????問：在中電集團，你們已經(jīng)撬動幾個重量級的杠桿，你們打算怎么做？

????答：我們在2007年就制定了一個氣候策略，到2050年我們將能實現(xiàn)卓有成效的去碳化。2010年完成第一步目標，接下來是2020年，2035年，直到2050年的最終目標。

????問：你們是否達成了2010年的目標？

????答：沒錯。我們完成了。但這只是剛剛開始。我們已經(jīng)開始全力朝著2020年的目標前進。我們要說的是，如果大家都跟隨我們的策略，如果整個行業(yè)都能這么做，到2050年，亞洲地區(qū)的電力供應就可能很大程度實現(xiàn)去碳化，從而最終像《聯(lián)合國氣候變化框架公約》（United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change）指出的那樣，避免大規(guī)模氣候變化。

????問：到時候中電集團會實現(xiàn)零碳排放嗎？

????答：不是零碳排放。我們所說的是將我們整體裝機容量的碳排放量降至0.2公斤/千瓦時的強度。我們現(xiàn)在在0.8左右。那將是一個實質(zhì)性的降幅。如果世界上其他的電力公司也能這么做，那么整個電力行業(yè)，雖然不會是零排放，但也將基本實現(xiàn)去碳化了。

????問：是否存在什么因素可能會阻礙你們達成這個目標？

????答：我認為中電集團會完成這個目標。有一件事我們可以肯定的說，一旦公司業(yè)績停止增長，停止投資，那么就會有一位商業(yè)精英走進我的辦公室，取代我的工作，讓我卷鋪蓋走人。這是資本主義的本質(zhì)。但是中電集團可以選擇繼續(xù)根據(jù)低碳戰(zhàn)略發(fā)展業(yè)務，可以在核電上進行更多的投資，可以加大對可再生能源的投資以及燃氣發(fā)電的投資。我們繼續(xù)運營備用燃煤發(fā)電機組，關閉其他燃煤電廠，終究還是把我們的碳排放量降下來。我們可以在能源行業(yè)找到自己的位置，但并不是每家電力公司都能做到我們這樣。如果你是一家大陸發(fā)電企業(yè)，正在遵循國家發(fā)展目標，那么你說不再用燃煤發(fā)電了，那是行不通的。我們可以不假思索，坦率地說，如果世界上其他電力公司也和我們實施一樣的策略，那么世界將會更加美好。那么，我們還能做些什么？我們做我們認為對公司和股東有利的事，我們希望其他電力公司能知道他們應該做什么。

????問：據(jù)我個人觀察，我不是很明白為什么大的電力生產(chǎn)商，像中電集團，好像總是在應對氣候變化上領先群雄。你是否認同？如果是這樣，你是怎么想的？

????答：對于企業(yè)來說，這是一種風險管理方式。我知道這聽起來有點難以置信。我并不是授命拯救地球，而是在這里負責為一家大公司制定和實施一個策略，使它能實現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展。中電集團不能再走以前的老路，為持續(xù)自己的業(yè)務不計后果的增加碳排放。我們已經(jīng)經(jīng)營了一百多個年頭，我們還將繼續(xù)下一個一百年。減少碳排放量并不意味著要停止一切有碳排放的投資，那是不切實際的。而是通過慢慢對我們的投資組合去風險化，這樣我們還是可以發(fā)展業(yè)務，同時為股東贏得回報，調(diào)整碳排放風險，同時維持我們的廣大業(yè)務。

????問：你認為最樂觀的情況是怎樣的？

????答：用可再生能源來解決世界能源問題，這點我也不是很確定。我們有很多的可再生資源，比如，大量的風能、太陽能和潮汐能。但是利用這些能源的成本都非常高。唯有寄希望于世界技術的發(fā)展，目前為止全球新技術開發(fā)做的很好。但我認為還需要技術上的突破——如同黑天鵝事件（Black swan event黑天鵝事件指非常難以預測，且不尋常的事件，通常會引起市場連鎖負面反應，甚至顛覆），一個還沒有人想到的能夠解決世界能源問題的方法。據(jù)我所知最接近的黑天鵝事件應該是核裂變。但問題是，相關技術是否能及時實施，是否能把成本降下來。歷史證明，人類是是極具創(chuàng)造性的。相信一旦激勵機制到位了，他們就一定會成功。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：默默

????You've got your hands on some pretty powerful levers at CLP. What are you doing?

????We articulated a climate strategy in 2007 that by 2050 will see us decarbonize dramatically. First goal was 2010, then 2020, 2035, and 2050.

????Did you hit your 2010 goal?

????Yes, we did. It's a modest start. We're well down the path for hitting the 2020 target as well. What we say essentially is that if everybody followed our strategy -- if the whole industry did it -- then there's some chance by 2050 that the electricity supply industry in this part of the world is largely decarbonized, and on a trajectory to hit what the UNFCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] has said is what you need to in order to avoid massive climate change.

????You'll be carbon-free by then?

????Not carbon-free, but what we're saying is we want to get our portfolio to a carbon intensity of 0.2 kilograms per kilowatt hour. We're now at about 0.8. That is a material reduction. And if the rest of the world did the same thing, the industry is not carbon-free, but it's largely decarbonized.

????What might stop you from reaching that goal?

????I don't think CLP will have a problem. One thing we could say is we're going to stop growing, stop investing, in which case someone in a white suit comes into my office, puts my arms in a straightjacket, marches me out, and someone else takes over. That's the nature of capitalism. But we can make choices that will allow us to continue to grow the business in line with our carbon strategy. We can make more investments in nuclear, more investments in renewable energy, more investments in gas-fired generation. We can still do the occasional coal plant, and we can close other coal plants, and still bring our carbon down. We can be a niche player, but not everybody can do what we can do. Because if you're a mainland generator who's there to implement national developmental goals, you can't say you are not going to do coal anymore. It's easier for us, and it's glib, frankly, for us to say, if the rest of the world followed our strategy, the world would be better off. But what else can we do? We do what we think is right for our company and our stakeholders, and we hope the rest of the world can figure out what they should do as well.

????In my experience, big electricity producers such as CLP seem to be ahead of the pack on climate change, which doesn't really make sense to me. Do you agree, and if so, why do you think that is?

????At the end of the day for business -- I know this sounds cynical -- it is all about risk management. I do not have a mandate to save the planet. I'm here to develop and implement a responsible strategy for a large organization in a way that is ultimately sustainable. CLP cannot be on a trajectory of continuing to increase its carbon emissions without regard for the consequences and hope to continue to be in business. We have been in business for over 100 years, and we want to be in business for another 100 years. That does not mean stopping all investments that have carbon emissions, that's unrealistic. But it's about de-risking the portfolio slowly over time so that we can still grow the business and earn returns for our shareholders, risk-adjusted for carbon, while preserving our broader franchise.

????What's your most optimistic scenario?

???The idea that renewable energy is going to solve the world's problems, I'm not so sure about that. There are lots of renewable resource out there -- lots of wind, lots of sunlight, lots of tidal impact. But the cost of harnessing all that is very high. The hope for the world is technology, and the world's been pretty good at developing technology. I think there needs to be a technology breakthrough -- a black swan that no one has thought about that comes along and solves the world's energy problems. The closest to a black swan that I have heard about is nuclear fission. The question is whether it can be done in time, and whether they can get the cost down. Human beings are quite inventive creatures. History has shown that with the right incentives, they can figure things out.