????布魯克林研究院（Brookings Institution）的一份報(bào)告指出,，隨著美國聯(lián)邦政府資助的枯竭,，清潔能源高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)將在今年年底面臨“資金斷裂”之憂，使這個(gè)為數(shù)不多的能帶來就業(yè)增長(zhǎng)的行業(yè)面臨危機(jī),。

????當(dāng)一項(xiàng)產(chǎn)業(yè)是由不穩(wěn)定的政府資金資助時(shí),，就會(huì)遇到這種危機(jī)。（與之相對(duì)比的是,，農(nóng)業(yè)和石油等產(chǎn)業(yè)一直能獲得穩(wěn)定的政府資金投入,，盡管它們可能并不需要這些資金,。）

????目前業(yè)界“缺乏對(duì)清潔能源經(jīng)濟(jì)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)定義以及數(shù)據(jù)”，布魯克林研究院發(fā)表了名為《詳解清潔能源經(jīng)濟(jì)：（美國）國家及地區(qū)綠色工作評(píng)估報(bào)告》（Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment）的文章,，力圖解決這一難題,。

????舉例來說，什么是“綠色工作”,？給出一個(gè)定義確實(shí)很難,。報(bào)告對(duì)“清潔能源經(jīng)濟(jì)”和“清潔能源高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)”進(jìn)行了區(qū)分。前者“能比化石能源產(chǎn)業(yè)雇傭更多的員工”,，但如果你知道“清潔能源經(jīng)濟(jì)”的雇員還分布在公共交通和制造業(yè)等成熟產(chǎn)業(yè)中時(shí),，你也許會(huì)頗為驚訝。從2003年到2007年,，清潔能源經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)速度要比美國經(jīng)濟(jì)總體增長(zhǎng)率低很多,，不過以太陽能面板、燃料電池,、生物燃料等為代表的清潔能源高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)卻經(jīng)歷了“爆炸性增長(zhǎng)”,，即便是在經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退期，它們的表現(xiàn)也要強(qiáng)于美國整體經(jīng)濟(jì),。

????不過這種增長(zhǎng)能否繼續(xù)下去尚無定論,。這個(gè)問題很大程度上取決于政府。隨著州級(jí)政府財(cái)政面臨破產(chǎn)之虞,，以及聯(lián)邦資助消失殆盡,，清潔能源高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)似乎將不可避免地面臨崩盤。不久前,，布魯克林研究院的德文?斯維澤預(yù)測(cè)崩盤即將來臨,。他的解釋非常簡(jiǎn)單，“清潔能源仍要比煤和石油昂貴得多,，而且可靠性也不如它們。清潔能源之前一直依賴政府補(bǔ)助降低銷售價(jià)格,，不過隨著政府大力進(jìn)行預(yù)算緊縮,，這種補(bǔ)貼即將難以為繼?！?/p>

????高昂的價(jià)格會(huì)嚴(yán)重影響社會(huì)對(duì)清潔能源相關(guān)產(chǎn)品的需求,，所以補(bǔ)貼必須是長(zhǎng)期而穩(wěn)定的，直到整個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)具備“造血”能力,，能夠進(jìn)行自我發(fā)展才可,。不夠規(guī)律的進(jìn)行資金“輸血”，將會(huì)使整個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)在繁榮和蕭條間起伏波動(dòng)?，F(xiàn)在,，我們就即將面臨蕭條,。

????而格外令人沮喪的是，由于聯(lián)邦政府不能提供穩(wěn)定而長(zhǎng)期的資金支持,，許多美國清潔能源高新技術(shù)公司正在轉(zhuǎn)而尋求來自中國的投資,。可與此同時(shí),，美國政客們卻還在為白熾燈爭(zhēng)論不休,。

????譯者：項(xiàng)航

????As federal stimulus spending dries up, the clean tech industry faces a "funding cliff" at the end of this year that could jeopardize one of the few economic sectors that is producing job growth, according to a report issued by the Brookings Institution.

????Such is the peril when an industry is supported by fickle government financing (as opposed to the more reliable, if far less needed, government financing enjoyed by industries like agriculture and petroleum).

????The report, "Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment," is an attempt to address the fact that there is an "absence of standard definitions and data" about the

????For example, what are "green jobs," anyway? It's not so easy to define. The report distinguishes between the "clean economy" and the "clean tech industry." The former "employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry," which might sound surprising until you learn that the "clean economy" includes people working in mature industries like mass transit and manufacturing. The clean economy grew more slowly than the national economy between 2003 and 2007, but the clean-tech sector – which includes makers of solar panels, fuel cells, biofuels and the like – saw "explosive growth" and outdid the economy as a whole during the recession.

????But whether that growth can continue is an open question. It largely depends on government – and with states going broke and federal stimulus funds going away, it seems almost inevitable that there will be a clean-tech crash. Devon Swezey of The Breakthough Institute put it succinctly when he recently made the hard prediction that a crash is coming. "Clean energy is still much more expensive and less reliable than coal or gas," he wrote, "and in an era of heightened budget austerity the subsidies required to make clean energy artificially cheaper are becoming unsustainable."

????When high prices put a heavy lid on demand for socially desirable products, subsidy has to be long-term and reliable – in place until the industry can sustain itself, and finance its growth privately. Semi-regular infusions of cash tend to create booms and busts. Right now, we're headed for a bust.

????A particularly dispiriting outcome of all this is that in the absence of a firm, long-term commitment from the federal government, many U.S. clean tech firms are looking to China for investment. Meanwhile, we're arguing over light bulbs.