去年有那么一段时间，特朗普政府所营造的反气候氛围似乎会让“纽约气候周”活动夭折。在9月的会议召开之前，许多企业高管和环保人士都犹豫不决：美国是否还是讨论气候问题的合适场所？他们的参与是否会让自己成为攻击的目标？
For a brief moment last year, it seemed like the anti-climate atmosphere created by the Trump Administration might kill New York Climate Week. Ahead of the September gathering, business executives and advocates waffled. Was the U.S. still the place to get together to talk about climate? Would going put a target on their back?
然而今年，这些疑虑似乎已经消失了。来自全球顶尖企业的领导人纷纷参与各种讨论会，就人工智能对电力需求的影响、地缘政治因素对能源市场造成的扰乱，以及能源与气候政策的现状进行了深入探讨。抗议者们也走上街头，甚至扰乱了我主持的一场讨论会，以表明问题的解决进展过于缓慢。尽管特朗普政府的官员也出席了部分会议（不过他们的出席可能更多是出于对联合国大会的关注，而非对“纽约气候周”的重视）。
This year, it felt almost as though those questions disappeared. Leaders from the world’s biggest companies hopped between panels, engaging in serious discussions about AI-driven electricity demand, geopolitical disruptions to energy markets, and the state of energy and climate policy. Protesters hit the street—as well as disrupting a panel I moderated—to point out that things were moving too slowly. Even Trump Administration officials showed up at some sessions (though they may have framed their participation around the concurrent United Nations General Assembly not Climate Week).
如果跳出那些混乱的圆桌会议、晚宴、讨论会的框架来看，可以清楚地看到：从广义上讲，气候议题依然备受关注。毫无疑问，民主党在即将举行的美国中期选举中可能取得的胜利，使得特朗普政府的许多激进言论最终只能停留在口头承诺阶段。不过，还有一个更简单的解释：气候变化及其相关能源问题对企业和经济的影响日益严重。
Take a step back from the chaotic mix of roundtables and dinners, panels and meetings, and it’s clear that the climate agenda, broadly construed, has persisted. There’s no question that anticipated Democratic victories in the fast-approaching U.S. midterm elections have created a sense that much of the administration’s barking will remain just that. But there’s perhaps an even simpler explanation for the continued engagement: the implications of climate change and the related energy issues have only become more important for companies and the economy.
本周，伊朗战争引发的能源市场动荡成为了讨论的焦点；数据中心所面临的政治压力、以及随之而来的电价上涨问题也备受关注。同时，新技术在解决能源问题中的作用在讨论中多次被提及。此外，气候变化带来的风暴、热浪和火灾等灾害已经开始对经济造成实际损害，即便是最具抗风险能力的企业也无法再对此视而不见。
The energy-market disruption that has resulted from the war in Iran featured prominently this week. So did the political backlash to data centers, the related issues of higher power prices. And the role of new energy technologies in addressing the problem came up early and often in discussions. On top of this, the effects of climate change—storms, heat waves, and fires—have begun to extract real economic damage that even the most resilient firms can no longer ignore.
摩根大通气候咨询主管萨拉·卡普尼克在气候周的一次小组讨论中告诉我：“人们现在开始关注那些引发波动的因素，并把它们联系起来。他们把地缘政治与可持续性、气候和人工智能放在一起考量。”尽管如此，纽约气候周表面上的活力也伴随着一些隐忧。我与一位欧洲气候领域领导人分享了我对纽约气候周已经复苏的感受，对方指出，美国的参与度或许很高，但来自美国以外的领导人有所减少，尤其是来自欧洲的。简而言之，许多欧洲人不想来这里，而是把精力投入到伦敦气候行动周以及其他跨大西洋的聚会上。
“People are now looking at the things that cause volatility, and they’re putting it together,” Sarah Kapnick, head of climate advisory at JPMorgan, told me on a Climate Week panel. “They’re putting geopolitics together with sustainability, climate, and AI.” Still, the apparent vitality of New York Climate Week comes with caveats. I shared my sense that New York Climate Week has rebounded with a European climate leader, who pointed out that American participation may be strong but the presence of leaders from outside the U.S. has diminished somewhat, particularly from Europe. Simply put, many Europeans don’t want to travel here, instead putting their efforts into London Climate Action Week and other gatherings across the Atlantic.
气候对话之所以还能延续，部分原因在于它抛弃了一些旧词汇。气候行动、净零和排放基本消失了。能源安全、竞争力和可负担性成了主流。这可能代表着对早期气候周宏大雄心的一种退缩。但它也反映了一个更深层的现实：即使企业不再使用气候行动的语言，它们也无法逃避排放上升所造成的问题。
The climate conversation has also survived in part by shedding some of its old vocabulary. Climate action, net zero, and emissions were mostly out. Energy security, competitiveness, and affordability were in. That may represent a retreat from the sweeping ambition of earlier Climate Weeks. But it also reflects a deeper reality: even when companies stop using the language of climate action, they cannot escape the problems rising emissions have created.
在我与之讨论这一话题的大多数人看来，这种新框架是好是坏仍是一个悬而未决的问题。减排与经济增长相结合，即使不提气候，也应该受到赞扬。与此同时，一场回避触及问题核心的对话，感觉并不那么可持续。过去几十年来，我们一直抱着一颗滴答作响的定时炸弹，等待气候变化的影响袭来。如今，社会如何应对这场不断展开的危机——拥抱适应、抵制排放源头，还是干脆转向民粹主义的反弹——可能才是新的气候定时炸弹。
To most of those I discussed the topic with, it remains an open question whether that new framing is a good or bad thing. Emissions reduction paired with economic growth should be celebrated even if climate isn’t mentioned. At the same time, a conversation that avoids getting to the heart of the matter doesn’t feel all that sustainable. For the past several decades we’ve been holding a ticking time bomb, waiting for the effect of climate change to hit. Now, how society responds to the unfolding crisis—embracing adaptation, pushing back against the sources of emissions, or simply turning to populist backlash—may be the new climate time bomb.