低碳生活？没那么简单

Even the experts can tie themselves in knots. Duncan Clark, author of The Rough Guide to Green Living, unveiled “10 eco-myths” in a Guardian podcast in November. Many of them were well chosen, but unfortunately his number one “myth” was not a myth at all: that switching off lights will reduce CO2 emissions. Clark's logic is seductive: some European carbon emissions, including those generated by electricity, are subject to a cap. Clark is right to say that conserving electricity will allow other sectors to take up the resulting slack, because they will be able to buy permits to emit more cheaply than if we left our lights blazing.
就连专家也会把自己弄糊涂。去年11月，《绿色生活简明指南》一书的作者克拉克在卫报的播客 中揭露了“环保的十大误区”。其中许多条都选得不错，但遗憾的是，他所说的第一个“误区”根本不是误区：随手关灯将减少碳排放。克拉克的逻辑很具诱惑性：欧洲某些部门的碳排放，包括电产生的那些排放，都受到上限约束。因此，克拉克有关节约用电不过会让其它部门得以利用由此省下的那部分限额的说法是对的，因为与任凭灯火通明相比，省电让这些部门能够买到碳排放许可，从而以更低廉的成本排放二氧化碳。
　　
Where Clark goes wrong is in assuming the cap will remain fixed forever. If we all turn out our lights, the price of permits will fall and politicians will find it politically easier to tighten the cap. So, keep installing those energy-efficient light bulbs. (Another less-than-obvious truth is that it's not worth waiting for your old bulbs to burn out before you fit the new ones.)
但克拉克的错误在于假定那个上限会永远保持不变。如果我们大家都把灯关掉，碳排放许可的价格就会下降，政治家们会发现收紧上限所面临的政治阻力降低。因此，让我们继续安装那些节能灯泡吧。（另一个不那么显而易见的事实是，等到你的旧灯泡烧坏再换新灯泡是不合算的。）
　　
After picking through the ideas of Vaze, Clark, David MacKay (a Cambridge physicist) and others, my view is that it is hopeless to expect that volunteers will navigate this maze of decisions.
仔细了解过瓦兹、克拉克和麦凯——剑桥大学的一名物理学家——等人的观点之后，我的看法是，不要指望志愿者们能够理清这一团谜宫般的决定。
　　
That is why a broad-based, credible carbon price will be the foundation of any successful policy on climate change. The price would affect the cost of every decision we make; it would take away the guesswork. Current carbon pricing schemes, such as the European emissions trading scheme, are a good start, but they leave out too many sectors, and permits are too cheap.
这正是一个基础广泛、公平可靠的碳价格体系之所以将成为气候变化政策成功基石的原因。碳价格会影响我们每一个决定的成本，能够排除一切臆测。目前的碳定价机制（例如欧洲的碳排放交易机制）是一个良好的开端，但它们遗漏了太多的行业，而且排放许可的价格过低。
　　
And a final admission: not every feature of the low-carbon lifestyle is impossibly obscure. I felt rather smug when I realised I could stop drinking cappuccino in favour of espresso, saving 90kg of CO2 a year. Then I totted up my carbon footprint from air travel in 2009. It is the equivalent of almost 50 tonnes of CO2 – or more than the entire footprint of a typical British family of three. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to shrink that particular footprint. This year I shall do better.
最后我得承认：并不是低碳生活方式的所有特征都晦涩得让人无法想象。当我意识到，用意式浓咖啡取代卡布其诺后，我可以每年减少90千克的二氧化碳排放量时，感到颇为自得。接着我合计了自己2009年乘飞机出行产生的碳足迹，结果相当于近50吨二氧化碳——比一个英国典型的三口之家一年的碳足迹总量还要多。不需要什么天赋，你就能知道该如何缩减这部分碳足迹。今年我会做得更好。