報(bào)告:沒有一個(gè)國家有能力為兒童提供安全的未來

報(bào)告:沒有一個(gè)國家有能力為兒童提供安全的未來

No country in the world is currently positioned to provide a healthy childhood coupled with a healthy environment fit for the future, according to a Unicef-World Health Organization-Lancet Commission Report that was released on February 18, 2020.

根據(jù)聯(lián)合國兒童基金會(huì)-世界衛(wèi)生組織-柳葉刀委員會(huì)于2020年2月18日發(fā)布的一份報(bào)告，目前世界上沒有一個(gè)國家，能夠提供一個(gè)健康的童年和一個(gè)適合未來的健康環(huán)境。

‘Healthy childhood’ has been measured by the ‘flourishing index’ which includes measures for child survival and well-being such as health, education, and nutrition. The healthy environment has been measured by ‘sustainability index’, including a proxy for greenhouse gas emissions.

“健康的童年”是通過“繁榮指數(shù)”來衡量的，其中包括兒童生存和健康的指標(biāo)，如健康、教育和營養(yǎng)。健康的環(huán)境是通過“可持續(xù)性指數(shù)”來衡量的，其中包括一個(gè)代表溫室氣體排放的指數(shù)。

If one is to view the picture only in terms of flourishing index, one has to go by the ranks that various countries have been given according to their performance on various indicators of sustainable development goals (SDGs) related to children. The first 33 positions are occupied by high-income countries starting with Norway, South Korea, the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Belgium, Iceland and the UK.

如果我們只從繁榮指數(shù)的角度來看待這幅圖，那么我們就必須按照各國在兒童相關(guān)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)(SDGs)各項(xiàng)指標(biāo)上的表現(xiàn)來衡量它們的排名。排在前33位的是高收入國家，首先是挪威、韓國、荷蘭、法國、愛爾蘭、丹麥、日本、比利時(shí)、冰島和英國。

No low-middle-income (LMIC) country figures in the first 50 positions.

前50個(gè)職位中沒有低收入國家的數(shù)據(jù)。

However, if one thought that just good development indices for children would ensure a better future, one would be grossly mistaken.

然而，如果有人認(rèn)為只有良好的兒童發(fā)展指數(shù)才能確保一個(gè)更好的未來，那就大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)了。

The report, that has been prepared by more than 40 global experts, said that while high income countries may ensure good development indices for their children, they offset it with high greenhouse gas emissions.

這份由40多名全球?qū)＜易珜懙膱?bào)告稱，盡管高收入國家可能會(huì)確保本國兒童獲得良好的發(fā)展指數(shù)，但它們會(huì)以高溫室氣體排放來抵消這一影響。

They rank good in terms of the flourishing index but when it comes to ecological sustainability, which is marked as sustainability index in the report, they rank at the bottom of the pyramid. The vice-versa is true for lower-income countries.

它們?cè)诜睒s指數(shù)方面排名靠前，但在生態(tài)可持續(xù)性方面，也就是報(bào)告中所稱的可持續(xù)性指數(shù)，它們卻排在金字塔的底部。低收入國家的情況則相反。

Sample this. Burundi, a small east African country, which ranks 156th in the flourishing index, ranks first in the sustainability index. The ten best countries other than Burundi to feature in the sustainability index are Chad, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Repubic, Malawi, Rwanda, Mali, Niger and Madagascar. Other than Rwanda, all these top sustainability index countries rank below 150 in flourishing index.

這個(gè)示例。布隆迪，一個(gè)東非小國，在繁榮指數(shù)中排名第156，在可持續(xù)性指數(shù)中排名第一。除布隆迪外，乍得、索馬里、剛果民主共和國、中非共和國、馬拉維、盧旺達(dá)、馬里、尼日爾和馬達(dá)加斯加是最適合列入可持續(xù)發(fā)展指數(shù)的10個(gè)國家。除了盧旺達(dá)，所有這些可持續(xù)發(fā)展指數(shù)排名靠前的國家在繁榮指數(shù)中都低于150。

“The ecological damage unleashed today endangers the future of children’s lives on our planet, their only home. As a result, our understanding of progress on child health and well-being must give priority to measures of ecological sustainability and equity to ensure we protect all children, including the most vulnerable,” the report read.

“今天所造成的生態(tài)破壞危及兒童在我們星球上的未來生活，這是他們唯一的家園。因此，我們對(duì)兒童健康和福祉進(jìn)展的理解必須優(yōu)先考慮生態(tài)可持續(xù)性和公平性的措施，以確保我們保護(hù)所有兒童，包括最脆弱的兒童。”報(bào)告寫道。

The irony can be understood by the following. Norway, South Korea, and the Netherlands rank first, second and third on current child flourishing. But these countries are 156th (Norway), 166th (South Korea), and 160th (the Netherlands) on the global sustainability list. Their per capita carbon emissions are 210 per cent higher than the 2030 targets.

這種諷刺可以從以下幾個(gè)方面來理解。挪威、韓國和荷蘭在當(dāng)前的兒童繁榮方面分別排在第一、第二和第三位。但在全球可持續(xù)發(fā)展名單上，這些國家分別排在第156位(挪威)、第166位(韓國)和第160位(荷蘭)。它們的人均碳排放量比2030年的目標(biāo)高出210%。

“Under widely-used business-as-usual scenarios, there is a 93 per cent chance that global warming will exceed four degrees Celsius by 2100. This would have devastating health consequences due to disruption of water and ecosystems, rising ocean levels, inundation of coastal cities and small island nations, increased mortality from heatwaves, proliferation of vector-borne disease, and a crisis of malnutrition because of disruption to food production systems,” the report said.

“如果一切照舊，到2100年全球變暖超過4攝氏度的可能性為93%。”由于水和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的破壞、海平面上升、沿海城市和小島嶼國家被淹沒、熱浪造成的死亡率上升、病媒傳播疾病的擴(kuò)散以及糧食生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)的破壞造成的營養(yǎng)不良危機(jī)，這將產(chǎn)生毀滅性的健康后果。”報(bào)告說。

So, while poor countries need to invest more in improving health and nutrition of children, the disproportionately high carbon emissions by the rich countries make children vulnerable across the globe.

因此，盡管貧窮國家需要在改善兒童健康和營養(yǎng)方面加大投資，但富裕國家不成比例的高碳排放使全球兒童處于弱勢(shì)。

The only countries on track to beat carbon dioxide emission per capita targets by 2030, while also performing fairly (within the top 70) on child flourishing measures are Albania, Armenia, Grenada, Jordan, Moldova, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Vietnam.

只有阿爾巴尼亞、亞美尼亞、格林納達(dá)、約旦、摩爾多瓦、斯里蘭卡、突尼斯和越南有望在2030年達(dá)到人均二氧化碳排放目標(biāo)，同時(shí)在促進(jìn)兒童發(fā)展的措施上表現(xiàn)良好(排在前70名以內(nèi))。

It is not just flourishing and carbon emissions coming into play when it comes to tracing a trajectory of children’s future. Another important factor is junk foods and the aggressive marketing to amplify their message.

在追蹤兒童未來的軌跡時(shí)，不僅僅是繁榮和碳排放在起作用。另一個(gè)重要的因素是垃圾食品和積極的推廣他們的廣告。

While it is a settled principle that addictive or unhealthy commodities, including fast foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, alcohol, and tobacco are major causes of non-communicable diseases among children, ironically, it is children who are at the centre of the aggressive advertisement campaigns of these companies.

雖然上癮或不健康的商品，包括快餐、含糖飲料、酒精和煙草是兒童非傳染性疾病的主要原因，這是一個(gè)既定的原則，但具有諷刺意味的是，這些公司的激進(jìn)廣告活動(dòng)的中心是兒童。

“Children around the world are enormously exposed to advertisements: the average young person in the USA sees 13,000–30,000 advertisements just on television each year,” the report cites an example to drive home the point.

報(bào)告引用了一個(gè)例子來說明這一點(diǎn):“世界各地的兒童都大量接觸廣告:美國年輕人平均每年在電視上看到1.3萬至3萬個(gè)廣告。”