尊敬的用户您好，这是来自FT中文网的温馨提示：如您对更多FT中文网的内容感兴趣，请在苹果应用商店或谷歌应用市场搜索“FT中文网”，下载FT中文网的官方应用。
There is a curious idea doing the rounds on the right: that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity but that European countries cannot meaningfully shape whether the world reaches net zero and is thus able to limit warming. Adding a new fear to flying, Kemi Badenoch opted to use this heatwave week to travel to Stansted airport and criticise the Labour government’s “ideological” focus on net zero.
右翼中流传着一个奇怪的观点：气候变化确实存在，是由人类活动引起的，但欧洲国家无法真正影响全球是否能够实现净零排放，从而限制全球变暖。在这个热浪来袭的一周，凯米•巴德诺赫(Kemi Badenoch)前往斯坦斯特德机场，借机批评工党政府对净零排放的“意识形态”执着，也让人们对飞行多了一层担忧。
What is unexpected about this line is that there is a good point in there somewhere. It may well be that despite major advances in solar and renewable energy, the world is not going to reach net zero by the 21st century’s halfway mark. It may well be that smaller countries need to accept that the battle against climate change is being lost at the moment.
这句话出人意料之处在于，其中确实包含了一个有道理的观点。尽管太阳能和可再生能源取得了重大进展，全球到本世纪中叶可能仍无法实现净零排放。较小的国家也许需要接受这样一个现实：目前，遏制气候变化的斗争正在失利。
It’s also true, as the OBR reiterated last week, that the costs of not reaching net zero are considerably higher than the costs of reaching it. If you think that we are going to have to spend those far larger sums anyway, then it is not unreasonable to think that we need to prioritise measures that both decarbonise and adapt for a warmer world at the same time. (For instance, the fact that the British government currently provides grants to heat pumps, so long as those pumps cannot also provide air conditioning, is perverse.)
正如预算责任办公室(OBR)上周重申的那样，不实现净零排放所带来的成本远高于实现净零排放的成本。如果你认为我们无论如何都不得不花费更高昂的代价，那么优先考虑那些既能实现脱碳、又能适应更温暖全球环境的措施，就是合理的。(例如，英国政府目前为热泵提供补助金，只要这些热泵不能同时提供空调，这种做法是不正常的）。
What these critics of net zero actually seem to envisage is not a world in which states switch from spending money on the climate transition to spending larger sums on adaptation and resilience, but one in which we and the planet agree to put all of this unpleasantness behind us and spend money on neither.
这些对“净零”目标持批评态度的人，实际上设想的并不是各国将资金从气候转型转向更大规模的适应和韧性投入，而是我们与全球都同意将所有这些令人不快的事情抛诸脑后，既不为此花钱，也不采取任何行动。
The world as viewed by Badenoch seems to be one in which the UK accepts that it cannot meet its net zero obligations, and also one in which our Victorian infrastructure, all those buildings designed for moderate temperatures, manages, through force of will or some other miracle, to hold up just fine even as the climate changes.
在巴德诺赫看来，世界似乎是这样的：英国承认自己无法实现净零排放的承诺，而我们那些为温和气候而设计的维多利亚时代基础设施和建筑，凭借意志力或某种奇迹，即使在气候变化的情况下，也依然能够完好无损地运转。
You can have reasonable arguments about what policy mix of adaptation and mitigation is the right one. If you choose no mitigation, then you are always chasing your own tail as the costs of climate change go up and up. But with no adaptation you are accepting more and more summers like this one, in which many people in Europe will die before their time because of excessive heat.
对于适应与减缓的政策组合何为最佳，人们可以有合理的争论。如果选择不采取减缓措施，那么随着气候变化成本的不断上升，你将永远陷入被动追赶的局面。但如果不进行适应，就意味着你要接受越来越多像今年这样的夏天，许多欧洲人会因酷热而过早去世。
When it comes to its impact on the future, climate change is the most significant of the crises facing the world: but the magical thinking surrounding it can be found almost everywhere. Take the fact that most wealthy democracies have ageing populations, with a shrinking share of working-age individuals. They also have public policy obligations, which were entered into when they were far younger countries, and from which there is no plausible political route out. Even autocracies cannot escape the need to pay pensions and while democracies can find ways to finesse what and how they pay, anyone who thinks “just cut back” is a viable option if you want to hold on to power, is kidding themselves.
就对未来的影响而言，气候变化是全球面临的最严重危机。然而，围绕气候变化的“魔法思维”几乎无处不在。以大多数富裕民主国家为例，这些国家的人口正在老龄化，劳动年龄人口的比例不断缩小。同时，它们还承担着在国家更为年轻时就已确立的公共政策义务，而这些义务几乎没有现实的政治途径可以摆脱。即使是专制国家也无法逃避支付养老金的责任，而民主国家虽然可以在支付方式和内容上做些调整，但如果有人认为‘只要削减开支’就是维持政权的可行办法，那无疑是在自欺欺人。
Like climate change, ageing populations are something that require states to do things differently: they impose limits on what the politicians of the day can achieve and instead leave them with obligations.
和气候变化一样，人口老龄化也要求各国采取不同的做法：它们对当今政治家能够实现的目标设定了限制，同时也带来了必须履行的责任。
It is that feeling of chafing under unwanted obligations that makes politicians so keen to find a way out of thinking about climate change. Most people do not go into politics because they want to manage crises — instead, they resent crises because they sap the time and the energy they would rather spend focusing on the reasons they did go into politics, whatever they may be.
正是那种对不情愿义务感到厌烦的情绪，让政客们如此渴望找到逃避思考气候变化的方法。大多数人并不是因为想要应对危机才进入政治——相反，他们讨厌危机，因为危机会消耗他们本希望用来专注于自己进入政治初衷的时间和精力，无论这些初衷是什么。
The reason why it is tempting to imagine that we can just declare net zero unachievable and move on is that, for many politicians, it means being able to focus on the stuff that excites them, be it social policy or economics or regulation. Similarly, ignoring the ageing population allows you to put off difficult conversations with your electorate or your party about how, exactly, you are going to provide healthcare and welfare for all of them.
之所以有人倾向于认为我们可以直接宣布实现净零排放无法实现，然后继续前行，是因为对许多政客来说，这样他们就能把注意力集中在令他们感兴趣的事务上，无论是社会政策、经济还是监管。同样，忽视人口老龄化问题，也让你能够推迟与选民或党内成员进行艰难对话，比如究竟要如何为所有人提供医疗和福利。
The problem is that neither the changing climate nor ageing populations will wait for politicians who would rather think about something else. They won’t proceed at a speed that meets their electorates’ desires to avoid higher taxes and/or higher immigration. Genuine realism in politics is recognising that you have to deal with the circumstances you actually face, not the ones that you want to. The truly “ideological” decision is to think that the pressures on our planet and our public finances can be deferred in favour of easier topics and smaller challenges.
问题在于，无论是气候变化还是人口老龄化，都不会等待那些宁愿把注意力转向其他事务的政治家。这些问题的发展速度也不会迎合选民们希望避免更高税收和/或更高移民数量的愿望。真正的现实主义在于承认你必须应对现实中所面临的环境，而不是你所期望的环境。真正的“意识形态”决定，是认为我们可以把地球和公共财政所面临的压力推迟，去处理更容易的话题和更小的挑战。