很多人認(rèn)為，削減我們排放到大氣中的二氧化碳是個(gè)好主意。但對(duì)于怎樣做才是正確，卻沒(méi)有多少人有明智的見(jiàn)解。
A lot of people think it a good idea to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere. But not many have sensible ideas about the correct way to do that.
最近，英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》的一位投稿人斷言：“個(gè)人碳交易計(jì)劃比征收碳排放稅更公平、更有效，因?yàn)樗苎杆俅罅肯鳒p消費(fèi)量?！彼@然是被那些二氧化碳搞糊涂了。除非知道會(huì)征什么稅，或是配額的多少，否則就不可能計(jì)算出配給制是否會(huì)比稅收促成更多的減排量。
One contributor to the FT recently asserted that, ”An individual carbon trading scheme is more equitable and effective than carbon taxation as it reduces consumption quickly and dramatically.” All that carbon dioxide has clearly addled his thinking. It isn’t possible to work out whether rationing would reduce emissions more than a tax until you know what the tax might be, or how generous the ration.
在談到削減碳排放時(shí)，“削減多少”與同等重要的“如何削減”是不同的問(wèn)題。明智的選擇介于征收碳排放稅和某種污染許可交易安排之間。（政界人士喜歡在自己喜歡的措施上大把花錢(qián)；這符合他們的本性，卻讓環(huán)境方面的進(jìn)步更難以實(shí)現(xiàn)。）對(duì)于任何水平的環(huán)境稅，你都能通過(guò)使用許可配額，得到同樣的碳排放價(jià)格和減排量。
When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, the question ”How much?” is separate from the equally important question ”How?” The sensible choice is between a carbon tax and some kind of scheme to trade pollution permits. (Politicians prefer to bung cash at favoured initiatives; it’s in their nature, but makes environmental gains harder to come by.) And for any level of environmental tax you can get the same carbon price and emissions reduction by using a permit quota instead.
這并不意味著兩種體凳塹韌?。一歌庿冰樃[低車墓芾沓殺盡Ｓ⒐始乙?guī)促进协?Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts)個(gè)人碳排放許可量研究項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人馬特•普雷斯科特(Matt Prescott)描繪了一幅令人興奮的圖景：可以將碳排放許可量便宜地充入信用卡。而我認(rèn)為進(jìn)行稅收管理要更簡(jiǎn)單些。另一個(gè)區(qū)別是收入的去向。稅收將讓錢(qián)直接流入征稅的政府。然后主要就取決于政府如何使用了：如果更多地分配給窮人，那么稅收就比個(gè)人碳排放許可量更具進(jìn)步性。
That doesn’t mean the two systems are equivalent. One difference is the cost of administering the system. Matt Prescott, the director of a Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts (RSA) research project into personal carbon allowances, paints an exciting picture of cheaply loading your carbon permits on to a credit card. I think it would be simpler just to administer a tax. A second difference is where the revenue goes. A tax directs cash to the government levying it. A lot then depends on how the revenue is used: if it’s distributed more heavily towards the poor, taxes are more progressive than a personal carbon allowance.
A lot of people think it a good idea to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere. But not many have sensible ideas about the correct way to do that.
最近，英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》的一位投稿人斷言：“個(gè)人碳交易計(jì)劃比征收碳排放稅更公平、更有效，因?yàn)樗苎杆俅罅肯鳒p消費(fèi)量?！彼@然是被那些二氧化碳搞糊涂了。除非知道會(huì)征什么稅，或是配額的多少，否則就不可能計(jì)算出配給制是否會(huì)比稅收促成更多的減排量。
One contributor to the FT recently asserted that, ”An individual carbon trading scheme is more equitable and effective than carbon taxation as it reduces consumption quickly and dramatically.” All that carbon dioxide has clearly addled his thinking. It isn’t possible to work out whether rationing would reduce emissions more than a tax until you know what the tax might be, or how generous the ration.
在談到削減碳排放時(shí)，“削減多少”與同等重要的“如何削減”是不同的問(wèn)題。明智的選擇介于征收碳排放稅和某種污染許可交易安排之間。（政界人士喜歡在自己喜歡的措施上大把花錢(qián)；這符合他們的本性，卻讓環(huán)境方面的進(jìn)步更難以實(shí)現(xiàn)。）對(duì)于任何水平的環(huán)境稅，你都能通過(guò)使用許可配額，得到同樣的碳排放價(jià)格和減排量。
When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, the question ”How much?” is separate from the equally important question ”How?” The sensible choice is between a carbon tax and some kind of scheme to trade pollution permits. (Politicians prefer to bung cash at favoured initiatives; it’s in their nature, but makes environmental gains harder to come by.) And for any level of environmental tax you can get the same carbon price and emissions reduction by using a permit quota instead.
這并不意味著兩種體凳塹韌?。一歌庿冰樃[低車墓芾沓殺盡Ｓ⒐始乙?guī)促进协?Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts)個(gè)人碳排放許可量研究項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人馬特•普雷斯科特(Matt Prescott)描繪了一幅令人興奮的圖景：可以將碳排放許可量便宜地充入信用卡。而我認(rèn)為進(jìn)行稅收管理要更簡(jiǎn)單些。另一個(gè)區(qū)別是收入的去向。稅收將讓錢(qián)直接流入征稅的政府。然后主要就取決于政府如何使用了：如果更多地分配給窮人，那么稅收就比個(gè)人碳排放許可量更具進(jìn)步性。
That doesn’t mean the two systems are equivalent. One difference is the cost of administering the system. Matt Prescott, the director of a Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts (RSA) research project into personal carbon allowances, paints an exciting picture of cheaply loading your carbon permits on to a credit card. I think it would be simpler just to administer a tax. A second difference is where the revenue goes. A tax directs cash to the government levying it. A lot then depends on how the revenue is used: if it’s distributed more heavily towards the poor, taxes are more progressive than a personal carbon allowance.