專題：特朗普2.0時代 氣候危機與全球應對

　　新浪財經ESG評級中心提供包括資訊、報告、培訓、諮詢等在內的14項ESG服務，助力上市公司傳播ESG理念，提升ESG可持續發展表現。點擊查看【ESG評級中心服務手冊】

　　文 | ESG評級中心 李欣然

　　美國特朗普總統上臺後，制定了一系列反對以ESG爲指導原則的行動，如退出巴黎協定，鼓勵化石能源開採等。當下，美國大衆對ESG持有何種態度？ESG投資在美國和全球的趨勢與前景如何？針對這些問題，新浪財經與美國芝加哥大學哈里斯公共政策學院Justin Marlowe教授展開了對話。

　　在Marlowe教授看來，公衆普遍支持ESG所包含的關乎切身利益的具體議題，且社會上仍然存在着大量的ESG投資機遇，如在城市基礎設施更新投融資領域。之所以出現ESG緘默的現象，是因爲一些人反對“ESG”這種抽象的表述，或者擔心其與某些政治立場相聯繫。展望未來，Marlowe教授相信儘管“ESG”的表述可能被模糊淡化，但與ESG理念相符合的投資，如旨在提升氣候韌性、增強氣候減緩與適應能力的投資會持續增長。

美國芝加哥大學哈里斯公共政策學院Justin Marlowe教授與新浪財經ESG評級中心

　　以下爲對話實錄：

　　Q：如今，美國投資者對ESG投資的總體態度是怎樣的？聽說美國目前存在“綠色緘默”現象。您認爲爲什麼會發生這種情況？是因爲人們不再支持ESG投資理念，還是他們仍然認同這一理念，只是不願意公開表達？

　　A：總體而言，公衆對ESG原則的支持依然十分堅定。事實上，多項民意調查和公衆意見數據表明，當被問及是否支持投資以應對更頻繁、更強烈的風暴時，多數人會給出肯定的回答。同樣，對於是否應採取措施應對更強烈的熱浪和高溫風險，以及是否應爲更頻繁的內澇做準備，人們也普遍表示支持。

　　這說明，大衆已經清晰地認識到這些風險，並且理解，只要我們有能力通過行動來管理和緩解這些風險，那麼這些行動就是必要的。在我的工作中，我常常將ESG視爲一種“預融資風險”——這些風險並非直接表現爲當下的財務損失，比如收入減少或支出激增，而是可能導致未來更高的成本支出或收入損失的潛在因素。當我們將這些風險視爲潛在的損失或問題時，人們通常會支持採取措施來緩解這些問題。

　　然而，“ESG”這三個字母變得如此具有政治爭議性，確實很奇怪。反對ESG的人設法把這三個字母變成了一種人們真正反對的東西，即使他們可能並不真正理解他們反對的是什麼，或者爲什麼要反對。這種反對聲音中，部分來自依賴化石燃料生產的社區。他們擔心ESG理念會摧毀他們的生活方式，這種擔憂情有可原。然而，他們忽略了另一個事實：許多化石燃料公司恰恰也是綠色能源領域的重要投資者。這不過是一種情緒化的反應。所以，我想這就是我們如今所處的境地：我們有了這種奇怪的分歧。一方面，人們非常支持採取行動來應對ESG原則所描述的風險；另一方面，他們又不願意使用“ESG”這個詞，或者不願意認真討論氣候適應問題以及ESG風險背後的一些根本原因。

　　因此，如果你是一名政策制定者，或者像我一樣是從事金融研究的人，我們看到的很多情況是，人們試圖傳達與ESG原則相同的基本觀點，但使用了不同的詞彙。所以現在我們談論的是“韌性”、“預防”和不同類型的“可持續性”。我們說的是同樣的事情，但沒有真正使用“ESG”這幾個字母。

　　Q：您如何看待ESG投資原則？根據您的研究經驗，您認爲ESG投資是否有助於價值創造？

　　A：這確實是一個關鍵的問題。我想談談公共財政，這也是我最爲熟悉的部分。在公共財政與ESG的關聯方面，我們已經有一些明確的認識。其中最重要的一點是，ESG投資的需求，尤其是公共基礎設施領域的投資需求，如今已經比以往任何時候都要強烈，並且這種需求還將持續增長。以最近的事件爲例，南加州的大規模山火正在引起全球關注。這些事件正是公共財政領域ESG投資重要性的生動體現。

　　如果我們要重建洛杉磯的受災區域，我們必然會面臨許多問題，而許多人相信解決這些問題需要以ESG理念爲指引。在那些被野火摧毀的社區甚至城市中，我們究竟要重建什麼？一種簡單的方式是直接進入現場，按部就班地重建，彷彿什麼都沒有發生過。然而，ESG投資者卻提出了質疑：“如果在不解決野火風險的情況下重建，這些風險依然會存在。十年後，可能還會再次發生火災，燒燬一切，屆時我們又將不得不重新開始重建。”如果真正理解ESG原則，我們或許會重新思考是否要在原地重建。或者，即便要重建，也應使用更可持續性的材料，因爲這些材料能夠更好地抵禦野火以及其他在該地區日益頻繁的自然災害。

　　如果你是一家生產可持續建築材料的企業，或是一家提供氣候風險信息的公司，亦或是一名負責重建街道、學校和醫院等公共基礎設施的城市官員，你將面臨巨大的壓力，必須以更環保、更可持續的方式重建。在此情況下，如果ESG原則能夠在某種程度上指導重建過程，這無疑將是一個巨大的投資機遇。

　　無論是政府、參與重建工作的供應商，還是致力於可持續發展、提供綠色能源和環保服務的城市，都將面臨巨大的市場機遇，能夠爲這一進程提供相關的產品和服務。從根本上來說，這其實是一個選擇的問題：我們是繼續堅守ESG原則，但通過換一個名字來避開棘手的政治爭議，還是任由ESG所面臨的壓力真正阻礙其發展？我相信，需求是真實存在的，並且無論我們如何稱呼這種投資，這種需求都將不斷增長。

　　Q：您認爲ESG的未來趨勢會是什麼樣的？您覺得“ESG”這個術語可能會被其他類似的概念取代嗎？

　　A：我看到雙方都有很有力的論據。一方面，有人認爲ESG已經廣爲人知，它傳遞了一種關於清晰原則的強烈信號，因此應當堅持使用它。僅僅因爲有人選擇將它政治化，不能成爲停止使用這些術語的充分理由。這種觀點確實不無道理。另一方面，也有很多人對語言的使用持務實態度。他們更關注投資能否真正落地，問題能否得到應有的關注。在我研究的市政金融領域，最近“預防”這一概念備受關注。想象一下，一個城市遭受嚴重內澇，需要投入數十億美元加高堤壩以防止洪水再次氾濫。若其作爲一項綠色或ESG投資的一部分，可能會被一些人視爲一種過激且不必要的行爲。然而，你可以稱其爲一項預防性投資，或以預防爲重點的投資。人們對不同的表述會有不同的看法。但有一點是肯定的：沒有人會真正反對預防，沒有人會反對努力避免壞事的發生。

　　近年來，一個有趣的現象是許多投資項目的命名被重新定義。在我看來，芝加哥在《通脹削減法案》背景下的實踐就是一個極具代表性的例子。儘管該法案的影響力似乎正在減弱，但它仍然包含了一筆可觀的聯邦資金，用於支持雨水管理的改善工作。具體而言，這些資金將用於提升城市排水系統的效能、優化雨水落地後的收集效率，以及投資相關技術和基礎設施建設。

　　以芝加哥熊隊（一支職業橄欖球隊）爲例，由於現有的場地已無法滿足需求，他們一直在考慮建造一個新的體育場。球隊一直在尋找爲公共基礎設施部分融資的途徑。然而，當芝加哥還有許多其他公共投資需求時，公衆對於花費數億美元支持一個球隊的做法持懷疑態度。不過，芝加哥的一位市政官員提出了一個巧妙的建議，即利用《通脹削減法案》的資金來支付球場所需的大部分基礎設施改善費用。從技術層面來看，這些改善措施有助於雨水管理，因此可以使用該法案的資金。換句話說，他們並不是單純地建造一個新的體育場，而是要建設一個大型雨水管理項目，並恰好使體育場坐落在其上方。儘管這一想法尚未付諸實施，但它體現了當前的一種新思維：通過將這些投資與其他基礎設施項目聯繫起來，賦予它們不同的名稱，從而找到繼續推進這些投資的方法。我認爲，在公共金融領域，這種現象已經出現，並且在未來還會越來越多。

　　Q：多年來，歐洲通常被認爲是踐行ESG的先鋒。您認爲ESG理念當前在歐洲的和全球其他地區的境況如何？

　　A：經合組織、北約和世界銀行等多邊機構在其工作中嵌入了強大的ESG原則。但它們也正在採取和美國一些機構類似的行動，即通過改變措辭和重新命名現有項目，來應對當前的輿論和政策環境。然而，這些機構的核心行動並未改變，它們仍在持續推動符合ESG標準的項目。

　　值得注意的是，ESG項目的投資者羣體並未因特朗普政府的政策變化和言論而受到任何實質性影響。以沙特公共投資基金（PIF）以及歐洲各地的公共養老基金爲例，它們都肩負着強烈的ESG使命，並且做出了明確的承諾。這些使命和承諾不會在短期內改變。

　　以下爲英文原文：

　　Q： What is the general attitude of American investors towards ESG investing these days? I’ve heard about the phenomenon of “green hushing” in the U.S．Why do you think this is happening? Is it because people no longer support the ESG investment philosophy, or do they still agree with it but are just unwilling to speak up about it？

　　A： I think, in general, people remain very supportive of the principles of ESG. In fact， there’s even some polling and public opinion data to show that if you ask people, “Do you believe we should make investments to prepare for more frequent, powerful storms？” they will say yes．If you ask them, “Should we take steps to prepare for more intense heat and heat risk？” they say yes. And if you ask them if they support doing things to prepare for more frequent inland flooding, they will say yes. So, I think people understand the risks and they recognize that, to the extent that we can take action to manage or mitigate those risks, we should do those things．

　　In my own work, I always like to talk about ESG as what we would call pre-financial risks. These are not necessarily risks that are financial risks today, like a loss of revenue or a big spike in spending. Instead, they are factors that create conditions for having to spend a lot more money in the future or factors that create the conditions for a loss of revenue. And when you frame it as the potential for a loss or the potential for a problem, people are generally supportive of the idea of doing something to mitigate that problem．

　　So that‘s why it’s so strange that ESG—just those three letters—has become so politically divisive. The opposition to ESG has managed to turn those three letters into something that people really oppose， even if they don‘t necessarily understand what they’re opposing or why. Some of that opposition is from communities that depend on fossil fuels production. They believe ESG will destroy their way of life. That’s understandable， but it ignores the fact that fossil fuel companies are also some of the biggest investors in green energy．It‘s just an emotional reaction that people have. So I think that’s where we stand today: We have this strange divide. On the one hand， people are very supportive of taking the actions needed to prepare for the risks described in ESG principles．On the other hand, they‘re not willing to use the term “ESG” or have a serious conversation about climate adaptation or some of the underlying causes of ESG risks．

　　And so, if you‘re a policymaker or, in my case, a finance person, a lot of what we’re seeing is people trying to convey the same basic ideas as ESG principles but using different words．So now we talk about resilience, prevention, and different types of sustainability．We‘re saying the same thing but without actually using the letters “ESG”．

　　Q： What is your perspective on the ESG investment principle？Based on your research experience, do you think ESG investing contributes to value creation？

　　A：That‘s the most important question in so many ways. I can only speak to public finance—that’s the area I know best. We do know a couple of things about public finance as it relates to ESG. One is that the demand for what we might call ESG investments， especially in public infrastructure, is stronger today than it‘s ever been, and it’s only going to continue to grow．

　　Take some of the recent developments, like those massive wildfires in Southern California that everyone is looking at right now. They are the ultimate case example of why ESG investing in public finance is so important. If we‘re going to rebuild those parts of Los Angeles, there are a number of questions we’re going to have to ask, and many believe that those questions should be informed by ESG thinking．

　　For example, what are we going to rebuild in some of these areas where entire neighborhoods or even entire cities have been destroyed？You could simply go in and rebuild, pretending that nothing had happened. But ESG investors are saying, “Hold on. If you rebuild without addressing the wildfire risks, they will remain the same. And in 10 years, you could have another fire that burns everything down again, forcing you to rebuild once more.” So, if you’re mindful of what the principles of ESG tell us, you might reconsider rebuilding in all the same places. Or, if you do rebuild, you should use much more sustainable materials—materials that are better prepared to withstand the kinds of wildfire risks and other natural disaster risks that are now very common in that part of the world．

　　If you are a firm that makes those sustainable building materials, or a firm that offers information about the emergence of future climate risks, or a city official trying to rebuild public infrastructure—rebuilding your streets, sidewalks, school buildings, and hospital buildings—you will be under tremendous pressure to build back in a greener, more sustainable way. This looks like a tremendous investment opportunity, assuming that ESG principles inform the rebuilding process in some way．

　　If you are a government, if you are a supplier to the rebuilding efforts, or if you are a city looking to be more sustainable, provide more green energy, and offer greener services—there is a tremendous opportunity to sell to and supply that entire effort．

　　Fundamentally, I think it comes down to a choice: Do we remain committed to the principles of ESG, but simply call it something else to sidestep these difficult political issues? Or does the pressure on ESG truly halt the progress on ESG？I believe there is no question that the demand is ther, and it will continue to grow regardless of what we call it．

　　Q： What do you think the future trends of ESG will be？Do you think the term “ESG” might be replaced by other similar concepts？

　　A：I‘ve seen strong arguments on both sides. There are strong arguments from people who say, “ESG is well-known, and we should continue to use it. It sends a very strong message about a very clear set of principles, and therefore we should stick with it. Just because someone has chosen to politicize it doesn’t mean that‘s a good reason to stop using those terms” And that’s fair. On the other side, there are many people who are very pragmatic about the language. They just want to see the investments happen. They just want to see attention paid to the issue．

　　In my field of municipal finance, there‘s been a lot of focus lately on prevention. Think about a city that has suffered from inland flooding. It has to spend billions of dollars to raise its levees to prevent further flooding. You can look at that and say they have to spend a billion dollars to raise their seawalls as part of a green or ESG investment, which some people might see as reactionary and unnecessary. Or you can call it a billion-dollar investment in preventing disaster. Or you could call it an investment in prevention, or a prevention-focused investment. People think about that differently. Nobody’s really against prevention. No one is against trying to keep a bad thing from happening．

　　There‘s also been a lot of interesting rebranding of what many of these investments can be called. I think a particularly interesting example is in Chicago under the IRA （Inflation Reduction Act） which， despite seeming to fade a little every moment now， still included a substantial amount of federal money to support better stormwater management efforts. These efforts include better drainage and more effective capture of rainwater where it falls, as well as investments in related technologies and infrastructure．

　　For example, the Chicago Bears, a professional football team, have been looking to build a new stadium．They believe their current stadium is no longer adequate．Naturally, they have been looking for ways to finance the public infrastructure part of the project． However, people are understandably skeptical about spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support a professional sports team when Chicago has many other public investment needs that don‘t involve professional sports．But one of the city’s finance officials has gotten very creative．One proposal is to use IRA funds for much of the infrastructure improvements at Soldier Field, where the Bears play．Technically, these improvements would help with stormwater management, so they could be financed with IRA dollars．In other words, instead of building a new football stadium, they‘re proposing a large stormwater management project that just happens to have a football stadium on top of it. This idea hasn’t been implemented yet, but it shows the kind of thinking that‘s happening now: finding ways to continue making these investments and tying them to other infrastructure projects under different names. I think there has been, and will continue to be, a lot more of this, at least in public finance．

　　Q： For many years, Europe has been regarded as a pioneer in practicing ESG principles．What is your view on the current state of ESG in Europe and in other regions globally？

　　A： Among European investors and some of the multilateral organizations—like the OECD, NATO, and the World Bank—many have very strong ESG principles embedded in what they do．I believe they are doing the exact same thing: changing the words they use and relabeling many of their existing efforts. But at the core, they continue to invest or promote investments that are ESG-sensitive or ESG-compliant．

　　I think it‘s important to note that the investor base in ESG projects has not been discouraged at all by the change in policy and the rhetoric of the Trump administration． Consider funds like the Saudi PIF and certain public pension funds across Europe; they all have very strong ESG mandates and programmatic commitments that they need to meet. I don’t see that changing anytime soon．

　　新浪財經ESG評級中心簡介

　　新浪財經ESG評級中心是業內首箇中文ESG專業資訊和評級聚合平臺，致力於宣傳和推廣可持續發展，責任投資，與ESG（環境、社會和公司治理）價值理念，傳播ESG的企業實踐行動和榜樣力量，推動中國ESG事業的發展，促進中國ESG評估標準的建立和企業評級的提升。

　　依託ESG評級中心，新浪財經發布多隻ESG創新指數，爲關注企業ESG表現的投資者提供更多選擇。同時，新浪財經成立中國ESG領導者組織論壇，攜手中國ESG領導企業和合作伙伴，通過環境、社會和公司治理理念，推動建立適合中國時代特徵的ESG評價標準體系，促進中國資產管理行業ESG投資發展。

海量資訊、精準解讀，盡在新浪財經APP

責任編輯：李欣然