堵路與撤資，最有效的氣候行動！Blockadia and Divestment, the Most Effective Climate Actions
氣候行動的原理及運作簡介 Some Basics and Examples of Climate Actions
這集的能源轉型導覽之中，我們配合9月8日的全球氣候起義日，把焦點轉向限制供給面政策，也就是正本清源、阻止化石燃料產業鏈過度擴張的相關政策。
In this episode, just before the global campaign “rise for climate”, we discuss the restrictive supply side climate policies, which are those that directly intervene and restrict the scale of fossil fuel industries.
以氣候行動者的角度而言，主要有兩種方式，可以有效推動這種政策：堵路運動和撤資運動。前者在化石燃料開採、運送等等第一現場阻擋工作執行，讓化石燃料產業無法順利擴張，後者則從金融面角度，斬斷化石燃料產業的金源。
From the perspectives of climate activists, there are two ways to push forward such policies: blockadia and divestment movement. The former blocks the extraction or transportation of fossil fuel on the field, prevent the industry from doing business as usual. The latter aims to cut of financial support to the fossil fuel industry.
這兩種手段各自會有一些獨特的政治、經濟效應，因此是氣候政策中，必不可免的討論項目。
The two measurements have their own unique political and economical effects, and thus both are indispensable in the climate policy discussion.
下為本影片的口說稿。
The following is the script of the film.
在當前全球環境運動中，對於對抗氣候變遷最有效的手段漸漸有了共識：第一個手段就是呼籲各級政府訂定出明確長遠的再生能源發展目標，以期能源系統早日達成百分之百再生能源；第二個就是正本清源，透過各種手段直接、有效地限制化石燃料產業鏈的規模。
In the global climate movement, we gradually come to a consensus on what the most effective measures to combat climate change are.
The first is to urge governments to set clear long term plans for renewable energy, so that our energy system can achieve 100% RE as soon as possible. The second is to limit the scale of fossil fuel industry directly and effectively.
今天我們就來深入討論第二種手段，也就是所謂的「堵路運動」和「撤資運動」這兩種氣候行動模式。
Today we shall discuss further about basics and cases of the second method, namely blockadia and divestment movement.
兩種氣候行動的科學原理簡介The Science of Climate Movements
堵路運動，Blockadia。這個詞是Naomi Klein在《天翻地覆》寫出的，用來形容為了阻擋化石燃料產業鍊的開採、運送、和使用，在世界各地所進行的第一線抗爭。
Blockadia is a term used in Naomi Klein’s book “This changes everything: capitalism vs. climate change”. It described the movements that stand at the picket line against the mining, transportation, and consumption of fossil fuel.
針對這些運動，一個氣候行動者蠻常用的口號就是「Keep it in the ground」；應該把這些化石燃料留在地底下，而不是拿來使用。
In these movements, a commonly used slogan for activists is “Keep it in the ground”, which means that we should keep fossil fuel in the ground, rather than burn it now.
相較於堵路運動，撤資運動則是一個比較間接針對化石燃料產業鍊的倡議手段。
On the other hand, divestment movements take a financial approach to affect the fossil fuel industry.
氣候行動者希望政府、學校、教會、金融業者不再補貼／投資資金於相關產業上，以期斷絕化石燃料產業的金源，同樣地進而限制它們的規模。
Climate activists hope that schools, churches, government institutes, and the financial sector stop subsidizing or investing on fossil fuel industry, so that the financial support of the industry can be cut off. This can also restrict the scale of those industries.
為什麼氣候行動者要發起堵路運動或撤資倡議呢？支持這兩種運動最有力的科學原理是碳預算（carbon budget）。巴黎協定的目標是全球地表均溫在本世紀末增幅不超過2度C，要達到這個目標，全球接下來的總碳排會有一個上限額度，被稱為「碳預算」。
Why would activists launch blockadia and divestment movements? The soundest science behind the movement is “carbon budget”. The goal of Paris Accord is to limit the Earth’s surface temperature rise within 2 degrees by the end of the century. If we are to achieve this goal, there will be an upper limit to how much carbon we can still emit. This upper limit is the “carbon budget”.
在這個碳預算的限制底下，全球能夠開採的化石燃料總量，遠小於目前地表下可開採的總量。因此，有必要以各種手段，加以限制化石燃料產業鏈的發展。
Under this constrain, the total amount of fossil fuel allowed to be extracted will be much smaller than that from a pure economic perspective. Thus we will need to restrict the developing of fossil fuel industry with all means possible.
不過，為什麼堵路運動和撤資運動會有效呢？這就必須從兩種手段產生的經濟學效應來說明。
But why do we consider blockadia and divestment effective? We will answer the question by discussing the economical effects of the two movements.
兩種運動的經濟學基礎The Economics of Climate Movements
對化石燃料產業鍊「正本清源」、限制規模，在經濟學上有個專有名詞，叫做「限制供給面政策」（restrictive supply side policy）。雖然環境運動者一直不斷提倡這類型的政策，長期以來經濟學界和政治界卻選擇忽視這類型手段，而把焦點放在「補貼供給面」（發展再生能源）、「限制需求面」（碳稅、碳交易市場）、「補貼需求面」等等其他面向的氣候政策。
The type of policies that restrict fossil fuel industry are called “restrictive supply side policy” by economists. Although activists have long urged for such type of policies, they were neglected by mainstream economists and politicians before. The focus has always been on restrictive demand side, supportive supply side, and supportive demand side policies, when discussing economical tools on climate change mitigation.
不過，越來越多經濟學家選擇正視「限制供給」政策的獨特優勢。
But more and more economists are beginning to discuss the unique advantages of restrictive supply side policies.
最直觀地來說，這樣的政策對化石燃料產業有最直接可量化的限制，所以實行上比較簡單，在政策支持度以及社會接受程度上都會比較高。
The most straight forward point is that such policies have the most direct impact on the fossil fuel industry. So they are easier to examine, and they gain more support from society.
對環境運動者來說，值得注意的是，「限制供給」政策也能引起化石燃料業者內部分歧、互相攻擊的情況。
Another point is, restrictive supply side policies tend to cause more internal conflicts inside the fossil fuel industry.
晚近能源轉型過程中，部分燃氣業者選擇強調自己和再生能源能夠良好搭配、而把矛頭指向燃煤的做法，就是一例。這樣的過程會把過去鐵板一塊、相依相存的化石燃料產業逐步分裂，在推動各種能源與氣候政策時會更加容易。
In the recent process of energy transition, some gas companies frequently stress that they are good complement to renewables and lay the focus on coal industry is just one example. During the process, the fossil fuel industries, who used to be well-organized and interdependent, will be turned against each other. Therefore it will be easier to push climate and energy policies in the future.
最後，一個比較進階的經濟學概念是，如果今天化石燃料的「價格彈性」比「供給彈性」來得高，那麼「限制供給」政策會比「限制消費」政策有效；而燃煤產業恰好正落在這一個範疇中。
Last, an advanced economic concept: if the fossil fuel industry has a higher price elasticity for its demand than its supply, then restrictive supply side policies will be more effective than restrictive demand side policies. The coal industry exactly falls into this category.
除了有效限制供給，撤資運動還有扭轉逆分配現象的正面效益存在：公部門投資／補貼化石燃料產業產生的經濟效益，大部分也都落在較富有的族群當中，形成一種分配不正義。
Besides yielding effective restriction on supply, divestment movements can also have the positive effect of improving reverse distribution policies. The current welfare from public subsidy and investment on fossil fuel industry are distributed mostly on the wealthier population. This leads to a distribution injustice.
比如說，如果政府選擇補貼低廉電價，受惠最多的肯定是耗能產業和用電大戶；如果政府選擇補貼原油，最直接受惠的也會是台灣的石化產業等等。
For example, if the government subsidize the power prices, then those who benefit the most are the energy intensive industries and major consumers. If the government subsidizes petroleum, than petroleum-chemical industries will be the ones to directly benefit the most.
今天相關的補貼和投資取消之後，公部門將有多餘的資金，可以拿來投資教育、醫療、再生能源、弭平社會不平等等等更具公平性的開銷上面。
If such subsidies are canceled, the public sector can reinvest the budget on education, medical care, renewable energy, erasing social inequality, or any other more legitimate use of the same money.
當然我們這些環境運動者一直講，大家不一定聽得下去。實務上，當前持續不斷的撤資浪潮帶來的衝擊，許多化石燃料產業業者有最清楚的認識。殼牌2017年的年度報告就正式承認了撤資運動對於公司經營上的風險。
Of course, people are tired of hearing the narratives from us the activists. The actual impact of blockadia and divestment to the fossil fuel industry, can be summed up best by the industry itself. In the 2017 annual report of Shell, they formally listed divestment as a risk factor to the management of their company.
實務上運作方式How It Really Works
知道堵路運動和撤資運動很重要、也很有效之後，我們接著來看看到底這兩種運動是怎麼操作的。
Knowing that blockadia and divestment movement are both very important and effective, we now show some examples of how they are organized.
先從堵路運動開始說起。像我目前就在Leipzig旁邊的小鎮Pödelwitz，這裡有東德最大的露天煤礦場。
Let’s start from blockadia. So now I am at the south of Leipzig, in a small town Pödelwitz. Here we have the greatest open pit mining in eastern Germany.
歐洲的很多氣候行動團體每年都會在各個大型燃煤電廠或者露天開採場外舉辦氣候營隊，並且用行動實際包圍、阻擋化石燃料產業的運作。
Many climate activists in Europe will gather at coal power plants or large open pit mines to organize a climate camp. They will usually take direct actions to encircle and cut off the operations of the coal industry.
除了Pödelwitz這裡的活動，德國比較有名的當然是Ende Gelaende，他們計畫在秋天佔領Hambacher Forst，避免RWE為了褐煤開採權破壞那座森林。
Besides this event, the most famous camp in Germany right now might be the one held by Ende Gelände. They are planning to hold a camp at Hambacher forest this autumn, to prevent RWE from destroying the woods for lignite mining.
除了實際行動以外，這些氣候營隊也是提供參與者培力、交流的很好機會。像是這裡在實際行動以前，就有很多氣候行動相關的工作坊和講座活動可以參與。
Apart from direct actions, these camps also provide participants great chances to empower and network themselves. For example, we have plenty of workshops and podium on climate action before our main action here.
當然在其他突發情況下，堵路運動就不一定是這樣長期規劃後的結果（例如最近Hambacher森林的狀況就比較危急，可能得提前招集人前往）。
Of course, under a contingency event, blockadia movements might not be so well organized (ex. the emergency situation now in Hambacher Forest has made it urgent to rally people there before the planned camp).
撤資運動方面，現在世界各地陸續會傳出各個大學、教會、機構等組織受到當地氣候行動團體的壓力而不再把資金投入化石燃料產業的新聞。
Now let’s move on to divestment. Currently there are continual news around the world about how churches, schools, government institutes, and banks decide not to invest on fossil fuel industry due to external pressure.
一些比較大的例子包括去年瑞典的老人年金、今年愛爾蘭政府總預算、以及最近日本幾家大型銀行等等，都加入了這一波撤資運動的行列。
Some famous examples include divestment of Swedish pension fund last year, the Irish government early this year, and recently, some Japanese corporations. These are just a few to join the ongoing trend of divestment.
台灣雖然比較少相關的新聞，但其實台大之前也有學生自治組織和社團要求校方撤離投資在台塑的資金的倡議，350台灣這兩年來也一直很認真推動政府化石燃料補貼還有各銀行投資化石燃料產業等資訊的透明化。
In Taiwan, news of divestment are rare. But students in Taida from several groups did petition and urge their university to divestment from Formosa plastic and other companies in the fossil fuel industrial chain. Meanwhile, 350 Taiwan has also been pushing for the transparency of governmental subsidy and bank investment on fossil fuel.
我在離台前給了這些撤資運動初始推動者一些協助，當然會很希望這些倡議有朝一日也能開花結果。
Before I left for Germany, I gave some minor support for the divestment campaigners in Taiwan. So of course I would like to see results coming out in the future from these campaigns.
另一方面，我目前也在Freiburg這邊的Fossil Free地方組織中，持續觀察他們的運作方式，像是上個學期我們的城市和教會都做出了比較具體的撤資承諾，未來大學是否跟上，也可以再之後繼續和大家分享。
In the meantime, in Freiburg, I have been in the local fossil free group, learning from them how to campaign here. Last semester, the church and the city government in Freiburg both made rigid divestment promises. Whether or not the Uni will take the issue seriously is of course something I can also share with you all in the future.
