各位前辈们大家好，在下非外文系，且英文程度不好， 斗胆尝试翻译了一篇文章，请大家过目，谢谢。 翻得很烂，可是已经是在下的极限了，请多多包涵>"< (上色的部份是觉得有问题的地方) 文章来源：http://www.economist.com/node/18618451 Carbon flows 碳流通 The emissions omitted 被忽略的排放 The usual figures ignore the role of trade in the world’s carbon economy 寻常算法轻忽国际贸易在全球碳经济中所扮演的角色 Apr 28th 2011 | from the print edition WHICH do you value: production or consumption? 你重视下列何者？生产还是消费？ The preference has long defined economic questions ranging from tax policies to development. 长久以来, 这个优先次序就清晰地描绘了有关从徵税政策到经济发展方面的经济问题。 Now it matters in national carbon accounting too. 如今这对於国家的二氧化碳计算也是很重要的。 If you look at production, you count the carbon that comes from a territory’ s smokestacks, exhaust pipes and forest fires. 如果你着重的是生产，你会计算来自於某地的烟囱、废气管及森林大火的排碳量。 With consumption you tot up the carbon emitted when providing the goods and services bought there. 若着眼於消费，你所计算的总碳量，来自於当提供那些你买入的商品和服务时所 排放出来的。 Looked at that way, international trade is a carbon-dioxide pipeline moving responsibility for its effects on the climate from place to place. 由此观之，身为运送二氧化碳至世界各地的管道，国际贸易要为气候变迁负起责任。 Just over a quarter of all industrially emitted carbon moves about in this way, up from a fifth in 1990. 在1990年，只有五分之一的总体工业排碳藉由这样的方式移动，而如今上升至正好超过了 四分之一。 The net flow is from the developing to the developed world. So in terms of consumption the rich countries are still the world’s biggest emitters (see chart). 净流通量的产生源於已开发国家的成长发展，因此依据富裕国的消费状况，他们仍然是世 界最主要的排放国(见图表)。 New research shows that the flow’s volume is rapidly increasing. 而最新的研究显示此流量正在急速上升当中。 Glen Peters at the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, with colleagues elsewhere, has looked at the carbon content of international trade since 1990—the benchmark year for measuring emissions under the UN’s Kyoto protocol. 自1990年起来自挪威奥斯陆国际气候与环境研究中心的Glen Peters，和他在其他地区的 同事一直在观察国际贸易中的碳含量，并以该年为基准，依照联合国京都议定书的标准 来测量碳排放量。 The annual growth of CO2 emissions from exported products was 4.3%—faster than GDP or carbon emissions in general, slower than world trade. 从出口品所产生的CO2排放数每年成长量为4.3%，大致上来说，成长速度快於GDP和排碳量 ，且慢於国际贸易成长。 But it was 17% for trade between developed countries (those expected to meet the Kyoto emissions cuts) and the rest of the world, rising from 400m tonnes in 1990 to 1.6 billion in 2008. 但其中有17%是来自於已开发国家(那些国家原预期会符合京都议定书有关碳排放的减量) 与世界其它国家之间的贸易，从1990年的4亿吨成长至2008年的16亿吨。 On a production basis, many of the rich countries (but not America, which has not ratified Kyoto) have cut their emissions—by 6% in 1990-2008 in the case of the European Union. 以生产量为基准，许多富裕国家(不包含未签署京都议定书的美国)已减少了碳排放量 - 以欧盟来说，1990到2008年间降低了6%。 But the EU’s imports of embodied carbon from developing countries rose a lot more than its local emissions fell. 但是欧盟从开发中国家所进口的实质碳排放量，其所增加的量比当地碳排放所减少的量大 很多。 Overall, the rich world’s increase in “carbon imports” is six times bigger than cuts in the developed countries’ own industrial emissions. 整体来说，富裕国家碳排放进口所增加的数量，是已开发国家自身产业所减少的排放量六 倍。 The lion’s share of this carbon comes, predictably enough, from China; 18% of the global increase in emissions since 1990 is embodied in Chinese exports. 充份地预测指出绝大部分的碳来自於中国。自1990以来，不断升高的全球碳排放量中，有 18%确定来自於中国的出口。 Mr Peters and his colleagues see no evidence so far that carbon-control policies, weak as they are, are shifting production to less regulated countries. →看不出来weak as they are 是在指谁？ 1.到目前为止彼得斯和他的同事们他们显得力不从心，因为找不到有关於控制排碳政策导 致生产转移到法规较少的国家之证明。 2.到目前为止，Peters和他的同事们都看不到有任何证据足以显示，碳排放控制的政策 – 现今是很软弱的 - 要把生产工业转移到较没有法规的国家。 Carbon follows trade patterns set by other factors; it does not shape them. 1.国际贸易模式的产生是由其他因素造成，而非由碳的流向来决定。 2.碳排放是跟随着贸易模式，而这些贸易模式是根据许多的因素设定的，碳排放 并未规范贸易模式。 Sterner carbon restrictions, though, might provoke rich-world industrialists to press for tariffs on carbon-intensive imports with which they cannot compete. 1.然而订定更严格的排碳限制有可能会激发富裕国家的企业家们倾向对碳密集输入国施 予关税压力，以避免失去竞争力。 2.然而，订定更严格的碳排放限制有可能会激发富裕国家的企业家们对碳排放密集的输 入品强加费用，但这将会使他们失去竞争力。 A more fruitful approach might be to see the trend in terms of the need for greener investment outside the rich world. →完全看不懂 1.因此更有效的方法应是以绿能需求的角度来观察富裕国家境外投资的趋势。 2.因此更有效的方法应是，以绿能投资需求的角度来观察在富裕国家以外地区的的趋势。 Spreading low-carbon technologies there matters as much or more than decarbonising developed countries. 减碳技术的普及远比在已开发国家除碳重要许多。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 218.160.153.75