???? 據(jù)今日油價(jià)網(wǎng)站3月2日消息 據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》援引聲明草稿的報(bào)道，美國石油學(xué)會(huì)（API）將公布一項(xiàng)聲明，認(rèn)可碳定價(jià)是實(shí)現(xiàn)《巴黎氣候變化協(xié)定》目標(biāo)的一種手段。

????《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》引述聲明稱：“美國石油學(xué)會(huì)支持將整個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體的碳定價(jià)作為政府減少二氧化碳排放量的主要?dú)夂蛘吖ぞ撸瑫r(shí)幫助保持能源價(jià)格合理，而不是強(qiáng)制或規(guī)定性的監(jiān)管行動(dòng)。”

????同時(shí)根據(jù)聲明，碳定價(jià)將是最經(jīng)濟(jì)的減排方式。

????碳定價(jià)一直是美國能源行業(yè)和政府討論的一個(gè)有爭(zhēng)議的話題。

????例如，去年包括華爾街頂級(jí)銀行在內(nèi)的一批公司敦促華盛頓為碳定價(jià)，以減輕溫室氣體排放對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的影響，更具體地說，是對(duì)金融體系的影響。

????當(dāng)時(shí)美國商品期貨交易委員會(huì)委托的一份報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn)，實(shí)體風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和轉(zhuǎn)型風(fēng)險(xiǎn)都可能引發(fā)系統(tǒng)性和次系統(tǒng)性金融沖擊，可能對(duì)金融市場(chǎng)和金融機(jī)構(gòu)的正常運(yùn)作造成前所未有的破壞。

????“這份報(bào)告從一個(gè)基本的發(fā)現(xiàn)開始，金融市場(chǎng)只有在整個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體的碳排放價(jià)格能夠反映這些排放的真實(shí)社會(huì)成本的情況下，才能有效地將資源引導(dǎo)到減少溫室氣體排放的活動(dòng)中，”作者寫道。

????民主黨議員不止一次試圖贏得對(duì)碳定價(jià)倡議的支持，但在奧巴馬的兩個(gè)任期內(nèi)，他們都無一例外地失敗了。與此同時(shí)，鼓勵(lì)可再生能源發(fā)電和其他減排舉措在控制排放方面取得了一定效果，這就是為什么本屆政府主要押注于繼續(xù)這一進(jìn)程。

????然而，最近來自美國國家科學(xué)、工程和醫(yī)學(xué)院的一份新報(bào)告提醒稱，如果不對(duì)碳排放定價(jià)，拜登政府的綠色計(jì)劃將會(huì)失敗。

????王磊 摘譯自 今日油價(jià)

????原文如下：

????API Expected To Endorse Carbon Pricing

????The American Petroleum Institute is set to unveil a declaration in which it endorses carbon pricing as a means of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, according to a Wall Street Journal report citing a draft version of the statement.

????“API supports economy-wide carbon pricing as the primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions while helping keep energy affordable, instead of mandates or prescriptive regulatory action,” the WSJ quoted the statement as saying.

????Also according to the statement, carbon pricing would be the most economical way to reduce emissions.

????Carbon pricing has been a controversial topic of discussion in the U.S. energy industry and in government.

????Last year, for instance, BP was among a group of companies, including top Wall Street banks, that urged Washington to put a price on carbon to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the economy and, more specifically, the financial system.

????A report commissioned by the CFTC at the time found that “Both physical and transition risks could give rise to systemic and sub-systemic financial shocks, potentially causing unprecedented disruption in the proper functioning of financial markets and institutions.”

????“This report begins with a fundamental finding—financial markets will only be able to channel resources efficiently to activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions if an economy-wide price on carbon is in place at a level that reflects the true social cost of those emissions,” the authors wrote.

????Democratic legislators tried more than once to win support for carbon pricing initiatives, but they invariably failed during the two Obama terms. Meanwhile, incentives for renewable power generation and other emission-reducing initiatives have had some effect in reining in emissions, which is why the current administration is betting mainly on continuing this course.

????Recently, however, a new report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine warned that the Biden administration’s green plans will fail without putting a price on carbon.