據(jù)7月24日今日油價報道，能源政策跟蹤機構(gòu)的最新數(shù)據(jù)顯示，G20成員國在石油、天然氣和煤炭方面的支出仍高于在可再生能源方面的支出。自疫情爆發(fā)以來，各國政府已承諾在化石燃料領(lǐng)域投資至少1609.5億美元，在可再生能源領(lǐng)域投資至少1237.5億美元。這意味著人均石油和天然氣投資支出為35.10美元，清潔能源投資支出為26.99美元。

大多數(shù)所謂的無條件化石燃料投資都是在石油和天然氣領(lǐng)域，這并不令人意外，煤炭投資僅占總額的102億美元。雖然100億美元對于污染最嚴(yán)重的化石燃料來說似乎太過昂貴，但G20各國政府還劃撥了384.4億美元用于無條件化可再生能源投資。不過，能源政策追蹤機構(gòu)表示，這一比例在可再生能源總支出中所占比例較小。能源政策跟蹤機構(gòu)稱，大部分投資仍是用于所謂的有條件的清潔能源發(fā)展領(lǐng)域。

該報告將有條件的清潔能源投資定義為“旨在支持化石燃料轉(zhuǎn)型，但對實施適當(dāng)?shù)沫h(huán)境保護措施政策不明確”。 例如：大型水電站；軌道公共交通和使用多種能源類型的電動汽車（電動汽車、自行車、滑板車、船只等）。

這意味著20國集團成員正在并計劃在交通電氣化方面投入更多的資金，而不是增加可再生能源產(chǎn)能，以生產(chǎn)電氣化所需的電力。另一方面，組成20國集團的19個國家和歐盟計劃將大部分化石燃料資金用于無條件的石油和天然氣投資領(lǐng)域，這意味著將對油氣的生產(chǎn)和消費進行投資，沒有任何氣候目標(biāo)或額外的污染減排要求。

在氣候變化的背景下，這看起來不太好，但G20各國政府在支出優(yōu)先順序上存在明顯差異。

歐盟是這方面表現(xiàn)最好的國家之一:本周早些時候，歐盟就一項具有歷史意義的危機后經(jīng)濟復(fù)蘇計劃達成一致，該計劃以綠色能源為重點。歐盟為其2021-2027年預(yù)算(包括疫情恢復(fù)基金)批準(zhǔn)的21億美元中，近三分之一的投資費用將用于與氣候變化相關(guān)的項目，這與歐盟到2050年的凈零排放計劃一致。按絕對值計算，這相當(dāng)于用于綠色政策和行動的費用達5720億美元。

美國似乎是無條件石油和天然氣項目投資最大的國家。自危機開始以來，美國的政策承諾大多在這一領(lǐng)域，總計達681.2億美元，而有條件的項目為269.1億美元。這一點也不奇怪，因為聯(lián)邦政府已經(jīng)把國家的能源安全放在主導(dǎo)地位。

除歐洲和北美以外，G20成員國在化石燃料上的支出超過了其他任何國家，只有巴西例外。巴西承諾發(fā)展清潔能源，以及能源政策追蹤組織所稱的“其他能源”，包括核能、生物質(zhì)能和生物燃料。

與此同時，石油和天然氣行業(yè)仍面臨著投資者外流的壓力。在美國據(jù)《華爾街日報》最近的一篇報道顯示，美國的一些投資者已經(jīng)發(fā)誓不再投資石油和天然氣。在歐洲，梵蒂岡加入了反對化石燃料的陣營，教皇親自建議天主教徒停止投資石油和天然氣。

這種壓力與20國集團政府能源政策計劃之間的差異表明，保障能源安全仍優(yōu)先于考慮提供這種安全能源的來源。目前看來，對大多數(shù)G20成員國來說，石油和天然氣更能提供安全保障。

王佳晶 摘譯自 今日油價

原文如下：

World’s Largest Economies Are Still Spending Big On Oil & Gas

Spending on oil and gas, and coal is still higher among members of G20 than spending on renewable energy, a data update from the Energy Policy Tracker has revealed. Across the group, since the start of the pandemic, governments had pledged at least $160.95 billion in fossil fuel investments, versus $123.75 billion in renewable energy investment, the tracker, which updates government spending data on energy every week, said. This translates into $35.10 per capita in oil and gas spending, and $26.99 per capita for cleaner energy spending.

Most of the so-called unconditional fossil fuel investment was on oil and gas, unsurprisingly, with just $10.20 billion of the total allocated for coal. While this may sound like ten billion dollars too much to spend on the most polluting fossil fuel, G20 governments also allocated $38.44 billion on unconditional renewable energy. This was, however, the smaller portion of the total renewable energy spending; the bulk was pledged for so-called clean conditional energy, the Energy Policy Tracker said.

The tracker defines clean conditional policies as those that “are stated to support the transition away from fossil fuels, but unspecific about the implementation of appropriate environmental safeguards. Examples include: large-hydropower; rail public transport and electric vehicles (electric cars, bicycles, scooters, boats etc) using multiple energy types.”

This means that G20 members are spending—and planning to spend more on the electrification of transport than on boosting renewable energy capacity to produce the power required for this electrification drive.

On the other hand, the 19 countries and the European Union that make up G20 plan to spend most of their fossil fuel money on unconditional oil and gas—this means investment in the production and consumption of oil and gas “without any climate targets or additional pollution reduction requirements,” as the tracker puts it.

This doesn’t look too well in the context of the climate change narrative but, of course, there are marked differences in spending priorities among G20 governments.

The European Union is among the best performers here: the bloc earlier this week agreed on a historic post-crisis economic recovery program that heavily features green energy. Of the total $2.1 billion that the EU approved for its 2021-2027 budget—including the Covid-19 recovery fund—almost a third will be spent on climate change-related projects, in line with the EU’s net zero plans for the period to 2050. In absolute terms, this translates into $572 billion on green policies and initiatives.

The United States appears to be the biggest spender on unconditional oil and gas: most of its policy commitments since the start of the crisis are in this area, totalling $68.12 billion, versus $26.91 billion for clean conditional policies. Again, this is hardly a surprise with a federal government that has prioritized the country’s energy security and even dominance.

Outside Europe and North America, G20 members are spending on fossil fuels over anything else with the marked exception of Brazil, which has made commitments on clean energy and what the Energy Policy Tracker calls “other energy”, which includes things like nuclear and polluting biomass and biofuels.

Meanwhile, the pressure against the oil and gas industry continues in the form of an investor outflow. In the U.S., no less, several universities have sworn off oil and gas investments, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report. In Europe, none other than the Vatican joined the anti-fossil fuels crowd with the pope personally advising Catholics to stop investing in oil and gas.

The discrepancy between this pressure and G20 governments’ energy policy plans suggests energy security is still a priority over the source of the energy that provides this security. For now, it seems, for most G20 members, oil and gas are better at providing the security.