世界上最富有的10%的人排放了高達43%的碳

世界上最富有的10%的人排放了高達43%的碳

There are two ways to think about carbon emissions; one is production, which measures the CO2 emissions of each country (and where most nations have agreed to reductions under the Paris Accord).

有兩種方式來考慮碳排放;一個是生產，衡量每個國家的二氧化碳排放量(大多數國家已經同意在巴黎協(xié)議下減少二氧化碳排放量)。

But if I buy a Haier air conditioner or a Samsung washing machine, who is responsible for all of the upfront carbon emissions that came from manufacturing them, or the raw materials that went into them? Should it accrue to China and South Korea or to me in North America? After all, they are making the stuff that I want and I am buying. That's why measuring consumption is, I believe, a more sensible method of accounting for carbon emissions.

但如果我買了一臺海爾(Haier)的空調或三星(Samsung)的洗衣機，誰該為生產這些產品所產生的前期碳排放負責呢?是應該歸中國和韓國，還是歸北美的我?畢竟，他們在做我想要的東西，而我在買。這就是為什么我認為，衡量消費是一種更合理的計算碳排放的方法。

A giant Jeep crushes the verdant landscape.Lloyd Alter

A new study, Scientists’ warning on affluence, demonstrates what a big problem our increasing consumption actually is. Even as our homes and cars become more efficient, we buy more and bigger stuff. 一項名為“科學家對富裕的警告”的新研究表明，我們日益增長的消費實際上是一個大問題。即使我們的房子和汽車變得更節(jié)能，我們也會買更多更大的東西。

The authors note (as we do in our 1.5 degree lifestyle series) that "consumers are the ultimate drivers of production, with their purchasing decisions setting in motion a series of trade transactions and production activities, rippling along complex international supply-chain networks." It isn't the entire picture; the consumers do not have control of the choices made by the manufacturers, and one South Korean clothes dryer can be a lot greener than the next, both in its manufacture and its operation. But the consumer is the one who makes the decision to buy a dryer in the first place, or whether just to use a clothesline.

兩位作者指出(正如我們在1.5度生活方式系列中所做的那樣)“消費者是生產的最終驅動者，他們的購買決定推動著一系列貿易交易和生產活動，影響著復雜的國際供應鏈網絡。”這不是全部;消費者無法控制制造商的選擇，而且無論是在生產還是操作上，一臺韓國烘衣機都可能比另一臺要環(huán)保得多。但是消費者是決定購買烘干機的人，還是決定是否使用晾衣繩的人。

GDP and manufacturing are going up faster than carbon. From study

In fact, as this graph shows, there has been some progress in reducing the carbon intensity of what we do; the Global GDP and the Global Material Footprint (equal to all our material extraction) is diverging a bit from the CO2 FFI (fossil fuel and industrial processes) but being more carbon-efficient isn't enough; it is still going up. It has to go down.

事實上，如圖所示，我們在降低碳強度方面已經取得了一些進展;全球GDP和全球物質足跡(相當于我們提取的所有物質)與二氧化碳FFI(化石燃料和工業(yè)過程)有所偏離，但僅僅提高碳效率是不夠的;它還在上升。它必須下降。

Reduce Consumption, Don't Just "Green" It

減少消費，而不僅僅是“綠色”消費

The authors conclude that the only way to address the issue is by reducing consumption, "not just greening it."

作者得出結論，解決這個問題的唯一途徑是減少消耗，“而不僅僅是依靠綠色消費”。

Among other things that the authors point out is the need for "the adoption of less affluent, simpler and sufficiency-oriented lifestyles to address overconsumption – consuming better but less."

在其他方面，作者指出需要“采用不那么富裕、簡單、以滿足為導向的生活方式來解決過度消費——更好但更少地消費。”

Sufficiency Before Efficiency

充分先于效率

The future we want: teslas, powerwalls, solar shingles. Screen capture of Elon Musk

Sufficiency is a subject dear to our Treehugger hearts, but as I have often noted, it is a tough sell; rich people would rather have solar shingles, powerwalls, and electric cars, when a sufficient lifestyle would be very different.

對于我們這些抱樹狂的心來說，“自足”是一個很重要的話題，但正如我經常提到的，這很難實行;富裕的人們想要擁有太陽能瓦、電力墻和電動汽車，而充足的生活方式將是非常不同的。

Sufficiency vs efficiency is what we have been talking about on TreeHugger for years; live in smaller spaces, in walkable neighborhoods where you can bike instead of drive.

充分性vs效率是我們在環(huán)保博客上談論多年的話題;住在較小的空間里，住在適合步行的社區(qū)，在那里你可以騎自行車而不是開車。

There are a number of ways to get people to reduce their consumption and carbon emissions; global pandemics have been shown to work well, as do depressions and economic collapse. The authors are pointing to a Wellbeing Economy, but I like to direct our attention to a sufficiency economy, like the kind you get when people live a 1.5 degree lifestyle. It's better than the alternatives.

有很多方法可以讓人們減少消費和碳排放;全球大流行病以及經濟蕭條和經濟崩潰的效果都很好。作者們指出了一個幸福的經濟，但我想把我們的注意力放在一個充足的經濟上，就像人們生活在1.5度的生活方式中所得到的那種。這比其他選擇都好。