Prescription 1: reduce coal and wash coal, and replace it with natural gas. Researcher NRDC mentioned in the article: "Coal is the main energy source, the main source of carbon dioxide emission and the main pollution source in China. Reducing coal consumption, reducing the proportion of coal in energy consumption and strengthening the clean and efficient use of coal will significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. " (Source: What is the legacy of the Warsaw Climate Negotiation Conference? "World Environment" coal washing is a good scheme, which should be vigorously promoted in coal-fired enterprises. In fact, the scheme of reducing coal and washing coal is not a new prescription, and it has been implemented in China. At the press conference of 20 13 on the progress of environmental protection, Zhai Qing, vice minister of environmental protection, made it clear that Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei will cut 63 million tons of coal. (Source: Smog control should not only limit coal but also clean coal, official website, Ministry of Land and Resources, 20 14-02- 18)
Everyone knows that natural gas burns cleaner than coal, so can natural gas replace coal? The reality of energy in China is "rich in coal, short of oil and short of gas", and it is unrealistic to rely on domestic exploitation to replace coal with natural gas on a large scale. Therefore, China government signed a long-term natural gas purchase contract with Russia in 20 14, which was criticized by famous Chai Jing and media at that time. However, Chai Jing attributed the low utilization rate of natural gas in China to "monopoly and lack of competition", which has not been proved enough, mainly because the proven natural gas reserves in China are limited. Three-quarters of the electricity in most countries in Southeast Asia comes from coal, and the proportion of natural gas is even lower, which is also caused by the shortage of land resources and gas.
Prescription 2: Energy breaks monopoly and returns to market forces. One of NRDC's jobs in China is to pay attention to market transformation. Under the Dome, in order to continue to demonstrate that the smog in China is due to insufficient natural gas exploitation caused by monopoly in the energy field, take the United States as an example. "Take the United States, the largest natural gas producer in the world, as an example. There are 6,300 natural gas oil companies there, and we have several or three." This is even more ridiculous. First of all, there are double standards. There are 6,300 natural gas oil companies in the United States, including regional branches under major oil groups, and some even have only one oil well and one company. If China uses the same standard to calculate, there are at least hundreds of oil and gas companies. Secondly, according to the data of Gallup poll, a famous polling agency, among the top ten industries that Americans hate most, the monopoly oil and gas industry ranks first in the industry. [Source: Counting the industries that Americans hate most: oil first, the federal government second; China News Network, 20 13-09-03] Why didn't the Chai Jing team tell us this fact? Is it to break the state monopoly and restore market power, so as to form a more hateful private monopoly oil and gas industry?
I agree that the oil and gas industry should deepen reform, open distribution and some mining areas, let private enterprises enter, increase competition and promote the efficiency and service quality of state-owned enterprises in the oil industry. However, we should be wary of the second wave of large-scale privatization in which domestic and foreign capital dignitaries cut into public opinion with the moral commanding heights of environmental protection issues and sold state-owned assets cheaply under the pretext of opening up the market. State-owned assets are the wealth of the whole people, and embezzlement of state-owned assets is the biggest corruption. although
Prescription 3: From industry to life, save energy and reduce emissions. Energy saving and emission reduction (carbon) is the key content of NRDC in China. This just touches the core of environmental protection issues-carbon trading, and the essence of carbon trading is an international political game. The theoretical basis of carbon trading is that excessive carbon dioxide emitted by human industry and life forms a greenhouse effect, which leads to global warming, and this will bring many disastrous problems, such as melting of Arctic icebergs and rising sea level. Therefore, all countries in the world should slow down the deterioration of global warming by saving energy and reducing carbon dioxide. The story is beautiful and pure, but it is only superficial, not the truth. The truth is that the old developed industrial countries in Europe, such as Britain, France and Germany, are in a stage of stagnation or even degradation due to insufficient population size and industrial transfer, which is followed by the gradual shrinking of economic and political discourse power. Europe is not content with its own recession, but also wants to limit the development pace of other industrial countries and return to the international power center. Therefore, it holds high the moral banner of environmental protection and urges 34 major industrial countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, thus turning the energy conservation and emission reduction initiative into a binding international document. However, after the 200 1 Bush administration came to power, the United States announced its withdrawal in the name of "Kyoto Protocol will destroy the economic competitiveness of the United States and is not in the national interest of the United States", and it has not yet signed it, indicating that the United States has seen through the trap set by Europe and does not want its industrial development to be restricted. Among the major industrialized countries, only the United States has not signed, while Europe, China, Russian Federation and Japanese have all signed.
To put it bluntly, carbon trading means that each country sets emission reduction targets compared with 2005 in 2020, and if it fails to achieve them, it will pay for the carbon balance of other countries. Generally speaking, the cost of reducing 1 ton of carbon dioxide in developed countries is more than 100, while the cost in developing countries is only about $20. It seems to be beneficial to developing countries like China, but in fact, because of their small voice, developing countries often have to commit themselves to a percentage reduction target much higher than that of developed countries. For example, the EU promises to reduce the ratio of 1990 by 20% by 2020. The United States promises to reduce emissions by 1990 17% in 2020. Japan originally promised to reduce emissions by 25% compared with the 2005 level in 2020, but because of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, Japan proposed at the Warsaw Climate Negotiation Conference in February 201April that emissions in 2020 would increase by 3.8% compared with the 2005 level. At the same time, NRDC actually proposed that China raise its emission reduction target to the upper limit in 2020, which is 45% lower than that in 2005.
How can the China government give in to such unreasonable bullying demands? But one year later (2065 438+05. 2. 28), Chai Jing's smog survey "Under the Dome" swept across the country, and everyone talked about it. Environmental protection seems to be a top priority in an instant, and "personal grievances" are forced by surging public opinion. China, which cannot be forced by guns in Europe, promises to lower the emission ceiling, which is probably easily settled by this documentary. It happens that a new climate treaty will be signed this year. 20 13 February, the director of NRDC China Project published an article "China urgently needs a national environmental war to reduce and prevent pollution". The China Project of Natural Resources Defense Council has been committed to promoting environmental information disclosure and public participation in environmental protection since 2005. Chairman Mao led a people's war more than 70 years ago, and now we urgently need another people's war, a national environmental war to reduce and prevent pollution. "Seems to be the portrayal of today.