華盛頓郵報：全世界只有兩個國家不參與《巴黎協定》。美國將成為第三個

全文翻譯自華盛頓郵報 6月1日文章

原題：All but two countries are in the Paris climate agreement. The U.S. will be the third.

作者：Denise Lu and Kim Soffen

譯者：冬天毛

冬天毛導讀：

其實美國對巴黎協定完全可以陽奉陰違；老爺此舉當中，表態撕逼的含義更大一些。

但無論如何，這次美國是丟人丟得有點厲害了。

《華盛頓郵報》（The Washington Post）是美國古老、具影響力的報紙。它與《紐約時報》同被認為是美國最有聲望的報紙。 《華盛頓郵報》總部位於美國首都華盛頓哥倫比亞特區，《華盛頓郵報》尤其擅長報導美國國內政治動態。

（維基百科）

正文：

President Trump declared that the United States would leave the Paris climate agreement, following months of infighting among Trump』s staff that left the world in suspense. He said he hopes to negotiate a similar deal that is more favorable to the U.S.

在經曆數月的團隊內部爭執，並吊足了全世界的胃口後，特朗普總統宣布，美國將撤出巴黎氣候協定。他表示，他希望能夠談判達成與之類似，但對美國更有利的協議。

This move is one of several Obama-era environmental milestones that Trump has dismantled. And all the while, a new study shows global temperatures might be rising faster than expected.

這也是特朗普已經推翻的幾座奧巴馬時代的環保里程碑之一。與此同時，一項新的研究表明，全球氣溫的升高可能比預期來得更快。

Leaving the agreement displaces the U.S. from a stance of global leadership and places it alongside just two non-participating countries: Syria, which is in the midst of a civil war, and Nicaragua, who refused to join because the Paris Agreement didn』t go far enough. Even countries such as Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are among the poorest in the world and were struggling with an Ebola epidemic at the time, have signed on.

通過撤出巴黎協定，美國也放棄了全球領袖的姿態，轉而與其他兩個非參與國為伍，它們分別是：正在內戰當中的敘利亞，以及嫌巴黎協定力度不夠而拒絕加入的尼拉加瓜。即便像賴比瑞亞（冬天毛註：非洲國家，有別於利比亞）和剛果民主共和國這樣貧困程度數一數二、且受埃博拉傳染病肆虐的國家，也在協議上籤了字。

冬天毛譯圖

The U.S.』s withdrawal is especially striking because developing countries, most of which are in the agreement, have a much harder time cutting emissions.

美國的撤出尤其惹眼，因為絕大多數發展中國家都簽署了協議，而這些國家降低排放要比美國困難得多。

That』s because 「the richest countries have much of their economy in lower-emitting sectors」 — think finance and technology rather than manufacturing — and fewer people are deprived of access to energy, according to Robert Lempert, an environmental policy researcher at RAND Corporation. 「The U.S. can grow their economy and improve their quality of life without increasing energy use. But in developing countries, you can』t do that.」

羅伯特·蘭普爾特是蘭德公司（冬天毛註：美國的著名非營利性智庫）的環境政策研究員，他表示這是因為「最有錢的國家在經濟上倚重低排產業」——比如相對於製造業的金融和科技產業——所以被限制使用能源的人更少。「美國不用增加能耗就能發展經濟，改善生活質量，但發展中國家是做不到這一點的。」

冬天毛譯圖

But numerous developing countries nonetheless participate because the Paris agreement has such a decentralized structure. Each country sets its own climate goals, and there』s no legal consequence for missing that goal.

但大量的發展中國家還是參與了協議，因為巴黎協定的結構是很分散的：每個國家制定自己的氣候改善目標，就算做不到，也不會有法律後果。

That structure also means the U.S. withdrawal likely won』t spell the end of the agreement — countries have little incentive to leave. China and the European Union, among others, have already reaffirmed their commitments in light of Trump』s comments.

這樣的結構也意味著美國的撤出基本不可能導致協定作廢——其他國家沒有撤離的理由。其中，中國和歐盟已經在特朗普表態後再次強調，將履行協定內容。

Rather, withdrawal 「is going to damage the U.S. much more than it』s going to damage the Paris agreement itself,」 said Nat Keohane, vice president for global climate at the Environmental Defense Fund.

美國環保基金會的全球氣候副總管奈特·柯恩表示，撤出協定只會「對美國自身造成比對巴黎協定更大的損害。」

What is that damage? 「It provides an opportunity for China to exert itself on the global stage」 after the U.S. leaves a 「leadership vacuum,」 said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA. That』s with regards to the climate — the U.S. will lose its seat at the negotiating table to set global emissions monitoring standards — and also diplomacy. Experts on both sides agree leaving the international consensus on climate change will harm the country』s reputation.

什麼樣的損害？加州大學洛杉磯分校的環境法律教授安·卡爾森表示，美國的撤出將造成「領袖真空」，「給中國提供全面登上全球舞台的機會」。在環境方面，美國將失去在談判桌上設立全球排放監控標準的席位，而在外交方面，兩黨的專家們一致認為，背離全球在氣候變化方面的共識將損害美國的聲望。

「Pulling out of the Paris agreement would be an unforced error in the sense of undermining our diplomatic efforts going forward,」 Keohane said. 「For the rest of the world this is a central issue for foreign policy.」

柯恩說：「撤出巴黎協定將有損我們今後的外交工作，是一種送分行為。對其他國家來說，氣候變化是外交政策的核心問題。

People who support leaving the agreement, though, don』t see it this way. 「There』s so much fluidity in international politics」 that the diplomatic hit would be temporary, said Pat Michaels of the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

撤離巴黎協定的支持者們卻不這樣認為。帕特里克·邁克爾斯隸屬於卡托研究所，該智庫在政治上具有自由意志主義傾向，他認為，「國際政治的變數很大」，這次對外交造成的打擊只是暫時的。

That said, experts from both sides agree that staying in the Paris agreement alone isn』t enough to keep the U.S. in a role of global environmental leadership. Even if the U.S. remained in the agreement but ignored it by crafting domestic policies that hurt the environment, it would face the same harms.

話雖如此，兩邊的專家們也一致認為，僅僅簽署巴黎協定，是不足以使美國保持在全球環保運動中的領袖角色的。如果美國不撤出協定，但忽視協定內容，制訂損傷環境的國內政策，那麼面臨的損害也是一樣的。

「Every move the Trump administration has made signals loudly and clearly that the U.S. is not going to address greenhouse gas emissions in any meaningful way,」 Carlson said. 「Putting aside Paris, we』ve already done that.」

卡爾森說：「特朗普政府的每一個舉措都是在發出響亮明確的信號：美國不會以任何有意義的方式控制溫室氣體排放。就算不提巴黎協定，我們也已經表態了。」

冬天毛譯圖

There are several paths for the U.S. to exit the agreement. But regardless how it happens, returning to a role of global environmental leadership under the next administration is possible, and some experts believe, necessary.

美國有幾種方式可以撤出協定，但無論以何種方式撤出，下一任政府都有可能重新取回全球環保領袖的角色，而一些專家也認為這是有必要的。

Referring to a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, Keohane said, 「If this ends up as a four-year blip on a long-run downward [emissions] trajectory, then the climate can survive it. But the climate won』t be able to survive the long-run absence of U.S. leadership.」

對於美國撤出巴黎協定，柯恩表示：「如果這最終只是排放降低道路上的一次為期四年的臨時倒車，那麼地球氣候就可以挺過去。但如果美國長期不願承擔領袖責任，那麼地球氣候就危險了。」

歡迎讀者姥爺訂閱冬天毛的一己之見：

聲明

冬天毛的一己之見是一個非盈利性微信公眾號，不接受任何形式的商業合作，務請見諒。

冬天毛譯文系列歡迎所有讀者留言；為了給讀者提供相對寬鬆的評論環境，任何不涉嫌影響公眾號運作的留言一律予以顯示。

譯者原則上不對譯文內容相關的留言發表評論，但歡迎讀者就辭彙用語提出疑問，冬天毛會儘快解答。

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！