應(yīng)對氣候變化的成本小于無所作為的成本

應(yīng)對氣候變化的成本小于無所作為的成本

Two of the biggest myths about climate change have been busted: The first is that we have time to deal with human beings' impact on our planetary climate system. Time is up and we're now living with the beginnings of a changed climate, including more intense storms, drier droughts, scarier floods and hotter wildfires.

關(guān)于氣候變化的兩個(gè)最大的神話已經(jīng)破滅:第一個(gè)是我們有時(shí)間來處理人類對地球氣候系統(tǒng)的影響。時(shí)間到了，我們現(xiàn)在正面臨著氣候變化的開端，包括更猛烈的風(fēng)暴、更干旱、更可怕的洪水和更猛烈的野火。

The second myth is that mitigating climate change will cost so many billions that we can't possibly afford to do it and that such action would take money away from the poorest people who need it most.

第二個(gè)誤區(qū)是，減緩氣候變化將花費(fèi)數(shù)十億美元，我們不可能負(fù)擔(dān)得起，而且這樣的行動將從最需要錢的最貧窮的人那里拿走錢。

The global economy stands to lose 'at least $150 trillion to as much as $792 trillion by the end of the century' if we don't mitigate climate change. (Photo: DisobeyArt/Shutterstock)

According to a new study, the opposite is true.

根據(jù)一項(xiàng)新的研究，事實(shí)正好相反。

In an article in the journal Nature, researchers found that if human beings fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the levels designated in the Paris Agreement, the economic cost would range from $150 trillion to as much as $792 trillion by 2100.

在《自然》雜志的一篇文章中，研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果人類不能將溫室氣體排放減少到《巴黎協(xié)定》規(guī)定的水平，到2100年，經(jīng)濟(jì)成本將從150萬億美元到792萬億美元不等。

The United States signed the Paris Agreement in 2015 along with 190 other nations, but in August 2017, President Trump filed with the United Nations to withdraw from the agreement — though due to the terms of the original agreement, that withdrawal won't be effective until November 2020. The agreement aims to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. Already, the globe has warmed more than 1 degree.

美國和其他190個(gè)國家在2015年簽署了《巴黎協(xié)定》，但在2017年8月，特朗普總統(tǒng)向聯(lián)合國提交了退出該協(xié)定的申請——盡管由于原協(xié)議的條款，該退出直到2020年11月才生效。該協(xié)議旨在將全球變暖控制在2攝氏度以下。全球氣溫已經(jīng)上升了1度多。

The basis of the Paris Agreement is voluntary actions (NDCs) that nations will take to mitigate CO2 emissions, but so far, few countries have been able to meet their targets, although over 30 cities worldwide have gotten it done.

《巴黎協(xié)定》的基礎(chǔ)是各國為減少二氧化碳排放而采取的自愿行動(NDCs)，但迄今為止，很少有國家能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)其目標(biāo)，盡管全球已有30多個(gè)城市做到了這一點(diǎn)。

But even the targets of the Paris Agreement probably aren't enough: "A number of studies have proved that current [NDCs] are not enough to achieve the global warming targets," Biying Yu, from the Beijing Institute of Technology, and co-author of the paper in Nature, told CBS News. She explained that even with the agreed-upon reductions, 3 degrees of warming is projected.

但是，即使是巴黎協(xié)議的目標(biāo)可能也不夠:“許多研究已經(jīng)證明，目前的[NDCs]不足以實(shí)現(xiàn)應(yīng)對全球變暖的目標(biāo)，”來自北京理工大學(xué)的余碧英(音譯)，《自然》雜志的這篇論文的作者之一，告訴哥倫比亞廣播公司新聞。她解釋說，即使達(dá)成了一致的減排目標(biāo)，預(yù)計(jì)全球氣溫仍將上升3度。

The costs of not tackling climate change (that $150 trillion and up) come from the destruction wrought by even fiercer storms, flooding, droughts and fires, not to mention the extinctions of animal extinctions and all the other variables that create a very different world.

不應(yīng)對氣候變化的成本(150萬億美元或更多)來自更猛烈的風(fēng)暴、洪水、干旱和火災(zāi)造成的破壞，更不用說動物滅絕和所有其他創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)完全不同世界的變量。

What if we take action?

如果我們采取行動呢?

Yu and her colleagues looked at ways countries could improve their NDCs while maximizing gains and minimizing the effect on the economy, which would require global cooperation.

余和她的同事們研究了各國如何在實(shí)現(xiàn)收益最大化和對經(jīng)濟(jì)影響最小化的同時(shí)改善其國家的發(fā)展，這需要全球合作。

The net benefit of climate change mitigation would be $127 trillion to $616 trillion by 2100 — that's how much would be gained in economic benefit minus expenses.

到2100年，減緩氣候變化的凈效益將達(dá)到127萬億到616萬億美元——這是經(jīng)濟(jì)效益減去支出后的收益。

Seems like a no-brainer, right? The problem? Like many things in our own lives (a more efficient car or furnace), a big cash outlay is needed at the beginning to reap those later economic benefits.

看起來很簡單，對吧?這個(gè)問題就像我們生活中的許多東西(一輛更節(jié)能的汽車或爐子)一樣，一開始需要大量的現(xiàn)金投入，以獲得后來的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益。

"Since many countries and regions would have a negative net income in the early stage due to the large amount of [greenhouse gas] abatement cost, they may refuse to ratchet up current climate actions in the near term and choose to neglect the long-term climate damage, which makes a severe obstacle in achieving global warming targets," Yu told CBS News.

“由于許多國家和地區(qū)由于溫室氣體減排成本高，在初期階段會有負(fù)的凈收益，他們可能會在短期內(nèi)拒絕加強(qiáng)當(dāng)前的氣候行動，而選擇忽視長期的氣候損害，這將嚴(yán)重阻礙全球變暖目標(biāo)的實(shí)現(xiàn)，”Yu告訴CBS新聞。

As far as climate-change mitigations taking money from those who need assistance, it's worth remembering that it's the poorest and most vulnerable who will be hardest hit by rising tides and devastating storms. So money spent now would protect them later. And when it comes to those populations, we're talking life and death.

就氣候變化緩解措施從那些需要援助的人那里拿錢而言，值得記住的是，那些最貧窮、最脆弱的人將受到漲潮和毀滅性風(fēng)暴的最嚴(yán)重打擊。所以現(xiàn)在花的錢以后會保護(hù)他們。當(dāng)涉及到這些人口時(shí)，我們談?wù)摰氖巧c死。

It seems like the choice is clear.

看起來選擇是明確的。