注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

基思·亨尼西(Hennessey)的博客

美国前国家经济委员会主任、乔治·布什的首席经济顾问Keith Hennessey

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

美国前国家经济委员会主任

文章分类
网易考拉推荐

在总统的新闻发布会上:关于气候变化   

2009-06-26 08:33:46|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

 [点击查看Keith Hennessey的英文博客]  [Keith Hennessey的中文博客] 

在总统昨天的记者发布会上,主席的开幕词涵盖了伊朗,气候变化与卫生保健。以下是他关于气候变化的发言:

这一能源法案将建立一整套系统的奖励机制,这无疑将会促进新能源的发展,其中包括风能,太阳能,以及地热资源。也将刺激新一轮的节能产业的发展,譬如节能窗和其他节能材料的应用,还包括了降低冬季的取暖成本和夏季制冷费用等等。

这些激励措施将最终使清洁能源成为一种可盈利能源。它将促进新技术的发展,并衍生出新的行业。它可以在美国创造数以百万计就业机会 --无法运往海外的“工作机会”。


  他仍然没有提到有关的 “气候变化法案” ,同样也没有提到“总量控制与交易制度。 ”  他的话题中提到过一次“碳污染正在威胁着我们的星球” ,然后便话锋一转继而谈到清洁能源技术的法案。自从他的首次记者招待会后,他一直在从事这件事情,本人认为他的顾问们一定认为比起推广清洁能源技术,解决气候变化问题并不太受大众关注。

 此外,他的最后一句容易让人产生误解。提高能源价格将降低美国国内生产总值。我们要减少制造二氧化碳,可能会降低收入。虽然总统并没有说,这项法案将有助于美国经济创造就业机会,但是他似乎给了我们这样一个印象,因为他先前说过, “一个新兴行业的出现可以为美国创造数以百万计的新的就业机会” 。这其实是在误导总量控制与交易制度立法,例如,本周众议院正在考虑如何不对经济造成损害。你也许会说,对于环境收益而言环境的成本投入是值得,但这并不意味着美国的经济将呈现增长。

我不明白他为什么认为清洁能源技术会带来就业机会,并且必须是在美国进行,为什么”它们”不能被运往国外。我能理解为什么风力发电维修公司和太阳能电池安装公司会以美国为基地(如经济学中某些经典的例子,为什么它们不能进行简单的外包处理) 。但是,太阳能电池和风力发电的部件,以及电池,新型建材,以及核电厂的部件都可以在世界上任何地方进行设计,开发和制造。很明显,美国有研发项目是开始于世界其他地区,但我不明白为什么总统认为这些工作不能被“运往”海外。

________________________________________

这项总统声明显然是模拟两可的,我将很愿意看到消费电子协会主席克里斯蒂娜罗默博士在她的学术同事面前为它进行反驳。我认为这是站不住脚的:

创造清洁能源的国家无疑将成为21世纪全球经济的领跑者。

________________________________________

这一声明是真实的,但却并不完整:

在巨大的财政挑战面前,这项立法的费用将由污染制造者 来支付。因为他们正肆无忌惮的排放着污染,污染着我们赖以为生的空气和水源。

感谢毕业院校的教授,问题和答案已经永远烙印进入我的脑海, “谁将纳税?是人民。 “总统是正确的,总量控制与交易制度的费用无疑将由那些以碳为能源摄取能量的人们来承担。

 

但是,电力公司像所有的公司一样,它也是经济利益的集合体。他们将这些费用转移至其业主,雇员和顾客。因此,甚至可以准确地说, “立法的费用将由任何使用燃煤或天然气发电的用户来支付,将由这些公司辛勤工作的员工来支付,将由这些公司的所有股东来支付。”

 

________________________________________

最后,我希望他提到核能的时候,他却谈到了新的低碳能源。我想他们事先已进行了周密的准备,因为核电是一个非碳能源,很少有人会提出发对意见。

 

(翻译纠错。读者发现任何翻译错误请发邮件给我们,谢谢:caijingblog#126.com 将#改为@)


英文原文(地址:http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/24/potus-presser-climate/ ):

The President’s press conference: climate change

climate, energy, featured  
Print this post Print this post

In his press conference yesterday, the President’s opening statement covered Iran, climate change, and health care.  Here he is on climate change:

This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power. It will also spur new energy savings, like efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer.

These incentives will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. And that will lead to the development of new technologies that lead to new industries that could create millions of new jobs in America — jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.

He is still not referring to it as a “climate change bill,” nor does he ever say “cap-and-trade.”  He refers once to “the carbon pollution that threatens our planet,” but continues to rhetorically frame this cap-and-trade legislation as a clean energy technology bill.  He has been doing this consistently since his first press conference, and it reaffirms for me that his political and communications advisors think that addressing climate change is less popular than promoting clean energy technology.

Also, his last sentence is misleading.  Raising the price of energy would lower U.S. GDP.  We would produce less carbon and would have lower incomes.  While the President did not say that this bill would help the economy by creating a net increase in jobs, he creates that impression by saying “that lead to new industries that could create millions of new jobs in America.”  It is misleading to suggest that cap-and-trade legislation, such as that being considered this week by the House of Representatives, will not harm the economy.  You can argue that the environmental benefits are worth the economic cost, but not that this will increase U.S. economic growth.

I don’t understand why he thinks that jobs that could be created in clean energy technologies would necessarily be created in America, or why they could not be shipped overseas.  I can see why the windmill maintenance guy and the solar cell installation firm would have to be based in America (like the classic economics course example of not being able to outsource haircuts).  But solar cells and windmill parts, as well as batteries, new building materials, and nuclear power plant components can all be designed, developed, and manufactured anywhere in the world.  The U.S. clearly has an R&D head start on the rest of the world, but I don’t see why the President thinks these jobs “can’t” be shipped overseas.


This Presidential statement is a rhetorical flourish, but I’d be interested to see CEA Chair Dr. Christina Romer try to defend it in front of an audience of her academic colleagues.  I think it’s indefensible:

The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy.


This statement is true but incomplete:

At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe.

Thanks to a grad school professor, I have forever imprinted the question-and-answered, “Who pays taxes?  PEOPLE pay taxes.”  The President is correct that the costs of a cap-and-trade system would be directly imposed on those who produce power and fuel from carbon-based energy sources.  But power companies, like all firms, are aggregations of economic interests.  They would pass these costs through to their owners, employees, and customers.  So one could even more accurately say that “This legislation is paid for by anyone who uses electricity from a coal-fired or nautral gas-fired power plant, who drives, or who buys anything that has power or fuel as an input.  It is also paid for by the hard-working employees of those companies, and by those who own stock in those companies.”


Finally, I wish he would mention nuclear power when he talks about new sources of low-carbon energy.  Not doing so suggests a political calculation, because nuclear power is the one non-carbon power source that many on the far left oppose.

 [点击查看Keith Hennessey的英文博客]  [Keith Hennessey的中文博客] 

 

  评论这张
 
阅读(3040)| 评论(1)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017