时事新闻:美国清洁能源立法无损产油国影响力
【英文原文】
Clean Energy And Oil Independence
It seems that energy and climate legislation is increasingly being presented as a plan to curb U.S. dependence on foreign oil. And that - if true - would presumably bring a whole raft of benefits, including a cleaner environment, weakened petro-states, a healthier trade balance, and a tidier foreign policy. If only.
The latest call comes from the left-leaning think tank, Center for American Progress, in a report released today, 'Securing America's Future.' The thrust of the argument is: Clean-energy legislation in the U.S. will lessen the country's dependence on oil, which these days essentially means foreign oil.
Echoing other recent calls by military leaders, CAP says that reducing that dependence would allow the country to sidestep an unattractive future, especially in the national-security sphere:
'[America's] need for steady supplies of oil means it must adjust its behavior and strategies in order to maintain relations with less than-savory regimes including Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia. These countries, as well as smaller nations such as Angola, will therefore hold an increasingly disproportional amount of bilateral and regional power, while the United States has diminished leverage and constrained policy options in strategic regions such as the Middle East and Central Asia.'
That's not even including the potential economic benefits - the U.S. spent $1.5 trillion on oil imports over the past decade, and last year's bill amounted to 2.3% of gross domestic product, a record level, CAP says.
All that is true - but the problem is that the legislation under consideration in Congress wouldn't really do much to dent America's oil appetite. As CAP notes, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce U.S. oil consumption in 2020 by a mere 876 thousand barrels a day, or about 4.5% of total U.S. oil consumption.
And that means that a U.S. oil diet won't necessarily reshape the world or weaken petrostates. CAP argues that lower U.S. dependence would weaken oil producers such as Iran by freeing up China to buy more oil from 'stable nations.' Maybe so - but China has been busy inking oil and gas deals with Iran, Sudan, Myanmar, and Russia, and not just because U.S. demand has been crowding it out of 'friendly' suppliers.
The fact is that China's demand for oil more than tripled over the last 15 years, and few analysts expect the country's double-digit economic growth to eschew a similar demand for oil in coming years. Even if the U.S. cuts back a little on oil consumption, in other words, China (and other developing countries) will more than make up the slack - which will keep today's petrostates in business all the same.
There are plenty of potential benefits in the energy and climate legislation currently in Congress, but disarming the world's petroleum producers doesn't appear to be one of them.
【中文译文】
看来能源和气候立法正日益被设想为遏制美国对海外石油依赖的手段。如果相关立法真能起到这一作用，有可能带来很多好处，比如更清洁的环境、产油国的实力被削弱、美国的贸易不平衡情况得到缓解，以及更加简练的外交政策。真要能这样就好了。
委内瑞拉的原油不愁没买家最新呼吁来自观点左倾的智库美国进步中心(CAP)。该机构在周三发表了题为《确保美国未来安全》(Securing America's Future)的报告。其主要论点是，美国的清洁能源立法将减少美国对石油的依赖，目前而言实际上就是减少对外国石油的依赖。
CAP呼应美国军方领导人近来的类似呼吁说，减少对外国石油的依赖将使美国未来得以避免于己不利的局面，特别是在国家安全领域。
CAP的报告说：美国对稳定石油供应的需要意味着，为了与委内瑞拉、尼日利亚和俄罗斯等不太容易打交道的政权维持关系，美国必须调整自己的行为和策略。这些国家以及安哥拉等小一些的国家因此将日益拥有与其国力不成比例的双边和地区实力，而美国在中东和中亚等具有战略意义的地区影响力却会降低，战略选择也会受到限制。
CAP称，美国减少对海外石油的依赖还有潜在的经济好处。过去10年美国用于进口石油的花费达1.5万亿美元，去年的石油进口支出相当于国内生产总值的2.3%，达到创纪录水平。
上面说的都不错，但问题是，国会目前正在讨论的清洁能源立法并不能真正有效降低美国的石油消费量。正如CAP所指出的，国会正在讨论的Waxman-Markey法案只会使美国2020年时的石油日消费量减少87.6万桶，大约相当于美国石油总消费量的4.5%。
这意味着，美国的节油举措未必能够改变世界格局，或削弱产油国的力量。CAP声称，美国降低对石油的依赖，将使中国得以从那些“稳定的国家”购买更多石油，从而削弱伊朗等产油国的力量。或许如此，但中国一直在忙着与伊朗、苏丹、缅甸和俄罗斯等国家达成油气供应协议，而这却并不仅仅是因为美国的石油需求太多使“友好”产油国无力向中国提供石油。
事实上，中国的石油需求过去15年中增长了两倍以上，没有什么分析师预计经济增长率达两位数的中国未来几年中能把石油消费量增速降下来。换句话说，即使美国略微减少了自己的石油消费量，中国(和其他发展中国家)也足以填补美国留下的缺口，从而使产油国未来继续保持目前的影响力。
虽然国会目前正在讨论的能源和气候立法有众多潜在好处，但削弱产油国的力量似乎不再其列。
