环保消费新观念 绿色血拼新时尚
"Consumption is a tricky issue for us, but we need to start talking about it."
"对于人类来说，资源的消耗是一件棘手的问题。然而，我们必须开始谈及这些问题。"
So says Peter Lehner, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is welcome news. Like the other big environmental NGOs, NRDC has shied away from telling people what to eat (less red meat and dairy), what kinds of cars to drive (smaller ones), whether to fly (not too much) or how many homes to own (one).
自然资源保护协会（以下简称为NRDC）的执行董事彼得·雷纳如是说。那这就是一个利好消息。因为自然资源保护协会和其它非政府机构一样，常常羞于告诉人们怎么吃（少吃红肉和乳制品）、用什么样的汽车（小的越好）、是否坐飞机（次数不要太多）和有多少个总部（一个）。
That may be about to change.
看来，这将要改变了。
I spoke to Lehner (right) last week after a three-day Climate, Mind and Behavior symposium sponsored by NRDC and the Garrison Institute, a nonprofit whose program on "transformational ecology" is led by Jonathan F.P. Rose, a New York real estate developer who also sits on NRDC's board. The event was designed to explore ways to change behavior on a scale big enough to have a major impact on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
上周，NRDC 和驻军研究所（这是由房地产开发商、NRDC董事成员乔纳森·FP·罗斯主导的非营利组织，它们的宗旨是"生态转型"）共同发起了一个《气候、心理和行为》的讨论会。会后，我和雷纳进行了交谈。这次的讨论会旨在探索各种方法，以便彻底地改变人们的行为，力求减少温室气体的排放。
The stellar group of participants included environmentalists, investors and business people and academics.
参与讨论会人员主要包括环保人士、投资者、商业人士和学者。
The headline out of the event: Simple and inexpensive changes could reduce global warming emissions by one billion tons.
而这次讨论会的主题是：简单而花费少的行为改变能减少一亿吨温室气体的排放。
Put another way, the NRDC says changes in behavior could generate as many reductions as one of the "climate stabilization wedges" made famous (at least among climate geeks) by Princeton professors Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow in this 2004 article in Science.
NRDC还表示，换一种说法，行为的改变能产生很多的减少，而这些减少就是"气候稳定楔子"（史提芬·珀卡勒和罗伯特·索科洛于 2004年在《科学》中发表了关于"气候稳定楔子"的文章，并因此在气象爱好者中成名）。
As Lehner puts it: "If all Americans acted together, by taking fairly modest steps, many of which are cost-saving or cost-neutral and will give them better lives, we could eliminate emissions equivalent to those of the entire nation of Germany."
就像雷纳所说的："假如全部美国人都一起行动，走出他们恰当的一步，而这一步恰恰能节约成本或适当消费，也能为他们带来更好的生活，那么，我们就能减少等同于整个德国的温室气体排放量。"
"People often ask, if I change my behavior, what difference will it make?" Lehner goes on. "This analysis showed that it makes a lot of difference. That's exciting."
"人们常常在问，如果我改变我的行为，那会有什么不同呢？"雷纳继续说道，"我们的分析显示，改变将是翻天覆地。这让我们很兴奋。"
He hastens to add that individual actions cannot be a substitute for the policy changes needed to curb emissions and promote clean energy. Instead, he hopes, personal and individual actions will lead to activism.
他接着补充，个人的行动并不能取代政策的改变，而这些政策能促进温室气体排放的减少和清洁能源的开发。雷纳还希望，除此以外，个人行动能付诸实践。
"If you start biking to work, you may become more active in your community, to make sure there are bike lanes," he says. "Policy is no longer abstract. It's very real."
雷纳好说："如果你开始骑车上班，那你要在社区里面变得更积极，还要确保要有自行车道。之后，政策将不再模糊，而是渐渐清晰。"
Here are some of the recommendations from NRDC and the Garrison Institute. They may sound familiar, but bear with me - there's a potential for new thinking here:
以下是一些NRDC和驻军研究所提出的部分建议。这些建议听起来很常见，但是这需要斟酌--因为里面促使你有新想法。
• Fly once less per year: The average one-way commercial flight from London to Los Angeles produces more GHG emissions per passenger than the average British commuter produces yearly by car, train, and subway combined. While it would be unreasonable to expect those who fly only one or two times per year to give up their flight (that flight could well be their vacation), frequent flyers, and especially business travelers, could take advantage of alternative options like telecommuting to cut down on air travel.
·一年只坐一次飞机，或不坐：在每趟从伦敦飞往洛杉矶的商务航班飞行中，乘客人均排放的温室气体量要远远高于每年使用月票的汽车乘客、火车乘客和地铁乘客。然而，要那些每年只乘坐航班1-2次的乘客不要坐飞机是不切实际的（某趟旅程或是他们的假期），而是那些频繁的"飞行员"（特别是商务乘客）可以选择另外一种方式工作，例如利用电脑远程工作，这样能减少飞行的次数。
• Consume less red meat and dairy: All meats are not created equal. While the average pound of beef consumed in the United States is responsible for 20 pounds of emissions, a pound of chicken is responsible for less than two. Today's average American consumes a prodigious quantity of red meat, the equivalent of one McDonald's Angus Bacon and Cheese Burger per day. Replacing two days' servings of red meat with poultry will reduce emissions by more than 70 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMtCO2e) in 2020. Dairy cattle similarly produce vast quantities of GHG emissions. Dropping dairy two days per week in favor of plant-based foods is not only healthy-animal fats are closely correlated to obesity, diabetes and many forms of cancer-but will save more than 35 MMtCO2e in 2020.
·少吃红肉和少喝乳制品：所有肉类制品在消耗中排放的温室气体量并不一样。在美国，人们吃掉每磅牛肉，就会产生20磅的温室气体，而每当吃掉一磅鸡肉，产生的温室气体少于2磅。现在，每个美国人吃掉的红肉数量大得惊人，相当于每天吃去麦当劳的一份安格斯培根加一份芝士汉堡。而用家禽类食物取代两天份的红肉食物，就能在2020年减少70公吨等量的二氧化碳。另外，乳制品的消耗也同样产生大量的温室气体。每周两天不吃乳制品，而是多吃些以植物为基础的食物。这些食物不仅健康--动物脂肪与肥胖、糖尿病，还有多种的癌症有密切联系--而且还能在2020年节约35公吨等量的二氧化碳。
• Consume paper and plastics more responsibly: Buying recycled paper, stemming the flow of unwanted catalogs by two-thirds, and reducing printer paper consumption by one-third (easily achieved by printing doublesided) will save more than 50 MMtCO2e in 2020. Dropping bottled water consumption by 50 percent in that same timeframe will save another 8 MMtCO2e.
·适量地使用纸张和塑料：人们要购买循环使用的纸张，减少2/3不必要的目录纸张，并且减少1/3打印纸的使用（双面打印就能达到这个目标），这样做能在2020年减少50公吨的等量二氧化碳。另外，在一段时间里面减少50%沸水的使用，就能减少排放8公吨等量的二氧化碳。
I've deliberately selected the recommendations that affect consumption. Others are less controversial and more familiar: Replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs, reduce motor vehicle idling, fix leaks and heat loss in your house, unplug appliances and turn the thermostat down a bit in winter and up a bit in summer (cardigan not required).
因为其它的缺少争议而且都很熟悉，于是我特意选择了影响排放量的建议：用节能灯取代白炽灯、减少摩托车的滴塑行驶、修理房子里的漏水处和散热处、拔开插头和让自动调节器的冬天温度低些而夏天温度高些。
So what's new here? Two things, I think.
那么，有什么新观点呢？我认为有两个。
The first is that the science of behavioral economics, along with new work being done around happiness studies and climate change communications, offer fresh insights into how to get people to change. I've written about these developments before (see What's for lunch? Behavioral economics meets climate change and How to talk about climate change) and they are exciting.
第一，行为经济学所做的工作，和那些围绕着快乐研究和气候改变通讯系统一起，为怎样改变人们提供了新的观点。我之前曾写过这样的建议（参考《什么是午餐？行为经济学与气候改变想碰撞和怎样谈论气候变化》），而且这些建议让人十分兴奋。
One of the fundamental insights of behavioral economics is that people are not merely the rational, self-interested beings of Economics 101, but also emotional creatures, capable of altruism and influenced by the behavior of others. Much of our political discourse, including the debate about climate-change policies, focuses around the question of "what's in it for me?" (This is why we hear so much about "green jobs.") Some behavioral economists argue that environmentalists would do well to appeal to our better natures.
而行为经济学中的其中一个基本观点是：人类不仅仅是《经济101》中所提到拥有理性和自私，他们还是有感情的生物，敢于帮助别人，并且会受到其他人的影响。许多政治性的演讲，包括气候改变政策的争论，人们都会关注问题"我在里面会获得什么？"（这就是为什么词语"绿色工作"总是频繁出现。）部分行为经济家表示，环保人士会利好自然环境。
Here are a couple of brief excerpts from a draft paper by RPI's John Gowdy, who spoke at the event:
以下是RPI的约翰·高迪在讨论会上发言的部分摘录：
In contrast to the policy recommendations of most economists, relying on monetary incentives to tackle collective choice problems like global warming can actually have perverse effects. As many environmental philosophers have argued (Norton 2005; O'Neal 1993) giving people a shared responsibility and appealing directly to a sense of the common good is a much more effective way of gaining acceptance for environmental policies...
与大部分经济学家的政策建议相比，通过对货币激励政策的依赖而抓住共同选择的问题，例如全球变暖，这样做会造成不良影响。由于许多环保思想家（诺顿在 2005年曾说过；奥尼尔在1993年曾说过）争论道，让人们肩负共同的责任，并让人们直接感受到共同利益的吸引力，这样做比让环保政策获得通过更有效率。
Successfully dealing with global climate may require cooperation on an unprecedented scale among people with radically different values and radically different needs. Formulating policies that tap into our social and genetic heritage of cooperation offers the best hope for success.
气候问题的成功处理，需要全球价值观不一样的人们和需求不同的人们的通力合作。制定好社会和基因遗传的政策，这能给予人们成功的最大期待。
The other thing that's new here is the potential for a conversation about consumption. For the most part, businesses won't lead that conversation and, until recently, environmental groups haven't either. As Lehner put it: "We've talked about it passively on our website...What we are now exploring is talking about it a little more actively."
而另外一个新观点是关于排放量会议召开的可能性。重要的是，直至最近一段时间，商业人士和环保人士都没有举行这样的会谈。就像雷纳所说的："我们总在网站上被动地说来说去...而现在探究的是，我们要更积极地给个说法。"
This won't be easy. It's hard to talk about overconsumption without sounding like you are hectoring people. "It's tricky because it's personal," Lehner says. "It's hard to talk about somebody else's life."
（然而，）这并不容易。如果你说起来不像是去吼人们，那你很难说谁谁谁排放量超标了。雷纳说道："由于这是个人问题，所以要狡猾些。因为我们很难插口别人的生活。"
But as we used to say in the '60s, the personal is political. It's not simply a personal choice to drive an SUV when you don't need one; it's an anti-social act, as is idling your car when it's part outside the dry cleaners or Starbucks. The food we eat, the cars we drive, the size of the houses we build and buy and other choices we make have global environmental consequences-particularly because Americans are, on a per capita basis, among the biggest polluters on the planet. So let's get the conversation going.
然而，正如我们在60年代常说的：人的私生活被法律保护。只有你需要时，你才会有选择地去驾驶越野车；当车子是干衣机外部件或是星巴克的一部分，那车子就浪费了，而这也是反社会行为。我们所吃的食物、我们所驾驶的车、我们建造的房子尺寸和价格，还有我们所作的其它选择，都是特别的环境结果，因为美国是人均污染量最大的国家。那么，开那个该开的会议吧。
已发请查收
内容全部来源于网络收集，如有侵权，请联系网站删除：QQ：24596024