從愛心出發

提供　　台灣蠻野心足生態協會
翻譯　　林嘉倫



I am so glad that the world is finally getting together to try to stop climate change. When I first heard that our leaders were meeting to talk about solutions, I breathed a huge sigh of relief. Didn’t you?

我很高興世界終於團結起來，一起嘗試阻止氣候變遷。當我第一次聽說各國領導人要會面討論氣候變遷的解決方案時，我大大地鬆了一口氣，你也是吧？

Then I said, wait a minute. What exactly are they planning to do about this problem? So I looked into it. And I gotta tell you, not all the solutions they’re working on are what I’d call solutions. In fact, the leading solution, known as cap and trade - or emissions trading - is actually a huge problem.

然後我說，等一下，他們到底打算怎麼處理這個問題？於是我做了點調查，然後我必須告訴你們，他們著手的解決方案，並不盡然我會稱之為解決方案。事實上，最主要的解決方式—稱為總量管制與交易制度（cap and trade），或者說排放量交易制度—其實是個大問題。

Now I know this is the last thing you want to hear, but the future of our planet is at stake, so we gotta take the time to understand what’s going on here.

我知道這是你最不想聽到的事，但是我們地球的未來正面臨危機，所以我們必須花時間來瞭解到底發生了什麼事。

Okay, meet the guys at the heart of this so-called solution. They include the guys from Enron who designed energy trading, and the Wall Street financiers like Goldman Sachs who gave us the subprime mortgage crisis.

好，我們來看看這個號稱是解決方案的核心成員有誰。包括恩隆（Enron）企業的人，他們設計了能源交易，還包括如高盛（Goldman Sachs）等的華爾街金融機構，他們帶給我們次級房貸危機。

Their job is to develop brand new markets. They stake their claims and then when everyone and their grandmother wants in, they make off with huge amounts of money as the market becomes a giant bubble and then bursts.

他們的任務是開發全新市場，他們提出他們主張，然後當每個人和他們的奶奶都想參一腳時，他們就悄悄拿走一大筆金錢，讓市場變成一個大泡泡，然後泡泡就破了。

Well their latest bubble just burst and now they’ve got a new idea for a market – trading carbon pollution.

他們上一個泡泡剛破掉，現在又有了市場的新點子：交易碳污染。

They’re about to develop a new $3 trillion bubble, but when this one bursts, it won’t just take down our stock portfolios, it could take down everything!

他們即將開發出一個價值三兆美元的新泡泡，但是當這個泡泡破掉時，它不只會搞垮我們的股票投資，還可能會毀滅一切。

So how does cap and trade work?

那麼到底總量管制與交易制度怎麼運作？

Well, pretty much all serious scientists agree that we need to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to 350 ppm if we want to avoid climate disaster. In the U.S., that means reducing our emission by 80% – maybe even more – by 2050. 80%!

幾乎所有科學家都同意，如果我們想避免發生氣候災難，我們需要降低大氣層的碳含量到350ppm。就美國而言，也就是在西元2050年前，排放量必須降低80%以上，天哪！80%！

Now the problem is that most of our global economy runs on burning fossil fuels, which releases carbon: the factories that make all our stuff, the ships and trucks that carry it around the world, our cars and buildings and appliances, just about everything.

現在的問題是，我們全球經濟幾乎是靠著燃燒化石燃料來運作，而化石燃料會釋放碳：替我們製造一切用品的工廠，運送到世界各地的船隻和貨車，我們的汽車和大樓和電氣用品，幾乎每樣東西都是。

So, how are we gonna reduce carbon 80% and not go back to living like Little House on the Prairie?

那麼我們該怎麼減少80%的碳，而又不需要回到以前住在草原小屋的生活呢？

Well, these Cap and Trade guys are saying that a new carbon stock market is the best way to get it done.

總量管制與交易制度提倡者說，全新的碳股票市場，是達到這個目的的最佳方式。

The first step would be getting governments around the world to agree to a yearly limit on carbon emissions. That’s the “cap”. I think that part’s great.

第一步就是讓世界各地的政府，對每年的碳排放量限額達成共識，這就是「總量管制」，我認為這想法非常棒。

So how do they want to insure that carbon emissions stay under this cap? Well, governments would distribute a certain amount of permits to pollute. Every year there would be fewer and fewer permits as we follow the cap to our goal.

那麼他們打算如何確保碳排放量維持在限額內呢？政府會分配某個數量的碳排放權，而隨著我們運用總量管制向目標邁進時，每年分配的碳權會愈來愈少。

Innovative companies will get on board building clean alternatives and getting more efficient. As permits get scarcer, they would also become more valuable, so naturally, companies who have extra will want to sell them to companies who still need them.

創新公司會加入，發展清潔的替代技術，提升效率。隨著碳權變得愈來愈稀少，他們也會變得愈來愈有價值，所以自然而然地，有額外額度的公司，就會想把它們賣給需要更多額度的公司。

That’s where trading comes in.

於是就有了交易。

The logic is as long as we stay under the cap, it doesn’t matter who pollutes and who innovates. We’ll meet our climate deadline, avoiding catastrophe. And oh yeah, these guys take their fee as they broker this multi-trillion dollar carbon racket, I mean market.

其中的邏輯是，只要我們能維持在限額下的話，不管是誰在污染或誰在創新，都沒有關係。我們將會達到我們為改善氣候所設下目標期限，並避開災難。而且別忘了，這些人在仲介這個價值數兆美元的碳交易勾當時…厄…我是說碳市場，還會順便賺走一筆費用。

Save the planet, get rich, what’s not to like, right? Some of my friends who really care about our future support cap and trade. A lot of environmental groups that I respect do too. They know it’s not a perfect solution and don’t love the idea of turning our planet’s future over to these guys, but they think that it is an important first step and that it’s better than nothing. I am not so sure.

拯救地球賺大錢，會有誰不喜歡的，對吧？我有些朋友真的很關心我們的未來，所以他們支持總量管制與交易制度，還有許多我尊敬的環保團體也支持。他們知道這並非完美的解決方式，也不喜歡把我們的地球交給這些人管理，但是他們認為，這是很重要的第一步，而且總比什麼都不做還要好。我並不怎麼確定。

And I’m not the only one. A growing movement of scientists, students, farmers, and forward thinking businesspeople are saying “wait a minute!”

我並非是唯一這麼想的人，有愈來愈多的科學家、學生、農夫、和思想前衛的商業人士都在[對總量控制與交易制度]說「等一等」。

In fact even the economists who invented the cap and trade system to deal with simpler problems like fertilizer pollution and sulfur dioxide, say cap and trade will never work for climate change. Here’s why I think they’re right.

事實上，甚至連為了處理像肥料污染和二氧化硫等較簡單問題，而發明總量管制和交易制度的經濟學家，都認為總量管制和交易制度對氣候變遷沒有效果。以下的理由讓我認為他們是對的。

When it comes to any kind of financial scam, like subprime mortgages or Bernie Madoff’ s pyramid scheme, the devil is always in the details. And there are a lot of devils in the details of the cap and trade proposals on the table.

當談到次級房貸或馬多夫詐欺案（Bernie Madoff’s pyramid scheme）等各式各樣的金融詐欺案時，駭人之處總是在細節部份。而且檯面上的總量控制和交易制度的提案裡，其細節就藏有很多駭人之處。

Devil number one is known as Free Permits, which is why some people call this system Cap and Giveaway. In this scheme, industrial polluters will get the vast majority of these valuable permits for free. Free!

第一項駭人之處，就是免費碳權，這就是為什麼有些人稱這個制度為「總量管制和贈送制度」。在這個制度中，工業污染者取得的這些寶貴碳權，有大部分都是免費的，免費的耶！

The more they’ve been polluting, the more they’ll get.

他們製造愈多的污染，就可以得到愈多的免費碳權。

It’ s like we’re thanking them for creating this problem in the first place.

這根本就像是我們在感謝他們製造出這些問題。

In Europe where they tried a Cap and Giveaway system, the value of the permits bounced around like crazy, energy costs jumped for consumers, and guess what?

在歐洲，他們就嘗試了總量管制和贈送制度，碳權的價格因此瘋狂上揚，消費者的能源成本也跟著上升，你猜發生什麼事？

Carbon emissions actually went up! The only part that did work was that the polluters made billions of dollars in extra profits. MIT economists say the same thing would likely happen here in the US.

碳排放量反而跟著上升！唯一成功的地方是，污染者賺到了數十億美元的額外利潤。MIT經濟學家說美國也可能會發生同樣的事情。

Those billions come from OUR pockets. A real solution would put that money to work stopping climate change.

那數十億美元的金錢來自我們的口袋。而真正的解決方法，應該會把那些錢用在阻止氣候變遷上。

Instead of just giving permits away to polluters, we could sell them and use the money to:
• build a clean energy economy
• or give citizens a dividend to help pay for higher fuel prices while we transition to that clean energy economy
• or share it with those who are most harmed by climate change. Some people call this paying our ecological debt.

與其把碳權送給污染者，我們其實可以賣給他們，然後把錢用在以下事項：
• 建造乾淨的能源經濟。
• 或發紅利給市民，協助他們支付會於我們向乾淨能源經濟轉型的期間變貴的燃料價格。
• 或是分給受氣候變遷傷害最嚴重的人，有些人稱之為償付我們的生態債。

Since we in the richest countries released the most carbon for centuries, and lived a pretty comfy lifestyle in the process, don’t we have a responsibility to help those most harmed?

由於住在最富裕國家中的我們，幾個世紀以來釋放出最多的碳，同時又過著相當舒適的生活方式，難道我們沒有責任幫助那些受到最多傷害的人嗎？

It’s like we had a big party, didn’t invite our neighbors and then stuck ‘em with the clean up bill. It’s just not cool.

這就好比說我們舉辦一場大型派對，卻沒邀請我們的鄰居，然後再把收拾殘局的帳單丟給他們付。實在很不酷。

Did you know that in the next century, because of the changing climate, whole island nations could end up underwater and the UN says 9 out of 10 African farmers could lose their ability to grow food.

你知不知道到了下個世紀，所有島嶼國家都會因為氣候變遷，而降到水面下。聯合國還說非洲農夫中，十個有九個會失去他們農作的能力。

Wouldn’t a real solution benefit these people instead of just polluters?

真正的解決方法應該是要讓這些人受益，而不是污染者，不是嗎？

Devil number two is called Offsetting.

第二項駭人之處叫做抵減。

Offset permits are created when a company supposedly removes or reduces carbon. They then get a permit which can be sold to a polluter who wants permission to emit more carbon. In theory, one activity offsets the other.

當一家公司做了應該會移除或降低碳數量的事情時，就會產生被稱之為「抵減」的碳權，然後他們就可以把取得的抵減碳權賣給想要釋放更多碳的污染者。理論上來說，一項活動可以抵銷另一項活動。

The danger with offsets is it’s very hard to guarantee that real carbon is being removed to create the permit. Yet these permits are worth real money.

抵減的風險在於，我們很難保證，是否真的有碳被移除，以產生抵減碳權，然而這些碳權卻是相當值錢的。

This creates a very dangerous incentive to create false offsets – to cheat.

如此就產生了捏造抵減的危險動機，也就是作弊。

Now in some cases cheating isn’t the end of the world, but in this case it is. And already there’s a lot of cheating going on.

就某些情況而言，作弊並不是世界末日，但是就這個情況來說，作弊卻是世界末日，而且目前早已有許多作弊的行為發生。

Like, in Indonesia, Sinar Mas corporation cut down indigenous forests, causing major ecological and cultural destruction. Then, they took the wasteland they created and planted palm oil trees. Guess what they can get for it? Yup, offset permits.

好比說，印尼的Sinar Mas公司砍伐原始林，造成重大生態和文化浩劫，然後他們在他們造成的荒地上種植棕櫚樹，你猜他們因此得到什麼呢？沒錯，就是抵減碳權。

Carbon out? No. Carbon in? You bet.

碳除去了嗎？才沒有，碳增加了嗎？當然。

Companies can even earn offsets for not doing anything at all.

甚至有公司可以什麼都不做，就獲得抵減。

Like, operators of a polluting factory can claim they were planning to expand 200% but reduced the plans to expand only 100%. For that meaningless claim, they get offset permits – permits that they can sell to someone else to make more pollution! That is so stupid!

好比說，污染工廠的經營人可以宣稱，他們打算擴廠200%，但是後來把計畫縮減到只擴廠100%。由於這麼一段無意義的聲明，他們就可以獲得抵減碳權，然後就可以把碳權賣給別人，讓別人製造更多的污染！這真是愚蠢！

The list of scams goes on and many of the worst ones happen in the so-called Third World where big business does whatever it wants, to whomever it wants. And with lax standards and regulations on offsets they can get permits for just about anything.

這種詐欺的項目數不清，而且許多最糟糕的詐欺情況都發生在所謂的第三世界裡，在那邊大企業可以為所欲為、無視於人。而且由於抵減的標準和法規相當寬鬆，所以他們幾乎可以隨隨便便就獲得碳權。

Devils one and two, Cap & Giveaway and Offsetting, make the system unfair and ineffective. But the last devil, which I call Distraction, makes it downright dangerous.

第一項和第二項駭人之處：總量管制和贈送制度以及抵減，都讓這個制度變得不公平且沒有效率，不過最後一項駭人之處，我稱為障眼法，更是使這一切變得危險。

See, there are real solutions out there, but cap and trade with its loopholes and promises of riches have made many people forget all about them.

你瞧，目前早已有許多真正的解決方案，不過充滿漏洞而且保證可以賺錢的總量管制和交易制度，早已讓許多人忘掉這些解決方案。

We’re not even close to a global agreement on a carbon cap to begin with, and duh, this is the whole point of cap and trade. But instead of hammering out a fair and strong deal, we’re putting the cart before the horse and rushing off to trade schemes and offsets.

世界各國甚至都還沒有對碳排放的總量達成共識，而這個量正是總量控制和交易制度的精髓，但是我們並未設計出公平且健全的方案，而是本末倒置地匆忙著手交易計畫和抵減。

With all the bogus offset projects, huge giveaways to polluters, and the failure to address the injustices of climate change, do you think the Third World will get on board with a global cap? I doubt it. If a cap and trade proposal is stopping us from actually capping carbon, it’s a dangerous distraction.

有這麼多捏造的抵減計畫，贈送給污染者的龐大碳權，還有無法處理氣候變遷的不公義之處，你認為第三世界國家還會想參加全球碳總量管制嗎？我覺得不會，如果總量管制和交易制度，其實會妨礙我們限制碳排放量時，那麼這種障眼法真的是相當危險。

We don’t need to let these guys design the solution. We – us, our governments – we can make laws and do it ourselves.

我們不需要讓這些人來設計解決方案，我們…也就是我們的政府，我們可以制定法律，一切自己來。

In my country, we already have a law – the Clean Air Act – that confrms that carbon is a pollutant which our environmental agency is allowed to cap. So what are we waiting for? Go EPA go! Cap that carbon!

在美國已經有法律了，也就是清淨空氣法，這項法規了確認了碳是污染物，而且環保機關可以予以總量管制。那麼我們到底在等什麼？環保署加油！把碳管一管吧！

Instead, a U.S. cap and trade law proposed in 2009 guts the
Clean Air Act, leaving it to the market to fix the problem. If a cap and trade proposal weakens our ability to make strong laws, it’s a distraction.

不過美國在2009年提出的一項總量管制和交易法案，排除掉清淨空氣法，把問題丟給市場去解決。如果總量管制和交易制度削弱我們制定強力法律的能力，那麼它就是種障眼法。

Concerned citizens around the world need to speak out and demand we redesign our economies away from fossil fuels. But cap and trade makes citizens think everything will be okay if we just drive a little less, change our light bulbs and let these guys do the rest. If cap and trade creates a false sense of progress, it’s a dangerous distraction.

世界各地關心這個議題的公民需要說出他們想法和要求，我們要重新設計經濟架構，遠離化石燃料。不過總量管制和交易制度會讓這些公民認為，只要我們少開點車，換燈泡，並且讓這些人處理其它事情，一切就會好轉沒事。如果總量管制和交易制度製造出進步的錯覺，這就是危險的障眼法。

These cap and trade proposals are mostly about protecting business as usual.

這些總量管制和交易制度的提案，絕大多數是在保護一如往常的作法。

Right now, the US subsidizes fossil fuels at more than twice the rate of renewables. What? We shouldn’t be subsidizing fossil fuels at all!

目前美國補助化石燃料的費率，是再生能源價格的兩倍。這是怎麼回事？我們根本不該補助化石燃料！

These guys don’t seem to realize that the simplest way to keep carbon out of the atmosphere is to leave it safely in the ground.

這些人似乎不瞭解，不要讓碳進入大氣層的最簡單方法，就是讓碳安全地待在地底下就好。

U.S. congressman, Rick Boucher, a well-known friend of the coal industry voted for cap and trade. He said it “strengthens the case for utilities to continue to use coal.”

美國國會議員Rick Boucher，是相當知名的煤炭工業好友，他投票支持總量管制和交易制度。他說：「這有助於電力事業繼續使用煤炭。」

No law that encourages coal use can stop climate change. Period.

鼓勵使用煤炭的法律，絕對無法阻止氣候變遷。這點毋庸置疑。

Solid caps, strong laws, citizen action, and carbon fees to pay off ecological debt and create a clean energy economy, that’s how we can save our future.

確實的總量管制、強有力的法律、公民行動、碳稅（費），以便償還生態債，並建立乾淨能源經濟，這就是我們拯救未來的方法。

Next time someone tells you Cap and Trade is the best we’re gonna get, don’t believe them! Better yet, talk to them. They probably want a future safe from climate change too. Maybe they’ve just forgotten that you can only compromise to a point before a solution isn’t really a solution.

下次有人告訴你總量管制和交易制度是當前最棒的方法時，請不要相信他們！最好是，你要告訴他們，他們大概也希望他們的未來能夠不受氣候變遷威脅。或許他們只是忘記，妥協也要有其限度，不能讓解決方案變得無法真正解決問題。

I know we’d all love to sacrifice nothing, save the planet and get rich doing it. But get real! This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.

我知道我們都不喜歡有所犧牲，就可以拯救地球，同時還能賺錢，但是請醒醒吧！這是人類有史以來，所面臨的最大危機。

We can’t solve it with the mindset – their mindset – that got us into this mess. We need something new

我們想解決問題的話，就不能有這種心態…或者說那些人的心態，就是他們這種心態讓我們掉進這淌混水。我們需要全新的作法。

It won’t be easy, but it’s time we dream bigger. It’s time to design a climate solution that will really work.

雖然這麼做並不容易，但是我們應該要把夢做大，應該要設計出真正有效的氣候解決方案，而且現在正是時候了。

資訊來源:
http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/48972