科學(xué)分享類 長期征稿 英譯中

Want to Really Boost the Economy?

Stay in the ParisAgreement

想提振經(jīng)濟(jì)煤礦井下風(fēng)電閉鎖標(biāo)準(zhǔn)？那就好好堅守《巴黎協(xié)定》

　　President DonaldTrump yesterday justified pulling the United States out of the Paris climateaccord largely, he said, because it would hurt the United States economy.

　　當(dāng)?shù)貢r間6月1日煤礦井下風(fēng)電閉鎖標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，特朗普以拖累美國經(jīng)濟(jì)為由煤礦井下風(fēng)電閉鎖標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，宣布美國將退出《巴黎氣候協(xié)定》。

　　"As of today,the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accordand the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on ourcountry," Trump said at yesterday's (June 1) news conference.

　　特朗普在6月1日的新聞發(fā)布會上表示煤礦井下風(fēng)電閉鎖標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：“即日起煤礦井下風(fēng)電閉鎖標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，美國將停止落實不具有約束力的《巴黎協(xié)定》，結(jié)束這項協(xié)定強(qiáng)加給我們國家的苛刻的財政和經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)?！?/p>

　　But the idea thatthe Paris Agreement will harm the economy is nonsensical, said Jonathan Koomey,a lecturer in Earth Systems at the School of Earth, Energy & EnvironmentalSciences at Stanford University. For one, the agreed-upon emissions cuts arenonbinding; the only legal obligation is that the United States report itscarbon emissions. So if the required cuts are too damaging to the economy, theUnited States is free to revise its emissions goals, he said.

　　斯坦福大學(xué)地球能源與環(huán)境科學(xué)學(xué)院地球系統(tǒng)的講師Jonathan Koomey稱，認(rèn)為巴黎協(xié)定拖累美國經(jīng)濟(jì)這一點，簡直是荒謬至極。隨便舉個例子說吧，這個多方共同議定的減排目標(biāo)是沒有約束力的，美國唯一需要盡到的法律義務(wù)就是公布其二氧化碳排放量。因此，如果所要求的減排量不利于經(jīng)濟(jì)增長，美國完全可以自己修改減排目標(biāo)。

　　"You can'thave nonbinding standards that are draconian," Koomey told Live Science.

　　“本就沒有約束力的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)何來苛刻之說?！盞oomey在與Live Science的對話中講道。

　　Beyond that, mosteconomic analyses suggest that environmental regulations may actually boost theeconomy, both because they spur innovation and because they prevent harm,Koomey said.

　　除此之外，他還表示，大多數(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析都表明了，環(huán)境法規(guī)既能保護(hù)環(huán)境，又能刺激創(chuàng)新，事實上只會提振經(jīng)濟(jì)。

Harm reduction

減少傷害

　　In his speech,Trump cited statistics from a coal-industry-funded think tank, called theNational Economic Research Associates, which claimed that the burdens from thenonbinding climate agreement would cost about $2.7 million in total jobs lostby 2025. He claimed it would cut production in the paper industry by 12percent, the cement industry by 23 percent, the iron and steel industry by 38percent, and the coal industry by 86 percent. He also cited a $3 billion pledgethe United States made to help developing countries reduce their carbonemissions. (The annual United States budget is $3.8 trillion, meaning thepledge amounts to less than 0.1 percent of yearly expenditures.)

　　特朗普在演說中援引了煤礦業(yè)智庫美國國家經(jīng)濟(jì)研究協(xié)會的數(shù)據(jù)，認(rèn)為到2025年，這個毫無約束力的氣候協(xié)定將會導(dǎo)致美國損失共270萬美元，而造紙、水泥、鋼鐵、煤炭等工業(yè)的產(chǎn)能分別下降12%、23%、38%和86%。此外，他還指責(zé)美國當(dāng)時承諾每年支援發(fā)展中國家30億美元幫助他們減排。（美國的年預(yù)算是3.8萬億美元，那筆錢其實只占其中的0.1%都不到。）

　　The idea thatenvironmental regulation hurts the economy is not a new one, Koomey said. Withalmost any new regulation, entrenched interests say thecosts will harm the economy and eliminate jobs.

　　Koomey表示，認(rèn)為環(huán)境法規(guī)會拖累經(jīng)濟(jì)這種想法也不是什么新鮮事兒了。幾乎每項新規(guī)的推出，既得利益者們都認(rèn)為這些規(guī)定會阻礙經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展，減少就業(yè)。

　　"In virtuallyevery case that's been false," Koomey said.

　　“但他們每一次都是錯的?！盞oomey說。

　　The reason issimple: Environmental pollution costs money, reduces productivity and killspeople, so reducing it typically has financial benefits for society. Forinstance, because carbon dioxide acts as a lung irritant,fully implementing theClean Power Plan set up by President Barack Obama would lead to about 3,500fewer deaths by 2020, according to a 2015 study in the journal Nature ClimateChange. A peer-reviewed study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agencyin 2001 found that the Clean Air Act, which was passed in 1990, prevented160,000 premature deaths in 1990, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency-roomvisits and 13 million lost days of work due to the negative health consequencesof air pollution. The benefit-to-cost ratio, according to the EPA, was 30 to 1.

　　原因再簡單不過了。環(huán)境污染花費大、降低生產(chǎn)率、危害生命，因此降低污染通常都能夠給社會帶來經(jīng)濟(jì)效益。比如，《自然氣候變化》雜志2015年的一項研究表明，由于二氧化碳對肺部具有刺激性，切實實施前總統(tǒng)奧馬巴推出的《清潔電力計劃》，到2020年就能減少約3500人死亡。美國環(huán)境保護(hù)署2001年進(jìn)行的一項同行評審的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，1990年，由于通過了《清潔空氣法》，過早死亡、心臟病發(fā)作和進(jìn)急救室的人次分別減少了16萬、13萬和8.6萬，因為空氣污染帶來健康問題而失業(yè)的人數(shù)減少了1300萬。根據(jù)環(huán)保署的數(shù)據(jù)，治理環(huán)境的效益成本比率是30:1。

　　"Environmentalpollution costs society money and it kills people," Koomey said. "Soif you fix that problem, then society is better off."

　　“環(huán)境污染既傷財力又危害生命，”Koomey說，“如果環(huán)境得到治理，社會將會更加富裕美好?！?/p>

　　That's not evenaddressing the trillions of dollars that will be spent if climate change leadsto some combination of coastal flooding, droughts, water shortages, heat waves,crop loss, famine and war, he added. According to a 2015 study by Citigroup,negative effects from climate change could total $44 trillion if the UnitedStates fails to shift to more renewable energy sources.

　　以上的效益成本比甚至還沒算入氣候變化導(dǎo)致的沿海地區(qū)洪災(zāi)、旱災(zāi)、缺水、熱浪、莊稼損失、饑荒和戰(zhàn)爭等種種所花費的巨資。花旗集團(tuán)2015年進(jìn)行的一項研究表明，如果無法完成向可再生能源的轉(zhuǎn)型，美國將要花費44萬億美元去應(yīng)對氣候變化帶來的負(fù)面影響。

Innovation andwealth creation

刺激創(chuàng)新，創(chuàng)造財富

　　However,environmental regulations and climate change goals don't just prevent harms andlead to job loss from more polluting endeavors, they also fuel innovation andnew technologies, which directly grow the economy and produce new jobs, Koomeysaid.

　　Koomey稱，環(huán)境法規(guī)和氣候變化目標(biāo)雖然會導(dǎo)致更多與環(huán)境污染相關(guān)行業(yè)的工人失業(yè)，但有助于減少對社會和人類的傷害，還會刺激創(chuàng)新和新科技的產(chǎn)生，直接拉動經(jīng)濟(jì)增長，創(chuàng)造出更多新崗位。

　　As new regulationsor incentives come on board, companies find ways to meet improved standards inthe most cost-effective way possible. Thus, cleaner technologies get cheaperand become a bigger portion of the environment.

　　每當(dāng)新規(guī)或新政策出臺，各公司都會找到盡可能最經(jīng)濟(jì)有效的方法去迎合那些改進(jìn)的高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。因此，清潔技術(shù)越來越實惠，在環(huán)境治理中占據(jù)的地位也越來越重要。

　　For instance, thecost of solar energy has plummeted 80 percent in the last five years, whilewind technology has dropped in cost by two-thirds over the same period, and arenow often cheaper than more-polluting energy sources, Koomey said. That islargely thanks to natural efficiencies that come with scaling up manufacturinglevels. Technical innovations ―such as the use of carbon-fiber bladesrather than metal blades in wind turbines, the elimination of extra gears, andcomputers that use sophisticated modeling to best harness and release energyfrom wind and solar power plants ―have also played a role, he said.

　　例如，過去五年里，太陽能和風(fēng)能的成本分別大幅度降低了4/5和2/3。這兩種能源現(xiàn)在往往都比污染更嚴(yán)重的能源要便宜。這很大程度上歸功于制造水平和自然效率的提高。此外，風(fēng)力渦輪機(jī)以碳纖維葉片代替金屬葉片，去掉多余的齒輪，計算機(jī)使用先進(jìn)的模型以更好地利用和釋放風(fēng)能和太陽能發(fā)電廠的能源等，這些技術(shù)創(chuàng)新對太陽能和風(fēng)能成本的降低也起著重要作用。

　　"We'resubstituting smarts for parts, we're substituting better materials and figuringout more clever ways to do the same tasks," Koomey said.

　　“我們正以腦力或更好的材料去代替電腦部件，在面對環(huán)境問題時，也同樣會找到更多更機(jī)智的解決方法”，Koomey稱。

　　Improved energystorage has progressively increased the fraction of energy that can be reliablypulled from renewable sources such as wind and solar, without causing energyshortages and brownouts, he said. For instance, energy companies are now usingold, abandoned coal mines to generate hydroelectric power during the day bypouring water deep into mines, then pumping it out at night, when the energygrid has much lower power demands, he said.

　　改進(jìn)的能源儲備方式使得風(fēng)能和太陽能等可再生能源的儲備逐漸增加，我們不必再擔(dān)心能源短缺或電壓不足等問題。比如，能源公司白天利用廢舊的煤礦坑進(jìn)行水力發(fā)電，當(dāng)晚上能源網(wǎng)格的功率需求較低時我們就可以使用水電。

　　"Peoplecomplained about wind and solar technology 30,40 years ago and said if you puteven a few percent of that on our grid it will destabilize it, and that turnedout to be nonsense," Koomey said.

　　三四十年前，人們對風(fēng)能和水能技術(shù)頗有怨言，認(rèn)為那些能源會破壞電網(wǎng)。結(jié)果證明，這根本就是無稽之談。

　　Now, utilitysystems can easily use 30 to 40 percent renewable energy without causing anyinterruptions in power supplied. With regulations in place, that same cycle ofinnovation is likely to proceed for years.

　　如今，供電系統(tǒng)使用的電源中30%-40%都來自可再生能源，但并沒有出現(xiàn)任何電力中斷現(xiàn)象。如果早點出臺相關(guān)法規(guī)，這樣的創(chuàng)新技術(shù)可能會提早好幾年。

　　OF course, a majorsource of carbon emissions comes from cars, and electric vehicles have nottaken off in the same way as solar and wind power have. However, China hasalready mandated that a certain fraction of its cars must be electric by 2025,and because it's such a huge market, any major car companies will need todevelop attractive electric vehicles for this market if they want to compete,Koomey said. By relaxing fuel-efficiency standards and removing momentum forproducing electric cars, Trump's policies will only encourage U.S.-based carmanufacturers to lag behind, he said.

　　當(dāng)然，二氧化碳排放主要是來自汽車尾氣，而電動車還沒有像風(fēng)能和太陽能那么普及。然而，中國政府已經(jīng)規(guī)定了到2025年的電動車的市場占有率。中國這么大一個消費市場，任何想要分得一杯羹的大型汽車公司都會努力研發(fā)足夠吸引客戶的電動車。而放寬燃油效率標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，打擊生產(chǎn)電動汽車的勢頭，特朗普的政策只會使美國汽車制造商遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)被甩在世界后頭。

　　All of these newtechnologies create jobs and products that grow the economy, Koomey said. Areport by the Rocky Mountain Institute, a clean-energy think tank, estimatesthat "decarbonizing" the economy will add $5 trillion to the economy.A 2016 study, funded by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson,billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and hedge-fundmanager Thomas Steyer, found that reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by2100 would actually save money, because the increased investment in renewableenergy would be more than offset by reduced costs associated with fossil fuels.

　　所有的新技術(shù)都會創(chuàng)造出新的就業(yè)機(jī)會和新產(chǎn)品，拉動經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。據(jù)清潔能源智庫落基山研究所的一份報告估計，減少二氧化碳排放會給社會增加5萬億的經(jīng)濟(jì)收入。美國前財政部部長Henry Paulson，億萬富翁、前紐約市長Michael Bloomberg和對沖基金經(jīng)理Thomas Steyer三人2016年共同資助進(jìn)行的一項研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，到2100年減少80%的二氧化碳排放量，實際上是在節(jié)省社會開支，因為對可再生能源日益增多的投資比降低化石能源成本的投資補(bǔ)償要多得多。

　　People who opposeclimate regulations "are looking at this exactly wrong. They think this issomehow this great burden." But entrepreneur Richard Branson "hascalled the climate problem the single greatest wealth creation opportunity inhuman history," Koomey said.

　　反對氣候法規(guī)的人"覺得這是個實實在在的錯誤，他們把這當(dāng)成一個沉重的負(fù)擔(dān)。"但是企業(yè)家Richard Branson認(rèn)為，“解決氣候問題是人類史上創(chuàng)造財富的最佳機(jī)會。”

　　https://www.livescience.com/59354-why-climate-reductions-help-economy.html

— END —