2015年，全球195個國家齊聚一堂，簽署了旨在應對氣候變化的成因及其影響的《巴黎協定》。而現在美國總統特朗普正在考慮退出這一歷史性的協議，這不僅會阻礙新能源技術的發展，同時也會給美國的經濟發展進程造成不利影響。

退出《巴黎協定》意味著美國從此不必再削減其碳排放，進而意味著美國也不必再對風能、太陽能以及各種節能減排技術進行投資，而這些領域恰恰正是新增就業崗位的聚集地。比如根據美國能源部發布的《2017年美國能源與就業報告》顯示，去年一年，光是與太陽能有關的就業崗位就增長了25%——因為這個行業需要大量人員在屋頂上安裝太陽能電池板。同時風能行業的工作機會也增長了32%。如今這兩個行業在美國的就業人數已經超過了50萬人。而相比之下，煤炭行業已經基本實現了機械化，目前美國煤炭行業的就業人數僅有7.4萬人，比2009年下降了39%。也正是由于煤炭行業的高度機械化，即便我們對煤炭的消耗增加了，這些被砍掉的就業崗位也不會回來。風能和太陽能才是能夠增加就業機會的行業，而如果我們不繼續削減碳排放，它們的增長速度就快不起來。

在通信和國防等行業，美國通過引領技術進步，已經創造了無數的就業機會和巨大的財富。而特朗普政府卻要開歷史的倒車，妄圖扼殺風能、太陽能、新型電池、智能電網和電動汽車等新能源技術的創新，這道理無論如何也講不通。

如果美國真的退出了《巴黎協定》，那它注定將淪為孤家寡人。根據國際能源署的統計，《巴黎協定》的其他194個簽約國對氣候變化都極為重視，從2016年到2040年，各國累計將向新能源技術投入7.4萬億美元的資金。因此，這是一個極其龐大且增長極快的市場。美國應該鼓勵新能源技術的發展，從而為美國帶來新的就業機會以及稅收和利潤來源。正當其他國家都投身于21世紀的未來技術時，美國卻要重新拾起20世紀的能源技術，這樣做的意義何在？特朗普當局應該重新審視自己的政策取向，采取著眼美國長遠發展的經濟政策。

目前，世界各國都在快速采用新能源技術，這首先是由于新能源的成本很低。世界銀行的數據顯示，1990年，全球僅有1100萬部手機，而現在則已經增長到了70億部。為什么呢？因為蜂窩技術實現了規模化，從而變得更便宜了，同時市場也得到了擴展。

同樣的情況也正發生在新能源產業上。據彭博新能源財經（BNEF）報道，1990年，制造太陽能電池組件的成本高達7.57美元每瓦特。而到了2016年，這一成本已經急劇下跌了95％，成本僅有0.41美元每瓦特，而且預計還將進一步降低。海岸風能和鋰離子電池（可用于儲存太陽能和風能）等技術的成本也出現了類似的下降。這些技術如果與低成本的傳感器、云計算軟件和智能電表等技術相結合，美國就可以建立起一個低碳、數字化、彈性和經濟的電力系統。

這些新能源技術系統如果美國不建立，也自然會有其他國家愿意建立，屆時美國必將失去新能源領域的競爭優勢。據國際能源署預測，從現在起到2040年，全球發電能力投資的75％以上將流向新能源領域，而化石燃料領域只占了不到25％。另據彭博新能源財經預測，到2040年，電動汽車將占市面上銷售的所有輕型車輛的35%。

美國擁有世界上最好的研究型大學、企業家和風險投資家。但如果美國國內沒有部署新能源的市場，其技術和制造業人才就會流向海外。如果美國積極發展新能源技術，它完全可以成為該領域卓越的創新和制造引擎，并且創造數十萬個就業機會。特朗普政府妄圖對抗新技術的成本曲線，這無疑是一場愚蠢的戰爭。

那么，華盛頓的共和黨人在做什么呢？舊產業的既得利益者（也就是煤電和化石燃料行業）但凡感受到了新能源的威脅，就會讓政客們出面扼殺這些新技術。比如在2018年美國政府的預算草案中，特朗普就提議將能源部高級研究計劃署（ARPA–E）的預算砍掉93%。美國能源部長里克?佩里近日要求對間歇性可再生能源對電網的影響進行研究，這項研究在很大程度上是在為能源部采取反可再生能源的政策開路。而美國環境保護署署長斯科普?普雷特則正在考慮取消燃油經濟性標準——此舉將減少美國對外國石油的依賴，但卻對美國干凈的空氣和水質形成了嚴峻的威脅。

然而美國也并不是非走這條路不可。在上世紀80年代，有線電話行業的既得利益者也曾妄圖限制蜂窩技術公司的競爭能力，但里根總統并沒有理睬他們，而是大力鼓勵無限通訊技術的發展。如果聯邦政府在80年代阻礙了蜂窩技術的發展，蘋果和高通等美國企業現在就不可能成為美國無線通信行業的領袖。同樣，現在的特朗普政府也不應該向化石燃料行業低頭，或是損害新能源技術的發展。

值得欣慰的是，各州的共和黨籍州長及州立法機關還是對新能源技術表示了歡迎的態度。比如密歇根州州長里克?施耐德、俄亥俄州州長約翰?卡西奇、伊利諾斯州州長布魯斯?勞納等共和黨籍州長最近都簽署了代表兩黨的折衷方案，鼓勵新能源技術在有關各州進一步發展。內華達州的立法機關目前也正在審議若干件與新能源技術有關的兩黨議案。由于有選民的支持，這些州都對新能源技術持鼓勵態度。

再回來說說《巴黎協定》。特朗普政府即使退出《巴黎協定》，也無法阻止新能源技術在全球的繁榮發展。但通過退約和阻礙新能源技術在美國的部署，特朗普政府卻必將削弱美國企業在快速增長的新能源市場上與其他194個簽約國競爭的能力。這還是特朗普標榜的“美國第一”嗎？抑或是將舊能源產業的既得利益者放在了第一位，將美國的利益放在了倒數第一位？究竟何去何從，特朗普必須做出選擇。（財富中文網）

本文作者Jeff McDermott是美國綠色科技資本咨詢公司（Greentech Capital Advisors）任事股東，曾任瑞銀投行部門全球聯合主席。

譯者：樸成奎

Adopted in 2015, the historic Paris Agreement brought together 195 nations to ambitiously address the impacts and causes of climate change. Donald Trump is now considering withdrawing from it, which would not only have ramifications on new energy technology efforts, but on American economic progress.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement means the country won’t have to reduce its carbon emissions, which means it won’t have to invest in new wind, solar, or energy-efficiency technologies. But those technologies are where the job growth is. Solar jobs—which require lots of people to put panels on roofs—grew 25% last year, while wind jobs grew 32%, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report. Those two industries now employ nearly a half million Americans. Coal mining is mostly done by machine, and now employs just 74,000 people, a decline of 39% from 2009. Because coal mining is largely mechanized, those jobs are not coming back even if we burn more coal. Wind and solar are where the jobs are, and if we don’t have to reduce emissions, they won’t grow as fast.

In communications, defense, and other industries, America has created jobs and enormous wealth by leading in technology advancement. It makes no sense for the Trump administration to throttle new energy technology—wind and solar, batteries for electricity storage, smart grids, and electric vehicles, among others.

If America walks away from the Paris Agreement, it will walk away alone. According to the International Energy Agency, the other 194 signatory countries believe in climate change and, collectively, will invest $7.4 trillion from 2016 through 2040 in new energy technologies—a large and fast-growing market. The U.S. should encourage new energy technology for American jobs, tax revenue, and profits. What purpose does it serve for America to double down on 20th-century energy technology, like coal and gas, when the rest of the world is committed to a future with 21st-century technology? The Trump administration should embrace economic policies that put America first.

Countries are rapidly adopting new energy technology, and it’s all thanks to cost. World Bank data shows that in 1990, there were 11 million cell phones globally. Today, there are more than 7 billion. Why? Cellular technology scaled and became cheaper, and the market expanded.

This is happening right now with new energy technology. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), in 1990, the cost to manufacture solar modules was $7.57 per watt. By 2016, the cost had plummeted nearly 95% to $0.41 per watt, and is set to decline further. Similar cost declines are true for onshore wind power, and lithium ion batteries, which enable solar and wind energy to be stored. Wrap these technologies up with cheap sensors, cloud-based software, and smart meters, and America can build a low-carbon, digitized, resilient, and economic electricity system.

If America does not build these new energy technology systems, it will lose its competitive advantage to countries that will build them. The International Energy Agency projects that from now until 2040, over 75% of all investments in global power generation capacity will be new energy, with fossil fuels only 25%. Similarly, Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that electric vehicles will account for 35% of all light-duty vehicles sold in 2040.

America has the best research universities, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists in the world. But if it doesn’t have the necessary deployment markets at home, its technology and manufacturing jobs will go overseas. If America embraces new energy technology, it can become a dominant engine of innovation and manufacturing excellence, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Fighting the cost curve of new technology is a foolish battle.

So what are the Republicans in Washington doing? Whenever threatened by these new energy opportunities, the old industry incumbents (in this case, coal-burning utilities and the fossil fuel industry) turn to politicians to thwart new technology. In the current 2018 budget plan, Trump proposes to slash funding to the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E) by 93%. Rick Perry, the head of the DOE, recently ordered a study on the impact of intermittent renewable energy on the electricity grid, which is largely anticipated to serve as a justification for the DOE to take an anti–renewable position. At the Environmental Protection Agency, administrator Scott Pruitt is considering walking away from the fuel economy standards—which were set forth to make America less dependent on foreign oil—and dismantling key protections to clean air and water.

It does not have to be this way. In the 1980s, President Reagan did not heed the landline telephony incumbents when they tried to limit the ability of cellular companies to compete with them; instead, he encouraged new technology. Apple (aapl, +0.27%), Qualcomm (qcom, +2.36%), and others would certainly not be global leaders if the federal government had obstructed new cellular technology in the ‘80s. Similarly, Trump’s administration should not give in to the fossil fuel industry or damage the growth of new energy technology today.

Thankfully, Republican governors and state legislatures are embracing new energy technology. Gov. Rick Snyder (R-Mich.), Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio), and Gov. Bruce Rauner (R-Ill.) recently signed bipartisan compromises that advance new energy technology in their states, and several bipartisan new energy deals are working their way through the Nevada State Legislature right now. These states are encouraging new energy technologies because their voters want them.

Which brings us back to Paris. The Trump administration cannot stop global growth in new energy technology by leaving the Paris Agreement. But by leaving the agreement and damaging U.S. deployment, the Trump administration will cripple American businesses' long-term ability to compete in the large and rapidly growing new energy technology market created by the other 194 signatory countries. Will it be America first? Or old energy lobbyists first, and America last? President Trump must decide.

Jeff McDermott is the managing partner at Greentech Capital Advisors and the former joint global head of investment banking at UBS.