In the time of the Soviet Union, the KGB would have indicted these anti-Putin dissidents for mental disorders.	如果是在苏联时代，克格勃甚至会以精神障碍为由起诉这些反对普京的持不同证见人士。


This supposedly being a “new Russia,” cyber-dissidents are accused of violating intellectual property rights.	在如今的“新俄罗斯”，网络持不同政见者则被控侵犯知识产权。


You see, they were using Microsoft-equipped computers and could not prove that the software had not been pirated.	你看，他们使用装有微软系统的电脑，而且无法证明他们所用的软件不是来源于盗版。


By confiscating the computers, the Russian police could supposedly verify whether or not the Microsoft software that the activists were using had been installed legally.	电脑被没收以后，据说俄罗斯警方可以验证活动者所用的微软软件是否是合法安装的。


On the surface, Microsoft and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s police look like strange bedfellows.	表面上看，微软和弗拉基米尔·普京手下的警察似乎是奇怪的伙伴。


But are they?	事实是否真的如此？


Microsoft’s authorized representatives declared that they could not oppose the Russian police actions, because the Seattle-based company had to abide by Russian law.	微软的授权代表声明他们不能反对俄罗斯警方的行动，因为这家总部设在西雅图的企业必须遵守俄罗斯的法律。


Such an ambiguous declaration can be interpreted either as active support for the Russian police or as passive collaboration.	这样的暧昧声明可以理解为对俄罗斯警方的积极支持或被动合作。


Moreover, in previous cases, Microsoft assisted the Russian police in their investigations of non-governmental organizations.	此外，在之前的案例中，微软还曾协助俄罗斯警方调查非政府组织。


Clearly, human-right activists in Russia cannot and should not count on Microsoft as an ally in their efforts to build a more open society.	显而易见，俄罗斯的人权活动者不能也不该将微软视为建设开放社会的伙伴。


But Microsoft’s ambiguous – at best – behavior is part of a pattern.	但是微软的暧昧态度已经构成了某种模式。


Indeed, the record of Internet companies in authoritarian countries is both consistent and grim.	事实上，独裁国家的网络公司一直有着糟糕的人权记录。


Yahoo set the pace in pioneering the active collaboration of Internet and high-tech firms with political repression.	网络和高科技公司积极配合政治压迫的始作俑者是雅虎。


In 2005, Yahoo gave the Chinese police the computer identification code for a dissident journalist, Shi Tao.	2005年，雅虎向中国警方提供了持不同政见记者师涛的计算机识别码。


Shi Tao had sent a message in praise of democracy, which the censors had detected.	师涛之前曾发了一封赞美民主的邮件，这封邮件被审查人员所察觉。


Following Yahoo’s lead, the police arrested him.	循着雅虎提供的线索，警方将师涛缉拿归案。


Shi remains in jail to this day.	直到今天他仍在狱中服刑。


At that time, Yahoo’s managers in the United States, like Microsoft in Russia, declared that they had to follow Chinese law.	当时，雅虎的美国管理者像俄罗斯的微软一样，宣称他们必须遵守中国的法律。


Shi Tao, in his jail cell, was undoubtedly pleased to learn that China is ruled by law, not by the Communist Party.	被关进牢房的师涛无疑该为中国的法治而非共党专制而感到高兴。


After all, the rule of law is what Shi Tao is fighting for.	毕竟，师涛全力争取的正是法治。


Google, at least for a short while, seemed to follow different guidelines in its Chinese business, appearing to adhere to its widely proclaimed ethical principle, “Don’t be evil.”	至少在一段时间内，谷歌中国的经营似乎遵循着其广为宣扬的“绝不作恶”的道德原则。


To protest against censorship, the Silicon Valley-based company relocated from mainland China in 2009 to the still relatively free Hong Kong.	为了抗议审查，这家总部设在硅谷的企业在2009年从大陆搬到了仍然相对自由的香港。


On the Hong Kong-based search engine, Chinese internauts could read about Taiwan, the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, or the Dalai Lama.	中国网民可以在香港的搜索引擎上了解台湾、1989年天安门广场事件或达赖喇嘛的新闻。


On Google.cn, these sources, along with the results of searches using many other forbidden terms, simply did not appear.	在Google. cn上，这些信息和包含有其他禁词的搜索结果根本就不会显示。


Google’s move seemed to reconcile its proclaimed libertarian philosophy with its business ethics.	谷歌的行动似乎在其公开宣传的自由理念及其商业道德之间达成了一致。


But that reconciliation did not last long: Google, after all, had accepted censorship from the beginning of its efforts in China, in 2006, in order to gain entry into the Chinese market.	但这种一致并没有持续很久： 毕竟谷歌在2006年为进入中国市场已经接受了审查制度。


After six months of life in Hong Kong, money talked: Google reinstated its mainland China service, and with the same level of censorship as before.	在香港运营六个月后，对利润的要求占据了上风： 谷歌恢复了在中国大陆的业务，而对内容的审查依然如故。


In the end, Google, not the Chinese Communist Party, lost face.	最后丢脸的不是中共，而是谷歌。


Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft have thus followed a strikingly similar road: access to lucrative markets trumped ethical anxiety.	雅虎、谷歌和微软无不遵循着一条惊人相似的道路： 进入高盈利市场的渴望压倒了道德方面的焦虑。


The tools that they provide are politically neutral.	他们所提供的工具并不具有政治倾向性。


Dissidents try to use them to pursue a democratic agenda.	持不同政见者利用它们追求民主目标。


Police use them to detect and repress dissidents.	警方用它们发现并压制持不同政见者。


Either way, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google make money – just like, say, IBM, which in the 1930’s sold its computing machines to the Nazi regime: the Nazis used these machines to make the destruction of their victims routine and bureaucratic.	而无论从哪一方，微软、雅虎和谷歌都能获得盈利，就像20世纪30年代向纳粹政权出售计算机的IBM。 纳粹用这些计算机常规化、官僚化地消灭被害者。


Should we be shocked that Internet companies put profits ahead of morals?	网络公司置利润于道德之上值得我们大惊小怪吗？


After all, they are ordinary, profit-seeking corporations, just like the IBM of Hitler’s era.	归根结底，他们像希特勒时���的IBM一样，不过是追求利润的普通公司。


Internet companies may, more than most, hide their true motives behind ersatz, democratic-sounding slogans, but in the end they are advertising products like any other.	网络公司或许比其他公司更愿意用民主口号隐藏他们的真实动机，但归根结底他们像其他企业一样宣传自己的产品。


In advertising or self-promotion, the choice of words is determined by customer expectations, not by managers’ philosophy, as they mostly have none.	在广告或自我推销中，词汇的选择取决于客户的期望而不是管理者的理念，因为多数管理者并无理念可言。


Capitalism is always a trade-off: we must live with unethical behavior by money-making corporations that provide us with useful new tools.	权衡和折衷永远是资本主义的真谛： 我们必须容忍为我们提供有效工具的赚钱企业的不道德行为。


These tools can be used by Iranians fighting dictatorship, or by Tibetan dissidents trying to save their culture.	伊朗人可以用这些工具来反抗专政，西藏持不同政见者也可以用这些工具来拯救他们的文化。


They also can be used to compute the number of exterminated Jews, to arrest a Chinese dissident, or to break a human-rights group in Russia.	这些工具也可以用来统计灭绝犹太人的数量，逮捕中国的持不同政见者，或者破坏俄罗斯的人权组织。


Microsoft in Russia or Google in China teach us that capitalism is not ethical: it is only efficient.	俄罗斯的微软或者中国的谷歌告诉我们资本主义并不道德： 而是更加注重效率。


Entrepreneurs are greedy by definition: if they were not, they would go bankrupt.	贪婪是企业家的定义： 如果不贪婪，他们就会陷入破产的结局。


An open society will never be created or sustained by righteous entrepreneurs or be the mere byproduct of political engineering.	永远不能依靠有正义感的企业家或者某项政治工程的副产品来建设或者维护一个开放的社会。


Liberty, as always, remains the endeavor of vigilant, free men and women.	一如既往，自由依然要靠谨慎、自由的人们付出不懈的努力。


Turkey’s Hot-Money Problem	土耳其的热钱问题


NEW YORK – The ongoing financial volatility in emerging economies is fueling debate about whether the so-called “Fragile Five” – Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey – should be viewed as victims of advanced countries’ monetary policies or victims of their own excessive integration into global financial markets.	纽约—新兴经济体的持续金融动荡助长了关于所谓的“脆弱五国”——巴西、印度、印尼、南非和土耳其应该被视为发达国家货币政策的受害者还是其自身过度融入全球金融市场的受害者的争论。


To answer that question requires examining their different policy responses to monetary expansion – and the different levels of risk that these responses have created.	要回答这一问题，就需要考察它们对货币扩张的不同政策反应，以及这些反应所造成的不同风险水平。


Although all of the Fragile Five – identified based on their twin fiscal and current-account deficits, which make them particularly vulnerable to capital-flow volatility – have adopted some macroprudential measures since the global financial crisis, the mix of such policies, and their outcomes, has varied substantially.	尽管自全球金融危机以来，脆弱五国——这个名字来源于财政和经常项目双赤字，从而让它们尤其易受资本流波动影响——采取了一些宏观审慎措施，但政策的组合以及结果大不相同。


Whereas Brazil, India, and Indonesia have responded to surging inflows with new capital-account regulations, South Africa and Turkey have allowed capital to flow freely across their borders.	巴西、印度和印尼用新的资本账户管制措施应对资本流入剧增，而南非和土耳其则放任资本自由进出。


Consider Turkey’s response, which has been characterized by an unwavering commitment to capital-account openness.	以土耳其的反应为例。 土耳其坚定地实施了资本账户开放。


Though political developments in Turkey have been attracting the most attention lately, the country’s current crisis is rooted in economic weaknesses, reflected in declining investor confidence and the sharp depreciation of the lira’s exchange rate.	尽管土耳其的政治发展局势吸引了大部分注意力，但该国当前的危机根源还在于经济疲软，反映在投资者信心的下降和里拉汇率的剧烈贬值上。


This instability has raised fears of emerging-market contagion, with South Africa especially susceptible, owing to its capital-account openness.	这一不稳定性引起了人们对新兴市场传染病的担心，南非尤其危险，因为它也实施了资��账户开放。


In lieu of capital-flow restrictions, Turkey’s monetary authorities began to cut overnight borrowing rates in November 2010, in order to reduce the profitability of the carry trade (purchases of foreign-currency assets to take advantage of a higher interest rate).	2010年11月，土耳其货币当局开始降低隔夜借款利率以减少套息交易（买入外币资产从更高的利率中获益）利润，以此代替资本流管制。


The hope was that longer-term capital flows would finance the widening current-account deficit, which exceeded 8% of GDP at the time, mitigating the risk of a sudden stop in external financing.	其算盘是长期资本流为扩大的经常项目赤字融资（当时超过了GDP的8%），减轻外部融资骤停的风险。


While many market observers applauded Turkey’s central bank for its bold, unorthodox policy mix, the International Monetary Fund criticized the Turkish authorities for increasing inflation expectations and fueling further credit growth.	许多市场观察者赞扬土耳其央行果断的非常规手段，但国际货币基金组织（IMF）批评土耳其当局提高了通胀预期，助长了信用增长。


But the IMF did not explicitly recommend that Turkey employ capital-account regulations, despite the mounting evidence from its own staff that the introduction of such rules was working in many emerging markets’ favor.	但IMF并未明确建议土耳其采用资本账户管制，尽管来自其自身的大量证据表明这样做产生了许多有利于新兴市场的结果。


Without capital-account management, Turkey’s central bank expected to achieve financial and price stability by complementing the reduction in overnight rates with domestic macroprudential tools aimed at reducing excessive credit growth.	未采取资本账户管制的土耳其央行期望通过用旨在遏制过度信用增长的国内宏观审慎工具为补充实现金融和价格稳定。


The main measures to control credit growth were a gradual increase in reserve requirements, beginning in 2010; some restrictions on consumer loans; and the introduction of credit-growth caps in the second half of 2011.	控制信用增长的主要措施包括从2010年开始逐渐提高准备金要求、对消费贷款施加一些限制，以及2011年下半年引入的信用增长上限。


Officials argued that such tools are more effective than capital-flow measures, which “are, in general, hard to implement and rather easy to circumvent.”	土耳其官方指出，这些工具比资本流措施更有效，后者“从整体上讲难以实施，容易规避。


But domestic prudential measures could have only a limited effect on the rate of credit growth, because the growth was driven primarily by booming capital inflows.	”但国内审慎措施对信用增长率的作用十分有限，因为信用增长主要是由资本流入激增推动的。


Thus, domestic credit growth began to decelerate only in August 2011, when the escalation of the eurozone crisis made global investors more wary of risky emerging markets.	因此，2011年8月，当欧元区危机让全球投资者对高风险的新兴市场变得更加谨慎时，国内信用增长开始减速。


Paradoxically, while Turkey’s monetary authorities acknowledged this relationship, they continued to attribute the decline in credit growth to the success of their prudential measures.	矛盾的是，尽管土耳其货币当局也承认这一关系，但他们却继续把信用增长的下降归因于审慎措施的成功。


Then, last May, the US Federal Reserve announced its intention to begin to “taper” its multi-trillion-dollar asset-purchase program – so-called “quantitative easing” – triggering large-scale capital flight from emerging markets.	接着，在去年5月，美联储宣布它计划开始“退出”数万亿美元的资产购买计划（即所谓的“量化宽松”），引发了资本大规模从新兴市场逃离。


There was no denying it: the emerging-market capital explosion was over, and the credit and asset bubbles that it had fueled were in danger of imploding.	无须讳言，新兴市场资本暴增的时代已经结束，由此引发的信用和资产泡沫随时可能破裂。


By contrast, Brazil and India did not shy away from reimposing capital-account restrictions.	相反，巴西和印度不惮于重新采取资本账户管制。


Both economies are now far less fragile than Turkey and South Africa.	如今，这两个国家的脆弱度远远小于土耳其和南非。


Given this, perhaps the real question is why Turkey refrained from using capital-account regulations, when almost all of its emerging-market counterparts were using them in some form.	有鉴于此，也许真正的问题在于，当其他新兴市场国家纷纷以某种形式采取了资本账户管制时，土耳其为何不这么做。


Was the financial sector too powerful for its policymakers?	是金融部门过于强势了吗？


Were its central bankers too committed to the IMF’s previous view that inflation-targeting can work only under conditions of capital-account convertibility?	是其央行过于相信IMF此前的观点——通胀目标只有在资本账户可兑换的情况下才能奏效了吗？


Or was it because politicians benefited from the economic boost that inflows of short-term “hot money” provide, and thus were willing to ignore the consequences?	还是因为政客从短期“热钱”流入所提供的经济繁荣中获得了好处，从而宁愿忽视后果？


If there is a lesson to be learned from Turkey’s monetary-policy experiment, it is that domestic prudential regulations and monetary-policy tools should be viewed as complements to – not substitutes for – capital-account management.	如果说土耳其的货币政策实验给了我们什么教训，那就是国内审慎监管和货币政策工具应该被视为资本账户管理的补充而不是替代措施。


As for Turkey, its only hope to avoid an even deeper economic crisis is to take determined action to mitigate the economic risks that have been allowed to accrue over the last few years.	对土耳其来说，避免更深层次金融危机的唯一希望是采取果断行动降低在过去几年中放任其积累的经济风险。


Given the political instability that the country is currently facing, however, such an outcome is uncertain, at best.	但是，该国最近陷入了政治动荡，是否能形成这一结果远未可知。


The Price of Biodiversity	生物多样性的价格


DHAKA – We humans do not only share the planet with a range of other species, including plants, animals, and even microbes; we also depend on them for our survival.	达卡—我们人类不但与其他各物种——包括动物、植物乃至微生物——分享地球； 我们还需仰仗他们生存。


Can we determine the economic value of protecting the natural world?	我们能够计算保护自然界的经济价值吗？


Some people will balk at the idea of putting a price tag on biodiversity, viewing its protection as an obvious imperative.	有人会强烈反对给生物多样性贴上价格标签的做法，他们认为保护生物多样性是显而易见的当务之急。


But they would undoubtedly also agree that preventing human death and suffering, while providing food, water, and an education to all, is vital.	但他们毫无疑问也会同意，阻止人类死亡和痛苦，同时为所有人提供食物、水和教育也是至关重要的。


The reality is that there are simply not enough resources to do everything.	现实是根本没有足够的资源做所有事。


Hard choices have to be made.	必须做出艰难的选择。


Fortunately, economics can help us determine how to do the most good with the resources we have.	幸运的是，经济学能够帮助我们决定如何用我们所拥有的资源做最多的益事。


This is particularly relevant today, as the world's 193 national governments work to establish the Sustainable Development Goals to guide global development efforts for the next 15 years.	这在今天尤其重要。 全世界193个国家的政府正在制定可持续发展目标（SDG）指导未来15年的全球发展政策。


The SDGs will be modeled on the Millennium Development Goals, which were agreed in 2000 and focused on objectives like lowering maternal and infant mortality, eradicating poverty, and improving access to primary education.	SDG将建立在千年发展目标（MDG）的基础上。 MDG制定于2000年，集中于降低母婴死亡、消除贫困和推广小学教育等目标。


So far, a huge number of potential SDG targets have been proposed, some of which relate to biodiversity.	目前，我们已经提出了大量潜在SDG目标，其中一些就与生物多样性有关。


But, though trillions of dollars will be spent on the SDGs, there are simply not enough resources to complete every project.	但是，尽管我们将在SDG身上花掉数万亿美元，仍不可能有足够的资源完成所有项目。


That is why world leaders must focus on the targets that will have the greatest impact.	因此，世界领导人必须聚焦于能带来更大影响的目标。


My think tank, the Copenhagen Consensus, is working with more than 60 top economists and several Nobel laureates to identify which targets promise the highest return on investment.	我的智库——哥本哈根共识中心（Copenhagen Consensus）正在与60多位经济学家和多位诺贝尔奖获得者合作研究那些目标能带来最高的投资回报。


Preserving biodiversity, it turns out, is not only desirable; according to three new studies by the economists Anil Markandya, Luke Brander, and Alistair McVittie, it also makes good financial sense, at least for some projects.	看起来，保护生物多样性不但值得追求，并且根据经济学家阿尼尔·马坎迪亚（Anil Markandya）、卢克·布兰德（Luke Brander）和阿利斯泰尔·麦克维蒂（Alistair McVittie）的三项新研究，它还能带来很好的财务回��，至少某些项目是如此。


Protecting forests is a good place to start, with every dollar spent bringing benefits worth about $10.	保护森林是理想的起点，这方面每一美元支出可以带来约10美元的回报。


Some of the resources that forests provide – such as timber, firewood, and tourism – can be valuated relatively easily.	森林所提供的一些资源——如木材、柴火和旅游业等——相对容易估值。


But the value of others – such as the wide range of animal species they support and their intrinsic worth to people – is more difficult to quantify.	但其他资源的价值——如它们所支持的多种动物及其对人类的内在价值——很难量化。


In attempting to do so, economists have conducted surveys to find out how much people would be prepared to pay to protect forests and the animal species they support.	为了进行量化，经济学家采用了问卷调查的方式研究人们准备出多少钱保护森林及其所支持的动物物种。


Forests also serve as an enormous “carbon sink," storing atmospheric carbon dioxide for many decades or centuries; thus, protecting forests would help to mitigate climate change.	森林还是一座巨大的“碳沉淀池”，数百年来存储了巨量大气二氧化碳； 因此，保护森林有助于遏制气候变化。


Moreover, forests absorb intense rainfall, thereby reducing the risk of flooding.	此外，森林吸收大量降水，从而降低洪水风险。


The 2010 flooding in Pakistan, for example, would have been far less devastating if so many trees from upper slopes had not been felled.	比如，如果不是上游大量树木遭到砍伐，2010年巴基斯坦洪水所造成的灾难会小得多。


The conclusion is thus that each dollar spent on conserving forests would yield $5-15 worth of social good, including tangible benefits, such as from logging or carbon capture, and “soft" gains, like preserving forests' intrinsic beauty.	因此，结论是花在保护森林上的每一美元能产生价值5—15美元的社会商品，包括来自伐木和碳捕捉等活动的有形回报和保护森林内在美等“软”收益。


Conserving the world's wetlands – which also provide valuable services, including protection of coastal areas and river valleys from flooding – is also sensible, providing a tenfold return on each dollar spent.	保护世界湿地——它们也提供了极具价值的服务，包括沿岸地区保护和阻止河谷爆发洪水等——也很明智，每一美元投入可以获得十倍回报。


But protecting coral reefs would bring the highest returns, amounting to an extraordinary $24 worth of benefits for every dollar spent.	但保护珊瑚礁的回报最高，每一美元投入带来的收益高达24美元。


Like forests, coral reefs provide multiple services – including tourism and fish nurseries, which help to sustain commercial fishing – and have an intrinsic value to people.	与森林一样，珊瑚礁也起着多方面作用——包括作为旅游景点和鱼类营养源（有助于商业捕鱼）——并且具有对人类的内在价值。


To reduce the loss of coral reefs by half would cost about $3 billion each year – and yield at least $72 billion in benefits.	将珊瑚礁损失降低一半需要每年耗费30亿美元，但至少能产生720亿美元收益。


Not all projects aimed at protecting biodiversity are a smart use of public resources.	并非所有旨在保护生物多样性的项目都属于对公共资源的明智使用。


Creating additional nature reserves, for example, might sound like a great way to protect more species' natural habitats, but the economic benefits would not cover the nearly $1 trillion in costs.	比如，建立更多自然保护区也许看似保护更多物种的自然栖息地的好办法，但其经济收益无法抵消近1万亿美元的成本。


Doubling the area of protected coastal land and bringing substantial areas of open ocean into reserves is a particularly formidable task.	将受保护海岸面积扩大一倍并将大量公海海域纳入保护范围是一个艰巨无比的任务。


Clearly, protecting coral reefs is a much better use of limited resources.	显然，保护珊瑚礁是对有限资源的更好的使用方式。


Though the SDGs will aim largely to improve daily life for the very poor, a cool-headed economic assessment suggests that there are also smart biodiversity targets that should be considered.	尽管SDG主要是为了改善贫穷人口的日常生活，但冷静的经济分析表明，生物多样性方面也不乏明智的目标应该予以考虑。


If world leaders take advantage of cost-benefit analysis to separate the wheat from the chaff, the next 15 years could be a boon for global development – including the preservation of biodiversity.	如果世界领导人利用成本-收益分析去芜存菁，那么未来15年有望成为全球发展——包括生物多样性保护——的大繁荣时期。


Food in the Age of Biofuels	生物燃料时代的粮食


ROME – Over the past several years, biofuels have become a bone of contention.	罗马—过去几年来，生物燃料成了争论的焦点。


For some, a renewable energy source produced from organic matter amounts to a magic wand in the fight against climate change.	一些人认为，来自有机物的可再生能源资源如同对抗气候变化的魔法棒。


But others view biofuels as an existential threat, because the plants used to create them compete for agricultural land and water that would otherwise be used to grow food.	但其他人把生物燃料当成生存威胁，因为用于生产它们的农地和水本来可以用于种植粮食。


But this is a false dichotomy.	但这是错误的两分法。


The choice cannot be between food and fuel.	不存在粮食和燃料之间的选择。


We can make good use of both.	我们可以鱼和熊掌兼得。


Given the right conditions, biofuels can be an effective means to increase food security by providing poor farmers with a sustainable and affordable energy source.	只要有正确的条件，生物燃料可以为贫困农民提供可持续的廉价能源资源，从而成为增进粮食安全的有效办法。


In some land-locked African countries, gasoline costs three times the global average, making fuel prices one of the main barriers to agricultural growth.	在一些非洲内陆国家，汽油成本是全球平均水平的三倍，这导致燃料价格成为农业增长的主要瓶颈。


Extending the use of biofuels in these regions could boost productivity and create new employment opportunities, especially in rural areas.	扩大生物燃料在这些地区的使用能够提振生产率、创造新的就业机会，特别是在农村地区。


The effect could be made even stronger if the additional demand for feedstock created by biofuels was met by family farmers and small-scale producers.	如果生物燃料所带来的原料需求增加可以通过家庭农庄和小规模生产商满足，效果将会更好。


Biofuels have become a fact of life, and their use is expected to continue to increase steadily.	生物燃料已成为无法改变的事实，它们的使用预计将继续稳步攀升。


In 2013, biofuels accounted for 3% of the total transport fuel used around the world, according to a report by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the OECD.	据联合国粮农组织和经合组织的报告，2013年生物燃料贡献了全球交通燃料使用总量的3%。


While this percentage is expected to remain steady, we can nonetheless expect the production of biofuels to grow in absolute terms as the global market for transport fuels also expands.	这一比例预计将保持稳定，但尽管如此，可以期待生物燃料产量的绝对值将随着全球交通燃料市场的扩大而增加。


Indeed, global biofuel production is projected to be double by 2023 relative to its level in 2007.	事实上，到2023年，全球生物燃料生产预计将在2007年水平的基础上翻一番。


If that prediction is borne out, biofuels will consume 12% of the world’s coarse grain, 28% of its sugar cane, and 14% of its vegetable oil.	如果这一预测正确，那么生物燃料将消耗全球12%的谷物、28%的甘蔗、14%的植物油。


As production of these fuels grows, we will require policies, programs, and capacities that ensure that they are used sustainably, without distorting food markets or compromising food security, which will always be the first priority.	随着这些燃料产量的增加，我们需要能够确保可持续使用它们的政策、计划和能力，不对粮食市场造成扭曲或牺牲粮食安全。 粮食安全始终是排在第一位的要务。


The pioneers of biofuels would probably be surprised by how little they contribute to the total world fuel supply today.	生物燃料的先驱也许会惊讶于生物燃料在当今世界燃料供给中占比如此之小。


Rudolf Diesel’s first engine, designed in the late 1800s, ran on fuel derived from peanut oil.	鲁道夫·迪塞尔（Rudolph Diesel）在19世纪初就设计出了花生油燃料发动机。


Henry Ford once scouted Florida in hopes of buying tracts of land to plant sugar cane, convinced that the United States would not tolerate the pollution from burning fossil fuels or the dependency implicit in importing oil to produce gasoline.	亨利·福特曾经走遍佛罗里达州，希望买地种植甘蔗，因为他认为美国无法忍受燃烧化石燃料所造成的污染和进口石油生产汽油所造成的能源依赖。


Only in recent decades have biofuels regained their original appeal, owing to efforts to secure affordable energy, generate income, and mitigate the dependency of which Ford warned.	直到最近几十年来，生物燃料才重新获得吸引力，这是因为我们需要确保平价能源、制造收入、降低福特所警告的能源依赖。


More recently, concerns about pollution, climate change, and the finite nature of fossil fuels has driven a spike in demand – one that must now be managed.	最近，关���污染、气候变化和化石燃料的有限性的担忧成为生物燃料需求的推动力——目前已需要对这一需求进行管理。


Flexibility is key to efforts to leverage the world’s growing reliance on biofuels to boost agricultural productivity, accelerate rural development, and increase food security.	在利用世界日益依赖生物燃料的机会提高农业生产率、加快农村开发、增进食品安全方面，灵活性至关重要。


For example, policymakers must defuse the competitive pressures between food and fuel by designing schemes to counter price volatility for basic foodstuffs.	比如，决策者必须通过制定遏制基本粮食作物价格波动的机制平息粮食和燃料之间的竞争压力。


Authorities could require that the percentage of biofuels blended with conventional fuel be increased when food prices drop and cut when they rise.	当局可以要求生物燃料与传统燃料之比在粮食价格下跌时增加，在粮食价格上涨时下降。


This would serve as a sort of automatic stabilizer.	这可以起到自动稳定器的作用。


Poor farmers would continue to enjoy robust demand for their products even when food prices dropped, and consumers would be protected from rapid or excessive price increases.	贫困农民将在粮食价格下跌时继续享受到强健的产品需求，而消费者也可以获得价格过快过度上涨的保护。


National targets could also be made more flexible.	国家目标也可以定得更灵活一些。


If mandates for biofuel use were applied over several years, instead of only one, policymakers could influence demand in order to minimize pressure on food prices.	如果关于生物燃料使用的指标分几年而不是一年完成，决策者就可以通过影响需求而使粮食价格压力最小化。


Finally, at the individual level, greater flexibility could also be built in at the pump, through the promotion of flex-fuel vehicles of the type already in use in Brazil.	最后，在个人层面，可以在加油站体现灵活因素——通过推广（比如）已经在巴西投入使用的灵活燃料（flex-fuel）汽车。


If cars are equipped with engines that can run on conventional fossil fuels or blends with high percentages of biofuels, consumers can adapt to changes in prices by switching between one or the other.	如果汽车发动机既可以使用传统燃料，也可以参杂高比例化石燃料，消费者就可以在两者之间切换以适应价格波动。


Finding the right balance will not be easy.	寻找正确的平衡绝非易事。


But if we harness our collective knowledge, include developing countries’ smallholder farmers in this effort, and maintain our focus on reducing poverty and protecting the vulnerable, we can have more fuel, more food, and greater prosperity for all.	但如果我们利用我们的集体知识，在这个问题上将发展中国的小农也考虑进来，并保持对减少贫困和保护弱势群体的关注，我们就可以拥有更多燃料、更多粮食，为所有人创造更大的繁荣。


Biomedicine’s Democratic Revolution	生物医学的民主革命


SEATTLE – Very soon, it will be economically feasible to sequence human genomes and collect massive amounts of different types of health data as standard medical practice.	西雅图—很快，我们就能以非常经济的方式获得人类基因序列并收集大量不同类型的健康数据作为标准医疗手段。


Already, there are remarkable examples of how these new genetic data are changing our thinking about disease and diagnosis.	已经有不少令人瞩目的例子表明，这些新的基因数据正在改变我们对疾病和诊断的看法。


Consider the Beery twins, born in 1996 in San Diego, California.	比如比利（Beery）双胞胎。


They suffered from chronic vomiting, seizures, and muscle weakness, sending them and their parents on an odyssey of medical examinations and tests.	他们于1996年出生于加利福尼亚州圣迭戈，身患慢性呕吐、癫痫和肌无力。 他们和他们的父母长期进行着没完没了的体检和测试。


The first diagnosis was cerebral palsy.	一开始，他们被诊断为脑瘫。


Then they received a diagnosis of dystonia, a rare neurological disorder.	接着又被诊断为张力肌障碍，一种罕见的神经疾病。


But treatments based on these diagnoses did not alleviate the children’s symptoms.	但基于这些诊断的治疗并没有消除这两个孩子的症状。


Frustrated, their parents had the twins’ genomes sequenced.	沮丧的父母给双胞胎进行了基因排序。


The results revealed that the twins had been incompletely diagnosed.	排序结果表明，他们的诊断有欠全面。


Their previously diagnosed dystonia was being caused by a genetic mutation that was interfering with the neurotransmitter serotonin.	先前被查出的张力肌障碍是由干扰了神经传导血清素的基因突变引起的。


The twins’ doctors found that the dystonia could be fully treated with a readily available serotonin replacement.	医生发现，双胞胎的张力肌障碍可以用已有的血清素替换疗法彻底治愈。


So why haven’t success stories like that of the Beery twins, together with the Internet’s power and increasingly affordable collection of molecular data, led to the construction of a knowledge network of disease?	那么，比利双胞胎这样的成功案例加上互联网的力量以及越来越廉价的分子数据收集工作为什么没有形成关于疾病的知识网络呢？


Why aren’t scientists and doctors turning in droves to data-intensive science in order to build better “disease maps”?	为什么科学家和医生没有大量使用数据密集型科学以建设更好的“疾病地图”呢？


One possible answer is that there are still technical barriers that block the construction and use of such networks.	一个可能的答案是仍然存在技术上的壁垒阻挡了这类网络的建设和使用。


With our ability to generate ever-rising oceans of molecular data – now approaching the zetabyte scale (that’s a one followed by 21 zeros) – comes the challenge of storing and deciphering this information.	我们打造不断扩大的分子数据海洋的能力在日渐成长，当前数据容量已经达到了ZB级别（即1后面跟21个0），随之而来的问题是如何储存和破译这些信息。


But scientists and software engineers regularly face such daunting challenges, and, with DNA serving as the reference language of modern biomedical research, the technical barriers to constructing disease networks will be short-lived.	但科学家和软件工程师遇到此类棘手问题可谓家常便饭，且现代生物药学研究由DNA作为参考语言，建设疾病网络的技术壁垒不消多久就能攻克。


Cultural barriers are the real stumbling block.	文化壁垒才是真正的障碍。


As humans, we are highly evolved to adjust to our surroundings: we tend to adapt to a culture, well-conceived or not, and lose sight of its failings.	作为人类，我们是高度进化的，因此能够适应我们的环境：我们倾向于接受一种文化（不管相不相信），并盲目地认为这种文化不会崩溃。


But when we glimpse an alternative, our culture’s inadequacies (and even insanities) are immediately apparent, which may prompt a cultural shift, collective action, and change.	但若我们稍稍开阔一下眼界，就会发现，我们的文化中的不足之处（甚至可以说是愚不可及之处）就会立刻变得昭然若揭，而这可能导致文化变迁、集体行动和变革。


The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and, more recently, the Arab Spring are clear examples of this dynamic.	1989年11月柏林墙的倒塌以及最近的阿拉伯之春便是这种动态链的明证。


Similarly, the example of the Beery twins shows us that an alternative to symptom-based medicine can be realized: the advent of genomics technology can change not just what is known, but, more importantly, how we think of ourselves.	类似地，比利双胞胎的例子表明，存在一种可替代基于症状的疗法的方案等着我们去实现：基因组技术的降临不但可以改变我们的知识，更重要的是，还可以我们对自己的看法。


But, in order to build the disease networks of tomorrow, we will need to move beyond the current linear approaches to science and to how scientists work.	但是，为了建设未来疾病网络，我们还需要超越现有科学和科学家研究工作的线性方法。


We all like a good story that unfolds in a straightforward way, but the story of disease plays out across a poly-nodal information network, similar to what an air traffic controller might track in the skies above a major airport.	我们都喜欢好消息以直观的方式展现在我们面前，但疾病信息并不是通过多节信息网络展现的（就像空中交通管制员跟踪大机场上空的痕迹那样）。


Biomedical researchers’ “lock and key” and linear-pathway representations are incomplete, and should be supplemented with disease maps that can now be built using molecular data.	生物医学研究者的“钥匙和锁”和线性表示是不完善的，必须补充以可用分子数据建设的疾病地图。


We must also build the infrastructure and cultivate the relationships needed to share disease maps with basic researchers, practicing doctors, drug developers, and even the public at large.	我们还必须建设共享基础设施、培养在基础研究者、执业医生、药品研发者甚至普罗大众间共享疾病地图所需要的关系。


And that could prove to be even more difficult, because the current closed nature of the medical-information system and its self-directed incentive structure block such sharing.	而这可能要困难得多，因为当前医学信息系统是封闭的，其自我导向的激励结构阻碍了信息的分享。


Patents, trademarks, and competition for resources (people, money, and accolades) seal off information and prevent molecular data from being analyzed and shared.	专利、商标和资源竞争（人才、资金和荣誉）让信息成为了秘辛，阻止了人们分析和共享分子数据。


Rewards in biomedical research go to “solo workers,” and do nothing to acknowledge the work that can be done only by multi-functional groups.	生物医学奖项被授予“独行侠”，而只有多功能团队才能完成的工作却得不到承认。


Despite these imposing obstacles to progress, there are reasons to believe that a cultural shift is afoot: researchers from geographically distant labs are forming non-traditional “federations” to combine their data sets, work on them collaboratively, and post the results for other scientists to analyze.	尽管有重重障碍需要克服，我们仍然有理由相信，文化变迁正在发生：来自相隔千里的不同实验室的研究者正在形成非传统的“联盟”，将彼此的数据集联合起来，在此基础上展开合作，并将结果提供给其他科学家分析。


Crowd-sourced competitions like DREAM Challenges and FoldIt show that important scientific findings can emerge from outside of universities and pharmaceutical companies.	众源（crowd-sourced）竞赛，如DREAM Challengers和FoldIt，表明重要的科学发现可以产生于大学和制药公司之外。


And public-private partnerships between drug developers, basic researchers, and patient groups that share information pre-competitively (that is, with no or limited patent filings) are an increasingly popular way to translate scientific findings into potentially meaningful clinical benefits.	药品研发者、基础研究者和病人之间共享信息的竞争前（pre-competitive）公私合作已成为将科学发现转化为潜在的有意义的临床效果的越来越普遍的方式。


But a few successful federations, competitions, and partnerships may not be enough to transform biomedical research.	但少数成功联盟、竞赛和合作���能还不足以改变生物医学研究。


Disruptive change may be required, and here each of us can make a profound difference.	我们也许需要破坏性变革，在这方面，我们每个人都有可能造成深远影响。


Patient groups are already organized; their members can report their symptoms online and self-enroll in clinical trials.	病人已经被组织起来； 病人组织成员可以在线报告自己的症状，并自我注册为临床试验对象。


We can already obtain portions of our own genetic information and use it to make informed medical decisions, join existing patient groups, or create new ones.	我们已经可以获得某些我们自身基因的信息，用之作出信息完全的医疗决策，加入已有的病人组织或成立新组织。


We can provide our genetic samples to data-driven trials to learn about our likelihood to respond to particular therapies.	我们可以为数据驱动实验提供自己的基因样本，以了解我们对特定疗法可能出现的反应。


We can even organize to self-fund future studies or join only those studies that give us the legal right to say how and where our data are used.	我们甚至可以组织自我融资的未来研究，或只参加给予我们决定我们的数据如何使用、用在哪里的法定权利的研究。


In other words, patients can and should stop being the passive “sick” and actively engage to pressure clinicians, researchers, and drug developers to adapt or perish.	换句话说，病人可以也应该不在只充当被动的“患者”，而是积极参与，给医生、研究者和药物研发者不适应就淘汰的压力。


Democratized medicine represents the fullest flowering of the biomedical information revolution.	民主化的医疗代表着生物医学革命最灿烂的结果。


There are few worthier goals than a future in which citizen-patients are active participants in managing their own health.	没有什么比公民病患积极参与管理其自身健康更值得追求的未来目标了。


Revolution and Reaction in Biopharming	生物制药的革命和反动


STANFORD – Obtaining medicines from plants is not new.	斯坦福—从植物中获得药物并非新鲜事。


Aspirin was first isolated from the bark of the willow tree in the eighteenth century.	阿司匹林最初就是在十八世纪从柳树皮中分离出来的。


And many other common pharmaceuticals, including morphine, codeine, and the fiber supplement Metamucil, are purified from the world’s flora.	其他许多常规药物，包括吗啡、可待因纤维补充剂美达施（Metamucil）都是由植物提纯而来。


More recently, scientists have developed techniques that take this process a step further, using genetic engineering to induce agricultural crops to synthesize high-value pharmaceuticals.	更晚近一些，科学家发展出将这一过程更进一步的技术，使用基因工程将农作物合成为高价值药物。


Known as “biopharming,” the great promise of this technology emerged about 15 years ago, with clinical trials of vaccines and drugs produced in bananas, tomatoes, and tobacco.	这一技术的远大前景被称为“生物制药”，出现在大约15年前，始于从香蕉、番茄和烟草中生产的疫苗和药物的临床试验。


Unfortunately, progress has since stalled, owing to the vehement risk-aversion of regulators.	不幸的是，由于监管者过于厌恶风险，生物制药的进步此后一直陷于停顿。


One early example of biopharming was the production by the biotech company Ventria Bioscience of rice that contained two human proteins, lactoferrin and lysozyme.	一个生物制药的早期例子是文特里亚生物科技公司（Ventria Bioscience）所生产的一种水稻，这种水稻包含两种人类蛋白质：乳铁蛋白和溶解酵素。


Once grown and harvested, the rice kernel is processed to extract and purify the proteins for use in oral rehydration solution for treating diarrhea, which is surpassed only by respiratory diseases as the leading infectious killer of children under the age of five in developing countries.	这种水稻种植和收获后，对其谷粒进行加工，提炼和提纯这两种蛋白质就可以用于治疗痢疾的口服补液。 在发展中国家，痢疾是仅次于呼吸道疾病的第二大五岁以下儿童流行病杀手。


The proteins have the same structure and functional properties as those found in natural breast milk, and the process for extracting them is analogous to that used routinely for the production of therapeutic proteins from organisms like bacteria and yeast.	这两种蛋白质的结构和功能特性与母乳中的蛋白质完全一样，而提纯过程与从细菌和酵母中提炼药用蛋白质类似。


Research in Peru showed that fortifying an oral-rehydration solution with the proteins extracted from Ventria’s rice substantially lessens the duration of diarrhea and reduces the rate of recurrence – a near-miraculous advance for people in the developing world.	秘鲁的研究表明用提炼自文特里亚公司的水稻的蛋白质强化口服补液疗法能大大缩短痢疾的持续期和复发率——这对于发展中世界的人们来说是一项不可思议的进步。


But regulators can undo miracles, and they regularly do.	但监管者扼杀了这一奇迹，他们经常这样。


When Ventria approached the US Food and Drug Administration in 2010 for recognition that these proteins are “generally recognized as safe” (a regulatory term of art), it received no response.	2010年，文特里亚公司向美国食品药品监管局（Food and Drug Administration，FDA）申请承认这些蛋白质“总体安全”（一个艺术性的监管用词），结果没有得到��何回复。


Without an endorsement by the FDA, the company was unwilling to market the product, and so it remains unavailable, tragically depriving children in developing countries of a life-saving therapy.	没有FDA的承认，该公司也不愿推广这一产品，因此至今我们仍买不到它，悲剧地剥夺了发展中国家儿童的救命药。


Even field testing biopharmed plants has proved problematic.	就连生物制药作物的田间试验也大有问题。


In 2003, the US Department of Agriculture announced onerous new rules for testing crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals.	2003年，美国农业部发布了关于以制药目的开发的作物的繁琐测试新规。


The ostensible objective of the regulation is to avoid contaminating food supplies with drugs, especially when edible crops are used to produce them.	从表面上看，这一规则的目标是避免食品供应受到药品污染，特别是在用适用作物生产它们的情况下。


But the food industry’s worries that biopharmed plants could contaminate their products are overblown.	但食品业的担忧——生物制药作物污染它们的产品——有过度之嫌。


And in any case, the risk can be mitigated in several ways, most obviously by using non-food plants like tobacco.	无论如何，风险可以用多种方法降低，最显而易见的便是使用烟草等非粮食作物。


In fact, even if biopharmed plants were to contaminate food crops, the likelihood that consumers would end up with harmful amounts of prescription drugs in their corn flakes, pasta, or tofu is very small.	事实上，即使生物制药作物污染粮食作物，消费者通过玉米片、意大利面或豆腐摄入有害量处方药的可能性也非常低。


Gene flow is an age-old process that is well understood by farmers, who grow hundreds of crops, virtually all of which have been genetically improved in some way with a variety of techniques.	基因流是一个由来已久的过程，农民对此有着深刻的理解。 农民种植数百种作物，几乎每一种都通过各种技术进行过基因改造。


As a result, they have developed meticulous strategies for preventing pollen cross-contamination in the field – when and if it is necessary for commercial reasons.	因此，他们小心翼翼地发展了各种防止田间花粉交叉感染的策略——只要在商业上有必要。


Even if some crops were to become contaminated, the chances that active drug substances would be present in the final food product at sufficient levels to have an adverse effect on human health would remain very small.	即使一些作物被污染，活跃药物成分出现以足够大量出现在最终食品产品中、足以给人类健康造成负面影响的概率也十分低。


The biopharmed plant would be pooled into a large harvest, where its pharmaceuticals would be heavily diluted.	生物制药作物将与各种作物混杂在一起，其药用成分将大大稀释。


The active agent would then need to survive milling and other processing, and then cooking, and it would need to be orally active, which protein drugs most often are not, because they are digested in the stomach.	活跃成分还将经历研磨和其他处理过程，然后被烹饪，还需要在口腔中就见效（orally active，大部分蛋白质药物不具备这一性质），因为在胃中它们会被消化。


The chance of all of this occurring is not zero, of course.	当然，所有这些条件都具备的可能性也不是零。


But, with a combination of factors – including natural selection, farmers’ pursuit of their commercial self-interest, and liability concerns – militating against such a possibility, the odds are very long, and the impact would almost certainly be very low.	但是，各种因素的组合——包括自然选择、农民追求其自身商业利益以及责任问题——都不利于这一可能，发生几率很低，影响也几乎肯定非常小。


When you weigh this against the possibility of the development of the drug industry’s Next Big Thing or, at the very least, a new method to produce high-value compounds at low cost, regulators’ preoccupation with such unlikely events appears to be misplaced.	与开发制药业的“下一个大事件”的可能性相比，或者与以低成本成产高价值成分的可能性相比，监管者斤斤计较于这种可能性极低的事件是极不合理的。


Biopharming has much to offer us.	生物制药能给我们带来很大的裨益。


If we are to reap what we can sow, however, we will need reasonable, science-based policies from regulators worldwide.	但是，要想从我们能够播种的东西中有所收获，我们需要全世界监管者采取基于科学的合理政策。


Sadly, to borrow a phrase from the late Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, that is like wishing that our cats could bark.	悲哀的是，借用诺贝尔经济学奖获得者米尔顿·弗里德曼（Milton Friedman）的话说，这就好比是希望猫能吠一样。


The Power to Develop	为发展而生的能源


CANBERRA – Trade-offs are an inherent part of life. We all recognize this from our private budgets.	发自堪培拉——取舍是人生固有的一个部分，而我们都从自己的私人预算安排中认识到了这一点。


To fix the roof, we may have to accept a less extravagant summer vacation.	为了翻修屋顶，暑假度假的支出可能不得不减少一点；


When we pick a cheaper wine, we can splurge on dessert.	点了便宜一些的葡萄酒，就可以上一些更昂贵的甜点。


Trade-offs also pervade environmental policy: Cutting more of one pollutant, for example, leaves fewer resources to address other issues.	取舍在环境政策中也很普遍：如果在削减某一类污染物上投入较多，那么留给解决其他问题的资源就会相应减少。


For example, coal is phenomenally polluting, but it also provides for cheap and reliable power, which drives development.	比如说煤炭造成了惊人的污染，但它也提供了廉价和可靠的电力去推动发展。


Over the past 30 years, China has lifted 680 million people out of poverty, mostly through the use of coal.	在过去的30年中，中国主要借助燃煤就使6. 8亿人摆脱了贫困。


The average Chinese has become more than 13 times richer.	其人均富裕程度也比过去增长了13倍有多。


At the same time, Beijing and numerous other Chinese metropolises are experiencing debilitating smog, reminiscent of London in the 1950’s.	与此同时，北京以及中国许多大城市正遭遇着致病的雾霾，让人不禁联想到1950年代的伦敦。


About 1.2 million Chinese die prematurely each year because of outdoor air pollution.	每年约有120万中国人因室外空气污染过早死亡。


Measurements from Beijing show that upwards of 16% of the air pollution comes from coal.	北京的空气测量数据表明，空气污染成分中有超过16%来自煤炭。


The World Bank estimates that China’s total annual air-pollution costs – based on what Chinese themselves indicate they are willing to pay to reduce their risk of dying – could be as high as 4% of GDP.	世界银行估计，中国的年度总空气污染成本——由中国人表示愿意为降低死亡风险而支付的金额计算得出——竟相当于国内生产总值的4%。


And yet the Chinese trade-off has been phenomenally beneficial.	然而，中国的取舍带来非常大的收益。


In 1982, the average Chinese earned $585 a year; last year, she earned $7,958.	1982年中国人均年薪为585美元，去年已经达到了7958美元。


Meanwhile, the annual per capita environmental cost is $318.	而同时产生的人均环境成本则为318美元。


So, not surprisingly, most other developing countries would gratefully seize the opportunity to replicate China’s growth pattern – including its pollution.	因此不出所料，大多数发展中国家都会乐于抓住机会复制中国的增长模式——包括污染。


Of course, the Chinese could do more to cut air pollution.	当然，中国可以实施更多的举措去减少空气污染。


It is estimated that meeting the World Health Organization’s interim standards could reduce damages by $80 per capita.	据估计如果能符合世界卫生组织暂时设立的标准，中国的人均环境损失将可减少80美元。


But that pales in comparison to the $600 increase in per capita income in 2013.	但相比于2013年人均收入600美元的增长，这个数字就不值一提了。


Nonetheless, many who live in rich countries confidently declare that this trade-off is not in the interest of the poor.	尽管如此，许多生活在富裕国家的人依然会自信地宣称这种取舍是不利于穷人的。


The United States, the United Kingdom, and other European countries announced this year that they will not support international finance for coal-fired power plants in developing countries.	今年，美国，英国和其他欧洲国家宣布将不再为发展中国家建设燃煤电厂提供国际金融支持。


These countries abstained in 2010 when the World Bank helped finance South Africa’s Medupi coal-fired power plant.	当世界银行于2010年资助南非兴建迈德匹燃煤发电厂时，这些国家投了弃��票。


Today, they would vote it down.	如今，它们则会投否决票。


But Medupi will provide 10% of South Africa’s electricity and prevent rolling blackouts.	但迈德匹将提供南非10%的电力并防止反复停电。


As the South African finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, explained, “to sustain the growth rates we need to create jobs, we have no choice but to build new generating capacity – relying on what, for now, remains our most abundant and affordable energy source: coal.”	南非财政部长普拉温·戈尔丹（Pravin Gordhan）解释说，“为了保持增长，我们需要创造工作机会，除了建立新的发电能力，我们别无选择——而这依赖于当前我们最丰富和负担得起的能源：煤炭。


The US government even acknowledged that, without a coal-fired power plant, South Africa’s “economic recovery will suffer, adversely impacting electrification, job creation, and social indicators.”	”美国政府甚至承认如果没有燃煤发电厂，南非的“经济复苏，电气化，就业以及社会指标都将受到不利影响。 ”


Energy poverty is even more acute for the three billion people – almost half of the world’s population – who burn dung, cardboard, and twigs indoors to cook and keep warm.	能源匮乏对三十亿人——也就是几乎一半的世界人口——来说甚至更为严峻，他们在室内烧牲畜粪便，纸板和树枝来做饭和取暖。


The WHO estimates that while outdoor air pollution in developing-country cities may be ten times higher than in advanced-country cities, average indoor air pollution, caused by burning wood and dung, is a hundred times higher.	世界卫生组织估计，在发展中国家城市的室外空气污染可能比发达国家城市高十倍，而通过燃烧木材和粪便造成的平均室内空气污染会高出一百倍。


Indeed, indoor air pollution kills 3.5 million people each year, making it the world’s deadliest environmental problem.	事实上，室内空气污染每年造成350万人死亡，使其成为世界上最严重的环境问题。


The world’s three billion energy-poor people need cheap electricity to cook and keep warm.	世界上三十亿缺乏能源的人需要廉价的电力来做饭和取暖。


And, for the foreseeable future, that electricity will be generated by fossil fuels.	而且，在可预见的将来，电力将由化石燃料产生。


Some environmental campaigners argue for cleaner stoves.	一些环保人士呼吁采用更清洁燃烧的炉灶。


But, while this might be part of the solution, it is essentially telling the poor to live with slightly less polluting open fires in their homes.	虽然这可能是解决方案的一部分，但它本质上也就是告诉穷人使用较小污染的明火在自己家中生活。


Moreover, studies indicate that even significant air-pollution reduction starting at high levels will have only a minor impact.	此外研究也表明，在高度空气污染环境下即便显著降低空气污染也只能产生轻微的影响。


Others claim that renewables are the way to go.	其他人认为，可再生能源是必由之路。


Green energy, especially wind, can indeed help African countries, for example, get some electricity to remote, rural areas; but the grid will do the most good for the most people.	绿色能源，特别是风能，的确可以帮助非洲国家，例如为边远地区提供一些电力； 而电网将使大多数人受益。


According to a recent World Bank study, distributed renewable energy “will be the lowest cost option for a minority of households in Africa, even when likely cost reductions over the next 20 years are considered.”	根据世界银行最近一项研究，分布式可再生能源“将是非洲少数家庭成本最低的选择，即使有可能考虑在未来20年削减成本。


Popular solar lights cost almost $2 per kWh.	”受欢迎的太阳能灯成本约2美元每千瓦时。


Using hydro, gas, and oil, the grid cost for the main population centers in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Kenya will likely be $0.16-25 per kWh.	如果使用水力，天然气和石油为埃塞俄比亚，加纳和肯尼亚的主要人口中心供电，电网成本可能是0. 16-25美元每千瓦时。


In South Africa, where coal powers 90% of electricity, the cost is just $0.09 per kWh.	在南非，90%的电力来自煤炭，而成本仅为0. 09美元每千瓦时。


True, electricity from coal will cause extra air pollution.	没错，煤炭发电将导致额外的空气污染。


But pollution from indoor air pollution, which would disappear with electrification, accounts for 16% of outdoor air pollution.	但室内空气污染将因电气化而消失——这种污染占了室外空气污染的16%。


Even assuming (unrealistically) that coal produces all of the world’s air pollution, we could generate 250 kWh/year with coal for every one of the three billion energy-poor people and still end up with lower air pollution.	即使（不切实际地）假设煤炭导致了世界上所有的空气污染，我们可以使用煤炭每年为三十亿能源缺乏者生产每人250千瓦时电力，而且最终还能降低空气污染。


Moreover, it is easy and fairly cheap to cut coal pollution 90% or more with scrubbers.	此外通过清洁技术的应用，还可以轻易且低成本地减少90%甚至更多的煤污染。


For many opponents of coal, the issue is global warming.	对于很多燃煤反对者来说，全球变暖才是关键问题。


According to Christiana Figueres, the United Nations climate chief, coal-fueled development has “an unacceptably high cost to human and environmental health.”	根据联合国气象主席克里斯蒂安娜·菲格雷斯（Christiana Figueres）所说，煤作为燃料的发展“对环境和人类健康的成本高得令人无法接受。


She argues that we need to close 75% of the planet’s coal-fired power plants, including all of South Africa’s, because they emit too much CO2.	”她认为，我们需要关闭地球上75%的燃煤发电厂，包括南非所有的燃煤发电厂，因为它们排出过多的二氧化碳。


Al Gore’s climate adviser, James Hansen, argues that if we allow developing countries to “come up to the level of the developed world, then the planet is done for.”	戈尔的气候顾问，杰姆斯·汉森（James Hansen）认为，如果我们允许发展中国家“达到发达国家的水平，那么地球就完了。 ”


Yes, the world needs to address global warming (mainly through higher investments in green research and development, and by promoting exploitation of cheap, less-polluting shale gas).	是的，世界需要解决全球变暖问题（主要通过加大对绿色能源研究和发展的投资，促进廉价和低污染页岩气的开发）。


But global warming will cause damage worth possibly 1-5% of GDP by the end of the century, when the UN expects developing-world incomes to have risen by 1,400-1,800%.	但全球变暖问题将在本世纪末导致大概价值占GDP1~5%的损失，而联合国预计那时发展中国家的收入已增长了1400~1800 %。


Meanwhile, poverty is killing millions right now, with an impact on global GDP that is likely an order of magnitude higher.	同时，随着全球GDP可能呈数量级增长的影响，贫困正在造成数百万人死亡。


And too many people, however well-intentioned, are unwilling to acknowledge the tradeoffs needed to improve poor people’s lives.	并且，太多的人虽是出于好意，但不愿意承认取舍首先是要改善穷人的生活。


The Realism of Global Optimism	全球乐观的现实主义


PRAGUE – Read a newspaper or watch the evening news, and the world always seems to be getting worse.	布拉格—看看报纸或者看看新闻，你会觉得世界无时无刻不再变坏。


One problem after another is put under a spotlight.	镜头里，一个问题接着一个问题。


The more death, destruction, and despair, the better.	死亡、毁坏、绝望，越多这样的消息，新闻越兴奋。


As one Danish journalism textbook puts it: “A good story is usually bad news.”	一本丹麦新闻学教科书说：“好故事通常都是坏消息。 ”


Only occasionally do we get uplifting, things-are-getting-better stories.	偶尔（只是偶尔）我们也可以遇到一些正能量的越变越好的故事。


When we do, they feel like a guilty pleasure.	这时我们就会有一种负罪感。


As a result, we often think that the world is in worse shape than it is – even if we think our own lives are improving.	结果，我们通常觉得世界比实际上更糟——尽管我们也认为我们的生活正在改善。


Consider this: Since 1978, American consumers have been asked whether their current financial situation is better or worse than it was a year earlier.	举个例子。 1978年以来，美国消费者每年都会被调查当前财务状况比一年前更糟还是更好。


Over the past 25 years, an average of 38% have said they are doing better, while 32% have said they are doing worse.	在过去25年中，平均有38%的人说情况更好了，有32%的人说情况更糟了。


But, when asked the same question about the overall US economy, an average of 47% have said it is doing worse, compared to 38% who think it is doing better.	但是，在被问及美国经济总体状况时，平均有47%的人说情况更糟了，只有38%的人说情况更好了。


More people think their lives are improving, while others are doing worse, probably because of journalists’ persistent bias in favor of bad news.	更多的人认为他们的生活在改善，而别人的生活在恶化，也许这就是新闻记者长久以来偏好坏消息的结果。


The phenomenon is not limited to the United States.	这一现象并不局限于美国。


Since 1977, Gallup International has asked people around the world whether they believe their lives will be better next year than they were the year before.	自1977年以来，盖洛普公司每年都会问世界各地的人认为明年是否回避过去的一年生活得更好。


For 2014, almost 50% of those surveyed said that their lives will be better, with just 20% saying they will be worse off.	对于2014年，近50%的受访者说生活会变得更好，只有20%的人认为会变坏。


Yet, asked for their opinion of how the world economy will fare, the score is almost even, with 32% believing that it will be better, and 30% that it will be worse.	但是，再被问及世界经济，观点几乎是五五开，32%的人���为会变好，30%的人认为会变坏。


So it is worth stepping back and recognizing that many indicators point to a world that is improving.	因此，有必要回过头查看并确认许多指标都表明世界正在改善。


New data from the World Bank show that the proportion of extremely poor people has more than halved over the last 30 years, from 42% of the global population in 1981 to 17% in 2010.	世界银行的新数据表明，极端贫困人口比例在过去30年中下降了一大半，从1981年占总人口的42%下降到2010年的17%。


While 1.2 billion people in the developing world still live on less than $1.25 per day – a problem that we certainly must address – the rate of extreme poverty has never been lower.	尽管12亿发展中世界的人们每天的生活费仍不到1. 25美元——这毫无疑问是必须得到解决的问题——但极端贫困率从未如此之低。


Economists estimate that in 1820, more than 80% of all people were extremely poor.	经济学家估算，在1820年，超过80%的人口生活在极端贫困中。


Similarly, consider the amazing improvements in education.	类似地，想想教育方面令人欣喜的改善。


Illiteracy today still afflicts 20% of the world’s population, but that is down sharply from an estimated 70% in 1900.	如今，20%的世界人口仍在接受文盲的折磨，但比1900年的70%（估计水平）已是天壤之别。


In the prosperous West, rapid increases in literacy were achieved early in the twentieth century.	在繁荣的西方，20世纪初就实现了识字率的快速上升。


In developing countries, similarly large (and continuing) gains were made from 1970 to 2000, with China recording the biggest improvement.	在发展中国家，类似的大规模（并仍在继续的）改善发生于1970—2000年，其中中国的成就最为显著。


The costs of poor education are substantial.	穷人教育的成本是巨大的。


For example, Pakistan and South Korea started with about the same level of education and income in 1950.	比如，1950年，巴基斯坦和韩国的教育和收入水平基本相当。


Today, the average South Korean has 12 years of education, whereas the average Pakistani has fewer than six.	如今，韩国人平均受教育年限为12年，而巴基斯坦不到六年。


South Korea’s per capita income grew 23-fold over this period, compared to Pakistan’s three-fold growth.	在此期间，韩国人均收入提高了23倍，而巴基斯坦只有三倍。


Together with the Copenhagen Consensus, economists have attempted to assess the cost of illiteracy.	经济学家在与哥本哈根共识（Copenhagen Consensus）的合作下试图评估文盲成本。


We estimate that if there had been no illiteracy in 1900, the world would have been $240 billion richer (in inflation-adjusted terms), equivalent to about 12% of global GDP at the time.	据我们测算，如果1900年便已消灭了文盲，世界应该比实际情况多拥有2400亿美元（经通胀调整）的财富，相当于当时全球GDP的12%。


So, the global illiteracy problem in 1900 can be said to have cost the world 12% of GDP.	因此，可以说1900年时全球文盲问题让全世界付出了12%的GDP的代价。


Today, the cost of global illiteracy is down to 7% of GDP.	如今，全球文盲造成的成本下降到GDP的7%。


By 2050, when illiteracy will reach about 12%, the cost will have dwindled to just 3.8% of GDP.	到2050年，文盲率将下降到12%左右，其成本将减少到只有GDP的3. 8%。


Likewise, war carries a high economic and human cost.	类似地，战争也会造成巨大的经济和人力成本。


But, while the images of it that we see are more immediate and vivid than ever, our perception of ubiquitous conflict is wrong.	但是，尽管如今我们可以以以前无法想象的速度和生动程度看到战争影像，但我们对冲突无处不在的感觉是错误的。


In the twentieth century, conflict killed 140 million people, including 78-90 million in the two world wars.	在20世纪，冲突夺走了1. 4亿人的生命，其中两次世界大战就杀掉了7800—9000万人。


The good news, which is not often publicized (precisely because it is good), is that scenarios in which military spending is higher, the same, or lower in the future suggest that the high military costs of the twentieth century have been turned into what looks like a permanent peace dividend.	不太被公众了解的好消息（之所以如此，只是因为这是好消息）是未来军事开支会更高、不变或更低的情景都表明，二十世纪的高军事成本已经形成了类似于永久和平分裂的局面。


World War I cost about 20% of global GDP, and WWII cost almost twice as much.	第一次世界大战造成的成本相当于全球GDP的20%，二战则还要高出一倍。


When examining the cost of conflict, the Copenhagen Consensus economists estimate the actual costs of global military expenditure.	在考察冲突的成本时，哥本哈根共识经济学家估算的是全球军事开支的实际成本。


If one also takes into account the lives lost in battle, the estimates increase by about 50%.	如果我们还纳入战争中的生命损失，那么估计值还会提高50%左右。


According to these estimates, annual military costs in the twentieth century averaged about 5% of GDP.	根据这些估计数字，二十世纪军事成本每年大约平均相当于GDP的5%。 但是，自朝鲜战争的顶峰（7%）以来，全球成本一直在稳步下降，1980年大约为3.


Yet, since the Korean War peak of 7%, global costs have declined steadily, reaching 3.5% in 1980 and about 1.7% today.	7%左右。 即便是悲观的情景也表明，到2050年这一成本只会上升到1.


Even a pessimistic outlook suggests an increase only to about 1.8% by 2050; under a more optimistic scenario, military costs could decline further, to 1.6% of GDP.	8%； 而在乐观情境中，军事成本将进一步下降到GDP的1.


There are still plenty of problems in the world, as the news media point out every day.	世界仍然充满各种问题，新闻媒体每天都在披露。


And we do need to focus on eliminating poverty, stamping out illiteracy, and promoting peace.	我们需要将注意力集中在消除贫困、消灭文盲和推进和平上。


But we also need to remember that the world is a better place overall than we think.	但我们也需要记住，总体而言世界比我们认为的更美好。


The Davos Apocalypse	达沃斯启示录


FORT LAUDERDALE – At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos last month, leading participants called for a rapid shift to cleaner energy to tackle climate change.	劳德代尔堡——在上个月召开的达沃斯世界经济论坛年会上，主要与会者呼吁迅速推广使用清洁能源以应对气候变化。


There is something unsettling about the global power elite jetting into an exclusive Swiss ski resort and telling the rest of the world to stop using fossil fuels.	全球权力精英一边飞到瑞士专属的滑雪胜地，一边呼吁其他人停用化石燃料让人感觉哪里不对劲。


The apocalyptic bombast is even more disturbing.	有关世界末日的夸大其词更让人心神不定。


According to Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD, “our planet is warming dangerously,” and we need to act now “to avoid catastrophe”; the United Nations climate chief, Christiana Figueres, maintains that global warming means that “the world economy is at risk.”	经合组织秘书长安赫尔·古里亚称“地球已经变暖到十分危险的地步，”我们必须立即行动才能“避免灾难的发生”； 联合国气候负责人克里斯蒂娜·菲格雷斯认为全球变暖意味着“世界经济正处在危险之中”。


Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan takes the prize for the most extreme rhetoric, claiming that not curbing global warming is “a terrible gamble with the future of the planet and with life itself.”	联合国前秘书长科菲·安南夺得最耸人听闻奖，他声称不制止全球变暖是在“拿地球的未来和生命本身做一场可怕的赌博。 ”


Yet, the rhetoric is unconvincing.	但光靠信誓旦旦无法令人信服。


Yes, global warming is real and man-made.	的确，全球变暖切实存在并与人类活动相关。


But creating panic and proposing unrealistic policies will not help in tackling the problem.	但制造恐慌和提出不切实际的政策不会对解决问题有任何帮助


Both Annan and Gurría cited Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines last November as evidence of increased climate-change-related damage.	安南和古里亚不约而同地用去年11月的菲律宾台风海燕来证明气候变化造成的损失。


Never mind that the latest report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and reported “low confidence” that any changes in hurricanes in recent (or future) decades had anything to do with global warming.	两人都全然不顾联合国政府间气候变化委员会（IPCC）发布的最新报告，该报告认为“当前数据未显示全球热带气旋频率与上世纪相比有明显趋势性变化”，并提出“不相信”过去（或未来）数十年中全球变暖会造成任何飓风变化。


Annan and Gurría also neglected to note that global Accumulated Cyclone Energy, an index for total hurricane activity, is hovering at the lowest values seen since the 1970’s.	安南和古里亚忘了指出测量飓风总活动状况的全球气旋能量指数自20世纪70年代开始就徘徊在最低值。


Indeed, the trend for strong hurricanes around the Philippines has declined since 1951.	事实上，菲律宾周边强飓风走势从1951年后一直处于下降状态。


Similarly, Gurría tells us that Hurricane Sandy, which slammed into New York City in 2012, is an example of inaction on climate change, costing the United States “the equivalent of 0.5% of its GDP” each year.	同样，古里亚称2012年猛烈袭击纽约市的飓风桑迪是在气候变化面前不作为的活生生的例子，飓风灾害每年为美国造成“相当于GDP 0.


In fact, the US currently is experiencing the longest absence of intense landfall hurricanes since records began in 1900, while the adjusted damage cost for the US during this period, including Hurricane Sandy, has fallen slightly.	5%的财产损失”。 事实上，自20世纪有记录以来美国现在无强飓风登陆时长已创下历史记录，在此期间内包括飓风桑迪在内经调整的损失成本也略有降低。


Figueres claims “that current annual losses worldwide due to extreme weather and disasters could be a staggering 12% of annual global GDP.”	菲格雷斯称“全球目前因极端天气和灾害造成的年度损失最高可达年度全球GDP的12%。


But the study she cites shows only a possible loss of 1-12% of GDP in the future, and this is estimated not globally but within just eight carefully selected, climate-vulnerable regions or cities.	”但她所引用的研究结果显示未来可能损失仅占GDP的1-12%，而且这还不是全球数据，而仅限于8座精心挑选的易受气候变化影响的地区或者城市。


By contrast, according to the IPCC, “long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change.”	相反，按照政府间气候变化专门委员会的研究成果，“气候变化并不决定经财富人口调整后经济灾害损失的长期趋势。 ”


On the contrary, the bulk of peer-reviewed economic evidence indicates that, up to around 2050-2070, the net global economic impact of rising temperatures is likely to be positive.	相反，经业内审议的大部分经济证据表明截止到2050-2070年左右，因气温上升所造成的净全球经济影响可能是正面的。


Although global warming will create costs stemming from more heat-related deaths and water stress, they will be outweighed by the benefits from many fewer cold-related deaths and higher agricultural productivity from higher levels of CO2.	尽管全球变暖导致因酷热和水患造成的死亡人数增加，但寒冷造成的死亡人数减少和二氧化碳含量升高造成的农业高产将抵消前者所带来的损失。


Global warming is a long-term problem.	全球变暖是长期存在的问题。


Most models indicate that the cost toward the end of the century will be 1-5% of world GDP.	多数模型显示本世纪末全球变暖损失将占全球GDP的1-5％。


This is not a trivial loss; but nor does it put “the world economy at risk.”	上述损失绝非微不足道； 但也没有“威胁到世界经济”。


For comparison, the IPCC expects that by the end of the century, the average person in the developing world will be 1,400-1,800% richer than today.	相比之下，政府间气候变化专门委员会预计截止本世纪末，发展中国家的普通民众将比今天富裕1,400-1,800%。


Such incorrect statements by leading officials reinforce wasteful policies based on wishful thinking.	主要官员的这种错误说法助长了一厢情愿的浪费政策。


Figueres sees “momentum growing toward” climate policies as countries like China “reduce coal use.”	菲格雷斯认为随着以中国为首的国家“减少煤炭使用”，推广气候政策成为越来越明显的势头。


In the real world, China accounts for almost 60% of the global increase in coal consumption from 2012 to 2014, according to the International Energy Agency.	国际能源机构统计显示现实生活中中国占2012至2014年全球煤炭消费增量的近60%。


While Figueres lauds China for dramatically increasing its solar-power capacity in 2013, the increase in China’s reliance on coal power was 27 times greater.	虽然菲格雷斯称赞中国在2013年大幅增加了太阳能发电量，但中国对煤炭能源的依赖也增长了27倍。


Figueres’s weak grasp on the facts has led her not only to conclude that China is “doing it right” on climate change, but also to speculate that China has succeeded because its “political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the US.”	菲格雷斯不了解现实导致她不仅认为中国的气候变化对策是“正确的”，而且还臆测中国的成功因其“政治体制避免了美国等国家存在的立法障碍。


In other words, the UN’s top climate official seems to be suggesting that an authoritarian political system is better for the planet.	”换句话说，联合国首席气候官员似乎在暗示独裁政治制度更符合地球的需要。


The fact remains that global wind and solar power usage in 2012 cut, at most, 275 million tons of CO2, while soaking up $60 billion in subsidies.	现实情况是2012年全球推广风能和太阳能最多减排了2. 75亿吨二氧化碳，却因此耗费了高达600亿美元的补贴。


With the electricity worth possibly $10 billion, the average cost of cutting a ton of CO2 is about $180.	由此生产的清洁电能可能价值100亿美元，因此减排每吨二氧化碳约耗费180美元成本。


The biggest peer-reviewed estimate of the damage cost of CO2 is about $5 per ton.	经业内审议二氧化碳损失的最大估计值为5美元每吨，也就是说太阳能和风能发电每耗费1美元避免了约0.


This means that solar and wind power avoid about $0.03 of climate damage for every dollar spent.	03美元的气候损失。


Compare this to smarter technological solutions.	对比一下更明智的技术解决方案。


In the short run, the US shale-energy revolution has replaced high-polluting coal with cheaper, cleaner natural gas.	从短期看，美国页岩能源革命已经用更便宜清洁的天然气取代了高污染煤炭。


This has cut about 300 million tons of US emissions – more than all the world’s solar and wind power combined – and at the same time has profited Americans by saving them $100 billion in energy costs.	此举减少了约3亿吨美国二氧化碳排放——超过全世界所有风能及太阳能减排的总和——同时还为美国人节省了能源开支1000亿美元。


In the long run, current investment in green research and development will help drive the price of future renewable energy below that of fossil fuels, enabling a choice that is both environmentally and economically sound.	长远看，当前绿色能源研发投资将使未来可再生能源价格低于化石燃料，从而创造出环境和经济的双赢选择。


In the meantime, even dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions will have very little impact on hurricanes 50-100 years from now.	同时，即便大幅减排二氧化碳也不会对今后50-100年的飓风灾害造成多大影响。


Lifting billions of people out of poverty, however, would not only be intrinsically good; it would also make societies much more resilient in the face of extreme weather, whether caused by global warming or not.	相反，让数十亿人摆脱贫困不仅从本质上是桩善举； 同时也能使社会在应对全球变暖和其他原因所导致的极端天气时更加从容。


Unfortunately, as we saw at Davos, the global climate debate is polluted with myths and wishful thinking.	遗憾的是，我们在达沃斯看到全球气候辩论充斥着虚构和一厢情愿。


If we want to do more good at lower cost, we should start by cleaning it up.	只有尽快改正，我们才能实现少花钱办好事的目标。


The Environment of Poverty	贫困的环境


COPENHAGEN – Despite gains in life expectancy, expanded access to education, and lower rates of poverty and hunger, the world has a long way to go to improve the quality of people’s lives.	哥本哈根—尽管寿命预期有了提高、教育更加普及、贫困和饥饿率也有所下降，但世界在改善人民生活质量方面仍有很长的路要走。


Almost a billion people still go to bed hungry, 1.2 billion live in extreme poverty, 2.6 billion lack access to clean drinking water and sanitation, and almost three billion burn harmful materials inside their homes to keep warm.	近十亿人仍然食不果腹，12亿人生活在极端贫困中，26亿人无法获得清洁水 和卫生设施，近三十亿人在家中用有害燃料取暖。


Each year, ten million people die from infectious diseases like malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis, along with pneumonia and diarrhea.	每年都有一千万人死于疟疾、艾滋病和结核病等传染病以及肺炎和痢疾。


Lack of water and sanitation is estimated to cause at least 300,000 deaths each year.	据估计，缺少水和卫生设施每年也至少造成300,000人死亡。


Malnourishment claims at least 1.4 million children’s lives.	营养不良至少要夺走140万儿童的生命。


Poverty is one of the main killers.	贫困是主要杀手之一。


It is why children do not receive proper nutrition and live in neighborhoods with unclean water and inadequate sanitation.	因为贫困，儿童无法获得合理的营养，只能生活在水不干净、卫生设施不足的社区。


And it is why an entirely preventable disease like malaria kills 600,000 people each year; many are too poor to buy drugs and bed nets, while governments are often too poor to eradicate the mosquitos that carry the disease or contain and treat outbreaks when they occurs.	因为贫困，疟疾等完全可预防的疾病每年要杀死 600,000人； 许多人太穷以至于买不起药品和防虫蚊帐，而政府在杀灭携带病菌的蚊子或遏制和治疗传染病暴发方面做得也太差。


But some of the most lethal problems are environmental.	但其中一些最致命的问题是环境问题。


According to the World Health Organization, about seven million deaths each year are caused by air pollution, with the majority a result of burning twigs and dung inside.	根据世界卫生组织的数据，每年大约七百万人因为空气污染而死亡，其中大部分是因为在室内燃烧柴枝和粪便而致死。


Previous generations’ use of lead in paints and gasoline is estimated to cause almost 700,000 deaths annually. Ground-level ozone pollution kills more than 150,000 people per year, while global warming causes another 141,000 deaths.	此前，含铅油漆和汽油据估计每年也要造成150,000多人死亡，而全球变暖造成的死亡人数为141,000人。


Naturally occurring radioactive radon that builds up inside homes kills about 100,000 people every year.	自然发生放射性氡（用作室内建筑材料）每年也要杀死大约100,000人。


Here, too, poverty plays a disproportionate role.	在这里，贫困也起到了很大的作用。


No one lights a fire every night inside their house for fun; they do so because they lack the electricity needed to stay warm and to cook.	没有人会为了取乐每天在房子里点火； 之所以如此是因为得不到取暖和烹饪所需要的电力。


While outdoor air pollution is partly caused by incipient industrialization, this represents a temporary tradeoff for the poor – escaping hunger, infectious disease, and indoor air pollution to be better able to afford food, health care, and education.	尽管室外空气污染部分原因在于不成熟的工业化，但这对穷人来说是一个临时性的权衡问题——摆脱贫困、传染病和室内空气污染，从而能够更好地负担食品、医疗和教育成本。


When countries become sufficiently rich, they can afford cleaner technology and begin to enact environmental legislation to reduce outdoor air pollution, as we now see in Mexico City and Santiago, Chile.	当国家足够富裕时，就能够负担更清洁的技术、开始实施环境立法以减少室外空气污染，墨西哥城和智利的圣地亚哥现在就是如此。


One of the best anti-poverty tools is trade.	反贫困的最佳工具之一是贸易。


China has lifted 680 million people out of poverty over the past three decades through a strategy of rapid integration into the global economy.	过去三十年中，中国通过迅速融入全球经济的战略让6. 8亿人走出了贫困。


Extending free trade, especially for agriculture, throughout the developing world is likely the single most important anti-poverty measure that policymakers could implement this decade.	扩大整个发展中世界的自由贸易（特别是农业贸易）也许是这个十年��策者所能实施的最重要的减贫措施。


But it is also encouraging that the world is spending more money to help the world’s poor, with development aid almost doubling in real terms over the past 15 years.	但另一个令人鼓舞之处是，在过去15年中，世界用于帮助穷人的钱正在增加，用实际值衡量，发展援助规模几乎翻倍。


This has boosted resources to help people suffering from malaria, HIV, malnutrition, and diarrhea.	这扩大了帮助饱受疟疾、艾滋病、营养不良和疟疾的人群的资源。


And, though the data are somewhat inconsistent, it is clear that the world is spending more on the environment.	此外，尽管数据方面存在一些不一致，但显然世界在环境方面的支出也在增加。


Aid for environmental projects has increased from about 5% of measured bilateral aid in 1980 to almost 30% today, bringing the annual total to about $25 billion.	环境项目援助占双边援助的比例从1980年的5%左右增加到今天的近30%，相当于每年250美元。


That sounds great.	这听起来很不错。


The world can increasingly focus aid on the main environmental problems – indoor and outdoor air pollution, along with lead and ozone pollution – that cause almost all environment-related deaths.	世界能够日益将援助集中于主要环境问题——室内和室外空气污染以及铅和臭氧污染——几乎所有与环境有关的死亡都是由这些问题造成的。


Unfortunately, that is not happening.	不幸的是，事实并非如此。


Almost all environmental aid – about $21.5 billion, according to the OECD – is spent on climate change.	几乎所有环境援助——根据经合组织的数据，总量达到了215亿美元左右——都被用在了气候变化上。


There is no doubt that global warming is a problem that we should tackle smartly (though our track record so far has not been encouraging).	毫无疑问，全球变暖是我们应该巧妙应对的问题（尽管我们的历史记录并不令人鼓舞）。


But doing so requires cheap green energy, especially in the developed world, not spending aid money to reduce developing countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases like CO₂.	但这样做需要廉价绿色能源（特别是在发达国家），而不是将援助资金用于减少发展中国家的二氧化碳等温室气体的排放量。


Indeed, there is something fundamentally immoral about the way we set our priorities.	事实上，我们设置优先项的方式具有根本的不合理性。


The OECD estimates that the world spends at least $11 billion of total development money just to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.	经合组织估计，世界花在减少温室气体排放上的发展资金总数至少在110亿美元。


A large part of this is through renewable power like wind, hydro, and solar.	其中很大一部分通过风电、水电和太阳能电等可再生电力实现。


For example, Japan recently granted $300 million of its development aid to subsidize solar and wind power in India.	比如，日本最近拨出3亿美元发展援助用于补贴印度的太阳能电和风电项目。


If all $11 billion were spent on solar and wind in the same proportion as current global spending, global CO₂ emissions would fall by about 50 million tons each year.	如果这110亿美元如同当前全球开支比例一样全部用于太阳能电和风电，全球二氧化碳排放量每年可以减少大约5,000万吨。


Run on a standard climate model, this would reduce temperatures so trivially – about 0.00002oC in the year 2100 – that it is the equivalent of postponing global warming by the end of the century by a bit more than seven hours.	用标准气候模型计算，这对气温的降低效应可以忽略不计——到2100年可降低0. 00002℃——相当于让截至本世纪末的全球变暖趋势停止七个多小时。


Of course, climate campaigners might point out that the solar panels and wind turbines will give electricity – albeit intermittently – to about 22 million people.	当然，气候支持者也许会指出，太阳能板和风电涡轮机能为大约2,200万人提供电力——尽管无法做到不间断供电。


But if that same money were used for gas electrification, we could lift almost 100 million people out of darkness and poverty.	但如果同样数量的钱用于燃气电气化，我们可以让近1亿人告别黑暗和贫困。


Moreover, that $11 billion could be used to address even more pressing issues.	此外，这110亿美元可以用于解决更加紧迫的问题。


Calculations from the Copenhagen Consensus show that it could save almost three million lives each year if directed toward preventing malaria and tuberculosis, and increasing childhood immunization.	哥本哈根共识中心（Copenhagen Consensus）的计算表明，如果这笔钱用于预防疟疾和结核病以及推广儿童免疫，每年可以挽救近三百万条生命。


It could also be used to increase agricultural productivity, saving 200 million from starvation in the long run, while ameliorating natural disasters through early-warning systems.	这笔钱还可以用于增加农业生产率，在长期让2亿人告别饥饿，同时通过早期预警系统减轻自然灾害。


And there would be money left over to help develop an HIV vaccine, deliver drugs to treat heart attacks, provide a Hepatitis B vaccine to the developing world, and prevent 31 million children from starving each year.	此外还能有结余用于帮助发展中国家开发艾滋病疫苗、提供心脏病药物、推广乙肝疫苗，每年让3,100万儿童免于饥饿。


Is it really better to postpone global warming by seven hours?	让全球变暖停止7小时真的是更好的选择吗？


Even if we continue spending $11 billion to avoid an increase in greenhouse gases for a hundred years, we would postpone global warming by less than one month by the end of the century – an achievement with no practical impact for anyone on the planet.	即使我们在此后一百年继续将这笔钱用于阻止温室气体增加，截至世纪末，我们也只能让全球变暖进程停止不到一个月——这一结果对地球上的任何人都无法形成实质影响。


Why does the world consciously choose to help so ineffectively?	为何世界会有意地选择如此低效的帮助方针？


Could it be that environmental aid is not primarily about helping the world, but about making us feel better about ourselves?	也许环境援助主要目的不是为了帮助世界，而是为了让我们感到好受些吧？


Winds of Vanity	浮华之风


COPENHAGEN – Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital, wants to be the world’s first CO2-neutral city by 2025.	哥本哈根——丹麦首都哥本哈根寄希望于到2025年成为世界首座二氧化碳中性城市。


But, as many other well-meaning cities and countries have discovered, cutting CO2 significantly is more difficult than it seems, and may require quite a bit of creative accounting.	但其他许多善意的城市和国家已经发现，削减碳排放远不像表面看上去那样简单，可能在相当程度上需要在账目上做手脚。


More surprisingly, Copenhagen’s politicians have confidently declared that cutting CO2 now will ultimately make the city and its citizens wealthier, with today’s expensive green-energy investments more than paying off when fossil-fuel prices rise.	更令人惊讶的是，哥本哈根政治家们自信地宣称，现在减排二氧化碳终将使这座城市及其居民更加富裕，化石燃料价格上涨后今天昂贵的绿色能源投资终将带来回报。


But how can deliberately limiting one’s options improve one’s prospects?	但刻意缩小选择范围怎样才能使未来更美好？


These sound more like the arguments of green campaigners – and they are most likely wrong.	听上去这更像是环保人士的观点——而这些人很有可能是错误的。


The first challenge that Copenhagen faces in reaching its zero-emissions goal is the lack of cost-effective alternatives for some sources of CO2, particularly automobiles.	哥本哈根实现零排放面临的首要挑战是找不到经济有效的能源替代某些碳排放燃料，特别是汽车燃料。


Denmark already provides the world’s largest subsidy to electric cars by exempting them from its marginal 180% car-registration tax.	丹麦的电动车补助已居世界首位，电动车可以免交180%的车辆登记税。


For the most popular electric car, the Nissan Leaf, this exemption is worth $85,000 (€63,000).	保有量最大的电动车日产聆风（Leaf）的边际免税额已达85,000美元（合63,000欧元）。


Yet, just 1,536 of Denmark’s 2.7 million cars are electric.	但丹麦270万辆机动车中电动车仍只有1，536辆。


There is also the challenge inherent in wind-generated electricity: ensuring that the city can continue to run when the wind is not blowing.	此外还要解决风力发电的固有难题：保证城市在不刮风的时候也能正常运转。


To address this problem, Copenhagen has had to devise an electricity-generation strategy that enables it sometimes to run on coal-fired power when necessary, without creating net emissions.	丹麦为此制定了发电战略，在必要时启动燃煤发电，而不计入净排放量。


The city’s plan is to build more than 100 wind turbines within the greater Copenhagen area and in the shallow waters around it.	哥本哈根市计划在大哥本哈根区及周边的浅水区建设100多座风电机组。


With a combined output of 360 megawatts, which will feed electricity into the grid, these turbines will more than cover Copenhagen’s electricity needs – and the surplus can be used to offset the city’s remaining CO2 emissions, including from the city’s millions of non-electric cars.	风电机组的总发电量为360兆瓦，并入电网后足以满足哥本哈根的电力需求——剩余电量可用于抵消城市剩余的二氧化碳排放，包括哥本哈根市数百万辆非电动车。


Copenhagen’s success thus depends on the surrounding areas not aiming for CO2 neutrality.	因此只有当周边区域不追求二氧化碳零排放时哥本哈根市才能实现其目标。


After all, the whole accounting exercise works only if others are still using fossil fuels that Copenhagen’s unpredictable wind power can replace.	归根结底，整个账面操作只有当别人仍在使用哥本哈根不可预测的风电矢志替代的化石燃料时才会有效。


In this sense, Copenhagen is hogging the chance to feel righteous.	从这个意义上讲，正义的机会被哥本哈根霸占了。


The city’s political leaders promise that this strategy for attaining carbon neutrality “provides an overall positive economic picture and will lead to economic benefits for Copenhageners” based on the expectation that prices for conventional energy sources like coal, oil, and gas will rise in the coming years.	只有煤、石油和天然气等传统能源价格在未来几年内上涨预期兑现，哥本哈根政治领袖许诺的这种碳中性政策才能“确保积极的总体经济状况并为哥本哈根人带来经济回报”。


But the often-heard justification for this assumption – that humanity is rapidly depleting these scarce resources – is inconsistent with real-world events, as innovation has effectively expanded oil, gas, and coal reserves to unprecedented levels in recent years.	但这种假设最常听到的理由——人类正在快速消耗这些稀缺资源——却因为创新近年来将石油、天然气及煤炭储量有效扩大至前所未有的水平而并不符合实际发生的状况。


Consider Copenhagen’s wind-turbine plan, the single largest expected source of savings.	我���仔细梳理一下哥本哈根唯一最大的节约来源风力发电计划。


The total cost of construction and maintenance is projected to be $919 million.	风电项目的建设维护总成本约合9. 19亿美元，就算加上高额的碳排放税也仅能节约1.


Even assuming a very large carbon tax, this amounts to a rather paltry $142 million, meaning that the project’s value – $261 million in savings – stems largely from the $1.04 billion saved on electricity payments.	42亿美元，这意味着该项目的价值所在——节约2. 61亿美元——主要来自节省的10.


While that sounds impressive, it depends on a massive 68% increase in the price of fossil-fuel-produced electricity by 2030.	尽管听起来非常诱人，但这取决于到2030年化石燃料发电电价是否会大涨68%。


And Copenhagen is not alone in making such assumptions; the United Kingdom’s Department of Energy & Climate Change estimates a 51% price increase by 2030.	并不只有哥本哈根做出这样的假设； 英国能源与气候变化部预测到2030年化石燃料发电电价会出现51%的涨幅。


It is likely that these projections are unrealistic.	这些预测很可能并不现实。


Look at the long-term price trends of coal and gas, which power the vast majority of global electricity production.	只需看看支撑绝大部分全球电力生产的煤和天然气的长期价格走势就知道了。


Despite a recent increase, real coal prices have been trending downward since the 1950s.	尽管最近略有上涨，但实际煤炭价格自20世纪50年代后一直处于下降趋势之中。


In the United States, the shale-gas revolution, facilitated by the development of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), has brought prices to their lowest levels since natural gas gained prominence after the oil crises of the 1970s.	美国的页岩气革命在水力压裂法的推动下已经使天然气价格降到20世纪70年代石油危机天然气取得主导地位后的最低水平。


With many more countries set to tap shale-gas reserves over the next decade, this downward trend will most likely continue, helping to lower the price of electricity generation further.	未来十年随着更多国家着手开发页岩气储量，这种降价趋势极有可能将得以延续，并进一步降低发电价格。


That is why Aurora Energy Research recently projected a significant decline in electricity prices for the next three decades.	这也是极光能源研究所近期预测今后三十年电价显著下降的理由。


Fracking technology has also enabled the US to tap its large shale-oil reserves, making it the world’s largest petroleum producer, ahead of Saudi Arabia.	水力压裂技术也使美国得以发掘其庞大的页岩油储量，使其成为领先沙特阿拉伯的世界第一大石油生产国。


Citigroup estimates that, by 2020, oil will cost just $75 per barrel, and the former head of international forecasting at the OECD suggests that the number could be closer to $50.	花旗集团预测到2020年石油售价将降至仅75美元一桶，而经合组合国际预测部前负责人认为石油价格将逼近每桶50美元。


This is inconvenient for climate mandarins in the UK and Copenhagen alike, because it reduces clean energy’s allure.	现实对英国和哥本哈根的气候官僚非常不利，因为它降低了清洁能源的吸引力。


Even if fossil-fuel-powered electricity prices remain constant, Copenhagen’s wind turbines become a net drain.	即使以化石燃料为动力的电价保持不变，哥本哈根的风电机组也将成为净损失。


If Aurora’s forecast proves correct, Copenhagen’s wind project would become a massive failure, costing 50% more than the saved electricity is worth.	如果极光研究所的预言最终实现，哥本哈根的风电项目将成为重大的失败，其成本超过节电总价50%。


Instead of allowing politicians to spend public money on feel-good climate projects based on distant – and unreliable – predictions, citizens should encourage their leaders to invest those funds in clean-energy research and development, with the goal of making renewables inexpensive enough to overcome fossil fuels in the market.	民众不应容许政客自我感觉良好地将公共资金耗费在以遥远、不可靠的预测为基础的气候项目上，而应当鼓励领导人投资洁净能源研发。 此举的目的是使可再生能源便宜到足以超越化石燃料占领市场。


Initiatives like Copenhagen’s, however wonderful they sound, are ultimately little more than costly vanity projects.	像哥本哈根这类计划无论看起来多令人振奋，最终都不过是政绩工程，会使民众付出昂贵的代价。


The Climate-Policy Trap	气候政策陷阱


ROME – Today’s policies to combat climate change cost much more than the benefits they produce.	罗马——今天应对气候变化的政策成本远远高于它所产生的效益。


Unfortunately, bad political choices often make these policies even less cost-effective.	不幸的是，错误的政治选择往往令政策效益进一步恶化。


Consider the European Union’s 20-20 policy, which targets a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.	比方说欧盟的20-20政策，旨在实现2020年二氧化碳排放低于1990年20%的目标。


It is important to examine this approach, not only because the EU is pursuing the world’s largest and most ambitious climate policy, but also because other climate policies suffer from similar shortcomings.	考量上述策略是否可行非常重要，不仅因为欧盟执行的是全世界涉及面最广、最雄心勃勃的气候政策，还因为其他气候政策也有着相似的缺陷。


The most cost-efficient way to achieve the 20% target would be to operate a single, EU-wide carbon-market, which would cost the EU about $96 billion annually by 2020.	实现20%目标成本最低、效率最高的方法莫过于建立统一的欧盟碳市场，欧盟到2020年年均需耗费约960亿美元来实现这一目标。


But the benefits to the entire world would be much lower.	但这一策略的全球效益却要低得多。


Indeed, the only peer-reviewed overview of EU climate policy estimates that it can avoid climate-related damage of about $10 billion per year.	事实上，欧盟气候政策唯一一次同行评估概述预测它每年可以避免约1000亿美元的气候损失。


So, for every dollar spent, the EU stands to avoid about ten cents of damage.	因此，每1美元投入，欧盟可以避免10美分的损失。


This does not mean that climate change is not important; it means only that the EU’s climate policy is not smart.	这不是说气候变化不重要； 只是说欧盟并未执行明智的气候政策。


Over the course of this century, the ideal EU policy would cost more than $7 trillion, yet it would reduce the temperature rise by just 0.05oC and lower sea levels by a trivial nine millimeters.	纵观本世纪，理想中的欧盟政策将耗资7万多亿美元，但气温只能少升高0. 05oC，此外还有区区9毫米的海平面下降。


After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.	投入如此巨额资金后，造成的差异我们甚至都察觉不到。


Advocates of the EU’s policy often argue that we should pursue such policies nonetheless, because there is a risk that global warming will be much more severe than currently expected.	欧盟政策的倡导者往往辩解无论如何都应该执行这样的政策，因为全球变暖的风险也许比现在估计的严重得多。


But, though this argument is valid in principle, economic models show that this risk has only a moderate effect on the best policy.	虽然这种说法原则上成立，但经济模型显示最好的政策对缓和危险也没有多大效果。


Moreover, the absence of any temperature rise over the past 10-17 years has made such worse-than-expected outcomes extremely unlikely.	不仅如此，过去10-17年温度停止上升已经使结果不太可能比预期更差。


The real risk concerns the potential for bad political choices to make climate policies worse than necessary.	错误的政治决策导致气候政策异乎寻常的糟糕才是真正的危险因素。


The EU did not just implement a single carbon market in order to meet its target for CO2 emissions.	欧盟不只为实现碳排放目标建立了统一的碳市场。


Instead, the EU made a bad deal a lot costlier through a host of partly contradictory policies.	相反，欧盟一系列内部自相矛盾的政策让本来就不合理的安排付出更大的代价。


For example, the EU demanded that renewables like wind and solar account for 20% of energy supplies by 2020, though this is by no means the cheapest way to cut emissions.	比方说，欧盟要求到2020年风能及太阳能等可再生能源必须占能源供应的20%，虽然这根本不是最廉价的减排方法。


In fact, putting up a wind turbine cuts no extra CO2, because total emissions are already capped under the EU-wide carbon-trading scheme.	其实安装风力发电机组无法减排多余的二氧化碳，因为全欧盟的碳交易计划已经将总排放量规定死了。


It simply means that when Great Britain installs a wind turbine, it becomes cheaper to burn coal in Portugal or Poland.	其结果是当英国安装一台风力发电设备，葡萄牙和波兰烧煤就变得更便宜了。


Taking into account such poor policies and averaging all macroeconomic models, the EU is more likely to pay around $280 billion per year to avert $10 billion in damage.	鉴于如此愚蠢的政策并平均所有宏观经济模型，欧盟每年耗资2800亿美元挽回200亿美元损失的可能性更大。


In other words, the poor design of EU climate policies triples the cost and prevents only three cents of climate damage per dollar spent.	换句话讲，欧盟气候政策的不合理设计增加了两倍成本，每耗资1美元只能防止3美分的气候损失。


But it gets worse, because these models still assume that the EU picks the cheapest renewables to fulfill its requirements.	但这还不是最坏情况，因为这些模型仍然假设欧盟选择最廉价的可再生能源来满足其要求。


Instead, most EU countries give higher subsidies to the most costly renewables.	实际情况恰恰相反，多数欧盟国家为最昂贵的可再生能源提供更高的补贴。


For example, cutting a ton of CO2 with on-shore wind turbines in Germany probably costs about $35, avoiding about 14 cents of climate damage per dollar.	比方说，在���国安装海岸风电机组减排一吨二氧化碳约耗资约35美元，每投入1美元能避免约14美分的气候损失。


But offshore wind turbines cost about $150 per ton of CO2, avoiding just three cents of climate damage per dollar.	但海上风电机组减排一吨二氧化碳约耗资150美元，每投资1美元只避免了3美分的气候损失。


Biofuels are even less efficient, costing more than $300 per ton of CO2 avoided, while doing just over one cent of good per dollar.	生物燃料的效率更差强人意，每减排一吨二氧化碳耗资超过300美元，1美元投入所起作用的略高于1美分。


And solar takes the absolute prize, costing more than $800 per ton of CO2 to do less than a cent of good per dollar spent.	绝对高价的当数太阳能产品，每减排一吨二氧化碳耗资超过800美元，1美元投入所起的作用还不到1美分。


These prices are not unique to Europe.	付出这种代价的还不止是欧洲。


China pays $38 per ton of CO2 avoided with wind power, for example, while the US pays around $600 for cutting a ton of CO2 with biofuels.	比方说中国要为由风能替代的每吨二氧化碳排放花费38美元，而美国则要为生物燃料替代的每吨二氧化碳排放耗资约600美元。


Moreover, when the EU decides to cut its domestic emissions, part of the reduction simply migrates elsewhere.	此外，欧盟决心削减的部分内部排量不过是转移到其他地区。


If making a product in the EU costs more because of higher energy costs, the product will likely be made somewhere else, where energy is cheaper, and then imported into the EU.	如果欧盟生产某种产品因能源因素导致成本过大，这种产品很可能被转到其他能源便宜的地方生产，之后再进口回欧洲。


In fact, new studies show that 38% of the EU carbon cuts leak elsewhere, meaning that European climate policy avoids not three cents of climate damage per dollar spent, but less than two.	其实，最新研究结果显示38%的欧盟碳减排渗漏到了别处，这意味着欧洲的气候政策每耗费1美元避免的气候损失不是3美分，而是不到2美分。


From 1990 to 2008, the EU cut its emissions by about 270 million metric tons of CO2.	从1990年到2008年，欧盟二氧化碳实现减排约2. 7亿公吨。


But it turns out that the increase in imports from China alone implied an almost equal volume of extra emissions outside the EU.	但事实证明单单来自中国一地进口增量的额外排放就几乎相当于欧盟的减排额。


Essentially, the EU had simply shipped part of its emissions offshore.	因此从本质上看，欧盟只是将部分排放量向海外转移。


Finally, the negative effects of poor climate policies are not just financial.	最后，错误的气候政策所带来的负面影响还不仅局限在资金领域。


Biofuels, for which the EU alone is now paying more than $10 billion annually to do less than one cent of good for every dollar spent, also take up fields that otherwise would have produced food.	现在光是欧盟就年耗资超过100亿美元、每1美元投资效益还不到1美分的生物燃料也在侵占粮食耕地。


That means that food production moves elsewhere, often to farmland created by cutting down forests, which releases more CO2 and damages biodiversity.	这意味着粮食生产转移到别处，往往通过砍伐森林创造出的农业用地，从而释放出更多的二氧化碳并危及生物多样性。


It also drives up food prices, which so far has pushed at least 30 million poor people into starvation, with another 40-130 million expected to be starving by 2020.	这种状况也推动食品价格上涨，迄今为止至少令3000万贫困人口陷入饥饿，到2020年预计还有4千到1亿3千万人会加入饥饿大军。


We need a smarter approach to tackling climate change.	我们需要用更明智的策略应对气候变化。


Rather than relying on cutting a few tons of incredibly overpriced CO2 now, we need to invest in research and development aimed at innovating down the cost of green energy in the long run, so that everyone will switch.	我们不能满足于以高得离谱的成本降低几吨二氧化碳排放，而要为降低绿色能源长期成本的研发创新项目进行投资。 只有这样才能让绿色能源实现普及。


For now, our current climate policies are poor – and our politicians consistently find ways to make them even poorer.	目前来看，现行气候政策非常差劲——而政客们一直想方设法让政策更糟糕。


They may please farmers and other interest groups, but overall they simply drive up costs and reduce already-minimal benefits.	他们或许可以取悦农民和其他利益团体，但总体而言他们只是哄抬成本，并削减已经少得不能再少的效益。


A Better World Is Here	更好的世界在这里


COPENHAGEN – For centuries, optimists and pessimists have argued over the state of the world.	哥本哈根—几百年来，悲观者和乐观者就世界的状态争论不休。


Pessimists see a world where more people means less food, where rising demand for resources means depletion and war, and, in recent decades, where boosting production capacity means more pollution and global warming.	悲观者认为更多的人意味着更少的食物，上升的资源需求意味着枯竭和战争，而近几十年来，扩张的产能意味着更多的污染和全球变暖。


One of the current generation of pessimists’ sacred texts, The Limits to Growth, influences the environmental movement to this day.	被当前一代悲观者奉为圭臬的《增长的极限》影响着当今环境运动。


The optimists, by contrast, cheerfully claim that everything – human health, living standards, environmental quality, and so on – is getting better.	相反，乐观者兴高采烈地宣布所有东西——人类健康、生活水平、环境质量，等等——都在变得更好。


Their opponents think of them as  “cornucopian” economists, placing their faith in the market to fix any and all problems.	他们的反对者把他们看作“富饶派”经济学家，相信市场可以纠正一切问题。


But, rather than picking facts and stories to fit some grand narrative of decline or progress, we should try to compare across all areas of human existence to see if the world really is doing better or worse.	但是，我们不应该有选择性地采纳符合衰败和进步的宏大叙事的事实和故事，而应该全方位地比较人类经验，研究世界是否真的在变好或变坏。


Together with 21 of the world’s top economists, I have tried to do just that, developing a scorecard spanning 150 years.	我与21位世界顶尖经济学家一起正在做这个尝试，我们开发了一套150年来记分卡。


Across ten areas – including health, education, war, gender, air pollution, climate change, and biodiversity – the economists all answered the same question: What was the relative cost of this problem in every year since 1900, all the way to 2013, with predictions to 2050.	在十个领域中——包括健康、教育、战争、性别、空气污染、气候变化和生物多样性——经济学家回答同一个问题：自1900至2013年的每一年，这一问题的相对成本是多少？ 并且对2014—2050年的这一数字做出预测。


Using classic economic valuations of everything from lost lives, bad health, and illiteracy to wetlands destruction and increased hurricane damage from global warming, the economists show how much each problem costs.	经济学家对从死亡、不健康和文盲到全球变暖引发的湿地破坏和台风伤害增加的一切做出经典经济估值，以此得出每一个问题的成本。


To estimate the magnitude of the problem, it is compared to the total resources available to fix it.	为了评估问题的严重程度，该成本还与可用来纠正问题的资源总量相比较。


This gives us the problem’s size as a share of GDP.	这让我们了解问题的规模——占GDP的比重。


And the trends since 1900 are sometimes surprising.	自1900年以来的趋势颇有些出人意料。


Consider gender inequality.	以性别不平等为例。


Essentially, we were excluding almost half the world’s population from production.	从根本上说，我们把近一半的世界人口排除在了生产之外。


In 1900, only 15% of the global workforce was female.	1900年，全球劳动大军中只有15%是女性。


What is the loss from lower female workforce participation?	女性劳动参与率低下有何损失？


Even taking into account that someone has to do unpaid housework and the increased costs of female education, the loss was at least 17% of global GDP in 1900.	即使考虑了一些女性必须承担不受薪的家务劳动以及女性教育成本的增加，其损失至少占1900年全球GDP的17%。


Today, with higher female participation and lower wage differentials, the loss is 7% – and projected to fall to 4% by 2050.	如今，女性参与率有所提高，工资差距有所降低，损失降到了7%，到2050年预计将进一步降低到4%。


It will probably come as a big surprise that climate change is expected to be mostly an increasing net benefit – rising to about 1.5% of GDP per year – in the period from 1900 to 2025.	也许令人大吃一惊的是，积分牌预计在1900—2025年气候变化极有可能带来越来越多的净收益，每年可达GDP的1. 5%左右。


This is because global warming has mixed effects; for moderate warming, the benefits prevail.	这是因为全球变暖有利有弊； 温和的变暖能给大家带来好处。


On one hand, because CO2 works as a fertilizer, higher levels have been a boon for agriculture, which comprises the biggest positive impact, at 0.8% of GDP.	一方面，由于二氧化碳是一种肥料，其水平的增加有利于农业，最大的积极效应也在于此，相当于GDP的0. 8%。


Likewise, moderate warming prevents more cold deaths than the number of extra heat deaths that it causes.	类似地，温和变暖减少了严寒造成的死亡，其数量超过因变暖导致的酷暑造成的死亡。 温和变暖还减少了取暖需求，节约的成本超过制冷成本的增加，这部分带来约GDP的0.


It also reduces demand for heating more than it increases the costs of cooling, implying a gain of about 0.4% of GDP.	4%的收益。 另一方面，变暖增加了水压，大约造成GDP的0.


On the other hand, warming increases water stress, costing about 0.2% of GDP, and negatively affects ecosystems like wetlands, at a cost of about 0.1%.	2%的损失； 对湿地等生态系统也有消极影响，成本大约为GDP的0.


As temperatures rise, however, the costs will rise and the benefits will decline, leading to a dramatic reduction in net benefits.	但是，随着温度的升高，成本会增加而收益会降低，导致净收益的大降。


After the year 2070, global warming will become a net cost to the world, justifying cost-effective climate action now and in the decades to come.	2070年后，全球变暖将成为世界的净负担，这意味着必须在今后数十年中采取高成本效益的气候行动。


Yet, to put matters in perspective, the scorecard also shows us that the world’s biggest environmental problem by far is indoor air pollution.	但是，如若放长目光，记分牌还告诉我们，目前世界最大的环境问题是室内空气污染。


Today, indoor pollution from cooking and heating with bad fuels kills more than three million people annually, or the equivalent of a loss of 3% of global GDP.	如今，来自使用劣质燃料的烹饪和取暖的室内污染每年要杀死三百多万人，造成相当于全球GDP的3%的损失。


But in 1900, the cost was 19% of GDP, and it is expected to drop to 1% of GDP by 2050.	但在1900年，该成本为GDP的19%，并且预计在2050年降至GDP的1%��


Health indicators worldwide have shown some of the largest improvements.	全世界健康指标显示出一些最大的改善。


Human life expectancy barely changed before the late eighteenth century.	人类寿命预期在十八世纪末之前鲜有变化。


Yet it is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the gain since 1900: in that year, life expectancy worldwide was 32 years, compared to 69 now (and a projection of 76 years in 2050).	但自1900年以来，这方面的收益不可谓不巨：1900年全世界寿命预期为32岁，如今为69岁（2050年的预测值是76岁）。


The biggest factor was the fall in infant mortality.	最大的因素是婴儿死亡率的下降。


For example, even as late as 1970, only around 5% of infants were vaccinated against measles, tetanus, whooping cough, diphtheria, and polio.	比如，晚至1970年，能够接种麻疹、强直、百日咳、白喉和脊髓灰质炎疫苗的婴儿也只有5%左右。


By 2000, it was 85%, saving about three million lives annually – more, each year, than world peace would have saved in the twentieth century.	2000年，这一比例为85%，每年能拯救约三百万生命，比20世纪世界和平所拯救的生命数量还要多。


This success has many parents.	这一成功的功臣很多。


The Gates Foundation and the GAVI Alliance have spent more than $2.5 billion and promised another $10 billion for vaccines.	盖茨基金会和GAVI联盟已经出资25亿多美元用于疫苗事业，并承诺还将追加100亿美元。


Efforts by the Rotary Club, the World Health Organization, and many others have reduced polio by 99% worldwide since 1979.	扶轮社、世界卫生组织和其他许多组织的努力让脊髓灰质炎自1979年以来减少了99%。


In economic terms, the cost of poor health at the outset of the twentieth century was an astounding 32% of global GDP.	从经济角度看，健康状况不良的成本在20世纪初达到了惊人的程度，相当于全球GDP的32%。


Today, it is down to about 11%, and by 2050 it will be half that.	如今这一比例已降至约11%，预计到2050年还能在降低一半。


While the optimists are not entirely right (loss of biodiversity in the twentieth century probably cost about 1% of GDP per year, with some places losing much more), the overall picture is clear.	乐观者也许并不完全正确（20世纪生物多样性损失每年大约相当于GDP的1%，一些地区还要高），但总体状况是明确的。


Most of the topics in the scorecard show improvements of 5-20% of GDP.	记分牌上的大部分项目都出现了相当于GDP的5—20%的改善幅度。


And the overall trend is even clearer.	总体趋势更加明确。


Global problems have declined dramatically relative to the resources available to tackle them.	全球问题相对于可用于解决问题的资源大幅下降。


Of course, this does not mean that there are no more problems.	当然，这不意味着没有其他问题。


Although much smaller, problems in health, education, malnutrition, air pollution, gender inequality, and trade remain large.	尽管程度变小了很多，但健康、教育、营养不良、空气污染、性别不平等和贸易方面的问题仍然艰巨。


But realists should now embrace the view that the world is doing much better.	但如今，现实主义者应该承认世界进步很大。


Moreover, the scorecard shows us where the substantial challenges remain for a better 2050.	此外，记分牌告诉我们让2050年更加美好的主要挑战在哪里。


We should guide our future attention not on the basis of the scariest stories or loudest pressure groups, but on objective assessments of where we can do the most good.	我们的未来注意力不应该被最吓人的故事和声音最响的施压集团所左右，而应该根据关于我们在哪些方面做得最好的客观评估决定。


The Trouble with Universal Education	全民教育的麻烦


COPENHAGEN – With the deadline for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals fast approaching, the world is gearing up to establish a new set of goals for the next 15 years.	哥本哈根—随着联合国千年发展目标（Millennium Development Goals）截止期的快速临近，世界正在抓紧为此后15年制定新的目标。


Given limited resources, policymakers and international organizations must ask themselves: Where can we do the most good?	资源是有限的，决策者和国际组织必须扪心自问：用在哪里可以获得最好效果？


Should a larger share of the $2.5 trillion that will be directed toward development aid over that period, and of developing-country budgets, be directed toward health, the environment, food, water, or education?	在这15年中，2. 5万亿美元用于发展援助的资金以及发展中国家的预算的大头应该用在健康、环境、粮食、水还是教育上？


With these questions in mind, the Copenhagen Consensus (which I direct) asked some of the world’s top economists to assess the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of many different targets.	带着这些问题，哥本哈根共识（Copenhagen Consensus，我是负责人）请了一批世界顶尖经济学家评估了诸多不同目标的经济、社会和环境方面的成本效益。


Education for all was among the goals that were assessed.	全民教育也是评估目标之一。


The importance of education is indisputable.	教育的重要性是毋庸置疑的。


The problem is that the international community’s credibility in promising universal education has been compromised; it has pledged to achieve this goal in at least 12 UN-sponsored declarations since 1950.	问题在于国际社会的普及教育承诺的信誉的让步； 自1950年以来，国际社会至少在12项联合国宣言中做出过实现这一目标的承诺。


For example, UNESCO promised in 1961 that, by 1980, primary education in Africa would be “universal, compulsory, and free.”	比如，1961年联合国教科文组织承诺，到1980年非洲小学教育将“全民、义务、免费”。


Yet, when the time came, about half of primary-school-aged children in Africa were still not attending school.	但是，到1980年时，大约非洲小学适龄儿童仍然无学可上。


When target dates pass, the goals are simply reformulated on a new timeline, and more money is thrown at the problem, with little consideration of how, exactly, it should be spent.	当目标日期度过时，这些目标会被重新制定，加上一个新的时间表，投入更多的资金，但关于资金如何使用的考虑很少。


And, in fact, the goal of ensuring primary and secondary education for all could well end up costing more than the entire global aid budget for education.	事实上，确保所有人都获得小学和初中教育的目标所需成本有可能超过全部全球教育援助预算。


With 60 million children still out of school, the international community should not simply postpone the same universal-education target until 2030.	6,000万儿童仍然上不了学，因此国际社会不能简单地暂停2030年全民教育目标。


Instead, it is time to abandon this unrealistic goal in favor of an achievable, targeted, and cost-effective approach.	相反，国际社会应该放弃这一不现实的目标，转向可实现的高性价比定向方针。


As the economist George Psacharopoulos recommended in a recent paper, the highest priority should be what works best: early education, especially preschool.	经济学家乔治·萨卡洛普洛斯（George Psacharopoulos）在最新论文中建议，最紧迫的任务应该是效��最好的部分：早教，特别是学前教育。


The most obvious reasons why earlier education makes for a better starting point is that people are most receptive to knowledge when they are young.	关于早教可以提供更好的起点的最显而易见理由是人们在幼年时代吸收知识的能力最强。


Moreover, at younger ages, there are fewer cultural barriers to education for girls, and there is less pressure for children to contribute labor.	此外，针对幼童的女性教育文化壁垒最低，儿童的劳动压力也最小。


Finally, preschool education is less expensive to deliver than higher-level schooling.	最后，学前教育比更高水平的学校教育成本更低。


The longer-term effects of early learning are less apparent but more profound.	早期学习的长期效应不太明显，但更加深远。


Though students who attended preschool do not perform better than their peers in primary school, they do tend to earn more as adults.	尽管受过学前教育的学生在小学阶段的表现并不比未受学前教育的同学强，但成年后的收入确实更高。


This suggests that preschool provides a qualitative boost to children’s social skills or emotional development that enables them to take better advantage of economic opportunity later in life.	这表明学前教育能够定性地提高儿童的社交技能或情商开发，使他们在随后的生活中拥有抓住更好经济机会方面的优势。


Of course, the precise return on investment in expanded preschool education is difficult to discern.	当然，投资于扩张学前教育的准确回报很难估量。


But, in order to prioritize development targets – within and outside of the realm of education – estimates must be made.	但是，为了给发展目标（不管是否属于教育领域）排出优先级别，我们必须做一个评估。


First, there is the straightforward work of adding up the costs of education, such as teacher training and compensation, school construction and maintenance, and even the opportunity cost of child labor.	首先，将教育成本——如教师培训和薪酬、学校建设和维护，甚至童工的机会成本等——加总，这个工作比较清楚。


Then there is the more ambiguous process of assessing the benefits, which, though difficult to quantify, are convincing enough that many economists champion early education.	然后是比较模糊工作——评估收益。 尽管收益难以量化，但也足以说明问题，以至于许多经济学家都支持早教。


Based on the most extensive data available, Psacharopoulos determined that the most effective target would be to halve the proportion of children who are not attending preschool in Sub-Saharan Africa, which would yield social and economic benefits of $33 per dollar spent.	基于可获得的最全面的数据，萨卡洛普洛斯认为最有效的目标应该是将不参加学前班的撒哈拉以南非洲儿童数量降低一半，这样做可以给每一美元投入带来33美元的社会和经济收益。


This goal, which focuses on a single challenge-plagued region, may seem modest; but it is also realistic and achievable – and the potential returns are massive.	这一集中在单一的、挑战重重的地区的目标相当温和； 但也相当现实并且可以实现——而潜在回报相当巨大。


As targets become more ambitious, they lose their impact.	目标雄心越大，影响会越小。


For example, the pursuit of universal primary education in Sub-Saharan Africa would yield a lower, but still significant, $7 of social and economic benefit for every dollar spent.	比如，追求在撒哈拉以南非洲完全普及小学教育会降低每一美元投入的社会和经济收益，但仍有7美元。


And efforts to achieve universal primary education worldwide would cost far more, with each dollar spent bringing just $4 worth of benefits.	实现全球普及小学教育的成本要高得多，每一美元投入只能产生4美元收益。


The same type of comparison must be made for other important goals, such as improving the quality of education – a surprisingly difficult objective to achieve, as many developed countries have learned from their poor performance in the OECD’s international assessment.	对于其他的重要目标，也必须做同样类型的比较，如改善教育质量——这一目标的实现难度之高出乎意料，许多发达国家在经合组织国际评估中的差劲表现就是明证。


While money allocated to, say, reducing class sizes has very little impact, investment in institutional changes – such as the introduction of monitoring and evaluation systems, centrally administered examinations, and incentives for teachers – could result in $3-5 of good per dollar spent.	尽管用于（比如）缩小班级规模的资金几乎没有作用，但投资于制度变革——如引入监控和评估系统、集中管理的考试制度、教师激励等——可以为每一美元投入带来3—5美元收益。


As for vocational training, the jury is still out.	至于职业培训，我们还没有找到评估标准。


But it has been identified as less profitable than general secondary education, making it an inferior investment option.	但它被认为比一般中学教育收益更差，这意味着它是次等投资选项。


Efforts to make university affordable for all are even more problematic.	让人人上得起大学的努力问题更大。


Given that children from wealthier households are more likely to pursue higher education, directing limited public resources, including tax revenues, toward reducing its cost amounts to a subsidy for the wealthy, at the expense of the poor.	由于较富家庭的孩子更可能获得高等教育，将有限的公共资源（包括税收收入）用于降低大学学费是劫贫济富。


A better approach would be to introduce tuition fees for the wealthy and scholarships for the poor.	更好的办法是对富人家庭的孩子收学费，给穷人家庭的孩子奖学金。