经济学人：令人忧心的亚洲城市哦！亚洲城市的建造方式将决定全球碳排放的前景

CampusHR

如果你是那种会在深夜为了气候变暖而辗转反侧的人，那就去中国随便哪个大城市边缘的新建的高层宾馆去订一个房间吧──你可以从三环路开始找宾馆。早晨，当你眼中布满血丝地起床凝视那灰蒙蒙的拂晓时，你会看到目之所及之处皆有密密麻麻的超大型建筑正在兴建。于是你想到建造这些建筑将带来多大的碳排放、把这些建筑连在一起编织成一个越来越大的城市的交通要道上将面临多少交通堵塞，以及为了满足这些建筑的用电需求而要新建多少火力发电站。你想要知道，亚洲何时才能改变这种城市发展的偏好──直至2008年的10年内，亚洲的能源消耗增长了70%──否则一切都将为时晚矣。
　　我们的地球能否找到一条碳减排的可行路线就取决于亚洲在今后几十年内的城市化发展方式。亚洲城市化的发展规模令人震惊。亚洲发展银行的数据显示，在亚洲，城市人口每年增加4400万，而每天则新建2万所住宅和250千米的公路。
　　理论上来说，城市生活比其他生活方式更加绿色，例如人们在城市里的交通距离更小就能说明这一点。然而现实并非如此简单。大多数穷人涌向城市的目的就是为了追求更高生活质量和消费水平。规划不力的公共交通系统使人们越来越多地选择私家车出行。更重要的是，亚洲发展中国家的碳排放有很大一部分来自于建筑的建造和使用──在中国这一比例可能达到了30%，每年全世界的新增房屋面积有一半是在中国。而且这些建筑通常寿命不长。许多90年代建造的建筑现在已经被拆除重建了。
　　各国政府都知道这一问题的存在。在中国，环保法规已经为新建筑的供暖、供冷和用电量规定了节能标准。其目标是减少新建筑能耗的65%。但很多新建筑并不能在设计之初就考虑好节能问题，这可能是为了节省成本，但事实上却是一种低效的建造方式。
　　众多的大型建筑群展示了中国的城市化进程，在中国每天都有不少新建筑群上马。但是这些建筑群的方案设计常存在缺陷，设计者常以为多使用一些节能照明就够了。事实上，在这些建筑上马前，政府首先会规划好道路系统，公共事业部门会先把燃气、给排水管道布设好。然后，开发商再竞拍在该处建造楼房的资格，同时开发商会承诺其将要建造的建筑群中会包括多少住宅、学校、办公楼、商铺、绿地等等。此后，开发商便将项目匆匆上马，在已有的疏密不均的市政网络中竖起楼房。建筑完工后，人们便纷纷住了进来。
　　但这种急进的发展方式带来了不少问题。加州大学伯克利分校的建筑师哈里森·弗雷克说道一个突出的问题，那就是大型建筑群事实上成为了一种被赋予特权的封闭社区。
　　这种隔绝状态对其居住者和外界所带来的社会影响可能需要一段时间才能体现出来：在中国历史上的大部分时间里，相互交织的街巷曾丰富了城市生活。然而这种隔绝带来的环境影响就已经十分明显了。封闭的社区只有一个入口，这样一来，其中的居民就不得不放弃骑自行车或步行外出，从而选择开车出行。同时对于外界的路人来说，这个社区就是一个巨大的、无法进入的路障。交通拥堵、污染物和交通事故也就随之增长。
　　弗雷克和他的团队为天津设计出了一种新的建造方式，通过全局规划实现密集街区能源自给的目标。首先，划出"绿色通道"，为步行者和骑自行车者让出一条路，使他们能够安全、通畅地到达最近的公共交通站点。同时，充分利用日光、庇荫处和自然通风，从而减少空调的使用。太阳能和风力发电能够满足月五分之四的电力需求，另五分之一的电力，以及烹饪和热水器需要的燃气将由下水道污泥、食物垃圾和植物废料所产生的沼气提供。雨水可以用做中水，地表径流可被收集起来用作灌溉植物以减少"热岛效应"。在宏观规划下，社区建筑规模可借鉴中国传统的城市规模──约能容纳100至300个家庭。
　　但是在中国，急进的发展要求使这种理念很难推广实施。开发商并不善于对能源和给排水进行全局规划、公共事业部门像是个高高在上的布局者、政府部门试图控制他们职责范围之外的事情。还有，虽然从长远看来更加合算，但弗雷克的这种设计的最初成本比传统方式高出了五分之一。
　　短期内，前景不容乐观
　　开明的开发商认为他们不能等到亚洲各国政府们定了调子以后采开始建造绿色建筑。香港思汇政策研究所的克里斯汀·罗认为不需太多努力就可以节省很多能源，能极大地增进节能效率。就在我写这篇文章是所处的昆明环路上新建的一家宾馆内，他们使用的灯泡不仅还是耗电的白炽灯，而且还是磨砂的，光线昏暗。
　　但是即将离职的联合国气候变化机构负责人伊沃o德波尔认为在亚洲的大部分地区，经济诱因局限了绿色建筑的发展。开发商作为推进绿色建筑的关键角色之一，在能源和污染成本被严重错误定价的情况下，仍会倾向于选择传统的方式，因为盈利是他们所追求的。正确地进行定价将大有好处，这样你晚上就能睡个安稳觉，也就能又一个清新怡人的清晨了。

英文原文：


Asia's alarming cities
　　How Asian cities are built will determine the prospects for global carbon emissions. Oh dear
　　IF YOU are the sort to worry at night about man-induced climate change, then book a stay at any of the new high-rise hotels going up on the edge of China's big cities-start looking for them around the third ring road. When you stagger red-eyed out of bed to peer into the murky dawn, you will see rank upon serried rank of raw "superblock" developments, a mile apart, marching into the distance. You think of the emissions involved in their carbon-hungry construction, the traffic jams on the arteries tying them into the expanding city, and the new coal-fired power stations being built to light them up. And you wonder how Asia can change its habits-energy consumption grew by 70% in the ten years to 2008-before it is too late for all of us.
　　Yet the world's hopes of putting carbon emissions on a manageable path depend upon on how developing Asia urbanises in the coming decades. The scale is staggering. According to the Asian Development Bank, 44m people join city populations each year. Every day sees the construction of 20,000 new dwellings and 250km (160 miles) of new roads.
　　In theory, urban living can be greener than other ways of life: people need to travel shorter distances, for instance. The practice is not so simple. Most poor people coming to the city aspire to higher standards of living and consumption. Ill-planned public transport reinforces car use. Most striking, putting up and using buildings accounts for a big part of developing Asia's carbon emissions-perhaps 30% in the case of China, where nearly half the world's new floor space is built each year. What's more, the buildings do not age well. Many thrown up in the 1990s are already being pulled down and replaced.
　　Governments acknowledge the challenge. Green codes in China mandate energy-saving standards for heating, cooling and lighting new buildings. The aim is to cut new buildings' energy use by 65%. But many new buildings are designed first and greened later-a cheaper but less effective approach.
　　As for the superblocks that exemplify China's urbanisation, a dozen new ones are built every day. Yet their conceptual design is flawed, however many low-energy light bulbs they boast. They get built after the city government lays out a system of arterial roads. State utility companies put down power, water and sewage mains. Developers bid for the rights to build blocks with specified numbers of housing units, schools, offices, shops, green space and so on. The developer throws up the block and plugs it into the centralised utilities grid. Presto, people move in.

　　Yet such hyper-development has unwelcome consequences. Not least, as Harrison Fraker, an architect at the University of California at Berkeley, argues, superblocks in effect become gated communities of privilege.
　　The social consequences of such isolation (for those inside and out) may take time to make themselves felt: for almost all of China's history, neighbourhood streets and alleys have enriched urban life. The environmental impact, however, is already apparent. Gated blocks with a single entrance force not just residents to abandon cycling or walking for the motor car whenever they need to go anywhere. Outsiders, too, face a vast, fenced obstacle in the way of where they want to go. Congestion, pollution and traffic accidents rise. Time to build a fourth ring road.
　　Mr Fraker and his team devised a different approach for Tianjin in north China, by thinking of the development as a whole system in which high-density neighbourhoods would generate nearly all their energy and water needs. First, "greenways" were marked out that gave pedestrians and cyclists a way to get to the nearest mass-transit station without being run down or choked. Meanwhile, good use of sunlight, shading and ventilation would cut heating and cooling loads. Photovoltaic panels and windmills would provide four-fifths of electricity needs. The rest, as well as gas for cooking and hot water, would come from biogas generated from sewage, waste food and plant clippings. Rainwater would flush lavatories. Storm-water run-off would be collected for irrigation, including for allotments and the trees that reduced the "heat-island" effect. Something of China's traditional urban scale would be echoed by community blocks within the greater scheme, accommodating 100-300 families.
　　Yet in China the idea appears to have run into the sands because of the radical approach it requires. Developers are ill-versed in thinking about energy, water and sewage as a seamless whole. Utilities think like central planners. Government agencies struggle to operate beyond their traditional remits. What is more, the costs are up to a fifth higher for such developments, though they more than pay for themselves in the long run.
　　?In the short run, dim prospects
　　Enlightened developers say that their kind should be putting up greener buildings without waiting for Asian governments to set the tone. Christine Loh of Civic Exchange, a Hong Kong think-tank, argues that large amounts of energy can be saved with little effort, dramatically improving efficiency. In the newish hotel by the Kunming ring road in which this column is being written, the bulbs that provide the light are not only electricity-guzzling incandescent ones, but dim and frosted at that.
　　But Yvo de Boer, the United Nations's outgoing senior climate-change official, argues that limits to what can be done are set by the perverse economic incentives that apply in most parts of Asia. Developers, a big part of the solution, will struggle to make a profitable fist of turning green when energy and the costs of pollution are grossly mispriced, favouring old-fashioned utilities. Putting an end to these subsidies would do wonders for bringing about a better night's sleep, and a crisper, more pleasing view in the morning.
(转载本文请注明“中国选举与治理网”首发)