氣候變化：揭露——有多少英國人不愿意改變他們的習慣來應對危機
Climate change: Revealed - how many Britons are unwilling to change their habits to tackle the crisis
譯文簡介
“讓富人犧牲一次吧。不要要求我去改變?！?
正文翻譯
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.
氣候變化：揭露——有多少英國人不愿意改變他們的習慣來應對危機
——在輿觀為天空新聞網(wǎng)所做的民意調查中，只有50%的受訪者支持從2030年起禁止銷售新的汽油和柴油汽車。
-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.
氣候變化：揭露——有多少英國人不愿意改變他們的習慣來應對危機
——在輿觀為天空新聞網(wǎng)所做的民意調查中，只有50%的受訪者支持從2030年起禁止銷售新的汽油和柴油汽車。
新聞：
Almost 25% of Britons are unwilling to change key habits that would help tackle climate change, an exclusive poll for Sky News suggests.
天空新聞網(wǎng)的一項獨家民意調查顯示，近25%的英國人不愿意為了幫助應對氣候變化而改變關鍵習慣。
天空新聞網(wǎng)的一項獨家民意調查顯示，近25%的英國人不愿意為了幫助應對氣候變化而改變關鍵習慣。
The survey, conducted by YouGov, asked participants what they would be prepared to do in order to reduce the country's carbon emissions.
這項由輿觀進行的調查詢問了參與者：為了減少國家的碳排放，他們準備做些什么。
這項由輿觀進行的調查詢問了參與者：為了減少國家的碳排放，他們準備做些什么。
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%的人說，他們愿意看到出境游價格大幅上漲，13%的人說他們愿意接受肉類和其他動物產(chǎn)品價格上漲。只有2%的人支持增加取暖費用。
20%的人說，他們愿意看到出境游價格大幅上漲，13%的人說他們愿意接受肉類和其他動物產(chǎn)品價格上漲。只有2%的人支持增加取暖費用。
Overall, 29% of those polled said they would be willing to never drive a petrol or diesel car again.
總體來看，29%的受訪者表示他們將不再開汽油車或柴油車。
總體來看，29%的受訪者表示他們將不再開汽油車或柴油車。
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，當面對所有這些選擇時，23%的受訪者表示，他們不會準備支持這些關鍵的改變之一。
但是，當面對所有這些選擇時，23%的受訪者表示，他們不會準備支持這些關鍵的改變之一。
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.
調查顯示，許多英國人對可再生能源和碳足跡等氣候問題的了解程度很高，但對今年的COP26氣候大會卻知之甚少——對大會主席阿洛克·夏爾馬的了解也很少。
調查顯示，許多英國人對可再生能源和碳足跡等氣候問題的了解程度很高，但對今年的COP26氣候大會卻知之甚少——對大會主席阿洛克·夏爾馬的了解也很少。
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%的受訪者表示，他們支持從2030年起禁止銷售新的汽油和柴油汽車，36%的人反對讓航空旅行者根據(jù)他們飛行的距離支付更高的稅。
只有50%的受訪者表示，他們支持從2030年起禁止銷售新的汽油和柴油汽車，36%的人反對讓航空旅行者根據(jù)他們飛行的距離支付更高的稅。
The findings suggest that, while there is a growing awareness of some climate issues, climate change is viewed as a problem for other countries.
研究結果表明，盡管人們對一些氣候問題的意識在不斷增強，氣候變化被其他國家視為一個問題。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
研究結果表明，盡管人們對一些氣候問題的意識在不斷增強，氣候變化被其他國家視為一個問題。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
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，英國將在格拉斯哥主辦COP26氣候大會——這是一個具有里程碑意義的事件，距離達成限制排放的新全球共識的巴黎協(xié)議已經(jīng)過去了5年。
今年11月，英國將在格拉斯哥主辦COP26氣候大會——這是一個具有里程碑意義的事件，距離達成限制排放的新全球共識的巴黎協(xié)議已經(jīng)過去了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.
會議將由前商務大臣阿洛克·夏爾馬主持，但只有3%的受訪者知道他是負責氣候變化的內(nèi)閣大臣。
會議將由前商務大臣阿洛克·夏爾馬主持，但只有3%的受訪者知道他是負責氣候變化的內(nèi)閣大臣。
When asked about how climate change affects people's lives in the UK, 69% of those polled said they did not feel personally impacted.
當被問及氣候變化如何影響英國人的生活時，69%的受訪者表示，他們個人并不覺得受到了影響。
當被問及氣候變化如何影響英國人的生活時，69%的受訪者表示，他們個人并不覺得受到了影響。
However, the same amount said they felt other countries around the world have been impacted by the warming planet.
然而，同樣數(shù)量的人表示，他們覺得世界上其他國家也受到了全球變暖的影響。
然而，同樣數(shù)量的人表示，他們覺得世界上其他國家也受到了全球變暖的影響。
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”告訴天空新聞網(wǎng)，關于氣候的信息需要改變——幫助人們意識到應對氣候變化將給他們的生活帶來的好處。
“地球之友”告訴天空新聞網(wǎng)，關于氣候的信息需要改變——幫助人們意識到應對氣候變化將給他們的生活帶來的好處。
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.
該組織表示，不應過分強調政府政策和生活方式選擇所帶來的限制、變化和經(jīng)濟影響。
該組織表示，不應過分強調政府政策和生活方式選擇所帶來的限制、變化和經(jīng)濟影響。
Si?n 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”組織的競選官員錫安·伊利斯·威廉姆斯說：“這是一個非常有趣的挑戰(zhàn)，也是‘地球之友’組織多年來努力解決的問題。我認為重點應該放在公益上?！?/b>
“地球之友”組織的競選官員錫安·伊利斯·威廉姆斯說：“這是一個非常有趣的挑戰(zhàn)，也是‘地球之友’組織多年來努力解決的問題。我認為重點應該放在公益上?！?/b>
"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."
“很明顯，大多數(shù)人認為氣候行動是一件積極的事情。我認為，有一小部分人正在為必須為氣候做出犧牲的想法而掙扎?！?br />
“很明顯，大多數(shù)人認為氣候行動是一件積極的事情。我認為，有一小部分人正在為必須為氣候做出犧牲的想法而掙扎?！?br />
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 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.
供暖費用問題可以被解決，最終會比燃氣更便宜，但需要政府制定一個不錯的激勵方案來啟動熱泵市場。
熱泵（理想情況下是地源，因為它們比空氣源更高效）應該安裝在所有新建筑上，并且在某個時間點（可能是2030年，就像禁止新的內(nèi)燃車一樣）應該禁止安裝新的燃氣鍋爐。
熱泵的效率是400%（你輸入1千瓦時的電，你得到4千瓦時的熱量，因為它從地面“輸送”熱能，冷卻地面），所以基本上把電的成本除以4來對比燃氣加熱。
從目前的價格來看，這意味著熱泵比天然氣更便宜，從長遠來看，它將永遠比天然氣便宜，因為風能和太陽能的成本持續(xù)下降，并壓低了全天電價。
一旦全天電力達到11便士/kWh，熱泵就成為最便宜的取暖方式。其實每單位（即電力除以4）并不需要更便宜，因為如果你根本沒有天然氣，你就不需要支付日費，通常是20-21便士一天，或73-77英鎊一年。
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.
我最近才了解到空氣/地源熱泵，它們似乎是傻瓜式的，特別是如果與太陽能結合在一起的話。
可惜太貴了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
How much do they compare price wise to an efficient gas boiler as well as pipes required for gas into the build?
與高效的燃氣鍋爐以及燃氣進入建筑所需的管道相比，他們的價格是多少？
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.
我只是粗略估計了一下，因為我們還沒買房子！
我們更換了現(xiàn)在房子里的燃氣鍋爐，還對其他一些東西進行了分類，包括人工費、保修費等一共3500英鎊。我們已經(jīng)有了煤氣管道，所以無需再支付連接費用。
在新房子里，有一個液化石油氣鍋爐和水箱，所以不確定更換它們要花多少錢。但在網(wǎng)上尋找空氣源熱泵的估價是6000-8000英鎊，但我不確定是否有其他成本需要考慮，或在類型上是不是有重大差異（我們可能想要最安靜的那種，所以我懷疑這可能會提高價格）。
如果鍋爐還能再用幾年，那么我的計劃是再等幾年和省錢去換空氣源熱泵和太陽能，我估計兩者花費都是1.5萬英鎊。如果有補助金或無息貸款，那我會馬上就會去換。
顯然，建筑公司和個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.
我住在三樓的公寓里。
老實說，我這一年的汽油賬單是218英鎊。我不認為我是最大的問題。
人們需要住在更小的、隔熱良好的房子里。
天然氣基礎設施的更換或價格的上漲意味著我唯一的選擇是更換一個電力綜合鍋爐。
所有的文章都在大肆宣揚我沒有的蓄熱系統(tǒng)，沒有蓄熱系統(tǒng)就不會有經(jīng)濟效益，我不允許在屋頂上安裝太陽能電池板等等。
如果不再使用天然氣更經(jīng)濟的話，那么電力價格就需要降下來。
我也在考慮買一輛電動汽車來滿足我一年6000英里的行程。沒有街邊停車位。一個步行可達的通宵充電間。
如果我的工作場所提供充電服務，我仍然會很感興趣。
實際上，我贊成征收碳稅，迫使像我這樣的人遠離汽油和天然氣。尤其是因為讓它影響到每個人，包括企業(yè)，從而使替代方案更可行。
我沒有自愿成為變革的先鋒，并承擔隨之而來的所有成本。個人并不能產(chǎn)生多大的影響。我想要社會的改變，我很樂意改變，因為這是被鼓勵的。
我有一個舊鍋爐和一輛舊汽車。我想要一個環(huán)保的選擇，但我會一直留著它們，直到有了這個選擇。我只希望它們撐得夠久。
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.
還有一些關于分時定價和“智能”水箱的額外可能性。
只需使用電加熱器或空氣源熱泵，因為它們更容易安裝，也比純電加熱更好，再加上分時定價，應該能夠降低足夠的賬單，使得無需留下燃氣作為備用。
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.
有一些不正確的報道，其中一個主要觀點是只有2%的人支持增加取暖費。這個問題實際上是在幾個選項中選擇一個，只有2%的人選擇了這個。
話雖如此，這只是假設人們幾年以后是否會對某些事情感到滿意，而不是支持現(xiàn)在的改變。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
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.
僅僅100家公司就承擔了導致氣候變化的71%的排放。也許問題出在它們身上，而不是多麗絲老太太因為把果醬罐子放錯回收箱而被罰款。
It's a bit more complicated as those companies are extracting rather than using the fuel themselves.
這有點復雜，因為這些公司只是在生產(chǎn)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，但是這些公司排放二氧化碳不僅僅是因為它們自己想排放
它們生產(chǎn)它是為了給人們提供商品和服務。如果能減少消費，就會減少排放
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.
這是一個先有雞還是先有蛋的問題……真的是。
以有機雞肉為例。在我當?shù)氐某欣?，它的價格大約是養(yǎng)殖雞肉的三倍。如果有更多的人購買，價格就會下降，農(nóng)民就會做出更多努力來迎合市場。但是人們買不起，所以價格居高不下，而需求只會停留在便宜的東西上。
這就是廣泛發(fā)生在電動汽車、房屋供暖、快餐等方面的情況。唯一推動任何改變的是有錢的中產(chǎn)階級，他們有閑錢，再加上以稅收和關稅的形式直接進行政府干預。
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.
我再加上一點：如果政府引入新的法律來嚴格限制這些公司生產(chǎn)的“東西”數(shù)量，而沒有從社會中得到支持，那么就會發(fā)生街頭騷亂，因為突然之間，人們對那些被認為是日常生活中必不可少的東西（燃料、新衣服、新電子產(chǎn)品、電力、新汽車，甚至是依賴集約農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)的食品）的獲取一夜之間就會受到很大的限制。
所以個人需要帶頭減少需求。
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
我絕對駁斥這種說法。改變不會來自個人，它不會發(fā)生。只要人們可以選擇，他們就會選擇更簡單、更便宜的方式。最重要的是，個人幾乎起不了什么作用。公司產(chǎn)生的大量垃圾才是一個更大的問題。為什么不對那些無法抵消其碳排放影響的公司征收巨額稅款呢？
再說一次，如果人們最終沒有燃料、新衣服、電子產(chǎn)品等，我tmd也不在乎。我們是人，我們最擅長的就是適應，如果沒有壓力，我們永遠不會適應。我們下面的幾代人已經(jīng)因為我們的貪婪而將遭受巨大的痛苦了
政府絕對需要帶頭停止需求，如果政府不采取行動，那最好是私營企業(yè)行動。
但說責任應該在消費者/個人身上完全就是扯淡。上世紀80年代，?？松梨诠拘麄鱾€人的“碳足跡”，把責任推到個人身上，而不是公司，因為他們知道公司才是真正的問題所在。
人們會在生活中使用任何他們可以使用的工具，使自己的生活更好，更容易。需要限制（公司生產(chǎn)）那些工具，否則情況就不會改變
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.
同樣，如果他們生產(chǎn)的商品減少，商品就會變得更貴，需求就會下降。這在客觀上是一種更簡單的方法，因為它只改變了一個變量，而且我們有改變它的方法。
鑒于目前不存在任何政治手段或機制能夠以某種方式實際迫使減少消費，有太多的政治和經(jīng)濟利益被捆綁在創(chuàng)造更多的需求和推動消費上，有廣泛的錯誤信息和被大公司操縱，這些公司的利益是短期利益，還有大量狂熱的人相信自己的利益，因為資本主義的調節(jié)……
你基本上同意結束資本主義是人們改變習慣的必要條件，這是對的。他們是他們體制的產(chǎn)物，沒有什么能打破資本主義的從眾思維。50年來，我們一直在鼓勵人們減少消費（但是效果很差）。
你認為現(xiàn)在有幾個象征性的自由主義者在船上，事情就會以某種方式急劇地改變嗎？
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
一切都不會改變，我也不在乎。我賺了足夠的錢去遠離那些將會發(fā)生巨大變化的地方生活，如果我們真看到科學家們預測的那些災難成真的話。
說到底，我對我自己、我的家人和一些朋友負責，坦白地說，如果我們都這樣做，我們會更好，因為我們的自控能力沒那么強。
消費永遠不會因為政府而減少的，因為這將導致決定這么做的政府立即發(fā)生騷亂和動亂。過渡時期引發(fā)的恐慌不亞于將英國國民健康保險制度私有化
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.
除非你是億萬富翁，否則如果經(jīng)濟體系開始崩潰，我很懷疑你會有“足夠的錢”。
Idiot（白癡）這個詞由idios演變而來，idios的意思是“自己的”，所以那些只關心自己事情的人顯然是白癡。
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%.
這一統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)有些不誠實，因為它將所有的排放都歸因于這些公司開采的化石燃料的供應/使用鏈。它們實際上并沒有自己排放二氧化碳。
正如其他人所指出的那樣，這些化石燃料的使用是由我們使用的，由我們使用的產(chǎn)品和我們社會賴以生存的生產(chǎn)方式使用的。
完全有可能利用消費者和公眾/選民的壓力來減少這71%的排放量。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
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
就好像我們應該從根本上重組我們社會賴以生存的生產(chǎn)，因為很明顯它正在cao遍整個星球
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.
確實需要開展一場關于氣候危機緊迫性的普及教育運動，盡管有這篇文章提出的大體問題，但似乎多數(shù)人支持許多行動。
一種文化上的轉變，使某些行為更不為社會所接受，可能會比任何懲罰性稅收更成功，因為懲罰性稅收會對較不富裕的人產(chǎn)生不成比例的影響。
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.
倫敦的綠色收費就是一個偽善的完美例子。除了卡車和公共汽車之外，所有污染環(huán)境的車輛在倫敦行駛都要額外付費?？ㄜ嚭凸卉囋斐闪酥饕慕煌ㄎ廴?。
呼吁低污染企業(yè)減少污染，同時允許高污染企業(yè)逍遙法外——這就是當前氣候變化的趨勢，需要得到解決。
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.
世界各國每周都有新的燃煤電廠開工。而我的生活水平（由于要環(huán)保而）受到了打擊，我什么都做不了。
我完全支持發(fā)展綠色技術，并將其出口到世界各地，這將比6000萬英國人為了減少二氧化碳排放而降低生活水平產(chǎn)生的影響要大得多。
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.
兩者并不相互排斥。此外，利用中國是極其愚蠢和短視的，也是我們陷入這種混亂的部分原因。我們?nèi)杂幸淮蠊P碳債務需要償還。
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.
我知道它們并不互相排斥。但我說過，前者的影響更大。所以我降低我的生活水平來對全球變暖幾乎沒有任何影響，這是愚蠢的。
就像我說的，即使所有6000萬英國人都降低了他們的生活水平，也幾乎不會有任何影響。所以毫無意義。最好是專注于開發(fā)能夠產(chǎn)生重大影響的技術。
Jeez, I wonder which age group largely make up that 25%........
天啊，我想知道哪個年齡段的人占了這25%……
All conservative voters probably.
可能都是保守派選民吧。
Let the rich sacrifice for once. Don't ask me to change.
讓富人犧牲一次吧。不要要求我去改變。
You're living a first world lifestyle in a first world country. By global standards you are rich.
你在一個第一世界的國家里過著第一世界的生活。按照全球標準，你就是富人。
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.
這就是為什么環(huán)保主義是如此浪費時間，我們不接受生活水平下降是無法解決任何問題的，但我們永遠不會接受生活水平下降。