管制二氧化碳排放

2003-12-08

editorial
Environment talks must be more than hot air


With environment ministers from around the world meeting in Milan this week, global warming is set to be a subject of acrimonious debate. The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, aims to cut emissions of the most damaging greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, to 95 per cent of 1990 levels. But after the United States, the world's largest producer of the gas, withdrew its support in 2001, there have been increasing doubts as to whether the treaty would be ratified by a sufficient number of countries.

In the lead-up to the summit, various countries have geared up for combat by stating their positions. Russia, whose support is critical, has signalled it may not sign up because of financial considerations. Analysts see the move as an attempt to strengthen the country's bargaining position in its negotiations with affluent countries such as Japan over the reduction of emission levels through so-called carbon trading.

The German government has published a scientific study warning that the melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice cap as the world heats up would cause sea levels to rise by up to 10 metres, submerging some of the world's major cities including London, New York, Miami, Mumbai, Calcutta, Sydney, Shanghai, Lagos and Tokyo.

Sticking to its guns, the US has reiterated that implementing the protocol, which is about using existing technology to reduce emissions, would only slow economic growth. It argues that emissions should be reduced by using breakthrough technology that transforms how energy is produced and consumed. Citing US-led efforts to introduce a hydrogen-powered economy, it says only new technology will allow growth to continue.

The US position is dubious in that it is difficult to see why new and existing technology could not be used at the same time to reduce emissions. Presumably, implementing the accord would provide powerful incentives for accelerating research into new technology and its application. For example, fuel-cell technology is already used in so-called hybrid vehicles, which are powered by petrol and batteries and discharge lower levels of carbon dioxide. But these vehicles remain unpopular because they are more costly to produce, and so are beyond the means of the average consumer.

But as critics have pointed out, hybrid cars - and fully electric ones for that matter - are expensive only because they are not being mass produced. The established vehicle manufacturers have so much at stake in continuing to profit from making conventional cars that they are not keen on promoting cleaner vehicles. But a forward-looking government of a country with a sufficiently large market such as the US could change the economics of the less-polluting vehicles by setting high emissions standards.


Copyright © 2000. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

====================================================

美國、俄國不管制二氧化碳排放量是否過於自私？

香港要管制CO2的排放,首先就係要全面禁煙..
因為吸煙製造的CO2係最最最多餘同冇意義...
如果有政黨可以使政府全面禁煙,我一生,在選舉中都會投那黨一票...
因為現在香港根本都沒有一處地方,可以有新鮮空氣
郊野公園本來可以有,但那些煙民又周圍噴
想安安樂樂食餐好,又有人噴
行商場,又有人噴
地鐵站內,d人搭完地鐵,就好似d道友"癮起"咁急忙點煙,係咁啜係咁噴
早晨落街,第一啖吸到的空氣又係煙
因為工商業生產的CO2,還可接受,因為大家都可以得方便
因為吸煙產生的CO2就忍無可忍了,因為對所有人無益...
$還會落在煙草商手中來發展令人更易上癮的煙...

上面係我