In search of green profit
Emerging technologies would provide the solution to the problem of climate change, George W. Bush said during his visit to Europe this week.
Acknowledging the rift between his government and the European Union over the Kyoto protocol on climate change, he outlined a way forward based on more collaboration with European researchers on ways to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere. Mr Bush spoke of “technologies, such as hydrogen-powered vehicles, electricity from renewable energy sources, clean coal technology [that] will encourage economic growth that is environmentally responsible”.
But do we have time to wait for emerging technologies to mature? Scientists warn that hanging on for them to develop to replace fossil fuels might be time wasted. If we are serious about solving climate change, we must act to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. If the scientists are right, action more radical than any suggested so far may soon be necessary. Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the scientists involved in a recent study that found the world could warm by double the amount previously thought, says: “The danger zone is not something we will reach in the middle of this century. We are in it now.” Peter Challoner of Southampton University goes further. “It's not just that we can't wait for these new technologies. It's that the problem has reached such an extent that we need to think about radical solutions. I've started to think that carbon sequestration [see below] might be the best answer.”
Mr Bush's words to Europe's leaders continued a theme adopted by the US since he rejected the UN-brokered Kyoto protocol in 2001. Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for global affairs, points to the $5bn the US invests annually in climate change technologies and research as evidence that the US takes the issue seriously. This encompasses hydrogen, touted as a low-carbon alternative to petrol in cars and for electricity generation, nuclear power, “clean coal” breaking coal down into hydrogen and carbon in order to clean up the gases produced by burning and renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind and tidal. The US already collaborates with the EU on many of these, sharing know-how and jointly funding development projects.
Hydrogen has been talked about as a cheap source of energy for decades, but hydrogen cars are still in the prototype stage and questions remain on how to produce and store hydrogen cheaply without producing greenhouse gases. Renewable energies are all in use already and their relatively high cost is falling, but most renewables projects require some state subsidy, suffer weather-related practical difficulties and in the case of wind and tide are still developing. “Carbon emitted now will stay around in the atmosphere for as much as a century,” says Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels now, the effects of global warming would still worsen for up to 100 years. This latency means we cannot afford to wait, say climate experts.
The UN argues that compulsory curbs on carbon dioxide emissions is the only way to ensure an immediate effect. Under this vision, we would wean ourselves off fossil fuels until emerging technologies can take over. Environmental scientists argue that we have the means already to drastically reduce fossil fuel dependence, and that businesses can play a key role in that reduction. Ideas for reducing fossil fuel use by business vary from pedestrian to whacky. Energy efficiency, which yields cost savings, can be as simple as turning off lights and heating in empty offices and using energy efficient light bulbs. Extensive programmes can produce quick results within a few months of auditing its carbon output, the UK retailer Boots found it could save ￡1.35m a year on its ￡18m energy bill.
Other ways to reduce fossil fuel use include transport policies that cut the number of journeys employees make, particularly by aeroplane. Company fleets can be switched to fuel containing biodiesel. Business processes can be modified to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Creating less waste benefits the environment and profits. Companies can also support alternatives to fossil fuel by negotiating with energy providers to receive their power from renewable and greener sources, such as combined heat and power stations [see below]: BT and HSBC have pioneered such agreements.
Kofi Annan, secretary general of the UN, has called on business to take a lead: “We live in a time of extraordinary technological creativity. Old industries are being turned upside down or replaced by new ones. Even if we set aside the issue of climate change, the need to be more competitive and less polluting points to increases in efficiency and a cleaner future. Pioneering firms are already leading the way to green profits.”
追求绿色利润
布什先生承认在他的政府与欧盟之间，就解决气候变化问题的《京都议定书》（the Kyoto protocol）存在分歧，但他陈述了今后的发展方向，而这种发展的基础是与欧洲研究人员加强合作，共同研究如何减少排放到大气中的温室气体总量。布什先生提到，“通过运用氢动力汽车、再生能源电力、洁净煤技术等各种技术，将能激励一种对环境负责的经济增长。”
但是，我们是否有时间等待这些新兴技术发展成熟？科学家们警告说，依赖他们去开发化石燃料的替代物，可能只是浪费时间而已。如果我们真心要解决气候变化问题，就必须采取行动，在短期内减少温室气体的排放。如果科学家们的说法正确，那么我们很快就需要采取比迄今为止人们提出的所有建议更为激进的行动。近期一项研究发现，地球变暖的程度可能是先前估计的两倍。牛津大学的迈尔斯?艾伦（Myles Allen）是参与这项研究的科学家之一，他说：“这种危险并非要到本世纪中叶才会来临；其实我们现在已经置身其中了。”南安普顿大学（Southampton University）的彼得?查洛纳（Peter Challoner）进一步指出：“我们不仅等不及这些新兴技术，而且问题已经严重到需要考虑采取激进的解决办法了。我开始在想，说不定最佳的方法就是碳封存（carbon sequestration）。”
布什先生对欧洲领导人所说的话还是以前的主调；自从他在2001年拒绝经联合国斡旋达成的《京都议定书》以来，美国就采取了这种调子。负责全球事务的美国副国务卿保拉?多布里扬斯基（Paula Dobriansky）指出，美国每年投资50亿美元，用于气候变化方面的技术与研究，证明美国是认真对待这个问题的。这些技术与研究包括被称为可取代汽车燃料的低碳物质――氢、可用来发电的核能、可将煤分解为氢和碳的“洁净煤”技术（清洁燃烧过程中产生的气体），以及太阳能、风力和潮汐等可再生能源。其中不少项目美国和欧盟已经在合作进行，互相分享知识，并共同为一些开发项目提供资金。
近几十年来，人们一直在讨论如何利用氢作为一种廉价能源，但是氢动力汽车至今仍处于试验阶段，至于如何廉价生产及储存氢，同时又不产生温室气体，则还有许多问题尚未解决。各种可再生能源目前均已得到使用，它们相对高昂的成本也正在降低。然而大多数可再生能源项目都需要一定的政府补助，并存在受天气影响的实际困难，而在风力与潮汐能源方面，研究仍处于初期阶段。“现在排放的碳将在大气中存留一个世纪之久，”斯坦福大学（Stanford University）的斯蒂芬?施奈德（Stephen Schneider）说。即使我们现在就停止烧化石燃料，温室效应仍将恶化达100年。气候专家们说，这么严重的后果意味着我们再也等不起了。
联合国的观点是，以强制性手段限制二氧化碳排放，是确保立即见效的唯一手段。按照这一设想，我们必须戒掉使用化石燃料的习惯，直到新兴技术能够取代它。环境科学家争论说，我们已经找到办法，可以大幅度减少对化石燃料的依赖，而企业在这方面可以起到关键的作用。让企业降低化石燃料用量的建议可谓形形色色，从平常到怪诞应有尽有。能带来成本节约的提高能源方法其实可以极其简单，例如离开时关掉办公室的灯光和暖气，以及使用节能灯泡等。执行全面的节能措施后，就能在监测碳产生量的几个月之内迅速带来效果。例如英国零售店Boots发现，其每年1800万英镑的能耗开支可节省135万英镑。
降低化石燃料用量的其它方法还包括制定交通运输政策，减少雇员旅行次数（特别是飞机旅行）。公司车辆可以转用含有生化柴油的燃料。也可以对商业运作程序进行改良，以降低温室气体的排放量。减少废物的产生既有益于环境，又能提高利润。企业还可以同能源提供商谈判，接受来自可再生能源及更符合环保要求的电力，例如结合热力和电力的发电站，从而支持使用化石燃料的替代物。英国电信（BT）和汇丰银行（HSBC）已经率先签订了这样的协议。
联合国秘书长科菲?安南（Kofi Annan）号召企业担当领导的角色：“我们生活在一个非凡的技术创新时代。旧产业正在被颠覆，或被新产业所取代。即使暂且不提气候变化的问题，企业需要更具竞争力而且更少污染性，这也要求我们提高效率，净化未来。行动快的企业正率先踏上绿色利润之路。”
