英国政府做出了一个备受争议的决定，批准开发北海杰克道（Jackdaw）天然气田，并为此附带了一个“甜头”，以安抚那些反感化石燃料投资的人：设立一项能源财富基金。
The UK’s controversial decision to greenlight Jackdaw, a gas field in the North Sea, came with a sweetener for those who find fossil-fuel investment distasteful: an Energy Wealth Fund.
政府表示，该基金将把该项目的税收收入再投资于气候转型。增加对清洁技术的资金投入至关重要。但在这种情况下，英国若想在应对气候危机上保持某种领导者的体面，还有更好的做法——尤其是考虑到政府可能很快还会批准更多北海开发项目，如罗斯班克（Rosebank）油田。
The government says the fund will reinvest tax receipts from the project into the climate transition. Directing more money toward clean technologies is essential. But in this case, there’s a better way for the country to maintain some semblance of leadership on the climate crisis — especially considering that it may soon allow even more North Sea development with the Rosebank oil field.
这项启动资金为20亿英镑（约合27亿美元）的基金，若在约四十年前推出本是个绝妙的主意。英国财政部内部测算显示，如果在1980年代设立同等规模的财富基金，如今其价值将达约1万亿英镑。但那些利润丰厚的日子已成过去。英国财政责任办公室（Office for Budget Responsibility）的分析发现，北海油气税收收入在1980年代达到峰值120亿英镑。
The fund, which is being launched with £2 billion ($2.7 billion) from the government, would have been a great idea about four decades ago. Internal Treasury modeling calculated that if an equivalent wealth fund had been set up in the 1980s, it would be worth about £1 trillion today. But those lucrative days are over. Analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility finds that tax revenue from North Sea oil and gas peaked at £12 billion in the ‘80s.
预计随着油气价格维持高位，2026/27纳税年度收入将增长25%，随后在2031/32纳税年度暴跌至“接近零”。（这些数据包含杰克道和罗斯班克的潜在税收。）我们不妨将这些数字放在具体背景下看。由挪威国家石油公司（Equinor ASA）和壳牌（Shell Plc）组建的合资企业Adura正在开发这两个油气田，该公司表示，预计到2029年本届议会结束时，两个项目合计将产生14亿英镑税收收入；到2034年下届议会结束时，累计将达38亿英镑。
Receipts are expected to rise by 25% in the 2026/27 tax year as oil and gas prices remain high before plunging to “close to zero” in 2031/32. (These figures include the potential take from Jackdaw and Rosebank.) Let’s put these numbers into context. Adura, a joint venture between Equinor ASA and Shell Plc that is developing both fields, has said it expects them to generate a combined £1.4 billion in tax revenue by the end of the current parliament in 2029, and £3.8 billion by the end of the next parliament in 2034.
这平均每年约4.75亿英镑。在国家层面，这笔钱微不足道。仅锅炉升级计划（Boiler Upgrade Scheme）——为热泵和生物质锅炉提供补助——在2027/28财年的预算就达4亿英镑。
That averages out to roughly £475 million a year. On a national level, that’s a pittance. Consider that the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, which provides grants for heat pumps and biomass boilers, alone has a budget of £400 million for the 2027/28 financial year.
另一个问题是，任何净税收收入都极不确定。在“杰克道”油气田的裁决中，能源大臣米娅塔·范布勒指出，玫瑰银行和杰克道两个油气田的预估税收减免总额接近 40 亿英镑——“大致相当于，甚至超过预期税收收入”。因此，政府不应依赖税收来为绿色技术提供资金，而应考虑将重点放在北海油气项目最大的问题上：它们产生的废弃物。
The other problem is that any net tax take is highly uncertain. In her Jackdaw decision, Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh noted that the estimated tax relief for Rosebank and Jackdaw totals nearly £4 billion — “roughly matching, or even exceeding, expected tax revenue.”So, rather than rely on tax money to fund green tech, the government should consider focusing on the biggest problem with these North Sea projects: the waste they produce.
我们理所当然地要求水务公司支付费用，以防止和清理泄漏并污染水源的污水。然而，我们却没有对化石燃料公司提出同样的要求。相反，我们宝贵的大气层被视为燃烧碳氢化合物产生的二氧化碳的免费倾倒场。
We rightly expect water companies to pay to prevent and clean up sewage that escapes and pollutes our water. Yet we don’t demand the same from fossil fuel companies. Instead, our precious atmosphere is treated as a free dumping ground for the carbon dioxide produced by burning hydrocarbons.
当然，处理这种废弃物的最佳方式是首先不产生它。但摆脱化石燃料被证明是一个漫长的过程，这导致一些研究人员得出结论，所谓的“碳回收义务”是前进的最佳途径。
Of course, the best way of handling this waste is not to create it in the first place. But quitting fossil fuels is proving to be a long process, leading some researchers to conclude that a so-called carbon takeback obligation is the best way forward.
根据这项规则，化石燃料生产商将被法律强制永久储存二氧化碳，无论是从其运营中捕获，还是从大气中移除。它将从排放量的一小部分开始，最终扩大到 100% 甚至更多。
Under such a rule, fossil fuel producers would be legally mandated to permanently store carbon dioxide, either captured from their operations or removed from the atmosphere. It would start as a small percentage of emissions and eventually scale up to 100% or beyond.
这一想法源自牛津大学大气、海洋与行星物理学系主任迈尔斯·艾伦（Myles Allen）合著的一篇论文。针对“杰克道”项目的决定，他发表声明称，碳回收义务“将创造更多就业岗位，使‘杰克道’成为世界首个符合净零排放目标的天然气田，将开发碳捕获技术的220亿英镑成本中的一部分从纳税人身上转移出去，并为世界树立了富有想象力的气候领导力榜样。”该计划颇具争议。
The idea originates from a paper co-authored by Myles Allen, head of atmospheric, oceanic and planetary physics at the University of Oxford. In response to the Jackdaw decision, he put out a statement saying that a carbon take-back obligation “would have generated even more jobs, made Jackdaw the world’s first net-zero-aligned gas field, taken some of the £22 billion cost of developing carbon capture off the taxpayer, and set the world an example of imaginative climate leadership.”The plan is contentious.
一些气候倡导者担心，任何赋予石油和天然气公司继续钻探许可的做法都令人担忧；批评者则表示，这将激励生产商在义务仍然较低的情况下，尽可能多、尽可能快地开采资源。
Some climate advocates are concerned about anything that gives oil and gas companies license to keep drilling, and critics say it would incentivize producers to extract as much as possible, as quickly as possible, while obligations remain low.
在污染源头进行的碳捕获已被证明行之有效（石油公司自20世纪70年代起便开始使用该技术），但成本依然高昂，且尚未实现大规模应用。与此同时，碳移除涵盖一系列技术手段，其成熟度、价格和持久性差异巨大。例如，直接空气捕获——顾名思义——结合将二氧化碳注入地下的工艺，可将碳封存数百万年，成本在每公吨100美元至1750美元之间。植树造林作为一种低技术含量的选择，成本较低但持久性较差。
Carbon capture done at the source of the pollution has been shown to work (oil companies have used the technique since the 1970s) but remains expensive and has not yet been done at scale. Carbon removal, meanwhile, encompasses a broad range of techniques that vary wildly in readiness, price and permanence. For instance, direct air capture — which is exactly what it sounds like — coupled with a process where CO2 is injected underground, can be used to lock carbon away for millions of years and costs anywhere between $100 and $1,750 per metric ton. Planting trees, a more low-tech option, is cheaper but impermanent.
在理想的转型中，我们无需依赖碳捕获或移除，但考虑到迄今为止我们走过的路径，我们需要将其纳入工具箱。联合国环境规划署关于全球“排放缺口”的年度评估指出，升温超过1.5摄氏度“迫在眉睫且不可避免”。为建立一条重返1.5摄氏度目标的可信路径，世界需要迅速削减碳排放并大幅提升移除量。由对问题负有责任的公司来支付这些新技术的开发和规模化成本，难道不是最合适不过吗？
In a perfect transition, we wouldn’t have to rely on carbon capture or removal, but considering the path we’ve taken so far, we need it in our arsenal. The United Nations Environment Programme’s annual assessment of the global “emissions gap” states that exceeding 1.5C of warming is “imminent and unavoidable.”To establish a credible path back to 1.5C, the world needs to rapidly cut carbon emissions and ramp up removal. Who better to pay for the development and scaling-up of these new technologies than the companies responsible for the problem?
对于担心化石燃料巨头无力承担此类投资的人来说，值得注意的是，壳牌第三季度利润翻倍，达到 108 亿美元，而去年同期为 54 亿美元。
For those concerned that fossil giants can’t afford such investments, note that Shell doubled its profits in the third quarter, making $10.8 billion, up from $5.4 billion in the same quarter last year.
自法恩布勒取代米利班德出任能源大臣以来，英国在气候问题上的做法发生了重大转变。米利班德全力聚焦于脱碳和可再生能源。然而，即将上任的伯纳姆政府对化石燃料的态度更为友好（我注意到法恩布勒在宣布批准“杰克道”项目时佩戴着壳牌的标志）。这一政策逆转被解释为是为了推动国内增长、能源安全和降低成本。
The UK’s approach to climate issues has shifted significantly since Fahnbulleh replaced Ed Miliband as energy secretary. Miliband was laser-focused on decarbonization and renewable energy. The incoming Burnham administration, however, has been friendlier to fossil fuels (I noted Fahnbulleh wearing the Shell logo as she announced Jackdaw’s approval). This reversal is being justified as a push for domestic growth, energy security and lower costs.
考虑到其有限的规模，我认为这两个北海项目都不会在上述任何指标上产生实质性影响。它们——以及政府更广泛的气候政策倒退——将做的是危及英国作为全球清洁能源领导者的承诺。
Given their limited scale, I’d argue neither North Sea project will move the needle on any of those metrics. What they — and the government’s broader climate walk-back — will do is endanger the UK’s commitment to being a global leader on clean energy.
如果获批，“玫瑰岸”项目的碳影响将大约是“杰克道”项目的七倍。我希望看到那石油继续留在海底，但如果政府决定批准该油田开发，它终于应该让化石燃料公司为其向大气排放的废弃物负责。
If approved, Rosebank would have a carbon impact roughly seven times larger than Jackdaw’s. I’d prefer to see that oil left under the sea, but if the government decides to give the oil field the go-ahead, it should finally put fossil-fuel companies on the hook for their atmospheric littering.