Climate Change – Our Most Global Challenge

气候变化——我们最具全球性的挑战

 

Tao Zhang, Deputy Managing Director, IMF

IMF副总裁张涛

 

BIS/BdF/IMF/NGFS “Green Swan” Conference

国际清算银行/法国央行/国际货币基金组织/央行与监管机构绿色金融网络“绿天鹅”会议

 

2 June 2021

2021年6月2日

 

I. Introduction

引言

 

Good afternoon. I would like to thank our co-organizers, the BIS, the Banque de France, the NGFS, and my colleagues at the IMF, as well as everyone attending this important conference.

下午好。首先，请允许我感谢本次会议的联合主办方——国际清算银行、法国央行、央行与监管机构绿色金融网络，以及我的IMF同事们——组织这场会议，也感谢在场的各位出席本次重要活动。

 

This past year-and-a-half has been filled with challenges, and at times, displays of unprecedented resilience. Each of us has been touched in one way or another by the pandemic and economic lockdowns. But if there’s one silver lining to this dark cloud, it is that people now realize how fragile our existence on this planet can be. There is now renewed emphasis on the threat posed by climate change, as well as on the need to take urgent action.

过去一年半中，我们的世界充满了挑战，也时不时展现出前所未有的韧性。我们每个人都在某种程度上受到了新冠疫情和经济封锁的影响。但如果说这片黑暗中还存有一线希望，那就是：我们现在意识到，人类在这个星球上的生存有多么脆弱。我们现在更加重视气候变化带来的威胁，认识到采取行动迫在眉睫。

 

In my remarks today, I want first to lay out what I will call a globalist view, emphasizing that climate change is our most global challenge. Then, I’ll discuss different climate policy instruments that governments have at their disposal. And I’ll conclude with a discussion of how domestic policy can be supported internationally.

在今天的讲话中，我首先要提出一个我所谓的“全球视角”，强调气候变化是我们现在面临的最具全球性的挑战。随后我将谈谈各国政府可以利用哪些不同的气候政策工具。最后，我将讨论如何在国际层面为各国的国内政策提供支持。

 

II. A globalist view

全球视角

 

Let me start with what we’re facing globally today – namely, fighting the pandemic. As the IMF’s Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, likes to say, the pandemic won’t be over anywhere until it’s over everywhere. The virus does not respect borders.

首先，让我谈谈我们当前正在全球范围内面对的一项任务——抗击新冠疫情。正如IMF总裁克里斯塔利娜·格奥尔基耶娃所说，只有所有地区的疫情都结束，这场疫情才算真正结束。新冠病毒的传播不分国界。

 

Borders are even more irrelevant, however, when it comes to climate change. The national origin of greenhouse gas emissions makes absolutely no difference in terms of their impact. We all share the same atmosphere. The externality here is perfect and complete.

不过，对于气候变化而言，其更没有国界之分。无论是哪个国家排放的温室气体，带来的影响都是完全一样的。我们生活在同一片天空下。在这里，温室气体排放产生的外部性是完全而彻底的。

 

So how should we address this most global challenge? I’d like to suggest a few principles.

那么，我们应当如何应对这一最具全球性的挑战？我想提出几个原则。

 

First, we must work together. Of course, people already recognize this—that’s why we had the Paris Agreement, which has given us a global architecture under which to move forward, and that’s why we’ll soon have COP26. Indeed, it is exactly the same reason why we’re gathering in this conference.

首先，我们必须携手努力。当然，人们已经认识到这一点——这就是为什么各方签署了《巴黎协定》，这为进一步应对气候挑战建立了全球架构。这也是为什么我们不久将举行第26届联合国气候变化大会。事实上，我们举办本次会议，也是出于同样的原因。

 

But despite these important steps, we may need to go further to achieve a fully global outlook in our thinking. This means that we should collectively assess where and when it makes sense to abate emissions, and we should also collectively decide how to deal with any economic costs that this mitigation effort may bring.

但尽管我们采取了这些重要措施，我们可能还需要更进一步，真正做到从全球角度考虑气候变化问题。为此，我们应共同评估应在何地、何时减少排放，并共同决定如何解决减排措施带来的经济成本。

 

Indeed, we may not have much of a choice in front of us – the entire world, after all, will need to get to net-zero emissions, and sooner rather than later. But to the extent that there are decisions to make, we should make them together.

事实上，我们几乎没有多少选择——毕竟我们需要尽快在全球范围内实现净零排放。但如果需要做出任何决定的话，我们都应共同决策。

 

Second, we must look for win-win opportunities – and we can succeed if we work together.

第二，我们必须寻找共赢机会——只要携手努力，我们就能取得成功。

 

In decades and centuries past, of course, industrialization and development were unavoidably accompanied by greenhouse gas emissions. But if we infer from this that reducing emissions today will inexorably lead to economic contraction, we are taking far too narrow a view. In the 21st century, we are not condemned to tread the same path and make the same mistakes that our predecessors did, and we must lean forward to achieve win-win-opportunities. Indeed, good mitigation policy can often largely pay for itself, and combating climate change may actually further development, rather than hindering it. The evidence is quite strong that the tradeoff between the economy and climate is much smaller than people think.

当然，在过去的几十年、几百年中，工业化和发展进程不可避免地伴随着温室气体排放。但如果我们就此认为，目前的减排措施势必导致经济萎缩，那么我们就过于狭隘了。在二十一世纪，我们不应重蹈前人之覆辙，而必须主动创造共赢机会。事实上，有效的减排政策往往能在很大程度上收回成本，应对气候变化实际上会促进而不是阻碍经济发展。经济与气候之间的矛盾远不如人们想象的那么严重，这方面的证据相当确凿。

 

Why is this?

为什么呢？

 

First, we have modern technologies and an economic structure more tilted toward services that make production less dependent on fossil fuels. Furthermore, to the extent that we introduce climate policies, these themselves will induce additional technological change into clean-energy sectors of the future, with major positive spillovers to growth.

首先，我们拥有现代技术，而服务业在如今的经济结构中也占有了更重要的地位。这些都使生产活动对化石燃料的依赖度有所下降。此外，气候政策本身会进一步促进技术革新，支持未来的清洁能源部门，从而对经济增长产生有利的溢出效应。

 

Second, cutting coal, diesel, and other fossil-fuel usage often yields substantial local co-benefits such as less air pollution and improved health, and these directly boost economic outcomes, as well as other, broader measures of welfare. These co-benefits are particularly important in developing countries, and especially among the poor in these economies.

第二，减少煤炭、柴油和其他化石燃料的使用往往会给当地带来显著的协同效益，如减轻空气污染，改善人们的健康状况，而这会直接提振经济表现，同时改善其他更广泛的福利指标。在发展中国家，特别是对于这些国家的贫困人口，这种协同效益尤其显著。

 

Third, carbon pricing can yield substantial revenues, and these can be used to reduce other, more distortionary taxes, to finance productive investment – including green investment – and also to support individuals adversely affected by climate policies.

第三，碳定价可以产生可观的财政收入，而这些收入可用于减少其他扭曲性更强的税收，为更高效的投资（包括绿色投资）提供资金，并为受气候政策不利影响的人们提供支持。

 

In our World Economic Outlook report last October, we showed that a policy package including a rising carbon tax and a frontloaded green investment stimulus could actually boost growth and create millions of jobs over the medium term, all while effectively reducing emissions and protecting the vulnerable.

我们去年10月的《世界经济展望》指出，包括提高碳税、前置实施绿色投资刺激在内的一揽子政策，在中期可以促进经济增长并创造数百万就业机会，同时又能有效减少排放并保护脆弱群体。

 

Does this picture look too rosy? Well, we shouldn’t take win-win opportunities for granted. Achieving them in practice will take a lot of smart thinking and adept implementation. Along the way, some countries and population groups may face a wide range of economic costs.

这种前景看起来是不是太乐观了？我们不应认为共赢机会是理所当然的。创造这些机会需要明智筹划和有效落实。在这一过程中，一些国家和群体可能面临各种经济成本。

 

This then leads to my third point, which is that we must be fair in order to succeed.

这就引出了我的第三点，即为了取得成功，我们必须保证公平。

 

To start with, defining what’s fair is often very tricky, and it’s easy for people to end up pointing fingers at one another. Some observers look at today’s large emitters and say that they need to shoulder much of the responsibility for global mitigation. Others focus instead on cumulative historical emissions and identify another set of countries as the main culprits. In the same way, while much of the debate centers on total emissions (whether historical, current, or prospective), others emphasize emissions per dollar of GDP. Yet others focus on emissions per capita, reflecting, perhaps, a view on each individual’s intrinsic rights to use nature’s resources.

首先，要为“公平”下个定义往往很难，人们很容易最终只是互相指责。一些人认为，当前的排放大国需要承担全球减排的大部分责任。其他人则关注历史累计排放量，认为另一些国家需要承担主要责任。同样，尽管争论大多集中于总排放量（无论是历史排放量、当前排放量、还是未来排放量），也有一些人强调每一美元GDP的排放量。而另一些人则关注人均排放量，可能是他们认为每个人都拥有使用自然资源的固有权利。

 

I don’t want to wade into this debate. But I do believe that we need to acknowledge these different perspectives – they were all represented at the Paris negotiating table, and they continue to inform the ongoing debate.

我不想介入这一争论。但我确实认为，我们需要承认这些不同的观点——《巴黎协定》的谈判体现了所有这些观点，如今正进行的讨论也将继续参考这些观点。

 

Nonetheless, we must recognize that poorer countries want – indeed, demand – the right to pursue their own development trajectories. We also have to factor the need to protect the poor and vulnerable – wherever they are – into any global solutions we come up with.

不过，我们必须认识到，贫穷国家希望——实际上是要求——享有追求自身发展道路的权利。同时，我们在制定任何全球解决方案时，也都必须将保护贫穷和脆弱群体考虑在内，无论他们身处何方。

 

I strongly believe that, as we move forward, we need to respect these principles – working together, looking for win-wins, and being fair. Fortunately, the Paris Agreement already gives us a framework to deal with these issues: advanced countries are expected to pledge more stringent near-term mitigation, accompanied by a commitment to provide $100 billion per year to support climate action in developing economies.

我坚信，在推进气候工作的过程中，我们需要遵循这些原则——携手努力，力争共赢，保证公平。幸运的是，《巴黎协定》已经为我们提供了处理这些问题的框架：发达国家将承诺实施更严格的近期减排措施，同时承诺每年提供1000亿美元支持发展中国家的气候行动。

 

III. Choice of policy instruments

三、政策工具的选择

 

So let’s now move to the role of national policies and how to choose policy instruments to combat climate change.

下面，我来谈谈国家政策的作用以及如何选择适当的政策工具来应对气候变化。

 

Let me begin by emphasizing that in choosing policy instruments, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, or silver bullet. The journey in front us is unprecedented, and we must be humble. We have already seen countries pursue different policy approaches, reflecting their specific circumstances and preferences.

首先要强调的是，并不存在一种普遍适用的政策工具——也就是说，我们没有万能药。摆在我们面前的是一条史无前例的征途，我们必须谨慎前行。各国已经采用了不同的政策方法，这反映了它们的具体国情和偏好。

 

This conference is focused on the financial sector, and rightly so. The financial sector certainly has an important role to play, both in mobilizing the green finance that the world will need, and in making itself resilient to the physical and transition risks from climate change. Many speakers today have already shared their insights on these important issues, and many others will do so during the rest of the conference. For example, there are important steps that regulators and supervisors need to take, in terms of improving the availability of data, developing common taxonomies, improving the disclosure of climate information, and developing methodologies to quantify climate risks.

本次会议重点聚焦于金融部门，这么做很对。不论是调动世界所需的绿色资金，还是在增强自身抗风险能力、抵御自然风险和转型风险方面，金融部门显然都能发挥出重要的作用。在座诸位有很多已经分享了对这些重要问题的见解，其他人也将在接下来的环节中继续就此交流看法。例如，监管机构需要采取一些重要措施，包括提高数据可得性、制定统一的分类标准、改善气候信息的披露，以及为定量分析气候风险制定方法。

 

But let me be perhaps slightly provocative and say that none of this will work effectively unless the government creates an enabling environment. Without the fundamental incentives in place that only governments can introduce, people and firms – including those in the financial sector – simply will not fundamentally change their behavior and move away from carbon-intensive activities.

但我想指出的一点是，除非政府创造一个有利的环境，否则上述措施都难以奏效。只有政府能建立一些根本性的激励机制。没有这些激励机制，个人和企业（包括金融部门）不会从根本上改变各自的行为，不会减少高碳排放活动。

 

When economists think about which government policies can most effectively enable a pro-climate orientation, carbon pricing immediately comes to mind. Regulatory approaches certainly have their place – though economic theory would tell us they are less flexible and less efficient than market-based approaches. Sectoral policies, feebates, and a host of other tools also have a role. But charges on carbon content are believed to be the most effective and efficient instrument, providing incentives to reduce energy use, as well as to shift to cleaner fuels and to direct investment toward clean technologies, all while generating much-needed revenues.

经济学家在研究哪些政府政策能最有效解决气候问题时，首先想到的是碳定价。监管措施当然能发挥作用，但经济理论告诉我们，这些手段的灵活性和效率都不如市场化的方法。部门政策、收费返还以及其他各种工具也能发挥出一定作用。但对碳含量收费被认为是效果最好、效率最高的工具。它能鼓励个人和企业减少能源使用量，促进采用更清洁的燃料，引导资金投向清洁技术，同时创造亟需的财政收入。

 

Carbon pricing can be implemented in different ways. One possibility, of course, is a carbon tax, which can provide more certainty over emissions prices and thus help to mobilize investment. Carbon taxes are also relatively straightforward to administer – they can be built into existing road and fuel taxes, and similar charges can be applied to other petroleum products, coal, and natural gas. Carbon tax revenues also accrue directly to finance ministries, which are used to handling these flows as well as the budget.

碳定价可以通过不同方式实施。一种可能的方式当然是碳税。这种方式能提供更确定的碳价，从而有助于调动投资。碳税的管理也相对简单——可以在现有的道路和燃料税中加入碳税，也可以对石油产品、煤炭和天然气征收类似的税。另外，财政部门将直接获得碳税收入——而它们在税费管理和预算方面拥有丰富的经验。

 

Emission trading systems are another example. They can mimic the advantages of carbon taxes. But allowances would need to be auctioned (in order to generate revenues), price stability mechanisms like price floors would be needed, and in general, the administrative requirements may be more onerous than with a tax. Trading systems have been implemented in, for example, the European Union and Korea, although so far they have focused on the power and industrial sectors. And China will launch a nationwide scheme this month, based on a tradable performance standard.

另一个例子是碳排放权交易制度。碳排放权交易制度具有与碳税类似的优点。但排放配额需要以拍卖方式提供，以便创造财政收入。为此，可能需要建立相应的价格稳定机制，如碳价下限。包括欧盟和韩国在内的一些国家已经实施了碳排放权交易制度，尽管到目前为止这些制度还只是重点关注了电力和工业部门。中国将于本月启动以可交易绩效标准为基础的全国性碳排放权交易体系。

 

IV. Role of the international community

四、国际社会的作用

 

So we see a wide range of policy instruments are on the table. But no matter what policy instruments are chosen, it can be difficult for any one nation to aggressively decarbonize on its own. The international community can play an important role in helping to coordinate governments’ actions globally. Here I’d like to emphasize three aspects in particular.

因此，我们拥有多种多样的工具可供使用。但无论选择哪种政策工具，任何一个国家要想凭一己之力实现大幅脱碳，都将是十分困难的。国际社会可以发挥重要作用，在全球范围内帮助协调各国政府的行动。在这里，我想特别强调三个方面。

 

First, we at the IMF believe that a differentiated international carbon price floor could complement and reinforce the Paris Agreement. This would cover all emissions and could begin with, for example, the G20 and the European Union. Simultaneous action to scale up carbon pricing would be the most effective way to address countries’ concerns about industrial competitiveness, which could arise if they were to act unilaterally. The price floor could be differentiated to account for countries’ different levels of development, and it could be designed to also accommodate ambitious regulatory approaches that may not impose an explicit price on carbon but do imply a shadow price.

第一，IMF认为：实施差异化的国际碳价下限，可以补充并强化《巴黎协定》。碳价下限将涵盖全部排放，并可首先由G20和欧盟实施。如果各国单方面扩大碳定价，则他们可能担心此举将削弱自身的产业竞争力；但若各国同时行动起来，则能将最有效地解决这一关切。在实施差异化的碳价下限时，可考虑各国的不同发展水平；同时，也可通过设计，使其适应进取的监管做法——这些监管做法可能不会实施明确的碳价，但却隐含对应着一个影子碳价。

 

We believe the price floor would reduce the need for unilaterally imposed border carbon adjustments, which only price emissions in trade flows – typically a small proportion of total emissions. Border adjustments also need careful design to contain administrative costs – for example, by limiting their coverage to energy intensive, trade exposed industries. And they need to navigate legal risks under the rules of the World Trade Organization.

我们认为，碳价下限将减少单方面实施边境碳调整机制的必要性——边境碳调整只对贸易流中的碳排放进行定价，而这通常只占排放总量的一小部分。边境碳调整机制还需要仔细设计，以控制其行政成本——例如，将其覆盖范围限制在拥有较大贸易敞口的能源密集型行业。此外，还需要根据世贸组织的规则，解决边境碳调整机制的法律风险。

 

The international community can play a second critical role by mobilizing climate finance and technology transfers. These can incentivize increased climate ambition among recipient countries and reduce the need for either differentiated price floors or border carbon adjustments.

国际社会还可以发挥第二个关键作用——即调动气候融资，促进技术转让。对于资金和技术的接受国而言，此举可以鼓励它们树立更高的气候目标，同时降低实施差异化碳价下限或边境碳调整机制的需求。

 

Of course, climate finance can take a number of forms.

当然，气候融资有许多种形式。

 

Perhaps the simplest and most straightforward mechanism would be outright grant and loan assistance, as well as technology transfers. I want to emphasize that this is not a matter of charity. The $100 billion commitment was a critical part of the Paris Agreement – a way of allowing the world to take advantage of its least-cost mitigation opportunities, many of which exist in developing economies, and an important tool to ensure equitable burden-sharing. The question now is whether the world will step up and meet this commitment.

其中，最简单、最直接的机制可能包括直接赠款、贷款援助和技术转让。我想强调的是，这并不是在做慈善。每年提供1000亿美元的承诺是《巴黎协定》的一项关键内容——它是让全世界能以最低成本实现缓解气候变化的一种方式。其中许多机遇都存在于发展中经济体，因而这是确保实现公平负担分摊的一项重要工具。现在的问题是，世界是否会挺身而出，履行这一承诺。

 

Offsetting is another proposed vehicle for climate finance. With voluntary corporate offsets, those with cheap mitigation opportunities exercise them, and those without can pay instead. Offsetting applied at the level of the sovereign may also have a role to play. Verifying the additionality of abatement paid for by offsets could be a challenge, but it is one that many are working to address.

另一个被提出的气候融资工具是碳抵消。在企业自愿碳抵消安排下，拥有低成本缓解气候变化机会的一方可以利用这些机会降低排放，而其他方则可为此提供资金。国家层面上的碳抵销安排也可能发挥作用。要核实碳抵消安排带来的额外减排可能很困难，但多方正努力解决这一问题。

 

Debt-for-climate swaps are yet another possible form of climate finance and something that we are collaborating on with the World Bank, though it remains to be seen how large a role they will play.

债务气候互换安排是气候融资的另一种可能形式，我们正与世界银行就此开展合作——不过，它能发挥出多大作用还有待观察。

 

These are just a few examples, but whatever the precise modality, the transfer of both financial resources and needed technologies from richer countries to poorer is of critical importance in the fight against climate change.

以上这些只是几个例子。但无论具体形式如何，将所需的资金和技术从较富裕国家转移到较贫穷国家，这在应对气候变化方面至关重要。

 

Finally, let me mention the contribution that international organizations can make. Through their analysis, policy advice, and technical assistance, these organizations can elevate the effectiveness of their member countries’ policies to fight climate change, harness momentum for climate action, and further raise awareness of climate issues. And through their convening power, they can also help to promote policy coordination across countries.

最后，让我谈谈国际组织能做出哪些贡献。国际组织通过分析工作、政策咨询和技术援助，可以提高成员国应对气候变化政策的有效性，充分利用各方开展气候行动的有利形势，进一步提高各方在气候问题上的认识。此外，国际组织利用它们召集各方汇聚一堂的力量，也能帮助促进各国开展政策协调。

 

At the IMF, we are representing our near-universal membership to ensure solutions work for all countries. We are mainstreaming climate issues into our surveillance and other operational activities, while remaining true to our mandate, and we are leveraging external expertise through our close collaboration with other institutions, including the World Bank, BIS, and others. We are also exploring whether members with strong external positions would consider channeling a portion of their potential new allocation of Special Drawing Rights, or “SDRs,” to members with financing needs, including for green purposes.

IMF的成员国几乎囊括了全世界的所有国家，通过代表成员国行事，我们将确保实施对所有国家都行之有效的解决方案。在忠诚履行IMF职能的同时，我们也正推动气候问题成为我们监督工作和其他业务活动的一项主要工作。我们正与世界银行、国际清算银行等其他机构的密切合作，充分利用外部的专业知识。我们也正在探讨一个问题，即具有稳健外部头寸的成员国是否考虑将其部分新分配的特别提款权（SDR）提供给有融资需求的成员国，包括希望将此用于绿色目的的成员国。

 

V. Conclusion

五、结论

 

So let me conclude by saying that we are at a critical moment. Actions we take during the next 5 or 10 years will determine whether we will succeed in keeping global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees. I am actually quite optimistic, as there are ways to decarbonize that should also be good for growth and jobs, if we do things right.

作为结语，我要说：我们正处在一个关键时刻。我们未来5至10年采取的行动，将决定我们能否成功阻止全球升温超过2摄氏度。实际上，我对此十分乐观。因为如果把握得当，许多脱碳的做法也将应有利于增长与就业。

 

Each of us has our role to play – governments, the international community, and the private and financial sectors too. But we need to play those roles together, in a complementary fashion. Now more than ever, we need to join together to address climate change, our most global challenge.

不论是政府、国际社会，还是私人部门、金融业，我们每个人都可发挥作用。但为此我们需要共同携手，实现合作互补。现在，我们比以往任何时候都更需要联合起来，共同应对气候变化——这是我们面临的最具全球性的挑战。

 

Thank you.

谢谢大家。