Hypocrisy, Exploitation, and New Imperialism — A Critique of Consequentialist Climate Justice Theory

On his first day in office, U.S. President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the Paris Agreement, which is undoubtedly encouraging news for addressing the global climate change issue. However, Biden also raised the hegemonic slogan of the United States leading global action on climate change. In fact, from George W. Bush to Biden, the United States and other developed capitalist countries have maintained a contradictory and ambiguous attitude toward global greenhouse gas emission reduction: on the one hand, these countries recognize the severity of global warming and the necessity of emission reduction; on the other hand, they are unwilling to assume the responsibility for emission reduction and attempt to maintain and expand their own leadership position while seizing more benefits in the process. Driven by this mentality, consequentialist climate justice theory, which ostensibly aims for the "good" of humanity as a whole but in practice opens the door wide for developed capitalist countries, has gained favor among contemporary developed capitalist nations and has been established as the fundamental principle for allocating emission reduction tasks. In fact, consequentialist climate justice theory is more of a hypocritical theory used to conceal the efforts of the United States and other developed capitalist countries to maintain global hegemony and to carry out a new round of exploitation of developing countries.

美国总统拜登上任的第一天就签署了重回《巴黎协议》的行政令，这对于解决全球气候变化问题而言，无疑是一个令人振奋的好消息。但是，拜登同时也提出由美国领导全球进行应对气候变化行动的霸权主义口号。事实上，从小布什到拜登，美国以及其他发达资本主义国家对全球温室气体减排行动一直持一种矛盾和暧昧的态度：一方面，各国认识到全球变暖的严重性，以及温室气体减排的必要性；另一方面，各国又不愿意承担温室气体减排的责任，并试图在减排行动中维护和扩大自身的领导权地位，并攫取更多的利益。在这种心理的驱使下，表面上是为了人类整体的“善”，但实际上却为发达资本主义国家大开方便之门的后果主义气候正义理论，就获得当代发达资本主义国家的青睐，并被确立为温室气体减排任务分配的基础性原则。事实上，后果主义气候正义理论更多的是一种被用于掩盖以美国为首的发达资本主义国家维护世界霸权地位，以及对发展中国家进行新一轮剥削的伪善理论。

I. Consequentialist Climate Justice Theory

一、后果主义气候正义理论

Consequentialism originates from classical utilitarianism and stands in opposition to deontology. It is generally understood as: "If a moral theory holds that whether an action is morally correct depends solely on its consequences, and not on the intrinsic nature of the action or anything that precedes it, then that theory is a consequentialist moral theory."

后果主义（consequentialism）起源于古典功利主义，与义务论（deontology）相对立，一般被理解为：“如果一个道德理论认为，一个行为是否是道德上正确的仅仅取决于其后果，而不是取决于该行为的内在本质或者在它发生之前的任何事情，那么这个理论就是一个后果主义的道德理论。”

The first to use consequentialist theory to analyze global greenhouse gas emission reduction was Nicholas Stern. His *Stern Review*, based on consequentialist theory, argues that actively implementing greenhouse gas emission reduction is conducive to improving the overall economic interests of contemporary developed capitalist countries. It points out: "The costs of coping with extreme weather, including floods, droughts, and storms, are already rising. This increase in costs applies to wealthy countries as well." In Stern's view, the criterion for judging emission reduction issues should be the real economic interests of each country, i.e., "the most common way to express an overall measure of well-being is real income." Stern calculated the following result: "If we do not act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year. If a wider range of risks and impacts is considered, the damage estimates could rise to more than 20% of GDP. In contrast, the costs of action (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change) could be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year." He Jiankun believes that Stern successfully proved that "the costs and risks of inaction on climate change far exceed the costs and risks of taking action." William Nordhaus argues that Stern's theory "makes an important contribution by balancing economic priorities and environmental harms when choosing climate change policies. By linking climate change policy with economic and environmental goals in principle, and possibly in practice, it corrects the fundamental defect of the *Kyoto Protocol*, which lacked such a link."

最早使用后果主义理论分析全球温室气体减排问题的是尼古拉斯·斯特恩（Nicholas Stern），他的《斯特恩报告》以后果主义理论为基础，论证了积极实施温室气体减排有利于提高当代发达资本主义国家整体经济利益的结论，并且指出：“包括洪水、干旱和风暴在内的极端天气的应对成本已经在不断上涨。这种成本的上涨对富裕国家也是一样。”在斯特恩看来，减排问题的判断标准应该是各国的现实经济利益，即“表达幸福总体衡量的最常见方式就是实际收入”。斯特恩计算出了如下结果：“如果我们不采取行动，气候变化的总体成本和风险将相当于每年至少损失全球GDP的5%。如果考虑到更广泛的风险和影响，损害估计可能会上升到GDP的20%以上。相比之下，行动成本（减少温室气体排放量，以避免气候变化的最严重影响）每年可以限制在全球GDP的1%左右。”何建坤认为，斯特恩成功地证明了“应对气候变化无所作为的成本和风险远远超过采取行动的成本和风险”。诺德豪斯（William Nordhaus）认为，斯特恩的理论“在选择气候变化政策的同时，注意平衡经济优先事项和环境危害，这是一个重要的贡献。通过在原则上，也可能在实践中，将气候变化政策与经济和环境目标联系起来的做法，纠正了《京都议定书》缺少这种联系的根本缺陷”。

Looking solely at the conclusions, Stern's consequentialist climate justice theory did play a positive role in the early stages of global greenhouse gas emission reduction. That is, by linking emission reduction with human economic benefits and replacing the many unquantifiable value factors in environmental protection with a single economic figure, it made emission reduction simpler and more intuitive, facilitating rapid public understanding and acceptance. However, this single-factor economic determinist strategy is more easily exploited in reality by the developed capitalist countries that control the current global economic lifeline and leadership.

单纯从结论来看，斯特恩的后果主义气候正义理论在全球温室气体减排行动的初期确实有着积极的作用，即将温室气体减排与人类经济效益进行关联，用单一的经济数值替代环境保护中诸多无法估值的价值因素，使温室气体减排变得更为简单直观，有利于被大众迅速理解和接受。但是，这种单一经济决定论的策略，在现实中更容易被掌握当前全球经济命脉和领导权的发达资本主义国家所利用。

Eric A. Posner's International Paretianism is another major type of consequentialist climate justice theory and is also the theory with the greatest influence on U.S. climate policy. Posner explains International Paretianism as: "the principle that at least one country must benefit from the (climate) treaty, and no party to the treaty will be made worse off." In economics, Pareto optimality refers to a situation where at least one person benefits while no one is harmed. So, in simple terms, Posner's theory seeks to achieve Pareto optimality in the allocation of greenhouse gas emission reduction tasks. Although International Paretianism is also a consequentialist climate justice theory, its theoretical demands differ from Stern's. Stern pursues the maximization of each country's economic interests, while Posner pursues a situation where no participating country is harmed.

埃里克·波斯纳（Eric A.Posner）的国际帕累托理论（International Paretianism)是后果主义气候正义理论的另一个主要类型，同时也是对美国气候政策影响最大的理论。波斯纳对国际帕累托理论的解释是：“至少一个国家必须从（气候）条约中受益的原则，而任何缔约国都不会因条约而变得更糟。”在经济学中，帕累托最优指的是：在没有任何人受损的情况下，至少有一个人获益的分配情况。所以，波斯纳的理论简单来说，就是在温室气体减排任务分配问题上实现帕累托最优。虽然国际帕累托理论也是一种后果主义的气候正义理论，但是与斯特恩的理论诉求并不一致。斯特恩追求的是各国经济利益最大化，波斯纳追求的则是参与国无人受损。

Posner believes that the key to the climate issue is forming a "feasible" climate agreement, even if that agreement is unfair and immoral, because "any climate change agreement must be feasible. But it is frustrating and ironic that, as a matter of principle, insisting on the best option (the principle of per capita equality) might make the climate change problem harder to solve, and to some extent, this could bring disaster to the poorest and most vulnerable countries." It is evident from this that Posner holds a political realist attitude, namely: "States will only join agreements that serve their own interests. Admittedly, states may be influenced by moral arguments, but history rarely provides cases where a state, to comply with the moral claims of other countries, acts against what it perceives as its own interests. In reality, states usually define their interests in terms of the well-being of their own citizens." Therefore, International Paretianism essentially abandons the pursuit of fairness and morality, instead pursuing economic interests and political power. In Posner's view, a "feasible" climate agreement will achieve global greenhouse gas emission reduction goals better than a "just" one. However, in reality, achieving "feasibility" requires strong political power and economic strength as bargaining chips, which precisely aligns with the thinking of the United States and other developed capitalist country blocs currently holding global hegemony.

波斯纳认为，气候问题的关键是形成一个具有“可行性”的气候协议，即使这个协议是不公平和不道德的，因为“任何气候变化协议必须是可行的。但令人沮丧和讽刺的是，作为一个原则问题，坚持最好的方案（人均平等原则）反而可能会使得气候变化问题难以解决，从某种程度上这可能会对最贫穷和最脆弱的国家带来灾害”。从中可以明显看出，波斯纳秉持着一种政治现实主义的态度，即：“国家只会加入服务于自身利益的协议。诚然，国家可能会受到道德论断的影响，但历史很少提供这样的案例———某国家为了符合其他国家的道德主张，宁愿背弃自己所认为的利益而实施某种行为。然而，实际上各个国家通常都从其国民福祉的角度来界定自身的利益。”所以，国际帕累托理论实质上放弃了对公平和道德的诉求，转而追求经济利益和政治权力，因为在波斯纳看来，一个“可行”的气候协议会比一个“正义”的气候协议更好地实现全球温室气体减排计划。但是在现实中，“可行”的达成需要强大的政治权力和经济实力作为筹码，而这一点恰好符合目前正处于世界霸权地位的美国等发达资本主义国家集团的想法。

II. Evasion and Transfer of Emission Reduction Responsibility

二、减排责任的逃避与转移

As discussed above, the appreciation of consequentialist climate justice theory by the United States and other developed capitalist countries does not stem from its ability to more effectively alleviate the global climate problem as a whole, but rather from how well it aligns with their own interests, namely: evading their own responsibility for greenhouse gas emission reduction and shifting it onto developing countries that pose a threat to their global leadership position. Specifically, consequentialist climate justice theory's disregard for the responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions and the process of allocating emission reduction tasks satisfies the need of the United States and other contemporary developed capitalist countries to protect their own real-world interests.

正如上文所述，美国等发达资本主义国家对后果主义气候正义理论的欣赏，并非源于该理论可以更有效地从整体上缓解全球气候问题，而是其更好地契合了他们自身的利益，即：对自身温室气体减排责任的逃避，并将其转嫁于对自己世界领导权地位构成威胁的发展中国家。具体来说，就是后果主义气候正义理论对温室气体排放责任和减排任务分配过程的漠视，满足了美国等当代发达资本主义国家维护自身现实利益的需求。

The main characteristic of consequentialist theory is that the value assessment of an event derives primarily from the results produced by that event, rather than from the motives behind the event or the process of its development and change. Taking the capture of a suspect as an example, consequentialism is only concerned with whether the suspect is ultimately brought to justice, and is not concerned with whether the motive for the capture is a moral imperative of justice or a personal desire for a high reward, nor with whether the capture process is legal and compliant, or whether there is torture during interrogation. John Rawls once criticized this, stating: “It does not care, except indirectly, how the total sum of satisfactions is distributed among individuals, any more than it cares, except indirectly, how one individual distributes his satisfactions over time.” [1]1 John Rawls, *A Theory of Justice* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 26. Therefore, when this characteristic of consequentialist theory is combined with climate issues, a new weapon for developed capitalist countries to maintain their hegemonic position is born.

后果主义理论的主要特征，就是对事件的价值评估主要来自于该事件所产生的结果，而非事件发生的动机和事件发展变化的过程。以抓嫌疑犯为例，后果主义只关心最终是否将嫌疑犯缉拿归案，而并不关心抓捕的动机是出于正义的道德律令，还是对高额悬赏的个人私欲，也不关心抓捕的过程是否合法合规，抑或是侦讯过程中是否存在刑讯等问题。罗尔斯（John Rawls）就曾批评道：“它不关心———除了间接的———满足的总量怎样在个人之间进行分配，就像它除了间接的之外，不怎么关心一个人怎样在不同的时间里分配他的满足一样。”所以，当后果主义理论的这个特征与气候问题相结合时，发达资本主义国家维护其自身霸权地位的新武器就诞生了。

On climate issues, this characteristic of consequentialism manifests as: focusing only on the overall results of global greenhouse gas emission reductions, ignoring the historical emission responsibilities of various countries, and using only the maximization of economic benefits after emission reductions as the principle for allocating reduction tasks. In Stern’s view, a good greenhouse gas emission reduction agreement should maximize the economic benefits of global emission reduction actions, and he explicitly criticizes: “Burden sharing is a language and way of thinking beloved by international bureaucrats. From an economic perspective, if the discussion of fairness is limited to how to divide the cake (carbon budget), the fundamental issue is avoided.” [2]2 Nicholas Stern, *The Global Deal: Climate Change and the Creation of a New Era of Progress and Prosperity* (New York: PublicAffairs, 2009), p. 175. It can be said that Stern completely denies the method of allocating greenhouse gas emission reduction tasks based on countries’ historical emission responsibilities and the degree of imbalance in socio-economic development.

在气候问题上，后果主义的这个特征表现为：只关注全球温室气体减排所产生的整体结果，忽视各国历史温室气体排放责任，并且只以减排后经济利益的最大化作为减排任务的分配原则。在斯特恩看来，一个优秀的温室气体减排协议应该能使全球温室气体减排行动获得经济利益的最大化，而且他明确批评道：“（温室气体减排）责任分担是备受国际官僚们喜爱的语言和思维方式。从经济学角度看，如果把公平的讨论局限于如何分配蛋糕（碳预算）上，就避开了根本的问题。”可以说，斯特恩彻底否定了依据各国温室气体排放责任和社会经济发展不平衡程度，进行温室气体减排任务划分的方式。

Regarding how to achieve the maximization of benefits from emission reduction actions, Stern recommends adopting a free market model, i.e., treating the greenhouse gas emissions of each country as a tradable commodity, conducting free competitive trading on a global scale, and attempting to achieve the optimal allocation of greenhouse gas emissions through the “invisible hand” of the free market. Regarding the free market model, to some extent, it is indeed possible to reach an optimal solution for greenhouse gas emission reductions. However, the price paid for this possibility is the socio-economic development prospects of numerous developing countries. Marx long ago provided a profound revelation of the capitalist free market model. He pointed out: “The result of competition is always that many smaller capitalists are ruined, their capital partly passing into the hands of the victor, partly being destroyed.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 32, “Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation.” David Harvey also points out: “Market liberalization never produces a harmonious state where everyone lives in abundance. On the contrary, it will produce unprecedented greater social inequality.” [4]4 David Harvey, *A Brief History of Neoliberalism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 67. In other words, the result of the free market will only be: with the continuous concentration of production and capital, a huge monopoly organization capable of controlling and manipulating the market will ultimately form. And the “optimal solution” that Stern hopes for is merely a byproduct of the process of monopoly formation.

对于如何实现减排行动的利益最大化，斯特恩建议采用自由市场模式，即将各国的温室气体排放量视作一种可以交易的商品，在全球范围内进行自由的竞价交易，试图通过自由市场这只“无形的手”来达到温室气体排放量分配的最优化。对于自由市场模式，在某种程度上确实存在达成温室气体减排最优解的可能。但是，这种可能性所付出的代价是众多发展中国家的社会经济发展前景。马克思对资本主义自由市场模式早有过深刻的揭示。他指出：“竞争的结果总是许多较小的资本家垮台，他们的资本一部分转入胜利者手中，一部分归于消灭。”哈维（David Harvey）也指出：“市场自由化从不会产生一个人人都过上富足生活的和谐国家。相反，它将产生前所未有的更大的社会不平等。”换句话说，自由市场的结果只会是：随着生产和资本的不断集中，最终形成一个可以控制操作市场的庞大的垄断组织。而斯特恩所希望的“最优解”，其实只是垄断形成过程中的副产品。

Specifically, the core of the free market is the equality of rights of market participants, which includes both the recognition of property ownership and the requirements for free and fair transactions. However, equality of political rights does not equal equality in actual practice. In an international environment where the gap between rich and poor countries is widening, the international division of labor is becoming clearer, and class stratification is gradually solidifying, insisting on equality of political rights without considering the actual differences in capital and political power can only serve to protect the owners of capital. This is because: First, the commodification of greenhouse gas emissions allows developed countries to evade scrutiny of their historical emission responsibilities. The lines drawn by the EU and the US for calculating historical emissions are acts of using the “grandfather principle” to evade historical emission responsibilities. [5]5 The “grandfather principle” in climate negotiations refers to allocating emission rights based on historical emission levels, thereby favoring countries with high past emissions. In fact, the commodification of greenhouse gas emissions is a confirmation of the legality of the privatization of existing benefits from greenhouse gas emissions, which is clearly very favorable to contemporary developed capitalist countries that have historically had huge greenhouse gas emissions and are currently actively undergoing deindustrialization, because the benefits generated from early greenhouse gas emissions have been recognized as “legalized,” while the responsibilities have been uniformly erased. Second, contrary to the development process of contemporary developed capitalist countries, due to the generally late start of industrialization in developing countries, the uniform erasure of historical greenhouse gas emission responsibilities has not benefited most of these countries. More troublesome is that, because of the late industrialization of developing countries and the gradual solidification of the global division of labor, they have taken over the high-emission, high-pollution, high-energy-consumption enterprises transferred out by developed countries during deindustrialization. This means that developing countries not only have not enjoyed the benefits of historical greenhouse gas emissions but also have to shoulder the heavy burden of current greenhouse gas emission reductions. And a considerable part of these burdens is inherited from developed countries. In other words, contemporary developing countries, in the free market model of greenhouse gas emission reduction actions, must not only bear their own due emission responsibilities but also bear a considerable portion of the emission reduction costs transferred from developed countries.

具体来说，自由市场的核心是市场参与者权利的平等，这其中既包括对财产所有权的承认，也包含自由、公平交易的要求。但是，政治权利的平等并不等于现实实践的平等。在各国贫富差距日益加大、国际分工日益清晰、阶级分层逐渐固化的国际环境中，坚持政治权利的平等而不考虑资本与政治权力的现实差异，只能是对资本占有者的维护。这是因为：首先，对温室气体排放量商品化的认定，使得发达国家逃避了历史温室气体排放责任的审查。欧盟和美国各自对历史排放计算时间的划线，就是利用“祖父原则”逃避历史排放责任的行为。事实上，温室气体排放量的商品化，就是对已有温室气体排放利益私有化合法性的确认，这显然非常有利于历史上有着巨额温室气体排放且目前正积极进行去工业化转型的当代发达资本主义国家，因为早年温室气体排放所产生的收益已经被“合法化”所承认，而责任却被一刀切地抹掉了。其次，与当代发达资本主义国家的发展进程正好相反的是，由于发展中国家的工业化进程普遍较晚，因此历史温室气体排放责任的一刀切并没有惠及这些国家中的大多数。更为麻烦的是，由于发展中国家工业化进程较晚，加上全球分工的逐渐固化，它们承接了发达国家去工业化过程中转移出来的高排放、高污染、高耗能类企业。这也就使得发展中国家不仅没有享受到历史温室气体排放的收益，还需要肩负起当下温室气体减排的重担。而在这些重担中，有相当大的一部分是从发达国家承接而来。换句话说就是，当代的发展中国家在自由市场模式的温室气体减排行动中，不仅要承担自身应有的排放责任，还要承担相当多来自发达国家转移而来的减排成本。

Unlike Stern’s more implicit expression, Posner’s international Pareto theory directly refuses to examine moral ethics and principles of fairness and justice. Posner believes that “projects that make a state better off may make some of its residents worse off. If a state defines its national interest in a way that considers the interests of a minority of its residents, it can also conclude a treaty that, while meeting the requirements of international Pareto theory, would have extremely adverse consequences for the majority of its residents. This is why international Pareto theory, unlike the Pareto principle (in economics), is not a weak ethical principle.” [6]6 Eric A. Posner and David Weisbach, *Climate Change Justice* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), p. 171. It is evident from Posner’s explanation that for international Pareto theory, successfully achieving the goal is its sole task, and whether actions taken in the process of achieving the goal violate moral ethics or principles of justice is completely outside its scope of consideration.

与斯特恩较为含蓄的表达方式不同，波斯纳的国际帕累托理论直截了当地拒绝对道德伦理以及公平正义原则进行考察。波斯纳认为，“使国家利益变得更好的项目，可能存在使一些国家居民的生活情况变得更差。如果一个国家以考虑其少数居民利益的方式来界定它的国家利益，该国也可以缔结一项虽然符合国际帕累托理论要求，但却会对大多数居民造成极其不利后果的条约。这就是为什么国际帕累托理论不同于帕累托原则（经济学），不是一个薄弱的伦理原则”。从波斯纳的解释中可以明显看出，对于国际帕累托理论来说，顺利达成目标是其唯一任务，而在目标达成的过程中是否会产生违背道德伦理、正义原则的行为，则完全不在其考察范围之内。

Of course, the ruling parties of contemporary developed capitalist countries, constrained by voters and opposition parties, will not sacrifice too much of their own people’s interests for greenhouse gas emission reductions, as this would have a serious negative impact on the ruling party’s approval ratings. Therefore, the sacrifice Posner refers to can only be the sacrifice of the interests of the people in developing countries. That is, to achieve the ultimate goal, the interests of the people in developing countries, who constitute the majority of the global population, can be sacrificed, and this sacrifice is considered legitimate under the perspective of international Pareto theory. This leads to a very contradictory question: If the interests of the majority can be sacrificed, what is the purpose of addressing global climate issues? Is it only for the benefit of a few countries and a few groups of people? If so, why would developing countries agree to sacrifice their current interests in exchange for benefits they may not necessarily obtain in the future? Therefore, the “consent” of developing countries within consequentialist climate justice theory must contain elements of coercion and involuntariness.

当然，当代发达资本主义国家的执政党由于受到选民和在野党的制约，不会为了温室气体减排而过多地牺牲本国人民的利益，因为这会对执政党的支持率造成严重的负面影响。所以，波斯纳所说的牺牲，只能是牺牲发展中国家人民的利益，即为了完成最终目标，占全球总人口多数的发展中国家的人民利益是可以被牺牲掉的，并且这种牺牲在国际帕累托理论的视域下是合法的。这就引出一个非常矛盾的问题：如果说大多数人的利益是可以被牺牲掉的，那么治理全球气候问题的目的又是什么呢？只为了少数国家和少数人群的利益吗？如果是这样的话，发展中国家为什么会同意用牺牲自己的当前利益，来换取自己未来并不一定能够获得的收益呢？所以，发展中国家在后果主义气候正义理论中的“同意”，必然含有被胁迫的和不自愿的成分。

III. Climate Exploitation and New Imperialism

三、气候剥削与新帝国主义

If, within consequentialist climate justice theory, the “consent” of developing countries is a coerced and involuntary result, then the only entities capable of exerting pressure on developing countries are the group of developed countries holding the current leadership of the world. This pressure is essentially a manifestation of the imperialist logic of capital in the global climate issue. On the one hand, this imperialist behavior transfers the costs of greenhouse gas emission reductions; on the other hand, it uses emission reductions to carry out new exploitation of developing countries.

如果说在后果主义气候正义理论中，发展中国家的“同意”是一种被迫和不自愿的结果，那么，能够对发展中国家施压的只有手握当今世界领导权的发达国家集团，而这种施压实质上就是帝国主义资本逻辑在全球性气候问题上的表现。这种帝国主义行为一方面转移了温室气体减排的成本，另一方面利用减排对发展中国家进行新的剥削。

In classical Marxist theory, imperialism refers to the use by monopoly capitalist countries of their monopolistic advantages to forcibly obtain the means of production, labor power, consumer markets, and other resources of other countries through military plunder, colonial control, economic sanctions, and other means; its essence is the export of accumulated capital and the pursuit of profit. Lenin once said: “As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus capital will never be used for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists; it will be used for the purpose of increasing profits by exporting capital abroad, to the backward countries.” [7]7 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism* (1917), Chapter 4: “The Export of Capital.” Today the de-industrialization of the group of developed capitalist countries has been largely completed, the hegemony of financial monopoly is confined to a contest among New York, London, and Frankfurt, and monopoly is now rapidly spreading into the spheres of science and technology, culture, and the ecological environment. The climate issue happens to be a global problem that integrates science and technology, culture, and the ecological environment. On the climate issue, contemporary developed capitalist countries will never give up using global greenhouse gas emission reduction actions to consolidate their own leadership position, while simultaneously suppressing and exploiting the emerging developing countries that have already posed a challenge to them.

在经典马克思主义理论中，帝国主义是指垄断资本主义国家利用垄断优势，通过军事掠夺、殖民控制、经济制裁等手段，强制获取其他国家当地的生产资料、劳动力、消费市场等资源，其本质是积累资本的输出以及对利润的追求。列宁曾说过：“只要资本主义还是资本主义，过剩的资本就不会用来提高本国民众的生活水平，而会输出国外，输出到落后的国家去，以提高利润。”当今发达资本主义国家集团的去工业化已经逐渐完成，金融垄断的领导权也限于纽约、伦敦和法兰克福之间的争夺战，目前垄断正在向科技、文化、生态环境领域迅速蔓延。而气候问题正好是科技、文化、生态环境相融合的全球性问题。在气候问题上，当代发达资本主义国家绝不会放弃利用全球温室气体减排行动来巩固自身的领导地位，同时打压和剥削已然对其构成挑战的新兴发展中国家。

For the climate issue, the most effective solution currently known is large-scale greenhouse gas emission reduction on a global scale. However, because of the close relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emission reduction will inevitably lead to a decline in the use of fossil energy. Therefore, in order to maintain their own socio-economic stability and development, emission-reducing countries must improve the efficiency of traditional energy use and continuously increase the proportion of new energy use. Raising energy use efficiency and switching to clean energy means that traditional production technologies need to be upgraded and replaced. However, the industries of developing countries have mostly taken over the industrial transfer from developed countries; the equipment and technology they use are generally backward, and most are characterized by high energy consumption and high pollution. Moreover, these backward technologies that need to be replaced are also widespread in agriculture, services, and daily life. Therefore, the technological upgrading brought about by greenhouse gas emission reduction is, for developing countries, like a complete transformation. But for developed countries, it means the emergence of a huge and new market.

对于气候问题而言，目前已知最有效的解决方式，是在全球范围内进行大规模的温室气体减排。但是，由于温室气体排放与化石燃料使用之间的紧密关系，温室气体减排必然会导致化石能源使用量的下降。所以，减排国为了维持自身社会经济的稳定和发展，必须提高传统能源的使用效率，以及不断增加新能源的使用占比。而提升能源使用效率、更换清洁能源就意味着传统生产技术需要更新换代。但是，发展中国家的工业大多承接了发达国家的工业转移，所使用的设备技术普遍落后，并且大多具有高耗能、高污染的特点。此外，这些需要替换的落后技术也同样普遍存在于农业、服务业以及日常生活领域。所以，温室气体减排所带来的技术更新换代，对于发展中国家来说如同脱胎换骨一般。但对于发达国家来说，这意味着一个巨大而崭新市场的出现。

In fact, if developing countries were given enough time and sufficient space, technological upgrading would not be a very difficult problem. However, the increasingly severe climate change has not left developing countries with sufficient development time, forcing them to rely on external forces to accelerate the completion of technological upgrading. This need for external forces is obviously something the group of developed capitalist countries welcomes. In order to achieve control over the technological upgrading market of developing countries, the group of developed capitalist countries needs to further pressure developing countries in terms of time to carry out greenhouse gas emission reduction actions. Because, as stated above, the more urgent the emission reduction timeline, the more urgent the developing countries’ need for external technological and financial assistance. To achieve this goal, the group of developed capitalist countries continuously uses its monopoly advantage in cultural leadership to globally strengthen the propaganda about the urgency of the greenhouse gas emission reduction task. Admittedly, the climate issue is a quite urgent and serious global problem. But does greenhouse gas emission reduction necessarily take priority over the many social problems that developing countries currently face? For some African and South American countries, the answer seems not necessarily so.

事实上，如果给予发展中国家足够长的时间和充分的空间，技术的更新换代并不是一个十分困难的问题。但是，日益严峻的气候变化并没有给发展中国家留下充足的发展时间，这使得发展中国家必须借助外力来加速完成技术更新。这种对外力的需求，显然是发达资本主义国家集团喜闻乐见的事情。为了达到对发展中国家技术更新市场的控制，发达资本主义国家集团需要在时间上进一步逼迫发展中国家进行温室气体减排行动。因为正如上文所说，减排的时间越是紧迫，发展中国家对外来技术和资金的援助需求就越是迫切。为了达到这个目的，发达资本主义国家集团不断利用自身文化领导权的垄断优势，在全球范围内强化宣传温室气体减排任务的迫切性。诚然，气候问题是一个相当紧迫和严重的全球性问题。但是，温室气体减排一定优先于发展中国家当前需要面对的诸多社会问题吗？对于部分非洲和南美洲国家而言，答案似乎并不尽然。

Wrapped in the packaging of consequentialism, this propaganda about urgent emission reduction displays a falsely noble sentiment of being all for the “common good” of humanity, sketching a beautiful picture in which the current continuous self-sacrifice of developing countries is meant to realize the future common happiness of humanity. Under the repeated propaganda of this ideology, the mass electorate gradually accepts this view, unconsciously manifesting it in party elections and policy-making processes, and regarding it as a manifestation of the “good.” Of course, from the overall goal of greenhouse gas emission reduction, this is not a bad thing. However, under the banner of the “common good” erected by consequentialism, what is concealed is the absence of individual responsibility and the injustice in the distribution process — precisely what the group of developed capitalist countries tries hard to gloss over and evade in the climate issue. In order to focus public attention on the ultimate “good” goal, Posner even directly abandons the value-judgment role of morality and justice in the climate issue, instead adopting “feasibility,” which has obvious characteristics of political realism, as the criterion for value judgment. And Posner’s “feasibility” is essentially the result of mutual compromise in international political power. In this contest of international political power, the voices of developing countries and their people are weak and powerless.

在后果主义的包装下，这种迫切减排的宣传表现出了一种一切为了人类“共同善”的虚假高尚情怀，勾勒出了一副发展中国家当前不断的自我牺牲是为了实现人类未来共同幸福的美好画面。在这种意识形态的反复宣传下，大众选民逐渐接受了这个观点，并在党派选举以及政策制定的过程中无意识地显现出来，并视其为“善”的表现。当然，从温室气体减排的整体目标来看，这并不是一件坏事。但是，在后果主义树立的“共同善”的旗帜下，掩盖的是个体责任的缺失和分配过程中的不正义，而这一点正是发达资本主义国家集团在气候问题中试图努力掩饰和逃避的。为了达到将大众的目光聚焦于最终“善”的目标，波斯纳甚至直接放弃道德和正义在气候问题中的价值判断作用，转而采用具有明显政治现实主义特征的“可行性”作为价值判断的标准。而波斯纳的“可行性”实质上就是国际政治权力相互妥协的结果。在这种国际政治权力角逐中，发展中国家及其人民的声音虚弱无力。

After the “urgency” and “ultimate good” propagated by consequentialism permeate all levels of society, facing the pressure of public opinion and the demands of the domestic political environment, developing countries have to, while striving to maintain social development and stability, implement greenhouse gas emission reduction actions as soon as possible. This simultaneous loss of time and space forces the transformation of developing countries to rely on external help and support, thereby falling into the trap of contemporary capitalism and accepting the climate exploitation of imperialism.

当后果主义所宣传的“紧迫性”和“最终善”渗透到社会的各个层面之后，面对社会舆论的压力和国内政治环境的要求，发展中国家不得不一边努力维持着社会的发展和稳定，一边尽快实施温室气体减排行动。这种时间和空间的同时丧失，使得发展中国家的转型不得不依靠外力的帮助和支持，进而落入当代资本主义的陷阱，接受帝国主义的气候剥削。

The monopoly on science and technology is a new field of development for contemporary monopoly organizations. The monopoly on science and technology exchanges huge amounts of capital and labor consumption for a lead in science and technology, creates new demands, and causes the “bottleneck” problem [8]8 “Bottleneck” (卡脖子, literally “choking the neck”) is a Chinese political-economic term referring to a situation in which a foreign entity controls a critical technology or resource, thereby restricting a country’s development or autonomy. for developing countries’ technology, then sells the new technology to developing countries by collecting patent fees, service fees, and the like. For example, Google’s and Microsoft’s control over mobile phone and computer operating systems allows them to easily reap huge profits and reinvest those profits in expanded reproduction into new research and development. This is essentially the contemporary version of Marx’s description of industrial capital accumulation and exploitation in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is precisely because of the monopoly of developed capitalist countries on science and technology that developing countries have no other choice when seeking external help for technological upgrading and transformation. Therefore, developing countries have to endure the technological squeeze and exploitation from the monopolistic countries. This exploitation and squeeze of new imperialism is manifested not only in charging high fees for the right to use technology and high-tech products, but more importantly, developing countries have to accept the technological rules set by the monopolistic countries, so that in the subsequent development of science and technology, they have to continue to use the basic modules such as parameters, frameworks, and operating systems prescribed by the monopolistic countries. This also means that the technological development of developing countries can only be dependent on and follow the group of developed capitalist countries that monopolize science and technology.

对科学技术的垄断是当代垄断组织发展的一个新领域。科学技术的垄断通过巨量的资本和劳动力消耗来换取科学技术上的领先，创造新的需求并造成发展中国家技术“卡脖子”问题，再将新的技术以收取专利费、服务费等方式销售给发展中国家。例如，谷歌、微软对手机和电脑操作系统的控制，就使其轻松攫取了巨额的利润，并将利润以扩大再生产的方式投入新的研发。这实质上就是马克思对18世纪和19世纪工业资本积累和剥削表述的当代版本。正是由于发达资本主义国家对科学技术的垄断，发展中国家进行技术升级转型的对外求助不存在其他的选择。所以，发展中国家不得不忍受来自垄断国家的技术压榨和剥削。这种新帝国主义的压榨和剥削，不仅仅表现在对技术使用权和高科技产品收取高额的费用，更重要的是，发展中国家不得不接受垄断国家所制定的技术规则，以至于在以后的科学技术发展过程中，不得不延续使用垄断国家所规定的参数、框架、操作系统等基础模块。这也就使得发展中国家的科技发展只能依附和跟随垄断科学技术的发达资本主义国家集团。

Therefore, on the climate issue, consequentialism helps the group of developed capitalist countries divert public attention away from the issue of historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, and in the distribution of emission reduction tasks, replaces morality and justice — which should be at the core of value judgment — with urgency and economic interests. This allows the group of developed capitalist countries, on the one hand, to shift the greenhouse gas emission reduction responsibilities they should bear, and on the other hand, to use the advantage of technological monopoly to carry out a new round of exploitation of developing countries.

所以，在气候问题上，后果主义帮助发达资本主义国家集团分散了大众对历史温室气体排放责任问题的关注，以及在减排任务分配问题上用紧迫性和经济利益代替本应处于价值判断核心的道德和正义范畴。这也就使得发达资本主义国家集团一方面转嫁了本应承担的温室气体排放责任，另一方面又利用技术垄断的优势对发展中国家进行新一轮的剥削。

IV. The Response of Developing Countries

四、发展中国家的应对

Faced with the imperialist behavior of the developed capitalist state bloc on the climate issue, developing countries must make active and effective responses. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “We should create a future of cooperation and共赢 [win-win cooperation] where each does his best. On global issues such as climate change, if one thinks in utilitarian terms, hoping to take more advantages and bear fewer responsibilities, the end result will be harming others and oneself.” Consequentialist climate justice theory precisely exploits the consensus that addressing climate change requires large-scale greenhouse gas emission reductions on a global scale, and gives this consensus an erroneous, purely economistic interpretation, thereby steering greenhouse gas emission reduction actions, originally intended for the common good of humanity, off the correct track. Peter S. Wenz has severely criticized the substitution of ecological value by economic interest: “A more successful economy does not always mean a better life for everyone.” William Leiss argues: “For a society, even if its economic capacity can sustain the infinite growth of material quantity, it is still not a wise choice. The reason lies in the fact that interpreting the pursuit of happiness entirely in this way poses an increasingly serious threat to people’s integrity as human beings and to our relationship with the natural ecosystem.”

面对发达资本主义国家集团在气候问题上的帝国主义行为，发展中国家必须作出积极有效的应对。习近平总书记指出：“我们应该创造一个各尽所能、合作共赢的未来。对气候变化等全球性问题，如果抱着功利主义的思维，希望多占点便宜、少承担点责任，最终将是损人不利己。”后果主义气候正义理论正是利用了应对气候变化需要在全球范围内进行大规模温室气体减排这个共识，并对该共识作出了唯经济论的错误解读，使得本来为了人类共同利益的温室气体减排行动偏离了正确的轨道。彼得·温茨（Peter S.Wenz）对用经济利益代替生态价值的问题提出过严厉的批评：“一个更为成功的经济并不总是意味着对所有人来说更美好的生活。”威廉·莱斯（William Leiss）认为：“对于一个社会来说，即使其经济能力能够维持物质数量的无限增长，也仍不是一个明智的选择。其原因在于，完全以这种方式诠释对幸福的追求，会对人们作为人的完整性，以及维持我们与自然生态系统的关系产生越来越大的严重威胁。”

In fact, academic criticism of consequentialist climate justice theory has long been underway. Scholars such as Henry Shue, Simon Caney, and Steve Vanderheiden have used deontology, the old adversary of consequentialism, to criticize consequentialist climate justice theory. At the level of actual policy, the Brazilian government has liquidated the historical greenhouse gas emissions of developed countries in the form of “effective emissions,” and the Chinese government has also proposed a greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy based on “per capita cumulative emissions.” However, these criticisms from the standpoint of deontology are still confined to the field of distributive justice; they do not critique the capitalist operational structure behind greenhouse gas emission reduction actions from the perspective of Marxian political economy, nor do they uncover the new imperialist behavior hidden behind it.

事实上，学术界对后果主义气候正义理论的批判早已展开。亨利·舒（Henry Shue）、西蒙·凯尼（Simon Caney）、史蒂夫·范德海登（Steve Vanderheiden）等学者就使用义务论这个后果主义的老对手来批评后果主义气候正义理论。在现实政策层面，巴西政府曾以“有效排放量”的形式对发达国家的历史温室气体排放量进行清算，中国政府也提出过以“人均累积排放量”为基础的温室气体减排策略。但是，上述这些从义务论出发的批评依然只是局限于分配正义的领域，并没有从马克思政治经济学的角度对温室气体减排行动背后的资本主义运行结构展开批判，也没有发现隐藏在其背后的新帝国主义行为。

How to respond to the consequentialist climate justice theory dominated by the contemporary developed capitalist state bloc? First, one must recognize its class nature, clarify the imperialist interest group it represents, and fully realize its antagonistic relationship with developing countries. Only in this way can developing countries more effectively resist the ideological invasion of the developed capitalist state bloc and secure a place for themselves, as a united body, in the struggle for world leadership. Second, under the premise of opposing imperialist climate exploitation, one must seek ways and means for global cooperation to jointly solve the climate problem. Lenin, when answering questions about cooperation between the Soviet Union and Western European capitalist countries, said: “Those who support the proletarian revolution can compromise or reach agreements with the capitalists. It all depends on what kind of agreement is reached and under what circumstances it is reached.” Therefore, on the climate issue, cooperation between developing countries and imperialist countries needs to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, the climate exploitation they might suffer, and on the issue of technological upgrading and transformation, to try to break free from dependence on technologically monopolistic countries and take the path of self-development. Finally, global cooperation to solve the climate problem is for the common destiny of mankind, but the common destiny of mankind cannot, as consequentialist climate justice theory would have it, be interpreted as a single-minded economic development or growth of material interests; rather, it should encompass all aspects of a good life for humanity and run through the entire process of the event’s purpose, development, and outcome. Only in this way can developing countries maintain unity on the climate issue, jointly confront the imperialist behavior of the contemporary developed capitalist state bloc on the climate issue, and reach cooperation with them on an equal footing. (Notes omitted)

如何应对当代发达资本主义国家集团主导的后果主义气候正义理论，首先要认清它的阶级本质，明确它所代表的帝国主义利益集团，充分意识到它与发展中国家之间的对立关系。只有这样，才能够更为有效地抵御发达资本主义国家集团在意识形态领域的入侵，使得发展中国家作为一个联合体在世界领导权的争夺中占有一席之地。其次要在反对帝国主义气候剥削的前提下寻找全球合作共同解决气候问题的方式和方法。列宁在回答苏联和西欧资本主义国家合作问题时说过：“拥护无产阶级革命的人是可以同资本家妥协或达成协议的。一切都要看达成的是什么协议，是在什么情况下达成的。”所以，在气候问题上，发展中国家与帝国主义国家的合作，需要最大程度地避免可能会遭受到的气候剥削，并且在技术升级转型问题上尽量摆脱对科技垄断国家的依赖，走自我发展的道路。最后，全球合作解决气候问题是为了人类共同的命运，但是人类共同的命运不能像后果主义气候正义理论那样，被解释为单一的经济发展或者物质利益的增长，而应该是包含了人类美好生活的各个方面，并且贯穿事件的目的、发展以及结果的全过程。只有这样，发展中国家才能在气候问题上保持团结，一致对抗当代发达资本主义国家集团在气候问题上的帝国主义行为，并在平等的基础上与其达成合作。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑