????長期以來，很多對氣候變化深感憂慮的人士一直感到納悶,，煤炭,、石油和天然氣公司為了開發(fā)現(xiàn)有儲量、勘探,、開發(fā)新儲量總是不惜砸下成百上千億美元,。盡管已經(jīng)有無數(shù)人發(fā)出警告，聲稱碳排放正在嚴(yán)重破壞全球環(huán)境和經(jīng)濟(jì),，這些投資似乎就是停不下來,。

????不過最近，主要投資者開始抽回對煤炭和石油開發(fā)的部分投資——這是一個剛開始露頭的趨勢,，它可能會給那些一直在曠日持久的聯(lián)合國氣候會談中努力控制氣候變化的談判人員們幫上忙,。但足夠諷刺的是，這種投資下滑跟擔(dān)憂氣候變化沒什么關(guān)系,，主要是因?yàn)閾?dān)心開支打了水漂,。

????大多數(shù)專家認(rèn)為，將氣候變暖的幅度控制在比前工業(yè)化時代高2攝氏度將有利于環(huán)境和經(jīng)濟(jì),，同時還能避免造成進(jìn)一步的損害,。而氣候?qū)W家表示，這項措施要求將絕大多數(shù)未燃燒過的化石燃料仍然埋在地下,。而此類燃料究竟有多少該保持埋藏狀態(tài)取決于你問的是誰,，但公開發(fā)表的預(yù)測數(shù)據(jù)是在60%到80%之間,。

????盡管這部分碳最終不會燃燒，但考慮到那些碳燃料公司極度希望大幅增加它們的儲量,，我們可以把它看成一種市場泡沫,。這種投資其實(shí)是一種浪費(fèi)，而且它可能會被看成一種不斷膨脹,、但最終卻不會投入使用的龐大資產(chǎn),。因?yàn)闆Q策者們最終終于還是會采取一些他們早就說要開展的行動，結(jié)果就會導(dǎo)致這部分碳被打入冷宮,。

????據(jù)“碳追蹤機(jī)構(gòu)”（Carbon Tracker）2013年4月公布的估算,，目前全球200家最大的油氣公司每年花在拓展和開發(fā)能源儲量上的錢超過6000億美元。碳追蹤機(jī)構(gòu)是一家位于倫敦的金融智庫,，本人是該機(jī)構(gòu)的主席,。據(jù)稱，今后十年中這筆開支可能會超過6萬億美元,，其中相當(dāng)一部分有最終被浪費(fèi)的風(fēng)險,。

????但是2013年間，主要投資者在煤炭和石油上的投資規(guī)模都有所控制,，主要是他們意識到這些資產(chǎn)可能最后會因氣候政策而陷入困境,。正如我在自己的新書《國家能源》（The Energy of Nations）中所指出的那樣，在“碳追蹤機(jī)構(gòu)”發(fā)布2013年報告時,，匯豐銀行（HSBC）首席油氣分析師保羅?斯佩丁在彭博社（Bloomberg）倫敦總部向投資者和媒體表示,，他會建議自己銀行的客戶不要再在勘探新能源儲量上浪費(fèi)資本支出，同時把這些錢作為紅利發(fā)還給投資者,。他指出,，考慮到這個行業(yè)近年來的盈利記錄，每年1260億美元的紅利與高達(dá)6750億美元的資本支出相比實(shí)在是太不像話了,。

????從那時起,，石油公司面臨的壓力就開始與日俱增，最終石油巨頭荷蘭皇家殼牌公司（Royal Dutch Shell）近期決定不再資助2014年北極勘探計劃,、轉(zhuǎn)而提高紅利派發(fā)水平,，事情才算是得以告一段落。

????去年七月,，挪威金融服務(wù)公司思道布蘭（Storebrand）表示,，它將根據(jù)“碳追蹤機(jī)構(gòu)”的分析報告撤回19筆煤炭和瀝青砂投資。

????大概三個月后,，瑞典政府的五大國家養(yǎng)老基金之一宣布,，它將撤回所有化石燃料投資，主要是擔(dān)心這些資產(chǎn)可能陷入難以自拔的困境,。到了11月,，就在“碳追蹤機(jī)構(gòu)”在奧斯陸舉辦了一場吹風(fēng)會后，挪威議會里多數(shù)議員就要求撤回投在煤炭上的8000億美元國家養(yǎng)老基金——這是全球規(guī)模最大的主權(quán)財富基金,。

????還有兩大因素也導(dǎo)致煤炭投資大幅削減：中國政府正在制定法律,，擬通過禁止使用燃煤來改善大批城市的空氣質(zhì)量。這樣一來,，這個趨勢就對澳大利亞的煤炭投資構(gòu)成了壓力,，而這項投資通常認(rèn)為中國煤炭市場一直會不斷增長。與此同時,，盡管油價高企,，但隨著資本成本的不斷攀升，眾多油氣企業(yè)只得在利潤日益微博的油氣產(chǎn)地不斷深挖,。從2005年到2012年,，整個石油行業(yè)的基建投資增長了90%，而油價并未同步上漲,，漲幅僅為75%,。而在2011-2013年間，資本支出進(jìn)一步增加了20%,，同時油價卻小幅下跌,。最近一系列勘探結(jié)果表明，資本支出不斷飆升,，但勘探發(fā)現(xiàn)卻在不斷減少,，實(shí)在讓人寒心。

????如果2014年及今后這些趨勢還將繼續(xù)的話,，氣候政策的制定者們就可能會發(fā)現(xiàn),，要實(shí)現(xiàn)自己的承諾比當(dāng)初預(yù)想的來得更容易。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????本文作者杰里米?萊格特是“碳追蹤機(jī)構(gòu)”主席及《國家能源：風(fēng)險盲區(qū)及復(fù)興之路》（勞特利奇出版社,，2013年）一書的作者,。

????譯者：清遠(yuǎn)

????

????Many who worry about climate change have long been puzzled by the hundreds of billions of dollars that coal, oil, and gas companies routinely spend on developing their reserves, and finding and developing new reserves. These investments seem unstoppable, despite countless warnings that carbon emissions damage the global environment and economy.

????Recently, however, key investors have pulled back on investments in coal and oil -- an unfolding trend that could potentially help negotiators working to curb climate change at the long-running United Nations climate talks. Ironically enough, the investment dropoff has less to do with fear of climate change and more to do with worries over wasteful spending.

????Most experts believe that limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times will help the environment and economy avoid further harm, a measure that climate scientists say requires leaving most unburned fossil fuels underground. How much should be left buried ranges depending whom you ask, but published estimates range between 60% to 80%.

????Given that carbon-fuel companies aspire to add substantially to that stock of unburnable carbon, we can think of it as a kind of market bubble. This is wasteful spending and it could be thought of as an ever-expanding mountain of supposed assets that might one day end up unusable -- stranded by policymakers who finally begin doing some of what they have said they will do for years now.

????The world's 200 biggest gas and oil companies currently spend more than $600 billion a year on expanding and developing their reserves, according to estimates of Carbon Tracker, a London-based financial think tank that I chair, published in April 2013. Over the next 10 years, accordingly, spending could exceed $6 trillion. Most of that is at some level of risk of ending up wasted.

????During 2013, however, key investors curbed their investments in coal and oil, recognizing the risk that assets might end up stranded by climate policy. As I describe in my new book, The Energy of Nations, HSBC's lead oil and gas analyst, Paul Spedding, told investors and media at the launch of Carbon Tracker's 2013 report in Bloomberg's London headquarters that he would be recommending that his bank's clients stop wasting their money on capital expenditure in the search for new reserves and give it back to investors as dividends. The annual $126 billion of dividends, he pointed out, compare rather unfavorably to the $675 billion in capital expenditures given the industry's recent profitability record.

????Since then, pressure on oil companies has built steadily, culminating in oil giant Royal Dutch Shell's (RDSA) recent decision to stop funding its Arctic exploration in 2014, and increase its dividend payment to investors instead.

????In July, Norway-based financial services company, Storebrand, said it would pull out of 19 coal and tar sands investments in light of Carbon Tracker's analysis.

????About three months later, one of the five Swedish governments' state pension funds said it would withdraw from all fossil fuel investments, for fear of assets being stranded. In November, after a Carbon Tracker briefing in Oslo, a majority emerged in the Norwegian parliament favoring withdrawal of the $800 billion state pension fund -- the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world -- from coal.

????Two other factors are reducing coal investments: China is developing legislation to clean up the air in their cities by banning coal. As a result, this has put pressure on Australian coal investments, which routinely assume a growing Chinese coal market.

????Meanwhile, many oil and gas companies are ploughing an increasingly unprofitable furrow as their capital costs spiral, notwithstanding high oil prices. From 2005 to 2012, capital outlays rose 90% across the oil industry while prices haven't kept up, rising only 75%. In the period 2011-2013 capital expenditures rose a further 20%, while oil prices have actually dropped slightly. And the recent set of results shows a stark picture of capital expenditure soaring yet discoveries actually declining.

????If these trends continue into 2014 and beyond, climate policymakers may find it easier than they thought to deliver on their promises.

????Jeremy Leggett is Chairman of Carbon Tracker, and author of The Energy of Nations: Risk Blindness and The Road To Renaissance (Routledge, 2013).