国家很可能需要向较低收入国家购买配额。

You can do that through a market by saying, let me give, let's say, relatively few permits to rich countries, relatively more permits to lower income jurisdictions, and then, you know, rich countries are probably more likely to have have to buy from lower income countries.

例如，一些来自东欧的国家在加入时的优势在于，它们可以交易自己的配额，更重要的是，它们被分配了更多的配额。

The advantages, for example, to some of the states that were entering more from the Eastern part of the EU were that they could trade their permits, but importantly, they were given more permits.

这为它们提供了工业化的空间——如果它们没有参与这个市场，就可能没有足够的资金投资于减排技术。

That gave them the space to industrialize in a way that had they not been in this market, they would have less money to invest, for example, in abatement technologies.

这是一种更广泛概念的体现。

This is a kind of a broader concept of that.

所以，如果你希望从一个石油国家转型为一个电力国家——这正是中国目前正在做的——那么这能为你提供资金来源来实现这一转变。

So if you feel like you wanna move from being a petro state to an electro state, which is roughly what China's doing at the moment, then this gives you a source of finance to do that.

或者，如果你拥有大量森林，就可以利用森林资源的比较优势。

Or if you have a lot of forests, you can use the comparative advantage of having forest.

它之所以具有吸引力，正是因为它开辟了投资机会。

It's attractive precisely because it opens up investment opportunities.

现在，向较低收入国家提供资金不再仅仅是一种利他行为。

It's no longer that it's kind of an act of altruism to provide that finance to a country in a lower income setting.

实际上，这对购买该项目的国家有利，因为它获得了比其本国政治管辖范围内更便宜的减排技术。

Is actually that it's advantageous to the country that is buying that project because it's getting a cheaper abatement technology than is available in its own political jurisdiction.

而对于出售方国家来说，它获得了一个原本如果没有这个市场就不会存在的资金来源。

And for the country that's selling, it's getting a source of finance that would not have existed without the market.

所以我认为许多国家正是如此。

So I think many countries are precise.

我认为，我们在COP会议上接触到的所有从低收入到中等收入的国家，它们参与这个市场的主要动机，除了一个显而易见的原因——即气候变化正在越来越严重地破坏这些中低收入国家人民的生活之外。

I think, well, all the countries from the sort of lower income to middle income side that we met in COP, that was the primary motivation to come into this market apart from the obvious one that is a critical concern that climate change is wrecking more and more people's lives in particularly in those middle and lower income countries.

这些国家对应对气候变化有着更迫切的需求。

And there's a more felt need in those countries to do something about climate change.

所以当你观察排放交易体系传统上交易的内容时，它们主要集中在工业排放，而不是可再生能源。

So when you look at the what the emissions trading schemes have been trading, traditionally, it's been focused very much on industrial emissions, not renewables.

基于自然的项目一直主要存在于自愿市场中。

Nature based projects have been really in the voluntary market.

你正在要求所有这些项目转向这些市场，并全面参与其中。

You're asking all these projects to come over to these markets and participate fully in them.

你为什么问这个问题？

Why do you ask this?

现在排放市场并不是不允许基于自然或可再生能源的项目。

It's not the case that emissions markets right now don't allow for nature based or renewables.

当然。

Sure.

这要追溯到欧盟排放交易体系（EU ETS）最初启动时的历史，甚至更早到《京都议定书》阶段，我认为记住这一点很有帮助。

This goes back to the history of the EU ETS that under when it started, and so going all the way back to the Q2 protocol, which I think is useful to remember.

当时，排放交易体系的要求仅针对所谓的附件一国家（即发达国家），而低收入国家则是通过清洁发展机制（CDM）参与，实质上向市场提供了大量可再生能源项目。

At that time, the requirements, the emission trading system were on what they call annex one or rich countries, and the way low income countries entered was through the clean development mechanism of providing essentially quite a lot of actually renewables into this market.

但由于我们之前讨论过的一些问题，这一机制已经崩溃了——因为你并没有作为完整的市场参与者加入。

That collapsed for some of the problems that we've been talking about is that you didn't enter as a full market participant.

我们实际上并不一定在改变进入市场的商品种类。

We're not actually necessarily changing the set of goods entering.

也许相对构成会发生变化。

Maybe the relative composition may change.

目前，就连欧盟排放交易体系也回退表示，2040年的目标可以通过纳入高达5%的碳抵消来实现。

Right now, even EU ETS has gone back to say that the twenty forty targets can be met by including carbon offsets up to, I think, 5%.

巴西在其即将推出的市场中将允许高达20%的碳抵消。

Brazil in its upcoming market is going to have up to 20%.

我认为我们正在改变的是：这些不应再以带有配额的奇特碳抵消类别进入市场，而应作为完整的市场参与者进入。

What I think we're changing is to say these should not enter as this odd category of carbon offsets with quotas, but rather they should enter as full market participants.

现在请将其视为一个政治管辖区，比如波兰的林业部门进入市场。

So now think of it as a political jurisdiction and say, the forest sector of Poland enter.

这意味着什么？

What does that mean?

这样做的效果会好得多，能让整个行业全面参与，而不是通过那种定制化的碳抵消项目——这些项目会重蹈CDM和如今VCM中出现的所有问题的覆辙。

And that's going to be a much more effective way of having that entire sector enter rather than the sort of bespoke carbon offset project, which will have all the problems that we saw for CDMs and now in VCMs.

我们需要在新兴市场和发展中经济体的可再生能源领域投入巨额资金。

We need a huge amount of investment in renewables in emerging markets, developing economies.

关于气候融资，人们已经提出了惊人的资金数额。

There are extraordinary sums quoted for this, for climate finance.

这个市场能释放出这笔资金吗？

Can this market unlock that finance?

我认为它肯定可以。

I think it definitely can.

事实上，我认为我们从众多低收入和中等收入国家那里得到的强烈共识就是，这将是他们的首要诉求。

And indeed, I I would say that was the overwhelming sense we had from the now quite broad array of low and middle income countries that that would be their primary ask.

它之所以能释放这些资金，是因为现在你可以衡量投资可再生能源相对于投资其他形式发电的额外性。

And the reason it can unlock that finance because now you can measure the additionality of investing in renewables, say, relative to investing in other forms of power generation.

因此，我认为这里存在真正的机遇，尤其是在可再生能源成本急剧下降的背景下，利用这个市场加速可再生能源的普及。

So I think there's a real opportunity here, particularly as the cost of renewables is plummeting, to use this market to accelerate the diffusion of renewables.

因为目前，你显然看到中国在可再生能源方面的采用速度非常快。

Because at the moment, you see obviously very rapid adoption of renewables in China.

在高收入国家，可再生能源的采用速度也相当快。

You see pretty rapid adoption in the high income countries.

但正是在那些可再生能源（如太阳能）潜力最大的国家，采用率却最低。

But precisely in those countries where potential for renewables such as solar is greatest, that's where there's been least adoption.

我认为这又回到了资本成本的问题，因为建设太阳能电站需要巨大的前期投入。

I think that comes back to things like the cost of capital because you have a big upfront cost if you're doing a solar park.

如果你是非洲国家，你会发现很难借到钱。

You find it very difficult to borrow if you're, say, an African country.

因此，这是一种释放投资、加速发展的手段。

So this is a means of unlocking that investment so that it accelerates.

人们常常忘记，未来大部分排放增长将发生在低收入和中等收入国家，而不是高收入国家。

It's often forgotten that most of the growth in emissions will be happening in the low and middle income countries, not in the high income countries.

因此，现在特别重要的是，将电力、交通、空调等高能耗系统转向更清洁的能源体系。

So it's particularly important now to change those power hungry systems such as electricity, as transport, air conditioning, and so forth onto a much cleaner power system.

因为你的目标是打破人均GDP与人均化石能源消耗之间的45度线，转向一种持续增长、持续用能，但能源来源已转为清洁能源的模式。

Because what you're trying to do is to break the 45 degree line between GDP per capita and energy consumption per capita from fossils into something where you are continuing to grow, you're continuing to use energy, but that's coming now from clean energy.

因此，这一过程中的损害正在减少。

So the damages part of that is being reduced.

我们能否将这一提议视为通过配额许可体系实现的渐进式转移？

Can we call this proposal effectively progressive transfers through that system of permit allowances?

这就是我们需要的吗？

Is that what we need?

在一个存在外部性的世界里——而我们所处的世界正是如此——这确实是我们需要的部分内容。

That is some of what we need in a world with externalities, which is the world we are in.

你必须意识到，我们也在实现一种社会公益。

You have to realize that we are also meeting a social good.

因此，这并不仅仅是一种 Redistribution（再分配），即我们只是在进行转移支付。

So it's also the case that this is not just kind of redistribution in the sense that we're giving transfers.

你会看到，你实际上也是通过这个系统对货币外部性进行定价。

You're using if you will, you're also pricing in pecuniary externalities through the system.

现在，你的第二个支柱是马文。

Now your second pillar is Marvin.

你称它为马文。

You call it Marvin.

马文是谁？

Who is Marvin?

马文是谁？

What is Marvin?

你还记得《银河系漫游指南》吗？

Well, do you remember Hitchhiker's Guide?

我记得。

I do.

是的。

Yes.

在那个世界里，马文是一台偏执的机器人。

So Marvin, in that world, was a paranoid robot.

嗯。

Uh-huh.

在这里，马文是一个集中的独立机构，专门负责为以自然为基础的项目和可再生能源制定测量、核算、风险管理和验证的协议。

Here, what Marvin is, it's a centralized independent institution that for especially for nature based projects and renewables will be tasked with setting the protocols for measurement, accounting, risk management, and verification.

这与每个自愿碳市场注册机构提供的经典MRV系统有两个不同之处。

And there are two ways in which this is different from the classic MRV system that every voluntary carbon market registry offers.

首先是它的独立性和集中性，这一点很重要，可以防止那些既提供测量和验证系统又从出售碳信用中获利的机构产生利益冲突。

The first is it's independent and centralized, and that's important to prevent the kind of conflict of interest that comes when the measurement and verification systems are being provided by the group that also benefits from selling carbon credits.

嗯。

Mhmm.

第二点，我想我们必须感谢我们的合著者之一玛丽安·法尔布蒂，她帮助我们深入理解了这一点：为什么基于自然的项目或可再生能源会存在问题？

The second part, and I think that's a key innovation that we have to thank one of our coauthors, Mariam Farbhuti, for helping us a lot with, is to recognize that, you know, why are nature based projects problematic or renewables?

这是因为其中存在风险。

It's because there's risk involved.

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，当你向一个低收入国家付款时，很难确定他们是否会采取相应行动，这本身就充满风险。

I mean, it's risky to figure out whether if you pay money to a low income country, whether they undertake those actions.

但长期以来，金融市场已经找到了如何为风险定价以及如何制定合同来管理风险的方法。

But, you know, what financial markets have done for a long time is figured out how to price risk and how to write contracts that let you price risk.

因此，Marvin 的另一项工作是逐个项目地识别出合适的合同组合，以确保管理好买家风险——这是这个市场中的一个关键方面。

So the other thing that Marvin will do is identify the set of contracts project by project that makes sense in order to make sure that buyer risk, which is a key aspect in this market, is managed.

这就是你需要拥有可信项目的原因。

And that's what you need in order to have credible projects.

一旦你有了可信的项目，就会有一个可信的市场。

And once you have credible projects, you'll have a credible market.

是的。

Yes.

‘可再生能源’、‘基于自然’这些词本身并没有什么神奇之处。

There's nothing magical about the words renewables, nature based.

本质上，你的原则是不应事先将任何可能有助于减少排放的项目排除在市场之外。

It's just basically the principles you don't exclude ex ante any project from the market that could help with emissions reduction.

因此，未来可能会出现一些我们目前还看不到的新事物，它们可能带来新的项目类型进入市场。

So there may be new things coming up in the future, which we haven't even seen yet, that could add new types of projects that could enter the market.

你只是不希望事先排除。

It's just so you don't want to ex ante exclude.

因为目前，基于自然的项目正因被视为不可信而被事先排除。

Because at the moment, nature based are being ex ante excluded because they're not viewed as credible.

所以显然，其中许多项目可能仍然具有可信度，但有些项目将变得可信并能在市场上交易。

So obviously, many of them may still remain credible, but then some will be credible and will be able to trade in the market.

是的。

Yes.

当我们审视现有项目时，实际上存在两类问题。

When we've looked at existing projects, there have been two sets of problems really.

第一个问题是缺乏统一的测量标准。

The first one is that there is no single measurement standard.

你可以选择由谁来测量，而他们会得出不同的数字。

You can pick who is measuring, and they'll come up with different numbers.

第二个问题是，测量并未明确说明‘额外性’，即这些项目是否本来就会发生。

The second one has been measurement hasn't really been clear about additionality, whether things would have happened anyway.

马文是如何解决这些问题的？

How does Marvin solve these problems?

我们做了几件事。

Did couple of things.

首先，在测量方面，我认为目前普遍认可的是，我们在卫星覆盖、遥感技术以及识别森林砍伐发生或未发生区域的能力上取得了巨大进步。

So first is on the measurement side, and that I think is quite broadly recognized at this point is that we've seen huge advances in things like satellite coverage, remote sensing, an ability to identify, exposed where deforestation has happened or not.

这就是测量方面的情况。

So that's the measurement side.

但我认为我们越来越认识到，要很好地衡量额外性，不能仅靠事前设想。

But the critical part that I think we've increasingly seen is that to measure additionality well, you can't imagine it upfront.

你还必须在事件发生后进行识别。

You also have to identify after the event.

我可以为你不砍伐森林而支付费用，但随后我需要核查，与替代方案相比，你确实没有砍伐森林。

So I can pay you for not cutting a forest, but then I need to check that compared to the alternative, you truly are not cutting the forest.

这是一种事后的评估。

That is an ex post exercise.

现有系统依赖于长期监测森林覆盖率是否如预期那样得以保持。

Existing systems have relied on measuring over time whether a forest cover was preserved the way it was meant to be preserved.

现在我们已经能够做到这一点了。

Now we can do that now.

我们通过实证社会科学知道如何做到这一点。

We know how to do that through empirical social sciences.

问题是，这会带来风险。

The concern is it creates risk.

对吧？

Right?

我可能提前为一个森林项目付款。

I might pay upfront for a forest project.

现在可以监测并告诉你，这片森林实际上并未得到维护。

Exposed, can now measure and tell you that this was not actually maintained.

那么，谁来为我提前支付的这笔钱退款呢？

Well, who's going to pay me back for that money that I paid upfront?

这就是买家风险，你需要通过合同来管理这种风险——合同规定，如果你未能如约保护森林，或者额外性未能持续，你就必须向买家退款。

That's the buyer risk that you need to manage through having contracts that would say that if you don't manage to keep the forest as you should, if additionality is not sustained, you are now liable to pay back the buyer.

因此，这就是马文将要设立的金融合同发挥作用的地方，我们在这里大量借鉴了斯坦福大学经济学家巴尔德·赫斯塔德的研究成果，他正是详细设计了此类合同的人。

And so that's the part where the financial contracts that Marvin will set up come, and we make use here of quite a lot of work, for instance, by a Stanford economist called Bald Hurstad, who exactly lays out the design of such contracts.

关于碳是被永久移除还是仅在很长一段时间内被移除，也就是所谓的持久性，也存在一些争论。

There has also been a debate about whether the carbon is being removed permanently or just for a very long time, what they call durability.

你对此持什么观点？

Where do you stand on this?

显然，必须像罗希尼所描述的那样，确保碳没有被释放，并证明它确实已被移除。

Obviously, there has to be what Rohini was describing as the carbon not being removed and proving that it has been removed.

但我认为还有一个问题，这个问题有点混淆了焦点，那就是五百年、一千年之类的期限。

But I think there's another issue, I think is slightly muddied the waters, is five hundred years or a thousand years or whatever.

没错。

Yeah.

我认为主要的挑战其实集中在接下来大约三十年内。

I think the big challenges are really in the next thirty years roughly.

所以我认为我们是一种新奇的物种，会不断找到各种方式来实现能源转型以及其他减少碳排放的途径。

So I think we're a novelty species, and we'll come up with lots of ways of doing energy and other things which contribute to carbon over time.

这已经正在发生了。

That already is happening.

但我们现在就必须行动。

But we need to move now.

当然，我也希望这些措施能永久有效，但我认为现在关键是扭转趋势。

Obviously, I'd love things to permanent as well, but I think it's about bending the curve now.

因为当你看到趋势开始转变时，比如欧盟现在已趋于平稳，以及其他国家的情况，这会让人产生希望，觉得事情是能做到的。

Because as you bend, for example, the EU where it's now flattening and other countries, it creates a sense of hope that things can be done.

当我们进入所谓的主流共识时，某种程度上这源于自愿碳市场，当时是一种绝望的情绪。

When we came into the sort of conventional wisdom, if you like, partly sort of coming from the VCM market was one of despaired.

碳市场不起作用。

Carbon markets don't work.

但当你看看UTS，看看它在短短时间内所取得的成就，简直令人震惊。

And then you look at the UTS, you look what it's achieved in the short time it's been going, it's pretty astonishing.

因此，我认为从2005年至今这二十年的成就表明，如果能在全球范围内实现同样的规模，我们现在的处境将完全不同。

And so I think that kind of whatever 2,005 to now achievements, twenty years, points to if you could do that at a global scale, we'd be in a completely different position.

到了那时，也许富裕国家就不需要再从其他国家购买这些碳信用了。

And then maybe at that point, the richer countries don't need to buy in these credits from other countries.

他们可能在自家门口就能做一些更便宜的事情。

There may be things they can do directly on their doorstep which are cheaper.

但我觉得我们现在还达不到那个阶段。

But I think we're not in that position right now.

我们还没有让全球排放曲线出现拐点。

We're not bending the global emissions curve.

我认为这是外界最主要的信息。

I think that's the principal message out there.

你不能只是寄希望于最好的结果，这是一种说法。

You can't just hope for the best is one way of describing it.

你现在必须在尽可能多的方面采取行动，以对全球排放曲线产生影响。

You need to actually do everything you can now on as many fronts as possible that will have impact on that global emissions curve.

要记住的是，工业排放市场是如何运作的。

And that's the thing to remember is how do industrial emission markets work.

对吧？

Right?

你实际上是在一个特定合规期内交易不排放的行为。

You basically trade not doing emissions over the time period of a certain compliance period.

这并不是说某个行业承诺在未来一千年里再也不使用化石燃料。

It's not like an industry is promising that it will never again in the next thousand years use fossil fuels.

你希望的是，一旦他们转向其他能源，他们可能就不会再回头，但关键是他们承诺持续参与市场并遵守每一轮的规则。

You hope that once they've converted over to something else, they may not do it, but it's the commitment to stay in the market and play by the rules period after period.

嗯。

Mhmm.

而持久性足以支撑这一点。

And durability is enough for that.

环境游说团体受到的一种批评——无论公平与否——是他们反对增长，或者至少他们的政策会抑制增长。

One of the criticisms of the environmental lobby, put it that way, that has gained traction, fair or not, is that they are anti growth, or at least their policies will subtract from growth.

你认为你的提议能否激发投资，实现可持续增长路径，同时为我们的经济脱碳？

Do you believe that your proposal could unlock investment to create a sustainable growth path as well as decarbonizing our economy?

可以从两个角度来思考这个问题。

There's two ways to think about it.