卡內基國際和平基金會：美國德國將采取何種能源戰略

文/david livingston（卡內基國際和平基金會研究員）

當前，能源堪稱美、德兩國的戰略要務。由於社會經濟結構正在發生變化，加之過去十余年間的油價動盪、未來數十年向低碳能源系統轉化的要求，未來如何選擇並使用能源從未像現在這般重要。諸多研究已對上世紀70年代油價動盪期中美、德兩國工業部門和其他相關因素成本進行了分析，並發現能源價格動盪能夠推動經濟增長。此外，沒有哪種商品或技術能夠取代石油在全球經濟中發揮的作用。然而，由於近年來石油價格不斷下跌，加之新的、儲量豐富的能源陸續被發掘，傳統意義上的能源短缺、持續性石油依賴的成本效益概念已然受到挑戰。因此，決策者必須在可預見的未來內，努力探究石油長期面臨復雜局勢和價格動盪的原因。

在過去的五年中，碳氫燃料等非傳統效能源的供應大幅上升，北美地區尤為明顯。經濟危機后，盡管對中國等石油消耗大國的預測為供應緊張，石油公司依舊對非傳統性石油項目投入了大量資金，同時開采技術也在不斷進步。在很大程度上，非傳統性石油能源迅速取代了或延遲了其他替代能源的使用，包括生物燃料、天然氣等。

在人們以往的觀念中，會將2014年下半年的油價下跌視為石油出口大國的經濟福利，包括美、德兩國。然而，歐洲能源運輸費用的高課稅將抵消部分經濟拉動作用，且在中短期內會影響歐洲國家政府的財政收入。此外，當將與主要石油出口國的貿易考慮進去之后，德國的能源出口份額進一步被擠壓，因此油價下降對其他能源的影響是復雜而多變的。從理論上而言，油價下跌將使生物燃料的競爭力下降，而其對電動汽車的影響又難以統計。

總而言之，美國及其盟友應側重全面提高多種能源共同發揮作用的能力，並以最具潛力的規則合理應用法規、政策。我們應在現實和未來的潛在機遇中尋求各種能源之間的平衡，單純側重某一種能源都無法讓我們作出恰當的規則性選擇。在21世紀的前15年，美國及德國等跨大西洋(600558,股吧)伙伴關係中的既得利益集團應尋求確保國家能源安全的良方，同時應對來自俄羅斯的傳統能源威脅。

附英文原文：

fuel—broadly defined as the energy sources used to power our mobility and the oil system from which they are largely derived at the moment—must be a strategic priority for the united states and germany. as both countries seek to anchor the transatlantic alliance against the backdrop of renewed insecurity along europe’s eastern border, there must be balanced attention paid not only to the crises of the present, but also to the possible demands of the future. before any “optimal” policy path can be sketched, a stock-taking exercise is invaluable as a means of synthesizing the events and trends that have given birth to the current state of affairs, and of discerning the current set of options available to policymakers moving forward.

given the changing economic structure of most societies, the fluctuations in oil price seen in the past decade, as well as the uncertainties implicit in the required transition to a low-carbon energy system in the decades ahead, the future of fuel use and fuel choice has never been more critical. it is widely agreed, at least in oecd states, that a global transition away from oil as the predominant transport fuel feedstock is desirable for various economic, geopolitical, and environmental reasons.

studies have looked, for example, at the evolution of the american and german industrial sectors and their related factor costs in the midst of the oil price shocks of the 1970s, and found that such petroleum fuel price swings were able to push economic growth far out of line with neoclassical equilibrium.1 the “weaponization” of oil and fuel is a perennial political challenge, from world war ii to the 1970s energy crisis to the volatility and market share skirmish of today. from a climate perspective, approximately 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with transportation fuel,2 and this number is even larger when taking into account the entire petroleum value chain.

however, there remains no silver-bullet commodity or technology to replace oil’s role in the global economy. challenges to a truly rapid and “disruptive” transition include the wide variety of vehicle types in operation; the operational diversity of oil-dependent business (e.g., long distance freight vs. urban delivery fleets); the capital intensity of fuel production and distribution; the political economy of a sector with powerful incumbent firms; the prospect of fully-functional infrastructure and other assets becoming “stranded” in such a transition; and the current technological and economic limitations of alternative fuels.

meanwhile, a newfound abundance of unconventional oil resources, combined with the recent decline in global oil prices, is challenging conventional wisdom on resource scarcity and the costs and benefits of continued oil dependence. the “arc of instability” along europe’s frontier, stretching from north africa to the gulf and levant all the way to the border with russia, has served to sharpen the focus on how energy—and petroleum in particular—shapes the constraints and capabilities of various state and nonstate actors. the paths to low-carbon fuel are dynamic and difficult to predict in such a world. fuel and fuel feedstock (oil) markets are often highly liquid and global, yet at the same time lack transparency found in many other markets, making it difficult to compare the respective economic, environmental, and geopolitical implications of future fuel choices.

policymakers will have to navigate a petroleum land the future of power in a post-carbon society scape of enduring complexity and volatility for the foreseeable future, whether they desire to or not. the inertia embedded in the current fossil fuel system should not be underestimated. as the “father” of complexity economics, w. brian arthur, has observed:

technologies come into being only if there exists a “demand” for them. most of this demand comes from the needs of technologies themselves. the automobile “demands” or calls forth the further technologies of oil exploration, oil drilling, oil refining, mass manufacture, gasoline distribution, and car maintenance. at any time then there is an open web of opportunities inviting further technologies and arrangements.

this is not to say that disruptive transitions are not possible, but they must be precipitated by a timely imbrication of economic incentives, innovative capacity, and broader societal trends. likewise, once a tipping point is reached that favors an emerging “web of opportunities” very different from the incumbent system, the collapse of the existing paradigm can move much more quickly from impossibility to improbability to inevitability than many experts would have ever predicted.

mindful of this non-linearity, the challenge for policymakers today is perhaps best described not as one of discerning the future of fuels and fuel security in the united states and europe, but instead one of lucidly understanding the forces acting on the incumbent system, as well as the alternative systems, still nascent, that could one day replace them. only with this comprehensive view is one able to ascertain the strategic energy position of germany, the u.s., and others in the twenty-first century.（完）

【智庫簡介】

carnegie endowment for international peace

卡內基國際和平基金會是美國成立最早又頗有影響的研究院之一，是卡內基家族的第二大基金會，其總部設在華盛頓；同時，它也是美國著名的主流思想庫，標榜超脫黨派、相容並蓄，以“促進國家間合作以及美國的國際交往”為宗旨，並重視研究的“實際結果”。支援把聯合國作為國際論壇和世界秩序的象征，思想傾向屬於典型的“中間派”。除了日常研究，研究院還通過實地考察、舉辦會議、出版刊物、commit研究報告、合作研究等形式，擴大其政治影響和學術地位。研究院也把“培養軍備控制、地區安全、國際法等國際事務研究與活動的人才”作為其重要宗旨之一。網址：http://carnegieendowment.org/