|
2007年2月5日 星期一
很少有几个商学院教授能说，的研究对普通人的生活方式有实质性的影响。或许，克里斯·霍普（Chris Hope）是其中一位。霍普教授是英国剑桥大学Judge商学院（Judge Business School）一名教授环境政策的高级讲师。他是一个不为人知的英雄。他设计出了一种方法，通过这种方法能够计算全球气候变暖的经济成本。
去年10月，关于全球变暖的《斯特恩报告》（Stern report）在英国发表。但是，正是基于霍普教授的经济建模才能，告的作者才得以将经济与科学结合，从而得出全球变暖严重性的结论。
对这一切，霍普教授非常谦虚。他说：“得知我的研究对政策产生了一些影响，我很高兴。”他的研究确实对政策制订者产生了影响。去年11月，在内罗毕（Nairobi）举行的联合国气候变化大会上，《斯特恩报告》成为大会讨论的话题。霍普教授说，该报告是“学科交叉的产物——学术研究介入政治舞台的结果”。
霍普教授承认，他的声名来迟。
早在上世纪70年代末在剑桥大学攻读博士学位时，他就开始在气候变化经济学和可再生能源领域里默默耕耘。“取得今天的成果的确花了很长的时间，”他坦承道，“但现在取得成果，恰当其时。”
他过去多年的工作一直得到一些组织的资助，如欧盟和英国能源监管机构Ofgen。事实上，是Ofgen的资助帮助他开发出了Page 2002（2002年关于温室效应的政策分析），后者构成了他此后大量工作的基础，并吸引了《斯特恩报告》研究人员的注意。
《斯特恩报告》的研究人员对霍普教授模型的灵活性尤其感兴趣。该模型允许他们输入自己的数据和假设，并运行情景分析。“我所做的全部工作，就是构建输入这些数据范围的能力，” 霍普教授说，“我认为这是做这件事唯一诚实的方法。”
《斯特恩报告》估计，按0.1%的折现率计算，今天排放一吨二氧化碳所造成的经济损失是85美元。但是，一些强硬的经济学家更倾向于采用更高的折现率，后者使计算出的损失成本显得低很多。
在霍普教授看来，这种学术争论是好的，而他的模型能够用来将这种争论推向深入。霍普教授说，使《斯特恩报告》成果显得突出的另外一个因素是，尼古拉斯爵士（Sir Nicholas，即尼古拉斯?斯特恩）本人一直以来都被看成是这群强硬经济学家中的一员。
“他本人一直是权威的象征，被看成是权威的一部分，但是他接受了这些数字（0.1%的折现率）。”现在的问题是，政府将怎么做。
在英国，工党政府似乎正朝着采用一种许可制的方向发展。例如，驾车人必须携带一种二氧化碳信用卡，每次购买汽油时都必须出示它。这与欧盟内部所提出的大部分方案是一致的。
霍普教授相信，还有更方便的选择。“我希望看到一种二氧化碳税，因为它更简单，更人性化。”他说道。以能源为例，这意味着对传统发电厂所发的电征收更高额的税，以增加消费者的成本。
他说，如果消费者因为更低的消费成本而转投“绿色”电力供应商的怀抱，传统电力供应商为了生存，就会考虑再生能源。“因为更好的行为，社会得到了回报。”
霍普教授说，应对全球变暖问题的诀窍，不在于强迫消费者时刻为自己的行为操心，而在于让纳税成为人们日常经济活动的约束工具。他相信，在具体的税项选择上，各个政府可以独立行动。但他也承认：“如果也能说服其他政府同样行动，那是再好不过。”
来自二氧化碳纳税的收入，可以用来降低其他形式的纳税，例如收入所得税，或者公司为员工交纳的保险费。
他相信，通过降低雇主应交的员工保险费——实际上就是对雇佣员工行为所纳的税——政府能够增加就业，从而发展经济。他说：“这样一来，你能够拯救这个星球，同时还能够保持经济健康发展。”
人类至少要采用几种不同的办法来应对全球变暖，如停止采伐森林，消除有害气体，通过开发可再生能源甚至核能来降低废气排放等。他说：“气候变化的严重性，有可能会让我们无法放弃它（核能）。我们必须非常努力地把二氧化碳的排放量给降下来。”
作为一个真正的学者，霍普教授指出，他的模型并不是计量二氧化碳排放成本的唯一工具。另外两个模型已经开发出来，一个在耶鲁大学，一个在汉堡大学，这两个模型各有各的优势。他说：“我们工作在一个非常不确定的领域里。”
“这种状况还将延续很多年。在我的有生之年，人们将不会知道二氧化碳造成的损失。”然而，认识到二氧化碳排放的危险，并不是问题的结束。这位名副其实的霍普教授说，
他现在将继续探索研究其它温室效应气体——如甲烷的经济模型。令人不安的是，这些气体几乎占温室效应气体排放总量的一半左右。
译者/力度
================
英文原文ECONOMIC RESEARCH THAT S***ES THE WORLD
By Della Bradshaw
Monday, February 05, 2007
There are few business school professors that can say their research has had a real impact on the way ordinary people live their lives. Potentially, Chris Hope is one of them.
A senior lecturer in environmental policy at the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge in the UK, Prof Hope is the unsung hero who has finally devised a way of calculating the financial cost of global warming.
When the Stern report on global warming was published in the UK at the end of October, it was Prof Hope's economic modelling skills that had enabled the report's authors to bring home the seriousness of the situation by combining economics and science.
Prof Hope is disarmingly modest about it all. “At the moment it is nice to know that it has had some impact on the policy,” he says.
It certainly has. At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi last November, the Stern report was the topic of the moment. The report, says Prof Hope, was the “crossover – where the research got into the political arena”.
Prof Hope admits his fame has been a long time in coming. He has been working on the economics of climate change and renewable energy sources since he did his PhD at Cambridge in the late 1970s.
“Yes, it has taken a long time to get there,” he acknowledges. “But now it's there at the right time.”
His work throughout the years has been funded by organisations such as the European Union and Ofgen, the UK's electricity regulator.
Indeed, it was work funded by Ofgen that led Prof Hope to develop Page 2002 (Policy Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect 2002), which has been the basis for much of the work he has done since and what attracted the Stern researchers.
In particular, the people from Stern were interested in the flexibility of the model, which allowed them to input their own data and assumptions and run “what if” scenarios.
“All the work I do is to build in the ability to put in all these ranges,” says Prof Hope. “I think its the only honest way to do it.”
The Stern report estimates that the damage caused by a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted today is $85, using a 0.1 per cent discount rate.
But some hard-line economists prefer to use a higher discount rate that would put a lower price tag today on the cost of the damage.
According to Prof Hope, his model can be used to further this “good academic debate”.
What gives extra weight to the findings of the Stern report, says Prof Hope, is that Sir Nicholas has always been viewed as one of these hard-liners himself.
“He is someone who is viewed as authoritative and part of the establishment but he has taken these numbers [a 0.1 per cent discount rate] on board.”
The question now is what governments will do.
In the UK, the Labour government seems to be heading towards adopting a system of permits – car drivers, for example, would have a carbon credit card which they would have to produce every time they bought petrol. This is in line with much of what is proposed in the European Union.
Prof Hope believes there are easier options. “Because of its simplicity and elegance, I would like to see a carbon tax,” he says. This means, for example, that electricity generated by traditional power stations would attract high levels of tax, so increasing the costs to consumers.
If consumers switched to “green” suppliers because their electricity was less expensive, traditional power suppliers would consider renewable resources in order to survive, he says. “You get rewarded for better behaviour.”
The trick of dealing with global warming, he says, is not to force consumers to worry about their behaviour all the time, but to get taxes to work as part of the everyday economy. He believes individual governments can act independently in selecting the tax option, though he concedes, “It's good if you can persuade other governments as well”.
The revenues from carbon taxes could be used to reduce other forms of taxation, notably income tax or national insurance contributions.
By reducing employers' national insurance contributions – effectively a tax on employing people – he believes the government could increase employment and so develop the economy. “You can save the planet while keeping the economy healthy,” he says.
The bottom line is to have lots of different ways of dealing with global warming: a halt to deforestation; capture of the offending gases; and reduction of emissions through renewable energy sources or even nuclear power. “Climate change is likely to be severe enough that we would not want to rule it [nuclear power] out. We've got to work pretty hard to get carbon emissions down.”
A true academic, Prof Hope points out that his is not the only tool for pricing carbon dioxide emissions.
Two other models have been developed, one at Yale and the other at the University of Hamburg, with each having different strengths. “We are working in an area which is hugely uncertain,” he says.
“This will carry on being an issue for years to come. We won't know the cost of carbon dioxide in my lifetime.”
The fact that the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions are now recognised is not the end of the problem, though.
The appropriately named Prof Hope says he can now move on to explore economic modelling for the other greenhouses gases, such as methane.
Disturbingly, these gases account for nearly half the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
| 
..
..
