气候变化：揭露——有多少英国人不愿意改变他们的习惯来应对危机
Climate change: Revealed - how many Britons are unwilling to change their habits to tackle the crisis
译文简介
“让富人牺牲一次吧。不要要求我去改变。”
正文翻译
Climate change: Revealed - how many Britons are unwilling to change their habits to tackle the crisis
-Only 50% of respondents in the YouGov poll for Sky News supported a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030.
气候变化：揭露——有多少英国人不愿意改变他们的习惯来应对危机
——在舆观为天空新闻网所做的民意调查中，只有50%的受访者支持从2030年起禁止销售新的汽油和柴油汽车。
-Only 50% of respondents in the YouGov poll for Sky News supported a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030.
气候变化：揭露——有多少英国人不愿意改变他们的习惯来应对危机
——在舆观为天空新闻网所做的民意调查中，只有50%的受访者支持从2030年起禁止销售新的汽油和柴油汽车。
新闻：
Almost 25% of Britons are unwilling to change key habits that would help tackle climate change, an exclusive poll for Sky News suggests.
天空新闻网的一项独家民意调查显示，近25%的英国人不愿意为了帮助应对气候变化而改变关键习惯。
天空新闻网的一项独家民意调查显示，近25%的英国人不愿意为了帮助应对气候变化而改变关键习惯。
The survey, conducted by YouGov, asked participants what they would be prepared to do in order to reduce the country's carbon emissions.
这项由舆观进行的调查询问了参与者：为了减少国家的碳排放，他们准备做些什么。
这项由舆观进行的调查询问了参与者：为了减少国家的碳排放，他们准备做些什么。
While 20% said they would be willing to see substantial increases in the price of overseas travel, 13% said they would accept higher costs for meat and other animal products. Just 2% supported increasing heating bills.
20%的人说，他们愿意看到出境游价格大幅上涨，13%的人说他们愿意接受肉类和其他动物产品价格上涨。只有2%的人支持增加取暖费用。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
20%的人说，他们愿意看到出境游价格大幅上涨，13%的人说他们愿意接受肉类和其他动物产品价格上涨。只有2%的人支持增加取暖费用。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Overall, 29% of those polled said they would be willing to never drive a petrol or diesel car again.
总体来看，29%的受访者表示他们将不再开汽油车或柴油车。
总体来看，29%的受访者表示他们将不再开汽油车或柴油车。
But when confronted with all of these options, 23% of survey participants said they would not be prepared to support even one of these key changes.
但是，当面对所有这些选择时，23%的受访者表示，他们不会准备支持这些关键的改变之一。
但是，当面对所有这些选择时，23%的受访者表示，他们不会准备支持这些关键的改变之一。
The poll showed many Britons have a high level of understanding of climate issues such as renewable energy and carbon footprints, but little knowledge about this year's COP26 climate conference - with little awareness of conference president Alok Sharma.
调查显示，许多英国人对可再生能源和碳足迹等气候问题的了解程度很高，但对今年的COP26气候大会却知之甚少——对大会主席阿洛克·夏尔马的了解也很少。
调查显示，许多英国人对可再生能源和碳足迹等气候问题的了解程度很高，但对今年的COP26气候大会却知之甚少——对大会主席阿洛克·夏尔马的了解也很少。
Only 50% of respondents said they supported a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - and 36% were opposed to making air travellers pay greater levels of tax based on how far they fly.
只有50%的受访者表示，他们支持从2030年起禁止销售新的汽油和柴油汽车，36%的人反对让航空旅行者根据他们飞行的距离支付更高的税。
只有50%的受访者表示，他们支持从2030年起禁止销售新的汽油和柴油汽车，36%的人反对让航空旅行者根据他们飞行的距离支付更高的税。
The findings suggest that, while there is a growing awareness of some climate issues, climate change is viewed as a problem for other countries.
研究结果表明，尽管人们对一些气候问题的意识在不断增强，气候变化被其他国家视为一个问题。
研究结果表明，尽管人们对一些气候问题的意识在不断增强，气候变化被其他国家视为一个问题。
In November, the UK will host the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow - a landmark event that comes five years after the Paris Agreement to build a fresh global consensus on limiting emissions.
今年11月，英国将在格拉斯哥主办COP26气候大会——这是一个具有里程碑意义的事件，距离达成限制排放的新全球共识的巴黎协议已经过去了5年。
今年11月，英国将在格拉斯哥主办COP26气候大会——这是一个具有里程碑意义的事件，距离达成限制排放的新全球共识的巴黎协议已经过去了5年。
The conference will be presided over by the former business secretary Alok Sharma, but just 3% of those surveyed identified him as the cabinet minister responsible for climate change.
会议将由前商务大臣阿洛克·夏尔马主持，但只有3%的受访者知道他是负责气候变化的内阁大臣。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
会议将由前商务大臣阿洛克·夏尔马主持，但只有3%的受访者知道他是负责气候变化的内阁大臣。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
When asked about how climate change affects people's lives in the UK, 69% of those polled said they did not feel personally impacted.
当被问及气候变化如何影响英国人的生活时，69%的受访者表示，他们个人并不觉得受到了影响。
当被问及气候变化如何影响英国人的生活时，69%的受访者表示，他们个人并不觉得受到了影响。
However, the same amount said they felt other countries around the world have been impacted by the warming planet.
然而，同样数量的人表示，他们觉得世界上其他国家也受到了全球变暖的影响。
然而，同样数量的人表示，他们觉得世界上其他国家也受到了全球变暖的影响。
Friends of the Earth told Sky News that the messaging on climate needs to change - helping people realise the benefits that tackling climate change would have on their lives.
“地球之友”告诉天空新闻网，关于气候的信息需要改变——帮助人们意识到应对气候变化将给他们的生活带来的好处。
“地球之友”告诉天空新闻网，关于气候的信息需要改变——帮助人们意识到应对气候变化将给他们的生活带来的好处。
The organisation says there needs to be less of an emphasis on the restrictions, changes and economic implications that government policies and lifestyle choices bring.
该组织表示，不应过分强调政府政策和生活方式选择所带来的限制、变化和经济影响。
该组织表示，不应过分强调政府政策和生活方式选择所带来的限制、变化和经济影响。
Siôn Elis Williams, campaign officer for Friends of the Earth, said: "It's a really interesting challenge, and it's something that Friends of the Earth has grappled with for many years, and really I think the emphasis needs to be on the benefits.
“地球之友”组织的竞选官员锡安·伊利斯·威廉姆斯说：“这是一个非常有趣的挑战，也是‘地球之友’组织多年来努力解决的问题。我认为重点应该放在公益上。”
“地球之友”组织的竞选官员锡安·伊利斯·威廉姆斯说：“这是一个非常有趣的挑战，也是‘地球之友’组织多年来努力解决的问题。我认为重点应该放在公益上。”
"There's a clear majority of people who see climate action as a positive thing. And it's a small minority, I think that are struggling with that idea of having to make sacrifices for the sake of the climate."
“很明显，大多数人认为气候行动是一件积极的事情。我认为，有一小部分人正在为必须为气候做出牺牲的想法而挣扎。”
“很明显，大多数人认为气候行动是一件积极的事情。我认为，有一小部分人正在为必须为气候做出牺牲的想法而挣扎。”
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
The heating bill problem can be sorted, and end up cheaper than gas in the end, but requires the government to put together a nice incentive scheme to kickstart the heatpump market.
Heatpumps (ground-source ideally, as they're more efficient than air-source) should be being fitted to all new builds, and new gas boilers should be banned from being fitted to houses at some point (2030 perhaps, much like new ICE cars).
Heatpumps are ~400% efficient (you put in 1 kWh of electricity, you get ~4 kWh's of heat, because it's "transporting" heat energy from the ground, cooling down the ground), so basically divide the cost of electricity by 4 to compare to gas heating.
With current pricing, this means a heatpump is cheaper than gas if you have economy 7, and just in the longer term it'll be cheaper than gas always, as wind and solar continue to decline in cost and push down all-day electricity pricing.
Once electricity is ~11p per kWh in the day, heatpumps become the cheapest way to do heating. It doesn't quite have to be cheaper per effective unit (i.e. electricity divided by 4) because if you have no gas at all you don't have to pay the daily-charge, which is normally 20-21p a day, or £73-77 a year.
供暖费用问题可以被解决，最终会比燃气更便宜，但需要政府制定一个不错的激励方案来启动热泵市场。
热泵（理想情况下是地源，因为它们比空气源更高效）应该安装在所有新建筑上，并且在某个时间点（可能是2030年，就像禁止新的内燃车一样）应该禁止安装新的燃气锅炉。
热泵的效率是400%（你输入1千瓦时的电，你得到4千瓦时的热量，因为它从地面“输送”热能，冷却地面），所以基本上把电的成本除以4来对比燃气加热。
从目前的价格来看，这意味着热泵比天然气更便宜，从长远来看，它将永远比天然气便宜，因为风能和太阳能的成本持续下降，并压低了全天电价。
一旦全天电力达到11便士/kWh，热泵就成为最便宜的取暖方式。其实每单位（即电力除以4）并不需要更便宜，因为如果你根本没有天然气，你就不需要支付日费，通常是20-21便士一天，或73-77英镑一年。
I've only recently learned about air/ground source heat pumps and they seem like a no-brainer, particularly if combined with solar.
Shame they're so expensive.
我最近才了解到空气/地源热泵，它们似乎是傻瓜式的，特别是如果与太阳能结合在一起的话。
可惜太贵了。
How much do they compare price wise to an efficient gas boiler as well as pipes required for gas into the build?
与高效的燃气锅炉以及燃气进入建筑所需的管道相比，他们的价格是多少？
I've only been looking at rough estimates as it's for a house we haven't bought yet!
We had our gas boiler replaced in our current house and a few other bits sorted and it came to £3,500 including labour, warranty etc. We already had mains gas so no connection costs.
In the new house it's an LPG boiler and tank so not sure how much they would cost to replace. But looking online for estimates for an air source heat pump looks to be about £6-8k, but I'm not sure if there are other costs to consider or any substantial differences in types of unit (we'd want the quietest one possible, which I suspect might up the price).
If the boiler has a few years left in it my plan would be to wait and save to go air source heat pump and solar I'm estimating £15k for both. If grants or interest free loans were available I'd do it right away.
Obviously the costs are completely different for a building company vs an individual.
我只是粗略估计了一下，因为我们还没买房子！
我们更换了现在房子里的燃气锅炉，还对其他一些东西进行了分类，包括人工费、保修费等一共3500英镑。我们已经有了煤气管道，所以无需再支付连接费用。
在新房子里，有一个液化石油气锅炉和水箱，所以不确定更换它们要花多少钱。但在网上寻找空气源热泵的估价是6000-8000英镑，但我不确定是否有其他成本需要考虑，或在类型上是不是有重大差异（我们可能想要最安静的那种，所以我怀疑这可能会提高价格）。
如果锅炉还能再用几年，那么我的计划是再等几年和省钱去换空气源热泵和太阳能，我估计两者花费都是1.5万英镑。如果有补助金或无息贷款，那我会马上就会去换。
显然，建筑公司和个人的成本是完全不同的。
I live in a third floor flat...
Honestly I'm looking at my gas bill for the year of £218. I don't think I'm the biggest problem.
People need to live in smaller, well insulated homes.
The gas infrastructure getting replaced or increasing in price would mean my only real option is an electric combi boiler replacement.
All the literature is bigging up heat storage I won't have, economy 7 that won't work without heat storage, solar panels on a roof I'm not allowed to install then on etc.
The price of electricity needs to come down if it's ever economical to switch from gas.
Looking at getting an electric car for my 6000 miles a year too. No off street parking. One overnight charging bay in walking distance.
I'm still tempted if my workplace offers charging.
I'm actually in favour of a carbon tax forcing people like me away from petrol and gas. Not least because making it something that effects everyone, including businesses, and that makes the alternatives more viable.
I'm not volunteering myself to be at the vanguard of change with all the costs that go along with it. Individuals can't make much difference. I want societal change and I'm happy to change as that's encouraged.
I've got an old boiler and an old car. I want an environmentally friendly option and I'm hanging on to them until it's available. I just hope they last long enough.
我住在三楼的公寓里。
老实说，我这一年的汽油账单是218英镑。我不认为我是最大的问题。
人们需要住在更小的、隔热良好的房子里。
天然气基础设施的更换或价格的上涨意味着我唯一的选择是更换一个电力综合锅炉。
所有的文章都在大肆宣扬我没有的蓄热系统，没有蓄热系统就不会有经济效益，我不允许在屋顶上安装太阳能电池板等等。
如果不再使用天然气更经济的话，那么电力价格就需要降下来。
我也在考虑买一辆电动汽车来满足我一年6000英里的行程。没有街边停车位。一个步行可达的通宵充电间。
如果我的工作场所提供充电服务，我仍然会很感兴趣。
实际上，我赞成征收碳税，迫使像我这样的人远离汽油和天然气。尤其是因为让它影响到每个人，包括企业，从而使替代方案更可行。
我没有自愿成为变革的先锋，并承担随之而来的所有成本。个人并不能产生多大的影响。我想要社会的改变，我很乐意改变，因为这是被鼓励的。
我有一个旧锅炉和一辆旧汽车。我想要一个环保的选择，但我会一直留着它们，直到有了这个选择。我只希望它们撑得够久。
There are some extra possibilities around real-time pricing and "smart" water tanks.
Just using an electric heater, or air-source heatpump since they're much easier to install and still better than pure electric heating, plus real-time pricing should be able to reduce bills enough to make leaving gas behind a possibility.
还有一些关于分时定价和“智能”水箱的额外可能性。
只需使用电加热器或空气源热泵，因为它们更容易安装，也比纯电加热更好，再加上分时定价，应该能够降低足够的账单，使得无需留下燃气作为备用。
There is some incorrect reporting in this, one of the main points is only 2% support a rise in heating bills. The question actually is a pick one option out of several and only 2% chose that.
With that said this is only asking people if hypotehtically years from now they would be happy with something, thats not supporting changes right now.
有一些不正确的报道，其中一个主要观点是只有2%的人支持增加取暖费。这个问题实际上是在几个选项中选择一个，只有2%的人选择了这个。
话虽如此，这只是假设人们几年以后是否会对某些事情感到满意，而不是支持现在的改变。
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all emissions that are contributing to climate change. Maybe they're the problem rather than old lady Doris who gets fined for putting her jam jars in the wrong recycling bin.
仅仅100家公司就承担了导致气候变化的71%的排放。也许问题出在它们身上，而不是多丽丝老太太因为把果酱罐子放错回收箱而被罚款。
It's a bit more complicated as those companies are extracting rather than using the fuel themselves.
这有点复杂，因为这些公司只是在生产燃料，而不是自己使用燃料。
Yeah but those companies arent just producing emissions because they want to
They're producing it to provide goods and services to people. If less people consume, less emissions get produced
是的，但是这些公司排放二氧化碳不仅仅是因为它们自己想排放
它们生产它是为了给人们提供商品和服务。如果能减少消费，就会减少排放
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
This is a chicken and the egg problem though... literally.
Take Organic chicken. In my local supermarket it costs about 3x more than battery farmed chicken. If more people bought it, the price would come down and farmers would make more effort to cater to that market. But people can’t afford it, so the price stays high and demand sticks to the cheap stuff.
This is what’s happening broadly with electric cars, heating for houses, fast food etc etc. The only thing pushing any change at all is wealthy middle class folk with cash to spare and direct govt intervention in the form of taxes and tariffs.
这是一个先有鸡还是先有蛋的问题……真的是。
以有机鸡肉为例。在我当地的超市里，它的价格大约是养殖鸡肉的三倍。如果有更多的人购买，价格就会下降，农民就会做出更多努力来迎合市场。但是人们买不起，所以价格居高不下，而需求只会停留在便宜的东西上。
这就是广泛发生在电动汽车、房屋供暖、快餐等方面的情况。唯一推动任何改变的是有钱的中产阶级，他们有闲钱，再加上以税收和关税的形式直接进行政府干预。
And I'd add: if government introduced new laws to severely restrict the amount of 'stuff' those companies make without buy-in from society on doing that there would be riots in the street because suddenly overnight access to things people see as essential parts of day to day life (fuels, new clothing, new electronics, mains electricity, new cars, even food that relies on intensive agricultural practices) would become hugely constrained.
Individuals need to take the lead in reducing demand.
我再加上一点：如果政府引入新的法律来严格限制这些公司生产的“东西”数量，而没有从社会中得到支持，那么就会发生街头骚乱，因为突然之间，人们对那些被认为是日常生活中必不可少的东西（燃料、新衣服、新电子产品、电力、新汽车，甚至是依赖集约农业生产的食品）的获取一夜之间就会受到很大的限制。
所以个人需要带头减少需求。
I absolutely refute this. Change won't come from the individual, it just won't happen. As long as people can choose they'll take the easier and cheaper way. On top of this, individuals barely make a difference. It's companies producing massive amounts of waste which is a bigger problem. Why not place a huge tax on all companies which don't offset their carbon impact.
On top of this again I don't give a fuck if people end up not having fuel, new clothing, electronics etc. We're human, what we're best at is adapting, which we'll never do if not pushed. Generations below us are already going to suffer greatly for our greed
Government absolutely needs to lead in stopping demand, or at second best private companies if governments don't act.
But what is absolute bullshit is that the onus should be on the consumer/individual. Exxon pushed the message of the individuals 'carbon footprint' in the 80's to shift blame onto the individual and not the companies as they knew they were the real problem.
People will use whatever tools they can in life to make their own life better and easier. It needs restricting for them or it won't change
我绝对驳斥这种说法。改变不会来自个人，它不会发生。只要人们可以选择，他们就会选择更简单、更便宜的方式。最重要的是，个人几乎起不了什么作用。公司产生的大量垃圾才是一个更大的问题。为什么不对那些无法抵消其碳排放影响的公司征收巨额税款呢？
再说一次，如果人们最终没有燃料、新衣服、电子产品等，我tmd也不在乎。我们是人，我们最擅长的就是适应，如果没有压力，我们永远不会适应。我们下面的几代人已经因为我们的贪婪而将遭受巨大的痛苦了
政府绝对需要带头停止需求，如果政府不采取行动，那最好是私营企业行动。
但说责任应该在消费者/个人身上完全就是扯淡。上世纪80年代，埃克森美孚公司宣传个人的“碳足迹”，把责任推到个人身上，而不是公司，因为他们知道公司才是真正的问题所在。
人们会在生活中使用任何他们可以使用的工具，使自己的生活更好，更容易。需要限制（公司生产）那些工具，否则情况就不会改变
Equally if they produce less goods things get more expensive and demand goes down. Which is obxtively the easier way to do it as it's changing one variable and we actually have the means to change it.
Given that no political device or mechanism exists that currently functions in a way that can actually force a reduction in consumption, there's so many political and economic interests wrapped up in creating more demand, driving consumption, there is widespread misinformation and manipulation by large corporations who's interests are short-term profit, as well as large cults of people who believe in self interest because of capitalist conditioning....
You're basically agreeing that an end to capitalism is necessity for people to change their habits, which is true. They're a product of their system and nothing breaks the capitalist hivemind. We've tried for 50 years to encourage people to consume less.
You think now a few token liberals are on board things will dramatically change somehow?
Hilarious.
同样，如果他们生产的商品减少，商品就会变得更贵，需求就会下降。这在客观上是一种更简单的方法，因为它只改变了一个变量，而且我们有改变它的方法。
鉴于目前不存在任何政治手段或机制能够以某种方式实际迫使减少消费，有太多的政治和经济利益被捆绑在创造更多的需求和推动消费上，有广泛的错误信息和被大公司操纵，这些公司的利益是短期利益，还有大量狂热的人相信自己的利益，因为资本主义的调节……
你基本上同意结束资本主义是人们改变习惯的必要条件，这是对的。他们是他们体制的产物，没有什么能打破资本主义的从众思维。50年来，我们一直在鼓励人们减少消费（但是效果很差）。
你认为现在有几个象征性的自由主义者在船上，事情就会以某种方式急剧地改变吗？
搞笑。
Things arent gonna change and its not like I actually care. I make enough money to go live away far from places that will dramatically change if we get the stuff predicted by scientists.
At the end of day, im responsible for myself and my family and some friends and frankly if we all did that - we'd be better off because we wouldnt have so much control over us..
Consumption will never go down because of the government as that'll lead to instant riots and upheaval of the govt that decides to do that. Itd cause as much panic as if the NHS was privatised
一切都不会改变，我也不在乎。我赚了足够的钱去远离那些将会发生巨大变化的地方生活，如果我们真看到科学家们预测的那些灾难成真的话。
说到底，我对我自己、我的家人和一些朋友负责，坦白地说，如果我们都这样做，我们会更好，因为我们的自控能力没那么强。
消费永远不会因为政府而减少的，因为这将导致决定这么做的政府立即发生骚乱和动乱。过渡时期引发的恐慌不亚于将英国国民健康保险制度私有化
Unless you're a billionaire I very much doubt you have 'enough money' if economic systems start to collapse.
The word idiot is derived from idios meaning ones own, somebody who only cares about their own affairs is by definition an idiot.
除非你是亿万富翁，否则如果经济体系开始崩溃，我很怀疑你会有“足够的钱”。
Idiot（白痴）这个词由idios演变而来，idios的意思是“自己的”，所以那些只关心自己事情的人显然是白痴。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That statistic is slightly disingenuous since it attributes all the emissions down the supply/use chain of the fossil fuels that those companies extract. They aren't actually emitting the CO2e themselves.
And as others have pointed out, those uses of their extracted fossil fuels are by us, by the products we use and by the methods of production our society is based on.
It's entirely possible to use consumer and public/voter pressure to reduce that 71%.
这一统计数据有些不诚实，因为它将所有的排放都归因于这些公司开采的化石燃料的供应/使用链。它们实际上并没有自己排放二氧化碳。
正如其他人所指出的那样，这些化石燃料的使用是由我们使用的，由我们使用的产品和我们社会赖以生存的生产方式使用的。
完全有可能利用消费者和公众/选民的压力来减少这71%的排放量。
Almost like we should radically restructure the production our society is based on because it’s quite obviously in the process of fucking the entire planet
就好像我们应该从根本上重组我们社会赖以生存的生产，因为很明显它正在cao遍整个星球
There does need to be a general education campaign on the urgency of the climate crisis, although there does seem to be majority support for many actions despite the framing of the article.
A cultural shift to make certain actions less socially acceptable would be arguably more successful than any punitive taxes which will disproportionately impact the less well off.
确实需要开展一场关于气候危机紧迫性的普及教育运动，尽管有这篇文章提出的大体问题，但似乎多数人支持许多行动。
一种文化上的转变，使某些行为更不为社会所接受，可能会比任何惩罚性税收更成功，因为惩罚性税收会对较不富裕的人产生不成比例的影响。
The London Green Charge is a perfect example of the hypocracy around this. All polluting vehicles that aren't lorries or buses have tompay extra to drive in London. Trucks and Busses create the majority of air pollution from traffic.
Calling low polluters to reduce pollution while allowing the high polluters to get away with it is the current Climate Change spin and needs to be addressed.
伦敦的绿色收费就是一个伪善的完美例子。除了卡车和公共汽车之外，所有污染环境的车辆在伦敦行驶都要额外付费。卡车和公交车造成了主要的交通污染。
呼吁低污染企业减少污染，同时允许高污染企业逍遥法外——这就是当前气候变化的趋势，需要得到解决。
When China et al, is opening new coal power plants every week. Me taking a hit to my standard of living isnt going to do fuck all.
I'm all for developing green technology and exporting that around the world though, which would have a much much bigger impact than 60 million Brits having lower living standards to save some CO2.
世界各国每周都有新的燃煤电厂开工。而我的生活水平（由于要环保而）受到了打击，我什么都做不了。
我完全支持发展绿色技术，并将其出口到世界各地，这将比6000万英国人为了减少二氧化碳排放而降低生活水平产生的影响要大得多。
two aren't mutually exclusive. also using China is incredibly stupid and short sighted and part of the reason we are in this mess. we still have a large carbon debt to pay back.
两者并不相互排斥。此外，利用中国是极其愚蠢和短视的，也是我们陷入这种混乱的部分原因。我们仍有一大笔碳债务需要偿还。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I know they arent mutually exclusive. But 1 has a much bigger impact as I said. So me reducing my living standards to have almost no effect on global warming anyway, is idiotic.
Like I said even if all 60 million brits reduced their living standards, it would still have almost no effect. So pointless. Much better to focus on developing technology that can have a significant impact.
我知道它们并不互相排斥。但我说过，前者的影响更大。所以我降低我的生活水平来对全球变暖几乎没有任何影响，这是愚蠢的。
就像我说的，即使所有6000万英国人都降低了他们的生活水平，也几乎不会有任何影响。所以毫无意义。最好是专注于开发能够产生重大影响的技术。
Jeez, I wonder which age group largely make up that 25%........
天啊，我想知道哪个年龄段的人占了这25%……
All conservative voters probably.
可能都是保守派选民吧。
Let the rich sacrifice for once. Don't ask me to change.
让富人牺牲一次吧。不要要求我去改变。
You're living a first world lifestyle in a first world country. By global standards you are rich.
你在一个第一世界的国家里过着第一世界的生活。按照全球标准，你就是富人。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
This is why environmentalism is such a waste of time, we can't fix anything without accepting a decrease in living standards and that will never happen.
这就是为什么环保主义是如此浪费时间，我们不接受生活水平下降是无法解决任何问题的，但我们永远不会接受生活水平下降。