专题：特朗普2.0时代 气候危机与全球应对

　　新浪财经ESG评级中心提供包括资讯、报告、培训、咨询等在内的14项ESG服务，助力上市公司传播ESG理念，提升ESG可持续发展表现。点击查看【ESG评级中心服务手册】

　　文 | ESG评级中心 李欣然

　　美国特朗普总统上台后，制定了一系列反对以ESG为指导原则的行动，如退出巴黎协定，鼓励化石能源开采等。当下，美国大众对ESG持有何种态度？ESG投资在美国和全球的趋势与前景如何？针对这些问题，新浪财经与美国芝加哥大学哈里斯公共政策学院Justin Marlowe教授展开了对话。

　　在Marlowe教授看来，公众普遍支持ESG所包含的关乎切身利益的具体议题，且社会上仍然存在着大量的ESG投资机遇，如在城市基础设施更新投融资领域。之所以出现ESG缄默的现象，是因为一些人反对“ESG”这种抽象的表述，或者担心其与某些政治立场相联系。展望未来，Marlowe教授相信尽管“ESG”的表述可能被模糊淡化，但与ESG理念相符合的投资，如旨在提升气候韧性、增强气候减缓与适应能力的投资会持续增长。

美国芝加哥大学哈里斯公共政策学院Justin Marlowe教授与新浪财经ESG评级中心

　　以下为对话实录：

　　Q：如今，美国投资者对ESG投资的总体态度是怎样的？听说美国目前存在“绿色缄默”现象。您认为为什么会发生这种情况？是因为人们不再支持ESG投资理念，还是他们仍然认同这一理念，只是不愿意公开表达？

　　A：总体而言，公众对ESG原则的支持依然十分坚定。事实上，多项民意调查和公众意见数据表明，当被问及是否支持投资以应对更频繁、更强烈的风暴时，多数人会给出肯定的回答。同样，对于是否应采取措施应对更强烈的热浪和高温风险，以及是否应为更频繁的内涝做准备，人们也普遍表示支持。

　　这说明，大众已经清晰地认识到这些风险，并且理解，只要我们有能力通过行动来管理和缓解这些风险，那么这些行动就是必要的。在我的工作中，我常常将ESG视为一种“预融资风险”——这些风险并非直接表现为当下的财务损失，比如收入减少或支出激增，而是可能导致未来更高的成本支出或收入损失的潜在因素。当我们将这些风险视为潜在的损失或问题时，人们通常会支持采取措施来缓解这些问题。

　　然而，“ESG”这三个字母变得如此具有政治争议性，确实很奇怪。反对ESG的人设法把这三个字母变成了一种人们真正反对的东西，即使他们可能并不真正理解他们反对的是什么，或者为什么要反对。这种反对声音中，部分来自依赖化石燃料生产的社区。他们担心ESG理念会摧毁他们的生活方式，这种担忧情有可原。然而，他们忽略了另一个事实：许多化石燃料公司恰恰也是绿色能源领域的重要投资者。这不过是一种情绪化的反应。所以，我想这就是我们如今所处的境地：我们有了这种奇怪的分歧。一方面，人们非常支持采取行动来应对ESG原则所描述的风险；另一方面，他们又不愿意使用“ESG”这个词，或者不愿意认真讨论气候适应问题以及ESG风险背后的一些根本原因。

　　因此，如果你是一名政策制定者，或者像我一样是从事金融研究的人，我们看到的很多情况是，人们试图传达与ESG原则相同的基本观点，但使用了不同的词汇。所以现在我们谈论的是“韧性”、“预防”和不同类型的“可持续性”。我们说的是同样的事情，但没有真正使用“ESG”这几个字母。

　　Q：您如何看待ESG投资原则？根据您的研究经验，您认为ESG投资是否有助于价值创造？

　　A：这确实是一个关键的问题。我想谈谈公共财政，这也是我最为熟悉的部分。在公共财政与ESG的关联方面，我们已经有一些明确的认识。其中最重要的一点是，ESG投资的需求，尤其是公共基础设施领域的投资需求，如今已经比以往任何时候都要强烈，并且这种需求还将持续增长。以最近的事件为例，南加州的大规模山火正在引起全球关注。这些事件正是公共财政领域ESG投资重要性的生动体现。

　　如果我们要重建洛杉矶的受灾区域，我们必然会面临许多问题，而许多人相信解决这些问题需要以ESG理念为指引。在那些被野火摧毁的社区甚至城市中，我们究竟要重建什么？一种简单的方式是直接进入现场，按部就班地重建，仿佛什么都没有发生过。然而，ESG投资者却提出了质疑：“如果在不解决野火风险的情况下重建，这些风险依然会存在。十年后，可能还会再次发生火灾，烧毁一切，届时我们又将不得不重新开始重建。”如果真正理解ESG原则，我们或许会重新思考是否要在原地重建。或者，即便要重建，也应使用更可持续性的材料，因为这些材料能够更好地抵御野火以及其他在该地区日益频繁的自然灾害。

　　如果你是一家生产可持续建筑材料的企业，或是一家提供气候风险信息的公司，亦或是一名负责重建街道、学校和医院等公共基础设施的城市官员，你将面临巨大的压力，必须以更环保、更可持续的方式重建。在此情况下，如果ESG原则能够在某种程度上指导重建过程，这无疑将是一个巨大的投资机遇。

　　无论是政府、参与重建工作的供应商，还是致力于可持续发展、提供绿色能源和环保服务的城市，都将面临巨大的市场机遇，能够为这一进程提供相关的产品和服务。从根本上来说，这其实是一个选择的问题：我们是继续坚守ESG原则，但通过换一个名字来避开棘手的政治争议，还是任由ESG所面临的压力真正阻碍其发展？我相信，需求是真实存在的，并且无论我们如何称呼这种投资，这种需求都将不断增长。

　　Q：您认为ESG的未来趋势会是什么样的？您觉得“ESG”这个术语可能会被其他类似的概念取代吗？

　　A：我看到双方都有很有力的论据。一方面，有人认为ESG已经广为人知，它传递了一种关于清晰原则的强烈信号，因此应当坚持使用它。仅仅因为有人选择将它政治化，不能成为停止使用这些术语的充分理由。这种观点确实不无道理。另一方面，也有很多人对语言的使用持务实态度。他们更关注投资能否真正落地，问题能否得到应有的关注。在我研究的市政金融领域，最近“预防”这一概念备受关注。想象一下，一个城市遭受严重内涝，需要投入数十亿美元加高堤坝以防止洪水再次泛滥。若其作为一项绿色或ESG投资的一部分，可能会被一些人视为一种过激且不必要的行为。然而，你可以称其为一项预防性投资，或以预防为重点的投资。人们对不同的表述会有不同的看法。但有一点是肯定的：没有人会真正反对预防，没有人会反对努力避免坏事的发生。

　　近年来，一个有趣的现象是许多投资项目的命名被重新定义。在我看来，芝加哥在《通胀削减法案》背景下的实践就是一个极具代表性的例子。尽管该法案的影响力似乎正在减弱，但它仍然包含了一笔可观的联邦资金，用于支持雨水管理的改善工作。具体而言，这些资金将用于提升城市排水系统的效能、优化雨水落地后的收集效率，以及投资相关技术和基础设施建设。

　　以芝加哥熊队（一支职业橄榄球队）为例，由于现有的场地已无法满足需求，他们一直在考虑建造一个新的体育场。球队一直在寻找为公共基础设施部分融资的途径。然而，当芝加哥还有许多其他公共投资需求时，公众对于花费数亿美元支持一个球队的做法持怀疑态度。不过，芝加哥的一位市政官员提出了一个巧妙的建议，即利用《通胀削减法案》的资金来支付球场所需的大部分基础设施改善费用。从技术层面来看，这些改善措施有助于雨水管理，因此可以使用该法案的资金。换句话说，他们并不是单纯地建造一个新的体育场，而是要建设一个大型雨水管理项目，并恰好使体育场坐落在其上方。尽管这一想法尚未付诸实施，但它体现了当前的一种新思维：通过将这些投资与其他基础设施项目联系起来，赋予它们不同的名称，从而找到继续推进这些投资的方法。我认为，在公共金融领域，这种现象已经出现，并且在未来还会越来越多。

　　Q：多年来，欧洲通常被认为是践行ESG的先锋。您认为ESG理念当前在欧洲的和全球其他地区的境况如何？

　　A：经合组织、北约和世界银行等多边机构在其工作中嵌入了强大的ESG原则。但它们也正在采取和美国一些机构类似的行动，即通过改变措辞和重新命名现有项目，来应对当前的舆论和政策环境。然而，这些机构的核心行动并未改变，它们仍在持续推动符合ESG标准的项目。

　　值得注意的是，ESG项目的投资者群体并未因特朗普政府的政策变化和言论而受到任何实质性影响。以沙特公共投资基金（PIF）以及欧洲各地的公共养老基金为例，它们都肩负着强烈的ESG使命，并且做出了明确的承诺。这些使命和承诺不会在短期内改变。

　　以下为英文原文：

　　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．

　　新浪财经ESG评级中心简介

　　新浪财经ESG评级中心是业内首个中文ESG专业资讯和评级聚合平台，致力于宣传和推广可持续发展，责任投资，与ESG（环境、社会和公司治理）价值理念，传播ESG的企业实践行动和榜样力量，推动中国ESG事业的发展，促进中国ESG评估标准的建立和企业评级的提升。

　　依托ESG评级中心，新浪财经发布多只ESG创新指数，为关注企业ESG表现的投资者提供更多选择。同时，新浪财经成立中国ESG领导者组织论坛，携手中国ESG领导企业和合作伙伴，通过环境、社会和公司治理理念，推动建立适合中国时代特征的ESG评价标准体系，促进中国资产管理行业ESG投资发展。

海量资讯、精准解读，尽在新浪财经APP

责任编辑：李欣然