特朗普政府初期美国军方管控气候风险及其行为逻辑

US Military Climate Change Risks Management and Its Behavioral Logic under the Trump Administration

奥巴马政府时期,美国国家安全界对气候变化形成比较统一的认识,即气候变化对美国国家安全构成潜在威胁。与这种认知形成、加深相伴随的是,美国的国家安全体系逐渐开始将气候变化因素纳入其战略规划与日常实践。特朗普执政后,美国安全政策中的气候因素不仅没有淡化或终结,相反,在某些方面或在某种程度上还有强化的迹象。但是,这种强化趋势却出现了新的变化,并通过以下两种方式突显出来:第一,军方对气候变化的侧重点从长期威胁转向近期威胁、从间接威胁转向直接威胁、从全球性灾难转向特定灾害。第二,军方应对气候变化的手段从减排和适应并重转向侧重适应。支撑上述变化的不仅是基于现实的安全利益考量,也是美国决策者内部的矛盾及调和使然。未来,预计美国军方的气候政策进程仍将持续,但是,美国军方的气候政策是否会产生"外溢效应",进而向上传递到联邦政府决策,仍旧取决于政府与国会之间的博弈。

Under the Obama administration, the US national security community has reached a rough consensus on climate change, that is, climate change has posed potential threats to national security of the United States. Together with the deepened understanding of the correlation between climate change and national security, the US security system has gradually begun to incorporate climate change factor into its strategic planning and daily practice. After Donald Trump came into office, the climate element in the US security policy-making has neither been removed nor even reduced. On the contrary, it has been reinforced in some ways or to some extent. However, the intensified trend has undergone new changes which are highlighted by the following two perspectives. First, the US military has shifted its focus on climate change from long-term threats to immediate threats, from indirect threats to direct threats and from global disasters to specific damages. Second, the US military's approach to climate change has shifted from laying equal stress on both mitigation and adaptation to focusing mainly on adaptation. These changes are not only based on realistic calculations of security interests by the US military, but also result from the internal contradictions and reconciliations among US policy-makers. In the future, it is expected that the US military's climate policy process will continue. Nevertheless, whether the US military's climate policy will generate "spillover" effects and then influence the decision-making of the federal government will invariably depend on the game between the White House and the Congress.