民意调查：英国公众支持“2030零碳”目标
Majority of UK public back 2030 zero-carbon target – poll
译文简介
公众可能会支持2030年实现零碳排放，但我怀疑他们是否真地愿意做出必要的生活方式改变，或者当改变发生时，他们是否会喜欢这些改变。
正文翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：jiangye111 转载请注明出处
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Majority of UK public back 2030 zero-carbon target – poll
-Nearly half of Tory voters back plan, compared with 16% who back party’s 2050 target
民意调查：英国公众支持“2030零碳”目标
——近一半的保守党选民支持该计划，相比之下，只有16%的人支持党派“2050零碳”的目标
-Nearly half of Tory voters back plan, compared with 16% who back party’s 2050 target
民意调查：英国公众支持“2030零碳”目标
——近一半的保守党选民支持该计划，相比之下，只有16%的人支持党派“2050零碳”的目标
Just under half of those polled backed public spending to make large swathes of public transport free to use. Photograph: Guy Bell/Alamy
（接近一半的受访者支持旨在使大部分公共交通免费使用的公共支出。图片来源：盖伊·贝尔/Alamy）
A majority of the UK public and almost half of Conservative voters support a radical plan to transform the economy and tackle the climate crisis, a poll suggests.
一项民意调查显示，英国大多数公众和近一半的保守派选民支持一项彻底改革经济、应对气候危机的计划。
一项民意调查显示，英国大多数公众和近一半的保守派选民支持一项彻底改革经济、应对气候危机的计划。
YouGov found that 56% of people back the total decarbonisation of the UK economy by 2030 and just under half support public spending to make large swathes of public transport free to use.
舆观调查网发现，56%的人支持英国经济到2030年实现完全脱碳，并且接近一半的受访者支持旨在使大部分公共交通免费使用的公共支出。
舆观调查网发现，56%的人支持英国经济到2030年实现完全脱碳，并且接近一半的受访者支持旨在使大部分公共交通免费使用的公共支出。
The findings appear to highlight a growing awareness of the scale of the climate crisis and the increasingly radical policy solutions the public is willing to support.
调查结果似乎突显出，人们越来越意识到气候危机的规模，并且公众愿意支持日益激进的政策解决方案。
调查结果似乎突显出，人们越来越意识到气候危机的规模，并且公众愿意支持日益激进的政策解决方案。
Last week a separate survey found that the climate emergency would influence how most people vote, with almost two-thirds agreeing it was the biggest issue facing humankind.
上周的另一项调查发现，气候紧急情况将影响大多数人的投票，近三分之二的人认为这是人类面临的最大问题。
上周的另一项调查发现，气候紧急情况将影响大多数人的投票，近三分之二的人认为这是人类面临的最大问题。
The new poll, commissioned by Green New Deal UK, a non-party-aligned campaign group, found that 47% of Conservative voters back a zero-emissions target by 2030, compared with just 16% who support the government’s current aim of reaching that point by 2050.
这项由“英国绿色新政”委托进行的新民调发现，47%的保守派选民支持到2030年实现零排放目标，相比之下，只有16%的人支持政府当前的目标，即到2050年才实现这一目标。
这项由“英国绿色新政”委托进行的新民调发现，47%的保守派选民支持到2030年实现零排放目标，相比之下，只有16%的人支持政府当前的目标，即到2050年才实现这一目标。
Labour wants the UK to hit zero carbon by 2030 as part of its Green Industrial Revolution agenda, the Green party also has a target date of 2030, and the Liberal Democrats have set a target of 2045.
作为“绿色工业革命”议程的一部分，工党希望英国到2030年实现零碳排放，绿党也设定了2030年零碳目标，而自由民主党则设定了2045年零碳目标。
作为“绿色工业革命”议程的一部分，工党希望英国到2030年实现零碳排放，绿党也设定了2030年零碳目标，而自由民主党则设定了2045年零碳目标。
Aliya Yule, a co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal, which campaigned for Labour to adopt the 2030 target, said the polling showed next month’s vote was becoming the UK’s first “climate election”.
工党“绿色新政”联合创始人阿利亚·尤尔表示，民调显示，下月的投票将成为英国首次“气候选举”。
工党“绿色新政”联合创始人阿利亚·尤尔表示，民调显示，下月的投票将成为英国首次“气候选举”。
“The figures demonstrate the huge public appetite for rapid and radical government action on climate change,” he said.
他说：“这些数据表明了公众对政府迅速采取激进行动应对气候变化的巨大需求。”
他说：“这些数据表明了公众对政府迅速采取激进行动应对气候变化的巨大需求。”
Yule said only Labour’s Green Industrial Revolution plans – which aim to tie radical action on the environment to huge job creation and housing upgrade schemes – would address the scale of the crisis.
尤尔表示，只有工党的“绿色工业革命”计划（旨在将环境方面的激进行动与大规模创造就业和住房升级计划联系起来）才能解决危机的规模。
尤尔表示，只有工党的“绿色工业革命”计划（旨在将环境方面的激进行动与大规模创造就业和住房升级计划联系起来）才能解决危机的规模。
“Not even Conservative voters support the Tories’ net zero 2050 target. They have no credibility on climate change, not even with their own supporters,” he added.
“甚至连保守派选民也不支持保守党2050年零排放的目标。后者在气候变化问题上没有可信度，甚至在自己的支持者中也没有，”他补充道。
“甚至连保守派选民也不支持保守党2050年零排放的目标。后者在气候变化问题上没有可信度，甚至在自己的支持者中也没有，”他补充道。
“A target date of 2030 has been Green party policy for years,” said a Green party spokesperson. “The fact that the majority of people now support it shows how much concern about the climate emergency is accelerating, and how little support there is for the government’s policy of setting targets for mid-century and using that as an excuse to take very little action to achieve them.”
一位绿党发言人表示：“多年来，绿党的政策目标一直是2030年零碳。现在大多数人都支持这一计划，这一事实表明，人们对气候紧急情况的担忧正在加剧，而对政府制定本世纪中期零碳目标、并以此为借口采取非常少的行动来实现这些目标的政策的支持有多么少。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
一位绿党发言人表示：“多年来，绿党的政策目标一直是2030年零碳。现在大多数人都支持这一计划，这一事实表明，人们对气候紧急情况的担忧正在加剧，而对政府制定本世纪中期零碳目标、并以此为借口采取非常少的行动来实现这些目标的政策的支持有多么少。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
This week student and pensioner groups called on the leaders of all the main parties to take part in a televised leaders’ debate on the climate. All agreed except for Boris Johnson, who did not respond.
本周，学生和养老金领取者团体呼吁所有主要政党的领导人参加一场关于气候变化的电视辩论。除了鲍里斯·约翰逊没有回应外，其他所有领导人都同意了。
本周，学生和养老金领取者团体呼吁所有主要政党的领导人参加一场关于气候变化的电视辩论。除了鲍里斯·约翰逊没有回应外，其他所有领导人都同意了。
Noga Levy-Rapoport, a participant in the youth climate strikes, said: “This general election is our last chance to face up to the climate crisis. The public clearly support the most ambitious targets to decarbonise.
青年气候罢工的参与者诺加·利维-拉波波特称：“这次大选是我们直面气候危机的最后机会。而公众显然支持最雄心勃勃的脱碳目标。
青年气候罢工的参与者诺加·利维-拉波波特称：“这次大选是我们直面气候危机的最后机会。而公众显然支持最雄心勃勃的脱碳目标。
“Parties should respond in kind by offering a Green New Deal which rapidly reduces emissions while improving living standards and expanding services like free bus travel.”
“各方应以同样的方式做出回应，提供一项绿色新政，在提高生活水平和扩大免费巴士旅行等服务的同时，迅速减少碳排放。”
“各方应以同样的方式做出回应，提供一项绿色新政，在提高生活水平和扩大免费巴士旅行等服务的同时，迅速减少碳排放。”
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
Glad to see the message is starting to cut through. The problem is that people aren''''''''''''''''t very aware the associated costs and sacrifices we would have to make to meet the 2030 target.
I absolutely agree that we should make those sacrifices btw, but that''''''''''''''''s why it''''''''''''''''s polling so high.
很高兴看到这个信息开始被传开了。问题是，人们并没有意识到，为了实现2030年零碳的目标，我们将不得不付出相应的代价和牺牲。
顺便说一句，我完全同意我们应该做出这些牺牲，但这就是为什么民调这么高的原因。
Maybe we should have a referendum on it, without telling people about the costs and sacrifices of course.
或许我们应该就此举行公投，当然不应该告诉人们（提前实现零碳所需的）成本和牺牲。
We could run a campaign telling people how much they''''''''''''''''ll save on their energy bills but not tell them they have to stop using electricity to get those savings, should work a charm.
我们可以发起一场运动，告诉人们他们将在能源账单上省下多少钱，但不告诉他们必须停止用电来节省这些钱，这应该会有效果。
We should.
Both sides can tell people about those costs and sacrifices too. Doesn''''''''''''''''t all have to fall on one side. And maybe we can accept the result this time also?
我们就应该这么做。
双方都可以告诉人们这些代价和牺牲。不需要所有人都倒向一边。也许我们这次也能接受这个结果？
The problem is that people aren''''''''''''''''t very aware the associated costs and sacrifices we would have to make to meet the 2030 target.
Yeah, this is sort of it. It''''''''''''''''s one of those things that''''''''''''''''s very easy to support in the abstract, a lot harder when it comes to the specifics. Do you want you to cut CO2 to zero by 2030? Yes. Do you want to make your commute, holiday and energy bills higher than you can afford? Hmmm.
“问题是，人们并没有意识到，为了实现2030年零碳的目标，我们将不得不付出相应的代价和牺牲”
是的，就是这样。这就是那种很容易被支持的抽象的事情之一，但到了具体问题层面就难多了。你希望到2030年将二氧化碳的排放量降至零吗？当然。但你想让你的通勤、度假和能源费用超出你的支付能力吗？呃……。
Exactly. For CO2 emissions to go to zero in that time frx we would need to already have several major new nuclear power stations under construction beyond what we already have, we would also need to have new car sales being entirely EV (as you''''''''''''''''ve got to expect cars sold today to be on the road for 10-20 years) and we would need to have implemented new rules to phase out gas heating etc (which will make the requirement for new power generation significantly worse).
Frankly it''''''''''''''''s just woefully unrealistic. It isn''''''''''''''''t going to happen. 2050 is possible but would require us to be doing far more than we are, so remains extremely unlikely.
完全正确。要使二氧化碳排放量在这个时间框架内降为零，我们需要在现有的基础上建设几个新的大型核电站，我们还需要新车销售完全都是电动汽车（正如你所期望的那样，今天售出的汽车将能在公路上行驶10-20年），并且我们需要实施新的规则来逐步淘汰燃气加热（这将使新一代能源的需求量显著上升）等等。
坦率地说，这是非常不现实的。这是不可能发生的。到2050年是有可能的，但需要我们做的比现在多得多，所以仍然还是极不可能的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I don''''''''''''''''t believe the only way to hit ambitious net-zero targets is to leave the poor unable to afford heating, electricity and the ability to travel by anything faster than a bicycle. I think it is better done by putting in place programmes that will make those things as low carbon as possible in the average case. That is: shift away from fossil fuel on the energy grid as fast as possible, insulate homes, encourage and heavily invest in public transport (especially electric based, as soon as it is practical), etc.
我认为，实现净零排放这一宏伟目标的唯一途径，不是让穷人负担不起暖气、电力和任何比自行车快的交通工具。我认为在一般情况下，通过实施使这些事情尽可能低碳的计划才是更好的做法。那就是：尽快从化石燃料的能源网中抽身出来，造保温房屋，鼓励并大力投资公共交通（尤其是基于电力的，只要它是可行的），等等。
It''''''''''''''''s practically impossible to imagine a method of reducing co2 output to zero in 11 years that doesn''''''''''''''''t also reduce consumption of fossil fuels - and the only practical ways of doing that are to literally ban them or to make them very expensive. Someone who has just bought a car to drive to work in is not going to go out and buy an electric car tomorrow. And if they did, they''''''''''''''''d still need to charge it from a wall socket routinely powered with fossil fuels.
It''''''''''''''''s beyond the realms of the possible that we could build so much off-shore wind that we could fulfil our needs 100% within 11 years. It''''''''''''''''s probably impossible to adapt everyone''''''''''''''''s homes to huge electric boilers rather than gas boilers. But what about cars and lorries and planes and animals and all the stuff we buy from countries that won''''''''''''''''t be carbon neutral in 2030?
I just don''''''''''''''''t see a way it won''''''''''''''''t cost everyone a huge amount of money.
要想在11年内将二氧化碳排放量降至零，同时又不减少化石燃料的消耗，这几乎是不可能的——而要做到这一点，唯一切实可行的方法就是禁止使用化石燃料，或者让它们变得非常昂贵。一个刚买了一辆车去上班的人，明天是不会再去买一辆电动车的。如果他们这样做了，他们仍然需要从墙上的插座给它充电，而插座又通常是用化石燃料供电的。
我们建造这么多的离岸风力电站，在11年内100%满足我们的需求，这是不可能的。
我只是看不到一种不会让每个人都损失一大笔钱的“2030零碳”方法。
It''''''''''''''''s beyond the realms of the possible that we could build so much off-shore wind that we could fulfil our needs 100% within 11 years.
It is because wind is systemically unreliable. A wind lull can affect most of western Europe at once, the result will be very low output, and we have to have an alternative (or just put up with frequent power cuts).
The only way we can replace fossil fuel generation with wind/solar is if we have sufficient storage, and that''''''''''''''''s simply too expensive (and will almost certainly remain so). To put the costs of batteries into perspective, it would cost about £17 billion to provide 1 hour''''''''''''''''s backup for the UK grid. A "typical" wind lull would require 7 days of backup, at a cost of around £3 trillion.
The cheapest form of storage is pumped hydro, which costs around £1 billion for an hour''''''''''''''''s storage for the UK. That would "only" cost £170 billion, but that assumes you can find more than 200+ storage sites in the UK, and in reality there are only a small number of suitable locations.
Just decarbonising electricity generation in the UK will be impossible by 2030. It requires either a large number of new nuclear reactors, and they are unlikely to be built by 2030 (although they could be, if political support was there) or a breakthrough in storage technology or carbon capture, neither of which looks likely.
“我们建造这么多的离岸风力电站，在11年内100%满足我们的需求，这是不可能的”
因为风能在系统上是不可靠的。风力停歇就会立刻影响到西欧的大部分地区，其结果将是非常低的能源产量，我们必须找到另一种选择（要么就得忍受频繁的停电）。
我们能够用风能和太阳能来替代化石燃料的唯一方法是我们有足够的储电能力，而这太贵了（而且几乎肯定会一直如此）。从电池的成本来看，为英国电网提供1小时的电力备份将花费170亿英镑。一次“典型的”风力停歇需要7天的备份，花费大约3万亿英镑。
最便宜的储存方式是抽水蓄能，在英国，抽水蓄能每小时要花费10亿英镑。这将“仅仅”花费1700亿英镑，但前提是你能在英国找到超过200个以上的储存地点，但实际上只有少数合适的地点。
到2030年，英国要实现发电脱碳是不可能的。它需要大量新的核反应堆，而这些反应堆不太可能在2030年前建成（尽管如果有政治支持的话，它们可能会建成），要么在存储技术或碳捕获方面取得突破，但这两种可能性都不大。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
You''''''''''''''''re not wrong, but I think in terms of a general 0% fossil fuel goal, the problems you describe aren''''''''''''''''t fatal. The UK has a uniquely ideal offshore wind generation capacity, due to our large area of shallow seas. The larger you spread out your farms, the less variability you get. There have been a few different studies about how much backup you''''''''''''''''d need, should you have a wind farm capable of theoretically generating 100% of our energy needs - E.On did one that estimated we''''''''''''''''d need 95% backup (But, of course, they''''''''''''''''re a company that makes money with power stations, so maybe they would say that). Another study by the UK Energy Research Center (funded by central government) suggested it could be as low as 15%. Bearing in mind we currently generate about 25% of our energy through Nuclear - some of these stations are intended to be closed before 2030, but there''''''''''''''''s ongoing work to extend them, as well as build new ones. Combine these with some additional storage (I don''''''''''''''''t honestly antipate that we''''''''''''''''d need 7 days worth of storage for the entire country - that figure may well be accurate for our existing wind capacity, but the more we build, the less variability we will have) and some better power sharing with our neighbours with alternative sources and I think it''''''''''''''''s possible we could get low, or very, very close to it.
Of course, this is all almost borderline irrelevant if China, India, the US etc aren''''''''''''''''t playing ball.
你没有错，但我认为，就一般的零化石燃料目标而言，你所描述的问题并不是致命的。英国有一个独特的理想的离岸风力发电能力，因为我们的大面积的浅海。你的风力电厂分布得越大，风力变化就越小。有一些不同的研究，关于你需要多少电力备份，假如你有一个风力发电场，理论上能够产生100%的能源需求——E.On机构做了一个我们需要95%的电力备份的估计（(当然，他们是一家靠发电站赚钱的公司，所以他们可能会这么说）。另一项由英国能源研究中心（由中央政府资助）做出的研究暗示，这个数字可能低至15%。请记住，我们目前大约25%的能源是通过核能产生的——其中一些电站计划在2030年之前关闭，但仍在进行扩建工作，并建造新的电站。这些与一些额外的能源存储（老实说，我并不认为整个国家需要7天的储存量——这个数字对我们现有的风力发电能力来说可能是准确的，但我们建的越多，风力变化的影响就越小）加上与我们的邻居分享一些的更好的能源，我认为我们有可能降低碳能源需求或非常接近这个零碳目标。
当然，如果中国、印度、美国等国家不合作，那这几乎就是在纸上谈兵。
It''''''''''''''''ll definitely cost a huge amount of money, labour, resources, etc. But I''''''''''''''''m just wary of having ordinary people bear all of that cost directly and immediately, which is the case when you just make fossil fuels prohibitively expensive without doing anything else. The market would adapt, but it will leave a lot of people miserable, and indeed such measures in other countries recently lead directly to mass protests.
What I mean is this: we should, as much as possible, try to build up low or zero-carbon ways to meet people''''''''''''''''s needs, before we effectively take away the high-CO2 methods that currently do so. For example, we should definitely discourage people from driving their cars around for everything, but at the same time we should expand, subsidise and where possible de-carbonise public transport so it doesn''''''''''''''''t just turn into "oh, I literally can''''''''''''''''t get to work or anything else outside of walking/cycling distance, thanks a bunch".
There absolutely needs to be a societal shift away from consuming as much stuff as we do - particularly in regards to flying, driving low occupancy cars, eating meat, etc - but I think it''''''''''''''''s possible to do this while retaining the ability for people to live a decent life.
这肯定要花费大量的金钱、劳动力、资源等等。但我只是担心让普通人直接和立即承担所有这些成本——如果你只是让化石燃料贵得令人望而却步，却又不采取任何其他措施，情况就是这样。市场会适应，但它会让很多人痛苦，事实上，其他国家的此类措施最近直接导致了大规模抗议。
我的意思是：在我们有效地消除目前的高碳方法之前，我们应该先尽可能多地建立低碳或零碳的方法来满足人们的需求。例如，我们绝对不应该鼓励人们开车到处跑，但与此同时，我们应该扩大、补贴并尽可能减少公共交通的碳排放，以至于它就不会变成“哦，除了步行或骑自行车的距离，我真地无法去上班或做其他任何事情了，谢天谢地”。
我们绝对需要一个社会转变，不再像现在这样消费那么多东西——尤其是在乘飞机、驾驶低使用率汽车、吃肉等方面——但我认为我们有可能做到这一点，同时还保持人们过上体面生活的能力。
But I''''''''''''''''m just wary of having ordinary people bear all of that cost directly and immediately
This is why nothing will be done. The Left don''''''''''''''''t want poor people to reduce their standard of living. Middle-class Centrists refuse to give up suburban living for dense cities. Right wing people won''''''''''''''''t tolerate their taxes going up.
I''''''''''''''''m a scientist working on alternative energies and I promise you there is literally zero path forward that doesn''''''''''''''''t involve EVERYONE sacrificing their quality of life.
“我只是担心让普通人直接和立即承担所有这些成本”
这就是为什么什么也不做的原因。左派不希望穷人降低他们的生活水平。中产阶级中间派拒绝去拥挤的城市而放弃郊区生活。右翼人士不能容忍他们的税收增加。
我是一名研究替代能源的科学家，我向你保证，没有任何一条道路是可以让所有人都不牺牲自己的生活质量的。
I''''''''''''''''m sceptical that this level of support for the 2030 target in polls will actually translate into votes. Support for things that involve sacrifices by the public tends to drop off once the realisation sets in.
我怀疑，民调中对2030年零碳目标的这种支持程度，是否真地会转化为选票。一旦认识到这一点，公众对涉及做出牺牲的事情的支持往往会减少。
All this says is that the majority of the UK public have absolutely no idea what zero-carbon means for this country, their own lives and the lives of others, because if they did, they''''''''''''''''d have far less support for it.
Does anyone seriously think we can successfully get away from ICE powered transport and logistics in the next ten years?
If you do think that, what do you think doing such a thing would do to our quality of life and life as we know it?
This is just one part of a 2030 zero-carbon strategy and it would be expensive chaos that compromises our quality of life considerably, especially for the poorest groups.
At the moment we have absolutely no viable ICE alternative to the hundreds of thousands of trucks that transport goods and food all over the country. It''''''''''''''''s not a case of "we are almost there", we are nowhere near.
Right now we have a small scale viable alternative to ICE for city driving and this can viably replace probably 10 or even 20% of the ICE cars on our roads. It''''''''''''''''s a far cry from replacing 50 or 80%. The infrastructure is nowhere near being ready to cope with millions of electric vehicles. This is also yet again something that heavily favours the richest folk, which shouldn''''''''''''''''t go down well on this community.
Now think about replacing all the absolutely essential vehicles that aren''''''''''''''''t covered above; the ambulances, police cars, fire engines, patient transport, disabled transport, public transport, road maintenance, child transport and more. How close are we to fully electrifying these things? Have we seen a single active electric ambulance yet? Can we viably replace them all in 10 years?
All of this, just for ICE vehicles. What about aircraft, shipping, agriculture, engineering? What about heating our homes, powering our devices and lives, cooking our food, storing our food etc.
To cut everything to zero-carbon in 10 years is only possible if we totally change our lives for the worse and make the poorest suffer the most.
Then we have the truly amusing part of the whole thing, while we work hard to become zero-carbon and cause chaos and suffering in our own country, the likes of USA and India will continue to pollute at a rate that transforms the planet.
所有这一切都表明，大多数英国公众完全不知道零碳排放对这个国家、他们自己的生活以及其他人的生活意味着什么，因为如果他们知道了，他们就会给予更少的支持。
有没有人认真想过，在未来十年，我们能够成功地摆脱以内燃机为动力的运输和物流？
如果你这样想，你认为这样做会对我们的生活质量有什么影响？
这只是2030年零碳战略的一部分，代价高昂的混乱将严重损害我们的生活质量，尤其是对最贫困的群体而言。
目前我们绝对没有可行的能替代成千上万在全国各地运输货物和食物的内燃机卡车的交通工具。这不是“我们快要做到了”的例子，我们离做到还差得很远。
现在我们有一个小规模的可行方案来替代城市道路上使用的内燃机车，这个方案可以替代道路上10%甚至20%的内燃机车。但这与替换50%或80%相差甚远。基础设施还远远不能满足数百万电动汽车的需求。这也是非常有利于最富有的人的事情，替换它们在这个（富人）群体不会被很好接受的。
现在，先考虑替换没有覆盖上述范围的所有绝对必要的车辆：救护车、警车、消防车、病人运输车、残疾人运输车、公共交通、道路维护、儿童运输车等等。我们离这些东西完全电力化还有多远？我们看到一辆电动救护车了吗？我们能在10年内取代它们吗？
所有这些，还只是涉及内燃机地面交通工具。那么飞机、航运、农业、工程又如何呢？还有如何为我们的家庭供暖，为我们的设备和生活供电，烹饪食物，储存食物等等。
只有在我们的生活变得更糟，让最贫穷的人遭受更大的痛苦的情况下，才有可能在10年内将所有的东西都减少到零碳排放。
当我们努力实现零碳排放，在我们自己的国家制造混乱和痛苦时，美国和印度等国却将继续以能改变地球的速度污染环境。
I agree with everything you say except the last sentence.
Both the EU and USA have cut emissions since 2000 and the USA is expecting CO2 emissions to reduce again this year although it did go up last year a little.
The poverty and population sizes in India, some Aftican and South American countries whose use of fossil fuels is accelerating means that have little alternative.
It''''''''''''''''s all well and good to make a good example but it seems that''''''''''''''''s all we''''''''''''''''ll be making.
I think that they should instead focus on R&D for alternatives aiming to improve efficiency and drive down costs but also go full on with worse case planning and mitigating as much as possible against those fears since I think the likeliness that the World will adequately reduce carbon emissions to below the levels we''''''''''''''''re told is required to avert catastrophes is both high improbable and likely already too late.
我同意你说的每一句话，除了最后一句。
欧盟和美国自2000年以来就一直在减排，尽管去年排量有所上升，但美国预计今年的二氧化碳排放量将再次下降。
印度、一些非洲国家和南美国家的贫困和人口规模，使这些国家对化石燃料的使用正在加速，这意味着它们别无选择。
树立一个好的榜样固然很好，但似乎我们只能做到这些。
我认为他们应该专注于研发旨在提高效率和降低成本，但同时继续做最坏的计划，尽可能减轻恐惧的替代方案，因为我认为，世界将碳排放充分减少到低于我们被告知的避免灾难所需的水平的可能性既高度不可能，而且可能还已经太晚了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Fair enough.
We should be aiming to reduce and be intelligent with our limited resources for sure. Whether we should be changing our lives dramatically in just a decade is another matter, not that we can realistically even do that anyway.
很好。
我们的目标肯定应该是在有限的资源下减少碳排放和智能化。我们是否应该在短短十年内显著地改变我们的生活是另一回事，我们甚至不可能在现实中做到这一点。
Remain super skeptical of the Zero by 2030. Requires a massive level of both investment and project deployment which we suck at.
对2030年的零排放保持高度怀疑。这需要大量的投资和项目部署，而这是我们所不擅长的。
The point is that you target 2030 as it''''''''''''''''s a tough goal. Maybe you don''''''''''''''''t hit all your targets by 2030, but I''''''''''''''''d rather miss a 2030 target than miss a 2045 target. The other thing is that there may only be 2 governments between now and 2030, whereas for a 2045 target you are relying on green policy from 5 successive full term parliaments.
重点是，你的目标是2030年，因为这是一个艰难的目标。也许你不能在2030年完成所有的目标，但我宁愿错过2030年的目标，也不愿去错过2045年的目标。另一件事是，从现在到2030年可能只有两届政府，而2045年的目标则依赖于连续5个完整任期的议会制定的绿色政策。
If the issue is how far out it is then set reasonable goals in the short term.
Having a goal that you know is not achievable going into an election feels a lot like lying, however good a motivator it might be.
如果问题是它离目标有多远，然后要在短期内设定合理的目标。
带着一个你知道是无法实现的目标进入选举，给人感觉很像说谎，不管它也许是不是有一个很好的动机。
2030 is definitely unachievable.
My PhD-work probably indicates we could maybe manage 2040 without too much undue difficulty, beyond temporary restrictions on aviation.
2050 is easy-peasy if we start now.
(Starting now, I could have 35GWe or so of completed nuclear by 2040, rising to something like 125GWe by 2050)
2030年零碳是绝对无法实现的。
我的博士论文可能表明，我们也许可以争取2040年——没有太多不适当的困难，除了对航空业的临时限制。
如果我们从现在就开始，那2050年零碳很容易实现。
What would you say are the pros/cons of nuclear vs renewable in the medium term? It seems obvious that nuclear is the fastest kick start, but I''''''''''''''''d like to delay slightly for renewable if that option is set to be as good or better this century.
你认为从中期来看，核能和可再生能源孰优孰劣？很明显，核能是最快的启动方式，但如果可再生能源的选择在本世纪变得同样好或更好，那我想稍微推迟一下。
The problem is that If you start polling people on policies which actually could get us to net neutral carbon emissions by 2030 i.e. a carbon tax, banning the manufacturing of new fossil fuel cars or investment in nuclear energy, the support is going to drop significantly.
Any political party which outlines realistic ways of reaching this goal is probably going to be really hurt in the polls.
问题在于，如果你开始就能让我们在2030年实现净中性碳排放的政策进行民意调查，比如征收碳税、禁止生产新化石燃料汽车或投资核能，那么支持度就将大幅下降。
任何一个政党，只要提出了实现这一目标的现实途径，那它就很可能在民意调查中受到真正的伤害。（只能喊目标，不能讲途径）
Do you want a zero carbon economy by 2030?
Yes.
Do you want to stop driving, flying, eating meat?
No.
你希望到2030年实现零碳经济吗？
是的。
你想停止开车、坐飞机、吃肉吗？
不想。
Do you want to stop driving, flying, eating meat?
I do and I''''''''''''''''m making pretty good progress. It''''''''''''''''s not that difficult really, though I recognise for some it will be a lot easier than for others.
“你想停止开车、坐飞机、吃肉吗？”
我想，而且我进步很大。这其实并不难，尽管我承认这对有些人会比其他人容易得多。
I''''''''''''''''d give up driving in a heartbeat if I could get to work in 45 minutes. But it takes almost 2 hours.
如果我能在45分钟内到达上班地点，我会毫不犹豫地放弃开车。但实际上（不开车）要花2个小时。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Right? I don''''''''''''''''t want to drive, but that would mean wasting 4 hours each day on public transport. That''''''''''''''''s 20 hours a week gone.
Imagine if you could claim pay for time spent commuting. There''''''''''''''''d be bullet trains appear overnight!
对吧？我不想开车，但那就意味着每天在公共交通上浪费4个小时。一周就是20个小时浪费了。
想象一下，如果你可以要求被支付通勤时间的费用。那么一夜之间就会有子弹头列车出现！
This is one of the practical problems that is getting far too little attention so far. It''''''''''''''''s all very well saying we have to replace car use with public transport, and to some extent within major cities that is viable. But for those living outside big cities or needing to travel between them (where one of "them" is not London) the time required to use public transport compared to private is prohibitively high, often turning a journey you could do in half an hour by car into 2+ hours by bus, or a journey you could do in 2 hours by car into 6+ hours by train. Now look at the time and money being spent to build just one new high speed rail line in HS2, and then consider that you need a nationwide network of lines like that to come anywhere close to the efficiency of private transportation. That isn''''''''''''''''t happening within 10 years, or probably 100 for that matter. Neither is the mythical always-present, always-efficient bus service, because we simply don''''''''''''''''t have the population density to support one (again, outside of major cities). So any realistic solution to transportation has to involve more efficient/environmentally friendly private transportation rather than relying on public transport as if it''''''''''''''''s a like-for-like substitute. It probably also has to involve reducing the need to make journeys in the first place, through both better planning of where we put residential, commercial, and other facilities and greater use of telecommunications to reduce the need to be physically present.
这是一个实际的问题，但迄今为止，它得到的关注太少了。说“我们必须用公共交通工具代替私家车”是很好的，并且在某种程度上，在主要城市这是可行的。但是对于那些生活在大城市以外，或者需要在它们之间旅行的人来说(“它们”中不含伦敦)，乘坐公共交通工具的时间比乘坐私人交通工具的时间要长得多，经常会把半小时车程拉长成2个多小时车程，或者把2小时车程拉长成6个多小时车程。现在看看在“高铁2号”工程建造一条新的高铁线路所花费的时间和金钱，然后考虑一下你需要一个全国性的线路网络来实现接近私人运输的效率。（就会发现）这种情况不会在10年内发生，或者100年内发生。那种神话般的一直存在的、一直高效的公交服务也不会出现，因为我们根本没有足够的人口密度来支持它（同样，在大城市之外）。因此，任何现实的交通解决方案都必须包括更高效/更环保的私人交通工具，而不是依赖公共交通，就好像它是同类产品的替代品一样。这可能还包括从一开始就减少旅行的需要，通过更好地规划住宅、商业和其他设施的位置，以及更多地使用电信联络来减少实际出席的需要。
Even in major cities, you have to live near good public transit points(which tend to have expensive housing).
Its very hard to cover the entire city efficiently.
即使在大城市，你也必须住在公共交通便利的地方（那里的住房往往很贵）。
要有效地覆盖整个城市是非常困难的。
I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "major city". In an area with both a lot of people and a high population density, it''''''''''''''''s not unrealistic to have everywhere within a 5-10 minute walk of public transport and to have a public transport network that allows relatively direct routes between stops (as opposed to, for example, requiring everyone to travel to a central nexus and then back out again, which is much less efficient and creates a bottleneck in the network). At that scale, the public transport network is likely to be a viable alternative to private transport for most journeys within that area.
I think there is a point where things become qualitatively different, where public transport can be the default option and not even owning private vehicles (other than things like cycles) is viable. But if you''''''''''''''''re stuck below that critical point, even by a small margin, you lose most of the benefit, because you still need the extensive private transport infrastructure as well.
我想这取决于你所说的“大城市”指什么。在一个人口众多、人口密度高的地区，在公共交通步行5-10分钟就能到达所有地方，并拥有一个公共交通网络，并允许站点之间有相对直接的路线，这并不是不现实的（与之相反的是，例如，要求每个人都前往一个中心枢纽，然后再返回，这就是非常低效的，并在网络中造成了瓶颈）。在这种规模下，公共交通网络就很可能成为该地区大多数旅行的私人交通工具的可行替代品。
我认为，在某种程度上，事情会发生质的变化，公共交通可能是默认的选择，甚至都不可能拥有私家车（除了自行车之类的东西）。但是如果你被卡在那个临界点以下，即使是一点点，你也会失去大部分的好处，因为你仍然需要大量的私人交通基础设施。
I''''''''''''''''m also doing my part - no driving, no eating meat, and minimal flying (actively attempting to replace them with trains).
If you live out in the countryside to the point that you need a car, I think your moral imperative is to move into a town or city where it''''''''''''''''s unneeded. And yeah, I''''''''''''''''m bracing for downvotes for saying that, but it''''''''''''''''s true. It''''''''''''''''s also true that, as much as it''''''''''''''''s the antithesis of my cultural values, we should be migrating less, as that causes demand for routine long-distance travel to see relatives. We all need to make sacrifices to our ways of life to avert climate change.
我也在尽我的职责——不开车，不吃肉，尽量少坐飞机（积极地尝试用火车代替飞机）。
如果你住在乡下以至于需要一辆私家车，那我认为你的道德义务是搬到一个不需要车的城镇。是的，我准备好了因为说这些话被踩，但这是真的。这也是事实，尽管这与我的文化价值观背道而驰，但我们还是应该减少移民，因为这导致了我们需要定期长途旅行去看望亲戚。为了避免气候变化，我们都需要在生活方式上做出牺牲。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Do they back it when they find out they won''''''''''''''''t be able to drive to work single-crewed in their 2L diesel SUV; when they will have to turn their thermostat down to 18''''''''''''''''C; when they are told to eat almost no red meat and buy less things; oh, and that annual trip to Tenerife, that''''''''''''''''s not on any more?
There are some difficult choices that may need to be made - the public may back a zero-carbon 2030 but I have doubts that they would be actually willing to make the changes needed, or would like the changes when they happen.
当他们发现自己无法驾驶自己的2.0排量的内燃SUV去上班时，他们还会支持吗？当他们不得不把恒温器调低到18摄氏度时；当他们被告知几乎不能吃红色肉类，并且少买东西；哦，还有每年去特内里费岛的旅行，也没有了呢？
可能需要做出一些艰难的选择——公众可能会支持2030年实现零碳排放，但我怀疑他们是否真地愿意做出必要的生活方式改变，或者当改变发生时，他们是否会喜欢这些改变。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Now imagine being forced to give up all that while watching the rest of the world double or triple their use of the same things and not give a single fuck.
现在想象一下:当你被迫放弃所有这些东西的时候，你却眼睁睁地看着世界上其他国家对同样的东西的使用量增加了一到两倍，而你还不能骂MMP。
People want change, but they don''''''''''''''''t want to change
人们想要改变，但人们不想去改变。