Leaving the Paris Agreement is a bad deal for the United States

离开巴黎协议对美国来说是一件坏事

2019/05/22 22:05
收藏
对照中文英文原文
布鲁金斯非居民高级研究员里克·杜克分析了特朗普总统打算退出“气候巴黎协定”以及这一行动可能对美国造成的伤害的潜在影响。

The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation this month aimed at preventing President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2016 Paris climate accord and mandating that the United States develop a strategy to achieve the commitments it made under the agreement.

本月美国众议院通过立法旨在阻止唐纳德特朗普总统退出2016年巴黎气候协议,并要求美国制定战略,以实现其根据协议作出的承诺。

The Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to give it the green light—and Trump could begin withdrawal procedures in November and formally withdraw from Paris a day after the 2020 election. All indications suggest that this is his goal. In Trump’s June 2017 speech announcing his intent to leave the accord, he disparaged it, saying it “punishes” the United States while imposing “no meaningful obligations” on major polluters, such as China and India, that will take advantage of the United States’ supposed sacrifice. Ever since, many Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have backed him up by crying foul that other countries got a better deal.

共和党控制的参议院不太可能给它开绿灯 - 特朗普可以在11月开始退出程序,并在2020年大选后的第二天正式退出巴黎。所有迹象都表明这是他的目标。特朗普在2017年6月的演讲中宣布他打算放弃协议,他贬低了它,称它“惩罚”美国,同时对中国和印度等主要污染者施加“没有意义的义务”,这将利用美国的优势。 '假设牺牲。从那时起,包括参议员特德克鲁兹和多数党领袖米奇麦康奈尔在内的许多共和党人都因为其他国家得到更好的交易而大声疾呼而支持他。

The 2018 National Climate Assessment—a report written by 13 federal agencies—predicts that climate change could cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars every year by the end of the century.

2018年国家气候评估 - 由13个联邦机构撰写的一份报告 - 预测,到本世纪末,气候变化每年可能使美国损失数千亿美元。

Their argument is as false in 2019 as it was in 2017. It’s past time to put it to rest.

他们的论点在2019年和2017年一样是错误的。现在已经过时了。

Before the Paris agreement, the world had failed to reach a functional global agreement on climate change despite trying for decades. The reasons for this are complicated, but it essentially boils down to two issues. First, climate change presents a massive coordination problem. Every country has an economic incentive to underinvest in reducing emissions, which, like any investment, requires near-term expenditures for long-term gains—both domestic economic benefits such as reduced energy costs and improved air quality and global benefits from addressing climate change. Such free-riding countries hope that others will collectively do enough to contain global warming.

在达成巴黎协议之前,尽管已经尝试了数十年,但世界未能就气候变化达成功能性全球协议。造成这种情况的原因很复杂,但它基本上归结为两个问题。首先,气候变化带来了巨大的协调问题。每个国家都有减少排放投资不足的经济动力,与任何投资一样,需要近期支出以获得长期收益 - 国内经济效益,如能源成本降低,空气质量改善以及应对气候变化带来的全球效益。这些搭便车的国家希望其他国家集体做足以遏制全球变暖。

Second, even if all act together, countries disagree on which should cover more of the upfront investments to transition the world toward a more sustainable economy. That’s because developed countries are mostly responsible for global warming to date, but emerging economies will account for the majority of future emissions as they modernize. This is why the Paris agreement was designed to avoid placing onerous obligations on any country, including the United States, or to punish any country that signed on.

其次,即使所有人都采取行动,各国也不同意应该覆盖更多的前期投资,以使世界向更可持续的经济转型。这是因为发达国家目前对全球变暖负主要责任,但新兴经济体将在其现代化的过程中占据未来排放的大部分。这就是为什么巴黎协议旨在避免对任何国家(包括美国)施加繁重的义务,或惩罚任何签署的国家。

To solve the first problem, the agreement prioritized bringing all countries into the tent as a step toward genuine coordinated action. It did so by requiring two major commitments from all signatories: defining a “nationally determined contribution,” or emissions reduction target, every five years and agreeing to mandatory transparency measures so the world could assess if a country fulfilled its promise.

为解决第一个问题,协议优先考虑将所有国家纳入帐篷,作为迈向真正协调行动的一步。它通过要求所有签署方做出两项重大承诺:每五年确定一项“国家决定的捐款”或减排目标,并同意强制性透明度措施,以便世界可以评估一个国家是否履行了承诺。

To mitigate the upfront investment allocation problem, the agreement let countries determine their contributions based on their circumstances. It urged them to be ambitious, but required nothing specifically, and levies no tangible punishments for countries falling short as long as they report their progress. To help developing countries take on more ambitious targets that help everyone, the Paris agreement set up a Green Climate Fund to help facilitate “investment in low-emission and climate-resilient development,” which developed countries, including the United States, agreed to capitalize.

为了缓解前期投资分配问题,该协议允许各国根据其情况确定其贡献。它敦促他们雄心勃勃,但没有具体要求,只要他们报告进展,就不会对那些不足的国家征收任何实际惩罚。为帮助发展中国家采取更加雄心勃勃的目标,帮助每个人,巴黎协议设立了绿色气候基金,以帮助促进“低排放和气候适应性发展的投资”,包括美国在内的发达国家同意将其资本化。

So why does Trump believe the Paris agreement is “very unfair” to the United States? The crux of his argument is that other countries, especially China and India, can take advantage of U.S. actions.

那么为什么特朗普认为巴黎协议对美国“非常不公平”呢?他的论点的关键是其他国家,特别是中国和印度,可以利用美国的行动。

Trump points out that China is permitted to grow its emissions until 2030, and that India demanded “billions and billions and billions” of dollars to enter the deal, while the United States gets nothing.

特朗普指出,中国被允许在2030年之前增加排放量,印度要求“数十亿甚至数十亿美元”才能进入这笔交易,而美国却什么也得不到。

It is true that China has committed to peak its emissions around 2030, but it has also committed to lower the carbon intensity of its economy to 60-65 percent below its 2005 level and to more than double the share of carbon-free energy in its entire economy over the same time period. This will require China to make massive investments in clean energy, and the country is already delivering, tracking to 50 percent clean power by 2030 based mainly on torrid expansion of wind and solar. India has also committed to reduce the emissions intensity of its economy by 33-35 percent below 2005 levels over the same period, and it is also acting seriously, including installing renewables at a furious pace. And Mexico, the United States’ neighbor and close trading partner, pledged to peak its emissions by 2026. By comparison, the United States promised to reduce emissions to 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

确实,中国承诺在2030年前将其排放量达到峰值,但它也承诺将其经济的碳强度降低到比2005年水平低60-65%的水平,并使中国的无碳能源份额增加一倍以上。整个经济在同一时期。这将要求中国对清洁能源进行大规模投资,该国已经开始实施,到2030年将主要依靠风能和太阳能的强劲扩张,追踪到50%的清洁能源。印度还承诺在同一时期将其经济的排放强度降低到比2005年水平低33-35%的水平,并且也在认真对待,包括以极快的速度安装可再生能源。墨西哥是美国的邻国和密切的贸易伙伴,承诺到2026年将其排放量达到峰值。相比之下,美国承诺到2025年将排放量减少到比2005年水平低26-28%。

In March, the U.S. Air Force requested $5 billion to repair damage done by weather to just two bases over the past six months.

今年3月,美国空军要求50亿美元在过去六个月内将天气造成的损坏修复为两个基地。

All of these commitments are ambitious, all help everyone in the world by containing climate impacts and driving down the cost of carbon-free technologies through scale and learning by doing, and none could have been achieved except through the Paris agreement.

所有这些承诺都是雄心勃勃的,所有这些都通过遏制气候影响并通过规模和边做边学来降低无碳技术的成本来帮助世界上每个人,除非通过巴黎协议,否则都无法实现。

But what about the Green Climate Fund, where “billions and billions” of American aid would go to pay other countries to reduce emissions? When Trump entered office, the United States owed $2 billion of the $3 billion it had promised to the fund. That’s less than a quarter of the money the president has sought to divert from other sources to build his wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

但绿色气候基金怎么样?“数十亿美元”的美国援助将用于支付其他国家减少排放量?当特朗普上任时,美国欠其向基金承诺的30亿美元中的20亿美元。这不到总统试图从其他来源转移到美墨边境修建隔离墙的钱的四分之一。

More importantly, this money is a drop in the bucket of the costs of climate change, including climate-fueled severe weather. In March, the U.S. Air Force requested $5 billion to repair damage done by weather to just two bases over the past six months. The civilian damage runs greater still: California’s wildfires last year caused $9 billion in damage. Worse, the 2018 National Climate Assessment—a report written by 13 federal agencies—predicts that climate change could cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars every year by the end of the century. Faced with these facts, any competent dealmaker would invest $2 billion if it secured climate commitments and propelled the world’s leading polluters to tackle the challenge head on.

更重要的是,这笔资金是气候变化成本的下降,包括气候变化的恶劣天气。今年3月,美国空军要求50亿美元在过去六个月内将天气造成的损坏修复为两个基地。民用损害仍然更大:去年加利福尼亚州的野火造成了90亿美元的损失。更糟糕的是,2018年的国家气候评估 - 由13个联邦机构撰写的一份报告 - 预测,到本世纪末,气候变化每年可能使美国损失数千亿美元。面对这些事实,任何有能力的交易商如果获得气候承诺并推动世界领先的污染者应对挑战,将投资20亿美元。

The great irony of Trump’s promise to withdraw from the Paris accord is that this step would actually create the problem he falsely attributes to the agreement.

特朗普承诺退出巴黎协议的具有讽刺意味的是,这一步骤实际上会产生他错误地归因于协议的问题。

By making the United States the ultimate climate action free-rider, Trump’s withdrawal would provide serious cover for major emitters like China and India, slackening their efforts to cut pollution while allowing them to continue to claim to lead the world on climate change in the United States’ absence.

通过让美国成为最终的气候行动搭便车者,特朗普的退出将为中国和印度等主要排放国提供严重保障,放松他们减少污染的努力,同时让他们继续声称在美国应对气候变化问题。国家缺席。

It’s more ironic still that, after years of denying climate change, Trump and many Republicans are arguing that the reason the United states should not stay in the Paris agreement is because other countries are not doing enough to confront the challenge, even as Washington remains unwilling to commit to taking serious steps at home to reduce U.S. carbon pollution.

更具讽刺意味的是,在多年否认气候变化之后,特朗普和许多共和党人都在争辩说美国不应该留在巴黎协议中的原因是因为其他国家在应对这一挑战方面做得不够,即使华盛顿仍然不愿意承诺在国内采取认真措施减少美国的碳污染。

The great irony of Trump’s promise to withdraw from the Paris accord is that this step would actually create the problem he falsely attributes to the agreement.

特朗普承诺退出巴黎协议的具有讽刺意味的是,这一步骤实际上会产生他错误地归因于协议的问题。

Luckily, the world already has a flexible, transparency-based agreement that encourages all countries to take ambitious actions to counter climate change. It’s called the Paris agreement. It represents the first-ever worldwide accord on a pragmatic path to tackle climate change, and the United States under President Barack Obama led the charge. That is why Trump’s threat to withdraw from the agreement, if he follows through, would be a self-inflicted wound that punished all countries—none more than the United States.

幸运的是,世界已经有一个灵活的,基于透明度的协议,鼓励所有国家采取雄心勃勃的行动来应对气候变化。它被称为巴黎协议。它代表了有史以来第一个在应对气候变化的务实道路上达成全球协议,美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)领导了这项指控。这就是为什么特朗普退出协议的威胁,如果他坚持下去,将是一个自我伤害,惩罚所有国家 - 只不过是美国。

为提升阅读体验,智堡对本页面进行了排版优化 查看原文