Capitalism and Democracy in the Era of Climate Crisis

Translated by Xie Zongrui and Chen Shihua

谢宗睿、陈世华 译

Super typhoons causing devastating damage to various parts of Japan have seemingly become an annual routine. Year after year of disasters means Japan can no longer remain indifferent to the issue of climate change.

超强台风给日本各地造成毁灭性灾害，似乎已经成为每年的惯例。年复一年的灾难让日本再也不能继续对气候变化问题无动于衷了。

In fact, it is not only Japan; from the Amazon region in South America to Alaska in North America, from California in the United States to Australia, it is as if the Earth is "burning" everywhere, and the Arctic glaciers continue to melt. Equally ablaze is the passion of people throwing themselves into the environmental movement to protect "Mother Earth." To this end, people must fundamentally question why capitalism exists and whether it can be sustained, and the ecological "revolution" has thus begun.

实际上，不仅是日本，从南美洲的亚马逊地区到北美洲的阿拉斯加、从美国的加利福尼亚到澳大利亚，地球仿佛到处都在“燃烧”，北极冰川持续融化。同样越烧越旺的，还有人们投身于保护“地球母亲”环保运动的热情。为此，人们要从本质上追问资本主义何以存在、能否维系，生态主义的“革命”也随之拉开序幕。

I. The Shock of the IPCC Special Report

一、 IPCC特别报告书的冲击

Some might find the term "revolution" exaggerated. Taking Japan as an example, because of problems with media reporting, it is still difficult for people to connect the environmental movement with the word "revolution." However, some people have already seen that "perpetual economic growth" is nothing but a self-deceptive illusion. Since no solution can be found within the current system, shouldn't we change that system? In other words, since all conceivable methods of addressing climate change within the capitalist system have, without exception, failed so far, then the correct path to tackling the climate crisis is to completely abandon the capitalist production system that prioritizes profit above all else and create a new, sustainable society.

对于“革命”这一措辞，也许有人会觉得过于夸张。以日本为例，因为媒体的报道出了问题，所以人们现在还很难把环保运动与“革命”二字相联系。不过，有一部分人已经看到，“永远的经济增长”只不过是自欺欺人的幻象。在现在的体系中，既然找不到解决之策，那么不应该去改变这套体系吗？换言之，既然人们在资本主义体系内所能想到的应对气候变化的办法，截止到目前无一例外地以失败告终。那么，彻底抛弃追求利润至上的资本主义生产体系，开创可持续发展的崭新社会，方为应对气候危机的正途。

It must be pointed out that, when discussing the issue of climate change, the key point is not whether the people holding the above view are socialists, but whether their arguments are based on scientific facts. This is because the more one dares to face scientific facts, the more one feels that humanity is currently in a severe crisis, and at the same time, the more one feels that this crisis has forced humanity to undertake a fundamental transformation of the social system. This point is crucial and cannot be avoided. As a joint statement signed by 11,000 scientists points out, "the climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption under affluent lifestyles."

必须指出的是，人们在讨论气候变化问题时，关键点不在于持上述观点的人是不是社会主义者，而在于他们的主张是不是基于科学事实。这是因为，越是敢于直面科学事实，就越能感受到当前人类正处于严重的危机之中，同时也越能感受到这种危机已经迫使人类不得不对社会体系进行根本性的大转换，这一点至关重要且不容回避。正如一份由11000名科学家联合署名的共同声明所提出的那样，“气候危机与富裕生活方式下的过剩消费密切相关”。

In 2018, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the *Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C*. This special report became a turning point for many people's thinking. As is well known, the IPCC has long been criticized by environmental activists. They argue that because the reports issued by the IPCC represent not only a consensus among scientists from various fields but must ultimately be approved by national governments, the IPCC tends to be restrained in its predictions of the climate change process, and its reports are often overly conservative. Yet even so, in this special report, to emphasize the severity of the climate change issue, the IPCC specifically used the following wording: "unprecedented scale... of transitions (in social and economic systems) are required." The "1.5°C" target is precisely the key point of this special report.

2018年，联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)发布了《全球升温1.5 ℃特别报告》，这份特别报告书成了很多人转变思想观念的契机。众所周知，IPCC长期以来受到环保运动者的批评，他们认为，由于IPCC发布的报告书不仅是各领域科学家之间的共识，而且最终必须获得各国政府的认可，因此，在对气候变化进程进行预测时，IPCC容易倾向于持克制态度，其发布的报告往往也过于保守。但即便如此，IPCC在这份特别报告书中，为了强调气候变化问题的严峻性，特别使用了如下措辞，“必须以前所未有的规模……对(社会和经济运行的)系统进行转换”，“1.5 ℃”正是这份特别报告书的“文眼”。

The long-term goal of the *Paris Agreement* is to limit the increase in global average temperature to within 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. However, even if all countries strictly adhere to the *Paris Agreement*, the maximum increase in global average temperature could still reach 3.7°C. Furthermore, the IPCC Special Report points out that even if the 2.0°C red line is held, climate change will still have devastating social and economic impacts. This is because a 2.0°C rise in global average temperature is sufficient to trigger worldwide catastrophes such as sea-level rise, drought, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and food shortages.

《巴黎协定》提出的长期目标是，与工业革命之前相比，到2100年时将全球平均气温的上升幅度控制在2.0℃以内。然而，即便世界各国都严格遵守《巴黎协定》，全球平均气温的最大升幅仍有可能达到3.7℃。不仅如此，IPCC特别报告书指出，即便守住了2.0℃这条红线，气候变化问题依然将产生毁灭性的社会和经济影响。这是因为，全球平均气温上升2.0℃，就足以引发海平面上升、干旱、水资源匮乏、生物多样性丧失、食物短缺等世界性规模的灾难。

In view of this, "1.5°C" is seen as the upper limit to avoid the above disasters. However, the IPCC Special Report points out that, at current emission levels, the increase in global average temperature will reach the "1.5°C" upper limit as early as 2030. Correspondingly, to achieve the "1.5°C" target, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced by 45% by 2030, and net carbon dioxide emissions must reach zero by 2050. Such a large-scale reduction undoubtedly requires comprehensive and rapid action. Relying solely on market economy principles such as carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes is clearly insufficient. Humanity must achieve major transformations in methods of power generation, means of transportation, and methods of food production.

有鉴于此，“1.5℃”被人们视为避免上述灾难的上限。但是，IPCC特别报告书指出，按照目前的排放水平，全球平均气温的上升幅度最早在2030年就将达到“1.5℃”这一上限。与此相对应，如果希望达成“1.5℃”这一目标，就必须在2030年之前将二氧化碳排放量削减45%，在2050年之前将二氧化碳的净排放量降为0。如此大规模的减排，无疑离不开全面而迅速的行动。仅仅依靠碳税、排放额度交易等基于市场经济原理的办法，显然是不够的。在发电方式、交通手段、食物生产方法等方面，人类都必须实现重大转换。

Although the highly impactful content of the IPCC Special Report has made more people aware of the seriousness and urgency of the situation, as climate scientists like Kevin Anderson and others have pointed out, the IPCC Special Report also has certain limitations. For example, to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, developed countries would need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10% annually starting now. However, within the existing economic system, it is impossible for developed countries to achieve such a scale of emission reduction. Another example is that in the "scenarios" designed by the IPCC, Negative Emissions Technologies (NET) play an important role in achieving the "1.5°C" or "2.0°C" targets. The most representative of these is a series of technologies known as BECCS. Specifically, BECCS mainly consists of bioenergy technology (BE) and carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). BECCS not only utilizes bioenergy to achieve zero emissions but also employs technological means to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and bury it underground or in the ocean, thereby reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

尽管IPCC特别报告书中这些极具冲击性内容，让更多人认识到事态的严重性和紧迫性，但是正如气候学家凯文·安德森等人所指出的那样，IPCC特别报告书也存在一定的局限性。例如，如果希望在2050年之前将二氧化碳的净排放量降为0，发达国家就必须从现在起以每年10%的幅度削减二氧化碳排放量。但是，在既有的经济体系中，发达国家不可能达到这样的减排规模。再如，在IPCC设计的“剧本”中，为了实现“1.5℃”或者 “2.0℃”的目标，二氧化碳吸收技术(NET)将扮演重要的角色，其中，最具代表性的是被称为BECCS的系列技术。具体而言，BECCS主要由生物能源技术(BE)和二氧化碳回收及储存技术(CCS)共同组成。BECCS不仅要利用生物能实现零排放，还要运用技术手段捕获大气中的二氧化碳，并将其埋藏于地下或海中，以此来降低大气中的二氧化碳浓度。

However, whether BECCS can ultimately be successfully developed and play its expected role remains highly questionable. This is because, if the premise of sustained economic growth is maintained, BECCS itself would need to reach a very large scale to match the expanding economy. For example, simply to produce the energy needed by countries like the United States and Japan would require vast amounts of farmland to grow crops for bioenergy. According to estimates, the area required would be two to three times the size of India. How to provide such a large area of farmland is a major challenge. Furthermore, whether power generation units equipped with CCS equipment are economically viable is currently unknown. Moreover, power generation units equipped with CCS equipment consume large amounts of water during operation. The United States alone is expected to consume 130 billion tons of water annually. The purpose of using power generation units equipped with CCS equipment is to minimize carbon dioxide emissions while burning fossil fuels. But as mentioned above, if the goal of continuing to use fossil fuels ends up wasting significantly more other natural resources (such as water resources) than before, then using power generation units equipped with CCS equipment would be counterproductive.

不过，BECCS最终能否被成功研发出来并发挥预期作用，目前仍存在诸多疑点。这是因为，如果以经济持续增长为前提，那么为了配合不断扩张的经济，BECCS本身必须达到相当大的规模。例如，仅仅为了生产美国、日本等国所必需的能源就需要占用大量农田，用于种植能够产生生物能源的作物，据测算，其面积将达印度国土面积的两到三倍，如何提供如此大面积的农田，这是一个大难题。再如，应用配备有CCS设备的发电装置在经济上是否合算，目前尚不得而知。不仅如此，配备有CCS设备的发电装置在运行过程中，还必须消耗大量的水资源。仅美国一个国家，预计每年就将消耗1300亿吨水。人们之所以应用配备有CCS设备的发电装置，目的就在于让发电装置在燃烧化石燃料的同时，尽可能地减少二氧化碳排放。但是如前所述，如果为了达到继续使用化石燃料的目的，反而会比以前更多地浪费大量其他自然资源(如水资源等)，那么应用配备有CCS设备的发电装置，将得不偿失。

Even so, within the IPCC framework for addressing climate change, future technologies with significant uncertainties like BECCS are abundant. Moreover, these future technologies play important roles in various IPCC "scenarios." The reason the IPCC has to do this actually reflects the following fact: the basic premise hidden within its Special Report is that the economic growth model based on the free market can solve the climate change problem. However, this basic premise itself is untenable. Thus, it can be seen that if the capitalist production system is regarded as the natural and correct social production system, hoping to find countermeasures to achieve the "1.5°C" or "2.0°C" targets is nothing short of a fool's errand.

即便如此，在IPCC关于应对气候变化问题的框架中，类似BECCS这样存在大量不确定性的未来科技比比皆是。而且，这些未来科技都在IPCC的各种“剧本”中扮演着重要角色。IPCC之所以不得不这么做，实际上反映出这样一个事实：暗藏于其特别报告书之中的基本前提是，以自由市场为基础的经济增长模式能够解决气候变化问题，然而，这个基本前提本身就无法成立。由此可见，如果将资本主义生产制度视为天经地义的社会生产制度，那么希望找到实现“1.5℃”或者 “2.0℃”目标的应对之策，无异于痴人说梦。

In the past, when formulating many planning targets, people always considered how to make enterprises with a profit-seeking nature gradually accept these planning targets (such as the SDGs, etc.). However, under the current circumstances, the scale of the measures that must be taken to address climate change is so enormous that relying on the previous gradualist planning targets is clearly far from sufficient. As early as 1988, James Hansen, a researcher at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), warned people that "there is a 99% probability that climate warming is related to carbon dioxide," stating that human activities are triggering climate change. Yet, with the end of the Cold War, neoliberal ideology came to dominate the world. The capitalist world committed itself to integrating the globe into a unified market, while simultaneously promoting the thorough deregulation of countries worldwide to achieve free trade. The result was that measures to address climate change were repeatedly delayed, thirty years of precious time were squandered, and the era in which climate change could be solved gradually was gone forever.

过去，人们在制定许多规划目标时，总是会考虑到如何让具有逐利本性的企业循序渐进地接受这些规划目标(如SDGs目标等)。可是，在当前形势下，为应对气候变化问题而必须采取的对策，其规模何其巨大，再靠以前那种渐进式的规划目标显然是远远不够的。早在1988年，美国国家航空航天局(NASA)的研究人员詹姆斯·汉森就曾以“气候变暖99%的可能性与二氧化碳有关”向人们提出警告：人类活动正在引发气候变化。然而，随着冷战结束，新自由主义思潮在全世界占据支配性地位。资本主义世界致力于将全球整合为一个统一的市场，同时为了实现自由贸易而推动世界各国彻底地放松各种管制。结果就是，应对气候变化的措施被一拖再拖，30年的宝贵时间被白白浪费，能够渐进式解决气候变化问题的时代也随之一去不返。

For this reason, to save the planet on which humanity depends for survival, it is necessary to seek more fundamental solutions, and further to seek countermeasures that do not rely solely on a single economic growth target and a fully marketized economic mechanism. Such calls are rising one after another across the world today. "System Change, Not Climate Change!" has gradually become a common slogan.

正因如此，为了拯救人类赖以生存的这颗行星，必须寻求更具根本性的解决方案，进而寻求不仅仅依赖单一经济增长目标和完全化市场经济机制的应对之策，这样的呐喊在当今世界此起彼伏。“改变体制而不是改变气候”(System Change，Not Climate Change！)逐渐成为人们共同的口号。

II. Climate Justice and Just Transition

二、 气候正义与公正转型

Although environmental activists and scientists strongly urge people to make immediate changes and adopt fundamental measures to address climate change, many adults in developed countries regard these calls as hollow and illusory. In stark contrast, young people and people in developing countries are full of passion for the environmental movement. This is, of course, no accident, because for young people and people in developing countries, arguments such as "the current way of life can continue indefinitely" and "climate change can only be addressed gradually" are truly hollow and illusory. The fierce clash between these two views reflects the fact that specific structural inequalities are actually hidden behind the climate change issue.

尽管环保运动者和科学家们强烈呼吁人们立行立改，采取根本性的措施来应对气候变化问题，但发达国家很多的成年人却认为这些呼声是空泛而虚妄的。与此形成鲜明对照的是，青少年和发展中国家的人们对于环保运动充满激情，这当然不是偶然的，因为对于青少年和发展中国家的人们而言，诸如“现在的生活方式能够永久地持续下去”“对于气候变化问题，只能‘徐徐图之’”等论调，才真正是空泛而虚妄的。这两种看法之间的激烈交锋，折射出气候变化问题背后实际上潜藏着特殊的结构性不平等。

The first is class inequality. The richest 10% of the population on the wealth ranking emit about 50% of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions, while the bottom 50% of the population account for only 10% of emissions. It is estimated that if the richest 10% could reduce their per capita carbon dioxide emissions to the average European personal level, global carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by about one-third. This shows the enormous burden that the lifestyle of this small minority places on the overall environment of the planet. Going further, the truly culpable factor is the extremely unreasonable social system that promotes this lifestyle, drives people into endless competition and consumption.

首先是阶级的不平等。在财富排行榜上排名前10%的富人排放的二氧化碳，占全世界二氧化碳排放总量的50%左右，而财富排名后50%人口的二氧化碳排放量仅占10%。据测算，如果财富排行榜排名前10%的富人能够将人均二氧化碳排放量削减至欧洲的个人平均水平，则全世界的二氧化碳排放量将减少约1/3。由此可见，这一小部分人的生活方式给地球的整体环境造成了何等沉重的负担。更进一步来看，推崇这种生活方式的、驱动人们陷入无止境的竞争和消费之中的、极其不合理的社会体系，才是真正的罪魁祸首。

The second is inequality caused by capital monopoly. It is estimated that the 100 companies with the largest carbon dioxide emissions in the world are responsible for as much as 71% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, these companies often shift their responsibility onto consumers, claiming that how their products are used depends entirely on consumers. But in reality, on the one hand, these companies fundamentally limit people's choices regarding lifestyles and consumption patterns to a very narrow range; on the other hand, while obtaining high profits, these companies use a portion of those profits to sponsor various think tanks, which then spread "global warming skepticism" or engage in various lobbying activities. The ultimate goal of these companies in doing so is to obstruct governments from imposing environmental regulations on them.

其次是资本垄断造成的不平等。据测算，世界上二氧化碳排放量最大的100家公司，必须对高达71%的全球二氧化碳排放量负责。当然，这些企业往往会将自己应负的责任推卸给消费者，它们声称，自己的产品究竟会被如何使用，完全取决于消费者。但实际上，一方面，这些企业从根本上将人们关于生活和消费方式的选择项局限在了很小的范围之内；另一方面，这些企业在获得高额利润的同时，会将其中的一部分利润用于赞助各种智库机构，让这些机构散布“全球变暖怀疑论”，或者进行各种游说活动。这些企业这么做的最终目的就是阻挠各国政府对它们采取环保方面的管制。

Therefore, on the one hand, the "polluter pays principle" should be generally applied to these companies that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide; on the other hand, the monopoly situation of transnational capital conglomerates once again clearly shows that if fundamental regulatory measures cannot be taken at the production level, solving the climate change problem will be impossible.

因此，一方面，应当对这些大量排放二氧化碳的企业普遍地适用“污染者付费原则”(Polluter pays principle)；另一方面，跨国性资本大企业的垄断局面也再次向人们清晰地表明，如果不能在生产的环节采取根本性的管制措施，解决气候变化问题将无从谈起。

Finally, there is inequality in terms of suffering losses. As mentioned above, from the perspective of carbon dioxide emissions, the emissions of different countries, classes, and companies vary greatly. But the key issue is that, from the perspective of bearing the losses caused by climate change, those groups with lower carbon dioxide emissions—such as young people, people in developing countries, and vulnerable groups in developed societies—actually suffer greater losses. This is undoubtedly a great inequality as well.

最后是在蒙受损失方面的不平等。如前所述，从二氧化碳排放的角度来看，不同的国家、阶级、企业的排放量可谓天差地别。但关键问题是，从承受气候变化所造成的损失这一角度来看，二氧化碳排放量较少的人群，如青少年、发展中国家的人们、发达国家社会中的弱势群体等，他们反而会蒙受更大的损失，这无疑也是一种极大的不平等。

At present, a small minority enjoys a comfortable and affluent life while wantonly destroying the material conditions on which future generations depend for survival and development. This situation cannot be tolerated by social justice. Hence, the idea of "climate justice" has emerged, with the aim of correcting the above series of structural power and subordination relations. To uphold "climate justice," it is necessary to require developed countries to transition to a low-carbon society as soon as possible, thereby reserving the necessary "carbon budget" for the development of developing countries. At the same time, given that developed countries have historically achieved economic growth by extracting large amounts of resources from developing countries, developed countries should now provide economic and technological compensation to developing countries.

当下，少数人一边享受着舒适、富足的生活，一边却肆意破坏着子孙后代赖以生存发展的物质条件，这种情况不能为社会公平所容忍，于是，“气候正义”的思潮应运而生，其宗旨就是希望纠正上述一系列结构性的权力及从属关系。为了维护“气候正义”，就必须要求发达国家尽快向低碳社会过渡，从而为发展中国家的发展预留下必需的“碳预算”(Carbon budget)。同时，鉴于发达国家曾经通过从发展中国家获取大量资源以实现自身经济增长，如今发达国家理应为此给予发展中国家经济层面和技术层面的补偿。

From the above, it can be seen that to uphold "climate justice," promoting structural change is imperative. This structural change includes not only measures to address climate change but also a thorough overhaul of the theoretical foundations and practical models of neoliberalism and capitalism itself—for example, enhancing planning in the production sector, strengthening market management, creating more local employment opportunities, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, and breaking away from "extractivism."

由上述可见，为了维护“气候正义”，推动结构性变革势在必行。这种结构性变革不仅包含应对气候变化问题的措施，还要对新自由主义、资本主义本身的理论基础和实践模式进行一次脱胎换骨的“大手术”，例如，在生产环节增强计划性、对市场加强管理、创造更多本地就业机会、缩小贫富差距、摆脱“榨取主义”(Extractivism)等。

Among these, the first priority must be to transform the laissez-faire economic model vigorously promoted by neoliberalism, and instead enhance economic planning. It is no longer possible to take a laissez-faire attitude toward the market; instead, the market must be managed and intervened in on the basis of a "carbon budget," and by calculating the "carbon budget," one can deduce what products should be produced and what production capacity should be maintained.

其中，首先必须针对新自由主义极力推崇的宽松放任式经济模式进行变革，转而增强经济的计划性；不能再对市场采取放任不管的态度，而是必须在“碳预算”的基础上，对市场进行管理和干预，并且通过测算“碳预算”，来反推到底应该生产哪些产品、应该维持多大产能。

At the same time, it is also necessary to make substantial adjustments to the free trade that has been vigorously developed over a long period. Correspondingly, people must place greater emphasis on promoting the further localization of production and consumption.

同时，对于过去长期以来人们大力发展的自由贸易，也有必要进行大幅度的调整。与此相对，人们必须更加重视推动生产和消费进一步实现本土化。

Furthermore, from the perspective of upholding "climate justice," it is necessary to re-study and formulate tax policies targeting international monopoly capital and the global wealthy class, and to effectively invest this tax revenue into actions to address climate change.

此外，还必须从维护“气候正义”的高度，重新研究制定针对国际垄断资本和全球富裕阶层的税收政策，并将这一部分税金切实投入应对气候变化问题的行动中。

Humanity's unrestrained plundering of resources from nature has been the basic mode of material metabolism between humans and nature since the Industrial Revolution. Deeply reflecting on this and taking remedial measures is the way to survival.

人类毫无节制地从大自然掠夺资源，这是工业革命以来人类与自然之间的物质代谢的基本模式，对此加以深刻反省并采取亡羊补牢的措施，方为求存之道。

III. Green New Deal (GND) and Populism

三、 绿色新政(GND)与民粹主义

As the trend of "climate justice" becomes increasingly intertwined with the critique of neoliberalism, the environmental movement has begun to exert a sustained influence on the political sphere. A new vision has thus emerged: the climate crisis might present a rare opportunity for left-wing forces, which have been in decline for the past 30 years, to break through their predicament and give rise to a more equal and just society. The most representative example of this is the "Green New Deal" (GND). Currently, the GND has sparked extensive discussion within major political parties such as the US Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party. As Paul Mason has stated, "In the vision of the GND, economic 'decarbonization,' social wealth redistribution, and infrastructure construction are mutually reinforcing and inseparable. Thus, it can be said that the GND depicts an extremely bold design blueprint, which not only aims to make the economy humane again but will also surely erect a monument as conspicuous as a pyramid in the political history of the 21st century."

随着“气候正义”思潮与新自由主义批判日趋紧密地结合在一起，环保运动开始持续不断地对政治领域产生影响。一种新的愿景随之萌发——气候危机也许正是一个难得的机遇，能够让近30年来陷入低谷的左派力量借此突破困境，进而催生出一个更加平等、公正的社会,其中最具代表性的就是“绿色新政”(GND)。目前，GND已经在美国民主党、英国工党等主要政党中引起广泛讨论。正如保罗·梅森所说，“在GND的设想中，经济‘脱碳化’、社会财富再分配、基础设施建设是相辅相成、密不可分的。因而可以说，GND描绘了一幅极具魄力的设计蓝图，其不仅要让经济再次回归人性，而且也必将在21世纪的政治史上，树立起一座如金字塔般醒目的丰碑”。

In fact, the GND did not just emerge in recent years. In the United States, Jill Stein of the Green Party had already put forward related proposals during the 2012 US presidential election. However, the event that truly brought the GND to prominence was the joint introduction of the GND resolution to the US Congress in February 2019 by US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey. The significant role played by the "Sunrise movement" is particularly worth mentioning. Supporters and participants of this movement risked arrest to hold a sit-in protest in front of the office of Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi. California has consistently held a passive attitude towards addressing climate change, and Nancy Pelosi was elected as a member of Congress from California. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not only personally participated in the sit-in protest but was also the first to sign the pledge of the Sunrise movement, promising never to accept sponsorship funds from the oil industry. As the movement grew in momentum and influence, Bernie Sanders, in his campaign declaration for the US presidential election, put forward political propositions that went even further than the GND:

实际上，GND并不是最近几年才崭露头角的。在美国，“绿党”的吉尔·斯坦因早在2012年美国大选时就已经提出相关主张。不过，真正让GND声名大噪的事件是，美国众议院议员亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯和参议院议员埃德·马基于2019年2月联合向美国国会提出了GND法案，其中，“日出运动”(Sunrise movement)所发挥的重要作用特别值得一提，该运动的支持者和参与者曾冒着被逮捕的危险，在民主党议员南希·佩洛西的办公地前举行静坐示威活动。加利福尼亚州在应对气候变化问题方面，一直持消极态度，而南希·佩洛西正是在加利福尼亚州被选举成为国会议员的。亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯不仅亲自参加了静坐示威活动，而且率先在“日出运动”的誓言书上签名，承诺绝不接受来自石油行业的赞助资金。在该运动声势日隆、风头正劲之际，桑德斯在参加美国总统大选的竞选宣言中，提出了较GND更进一步的政治主张：

① Achieve 100% renewable energy use in the power generation and transportation systems by 2030; fully realize a "decarbonized society" by 2050 at the latest.

①在2030年之前，实现发电和交通系统100%使用可再生能源；最迟到2050年，完全实现“脱碳社会”。

② Promote a massive public investment totaling $16.3 trillion to address climate change and create new jobs.

②推动总额高达16.3万亿美元的大型公共投资用于应对气候变化问题和创造新的就业岗位。

③ Declare climate change a national emergency.

③宣布气候变化成为一种国家紧急状态。

④ Ban energy extraction methods such as offshore drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

④禁止使用海洋钻井、水力压裂法等方式获取能源。

Unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, Sanders adopted a posture of vowing to confront the oil industry head-on. Sanders advocated for imposing heavy taxes and severe punitive measures on the oil industry enterprises and their investors, who are the culprits of environmental pollution, and for canceling subsidies for fossil fuels. On this basis, Sanders also set ambitious goals and a clear timeline for promoting the transition to renewable energy. Furthermore, Sanders's proposals for addressing class and racial inequality also attracted widespread attention.

与亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯等人不同，桑德斯摆出了一副誓与石油行业对决到底的姿态。桑德斯主张对环境污染的罪魁祸首——石油行业相关企业及其投资者课以重税并采取严厉的处罚措施，取消对化石燃料的补贴。在此基础上，桑德斯还在推动可再生能源转型方面，设定了雄心勃勃的目标，画出了明确的时间线。此外，桑德斯关于解决阶级、种族不平等问题的主张，也引发了广泛关注。

It can be said that Sanders did not merely advocate for minimizing the negative impacts of climate change; rather, he placed the focus of his policies on the broader goal of achieving "climate justice." He committed to promoting a "just transition" towards a sustainable development model within the capitalist economic production system, thereby aiming to resolve the structural inequalities inherent in capitalism, including those related to climate change. In other words, the so-called "just transition" means leaving no one behind on the path of transformation.

可以说，桑德斯并不是单纯地主张将气候变化的负面影响降低到最低程度，而是将其政策的重心放在了如何实现“气候正义”这一更为宏大的目标上，他致力于通过推动资本主义经济生产体系实现向可持续发展模式的“公正转型”(Just transition)，进而期望来解决包括气候变化的资本主义内在结构性不平等问题。换言之，所谓的“公正转型”就是要做到在转型路上一个都不落下。

Specifically, the series of policies and measures Sanders proposed include helping workers in the oil industry transition to other sectors, providing them with support in terms of wages, insurance annuities, medical coverage, and housing; while providing people with stable employment and living conditions, also offering compensation to groups such as indigenous peoples who have suffered unfair treatment.

具体而言，桑德斯拟推出的一系列政策措施包括帮助石油行业相关劳动者向其他行业转移，并在工资、保险年金、医疗保障、住房等方面为他们提供各种支持；在为人们提供稳定的就业和生活环境的同时，对原住民等曾遭受不公平待遇的群体进行赔偿等。

The background against which Sanders dared to propose such a bold and radical plan is that right-wing populists in the United States are unscrupulously using the theoretical energy of neoliberalism to unleash the capitalist economic crisis, resulting in extreme xenophobic movements. Faced with this situation, in the view of Sanders and his ilk, merely countering it with a liberal capitalist program is clearly insufficient. Therefore, Sanders chose to use left-wing populism to counter the right-wing populism in the United States. In their view, people must not only recognize that the phased transformation of capitalism under the dominance of neoliberalism is unrealistic, but they must also go further to recognize that hoping for a compromise plan acceptable to the Republican Party, proposed by Sanders, to win consensus (on addressing climate change) is fundamentally incapable of overcoming the climate change problem.

桑德斯之所以敢于提出如此大胆而激进的计划，背景在于，美国的右派民粹主义者正在肆无忌惮地利用新自由主义的理论能量释放资本主义经济危机，造成了极端的排外主义运动。面对这种局面，在桑德斯之流看来，仅仅以资本主义的自由主义方案与之相对抗，显然是远远不够的。所以桑德斯选择了以左派民粹主义来抗衡美国的右派民粹主义。在他们看来，人们不仅必须认识到，资本主义在新自由主义主导下的阶段性转型是不现实的，而且，人们还应当更进一步地认识到，寄希望于桑德斯提出让共和党也能够接受的妥协性方案来争取(在应对气候变化的问题上)赢得共识的做法，是根本不可能战胜气候变化问题的。

In the view of Sanders and his ilk, the reason for this intense confrontation between left-wing populism and right-wing populism in the United States is not that democracy itself has fatal flaws. Nor is it populism that has led to the crisis of democracy; it is capital itself. For this reason, if democracy is to return to its true essence and substance, the spearhead of struggle must be directed at capitalism itself. This is precisely the essence of the so-called "left-wing GND."

在桑德斯之流看来，之所以在美国会出现这种左派民粹主义与右派民粹主义激烈对抗的局面，并不是因为民主主义本身存在致命缺陷。导致民主主义陷入危机的，也并非民粹主义，而是资本自身。正因如此，如果希望让民主主义回归其本真和实质，就必须将斗争的矛头对准资本主义本身，而这正是所谓“左派GND”的要义。

Essentially, to fully integrate genuine left-wing populism into every aspect of the GND, people must not only pour all their passion and energy into the single issue of achieving a "decarbonized society," but must also commit to depicting a more positive blueprint for capitalist reform. In this blueprint, not only will the climate change problem be well resolved within the capitalist framework, but inequalities in class, race, gender, and many other aspects will also be thoroughly and comprehensively resolved. Therefore, it can be said that the ultimate goal pursued by the GND is fundamentally incompatible with the logical paradox of capitalism itself. If social groups such as workers' movement organizations, environmental NGOs, regional community organizations, and indigenous groups cannot unite to launch a broad social movement, then the GND will become a tree without roots and will inevitably fail under the counterattack of the logic of capital. Therefore, only by mobilizing as many people as possible to participate and launching more numerous and more universal activities can we jointly paint a beautiful future picture of "climate justice." In this sense, the strategy of the GND is precisely what Joachim Hirsch calls "radical reformism."

从本质上看，为了让真正的左派民粹主义完全融入GND的方方面面，人们就不仅仅将全部的热情和精力都倾注于如何实现“脱碳社会”这单个问题上，而是必须致力于描绘一幅更加积极的资本主义改良蓝图。在这张蓝图中，不仅是气候变化问题将在资本主义框架下得到很好的解决，阶级、种族、性别等诸多方面的不平等问题，也都将得到彻底的、总体性的解决。因此可以说，GND所追求的最终目标与资本主义自身的逻辑悖论是水火不容的。如果工人运动组织、环境NGO、地区性共同体组织、原住民群体等社会团体不能团结起来，掀起广泛的社会运动，那么GND将成为无根之木，必将在资本逻辑的反扑之下，以失败告终。所以，只有动员起尽可能多的人投身其中，发起更多更具普遍性的活动，才能共同绘就“气候正义”的美好未来图景。从这个意义上讲，GND的战略实际上就是约阿希姆·赫希所说的“激进的改良主义”。

The radical nature of so-called "radical reformism" is mainly manifested in the fact that the ultimate goal of reform is to fundamentally negate capitalism's obsessive pursuit of economic growth and completely overthrow the basic principles of the current capitalist social system's operation. Conversely, the so-called "green revolution" proposed by Thomas Friedman and others is undoubtedly one-sided. If the GND loses the aforementioned radical nature, it will inevitably degenerate into "climate Keynesianism" serving the "green revolution." Since "climate Keynesianism" is inherently consistent with the logic of capital, allowing it to evolve will ultimately lead to this outcome: the United States, in order to achieve its own green transformation, will continue to extract limited resources from the entire world, ultimately exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity.

所谓“激进的改良主义”的激进性主要表现为，改良的最终目标是从根本上否定资本主义对于经济增长的疯狂执念，彻底推翻当前资本主义社会体系运行的基本原理。反过来看，托马斯·弗里德曼等人提出的所谓“绿色革命”，毫无疑问是片面的。如果GND丧失了上述那种激进性，则终将不可避免地沦为服务于“绿色革命”的“气候凯恩斯主义”。由于“气候凯恩斯主义”与资本逻辑本就一脉相承，因此任其发展演变下去的结局就是：美国为了实现自身的绿色转型，而继续从全世界榨取有限的资源，并最终踩破地球承载能力的极限。

Naomi Klein once appealed: “The GND will create many green, high-quality jobs. However, if people let their guard down, they will immediately pour the wages earned from these jobs into an extremely consumerist lifestyle, ultimately increasing (carbon dioxide) emissions. Therefore, people must be careful to avoid this situation.” These words hit the nail on the head and got straight to the point. In view of this, Naomi Klein proposed: “The most critical transformation is to, while formulating measures to strictly limit the extraction of natural resources, provide people with a new opportunity to improve their quality of life, escape the trap of infinite consumption cycles, and thereby gain new and greater life pleasures.”

娜奥米·克莱因曾这样呼吁道，“受益于GND而会出现许多绿色的优质工作岗位。然而，人们只要稍不留神，就会将在这些工作岗位上获得的工资立即投入到极端消费主义的生活方式之中，最终增加(二氧化碳的)排放量。因此，人们千万要注意避免出现这种情况”。此言可谓一针见血、一语中的。有鉴于此，娜奥米·克莱因提出，“最为紧要的转型就是，在制定措施严格限制开采自然资源的同时，为人们提供一个崭新的机会，让人们得以改善生活品质，并摆脱无限的消费循环陷阱，进而获得新的、更多的人生乐趣”。

IV. Conclusion

四、 结 语

“Socialism or barbarism”—Rosa Luxemburg’s cry has taken on new practical significance in the era of climate crisis. Naomi Klein, in turn, uses the chilling concept of “eco-fascism” to warn people: we must not allow the “barbarism” that Rosa Luxemburg spoke of to resurface and stage a comeback. In the era of climate crisis, allowing the logic of capital to run rampant will inevitably lead to the decline of democracy and will inevitably give rise to a society where a tiny minority monopolizes wealth and energy. In such a society, a small clique will instead hypocritically use the issue of climate change as a pretext to expel the very migrants who are forced to leave their homelands precisely because of climate change. The wall that the Trump administration previously built high on the US-Mexico border under the banner of “America First” is the most typical symbol of this kind of society.

“不是社会主义，就是野蛮”——罗莎·卢森堡的这句呐喊在气候危机的时代里被赋予了全新的现实意义。娜奥米·克莱因则用“环保法西斯主义”这一令人为之心惊的概念来警醒人们：一定不能让罗莎·卢森堡所说的“野蛮”沉渣泛起、卷土重来。在气候危机的时代里，听任资本逻辑肆虐横行，就必然导致民主主义的衰退，也必然会催生一小撮人垄断财富和能源的社会。在这样的社会里，一部分小团体反而会道貌岸然地以气候变化问题为由，驱逐那些正是因为气候变化而不得不背井离乡的移民。此前特朗普政府打着“美国第一”的旗号，在美国与墨西哥边境高高筑起的隔离墙，就是这种社会最典型的象征。

In summary, within a planet with limited carrying capacity, the capitalist economic system, which pursues unlimited capital growth and drives unrestrained production and consumption activities, has reached a crossroads where major transformation and adjustment are imperative. The picture that can be frozen at the end of the road of “climate Keynesianism” is, at best, a tiny minority of the rich driving Tesla electric cars. As long as capitalist relations of production remain the premise, the bottom line of the planet’s carrying capacity is destined to be ruthlessly trampled upon, and the idea of relying on progress in the technical details of capitalist production to turn the tide will ultimately prove to be nothing more than a wishful delusion.

综上所述，在承载能力有限的地球内部，追求资本无限制的经济增长，驱动毫无节制的生产和消费活动，这样的资本主义经济体系已经走到了必须进行大变革、大调整的十字路口。“气候凯恩斯主义”道路尽头所能定格的画面，充其量不过是极少数富人开上了特斯拉的电动汽车。只要仍旧将资本主义生产关系作为前提，地球承载能力的底线注定会被无情踏破，而那种寄希望于依靠资本主义技术生产细节的进步来力挽狂澜的想法，终究会被证明只不过是一厢情愿的一丝妄念而已。

But on the other side of the coin, a new opportunity is equally placed before people: that is to uphold democracy as the supreme principle, to transcend the trap of economic inequality and the chasm of social class, to build a freer and more equal society, and thereby completely clear away the dark clouds of the climate change problem.

但在硬币的另一面，一个崭新的机会同样摆在人们面前：那就是将民主主义奉为圭臬，跨越经济上的不平等陷阱和社会阶层的鸿沟，去打造一个更加自由、更加平等的社会，由此彻底扫清气候变化问题的阴霾。

—This is the struggle between capitalism and democracy that will determine the future and destiny of humanity.

——这就是决定人类前途命运的资本主义与民主主义之争。

[Author: Kohei Saito (1987—), male, Japanese, Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics, Osaka Metropolitan University]

[作者：斋藤幸平(1987—)，男，日本人，大阪市立大学经济学院副教授]

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑