一个时代的终结：工业革命发源地英国关闭最后一座煤电厂，我们可以从中学到什么
正文翻译
Long before global warming emerged as an issue, experts had proved that burning coal posed environmental and health threats. Coal plants pollute the air, cause acid rain and contaminate the soil and water with mercury. In Britain, the London Great Smog of 1952 probably killed as many as 12,000 people and prompted a government crackdown on the widespread use of coal for household heating.
早在全球变暖成为一个问题之前，专家们就已经证明，燃煤会对环境和健康造成威胁。煤炭工厂污染空气，造成酸雨，还有汞元素会污染土壤和水资源。在英国，1952年的伦敦烟雾事件可能导致了多达12000人的死亡，并促使政府对家庭取暖广泛使用煤炭的行为进行了打击和遏制。
Germany’s clean-energy transition has been slower because it has few hydroelectric dams, and it shut down all of its nuclear plants, which together generated 30 percent of the country’s electricity in 2000. Britain gets about 15 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, while Portugal makes about a quarter of its power with hydroelectricity.
德国的清洁能源转型速度较慢，因为它的水电大坝很少，而且它关闭了所有的核电站，这些核电站在2000年时的发电量占全国总发电量的30%。英国约15%的电力来自核电站，而葡萄牙约四分之一的电力来自水力发电。
Developing countries such as China and India have no prospect of abandoning coal anytime soon. China is installing renewable power faster than any other country in the world, but coal generation is also necessary to fuel the country’s rapid development.
中国和印度等发展中国家并不指望在短期内放弃煤炭。中国安装可再生能源发电设备的速度比世界上任何其他国家都快，但煤炭发电也是推动中国快速发展所必需的。
Last year’s United Nations climate change negotiations in Dubai stalled over resistance from China and India to committing to phasing out fossil fuels. The conference finally adopted a plan to phase “down” fossil fuels.
去年在迪拜举行的联合国气候变化谈判因中国和印度抵制承诺逐步淘汰化石燃料而陷入僵局。会议最终通过了一项逐步“减少”化石燃料的计划。
The last operating coal power plant in Britain closed this week, ending more than 140 years of coal-fired electricity and proving that major economies can wean themselves off the dirtiest fossil fuel.
英国最后一座运行中的煤电厂本周关闭，结束了其140多年的燃煤发电历史，这证明主要经济体是可以摆脱最肮脏的化石燃料的。
英国最后一座运行中的煤电厂本周关闭，结束了其140多年的燃煤发电历史，这证明主要经济体是可以摆脱最肮脏的化石燃料的。
“It’s a massive movement,” said Dave Jones, an electricity analyst at Ember, a London-based think tank. “The fact that the first country in the world to have a coal power plant, to lean so heavily into coal starting the industrial revolution, is now out of coal is extremely symbolic.”
伦敦智库Ember的电力分析师戴夫-琼斯说：“这是一场大规模的运动。世界上第一个拥有煤炭发电厂的国家，在工业革命之初如此倚重煤炭，如今却已不再使用煤炭，这一事实极具象征意义。”
伦敦智库Ember的电力分析师戴夫-琼斯说：“这是一场大规模的运动。世界上第一个拥有煤炭发电厂的国家，在工业革命之初如此倚重煤炭，如今却已不再使用煤炭，这一事实极具象征意义。”
Long before global warming emerged as an issue, experts had proved that burning coal posed environmental and health threats. Coal plants pollute the air, cause acid rain and contaminate the soil and water with mercury. In Britain, the London Great Smog of 1952 probably killed as many as 12,000 people and prompted a government crackdown on the widespread use of coal for household heating.
早在全球变暖成为一个问题之前，专家们就已经证明，燃煤会对环境和健康造成威胁。煤炭工厂污染空气，造成酸雨，还有汞元素会污染土壤和水资源。在英国，1952年的伦敦烟雾事件可能导致了多达12000人的死亡，并促使政府对家庭取暖广泛使用煤炭的行为进行了打击和遏制。
In the 20th century, as trains, ships, stoves and other machines switched to oil and gas, coal retained its central role in running the turbines that power plants use to generate electricity. In recent decades, efforts to turn off coal-fired power plants have accelerated given their outsize contribution to global warming.
20世纪，虽然火车、轮船、炉灶和其他机器改用石油和天然气，但煤炭在发电厂的涡轮机运转中仍发挥着核心作用。近几十年来，鉴于燃煤发电厂对全球变暖的巨大贡献，各国加强了关闭燃煤发电厂的努力。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
20世纪，虽然火车、轮船、炉灶和其他机器改用石油和天然气，但煤炭在发电厂的涡轮机运转中仍发挥着核心作用。近几十年来，鉴于燃煤发电厂对全球变暖的巨大贡献，各国加强了关闭燃煤发电厂的努力。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Although Britain still uses coal for steel manufacturing, which accounts for 2 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, experts say the country’s transition from coal-fueled electricity offers lessons to other countries seeking to phase it out.
尽管英国的钢铁制造业仍在使用煤炭，而煤炭排放占全国温室气体排放的2%，但专家们表示，英国从煤炭发电的过渡历程为其他寻求逐步淘汰煤炭的国家提供了借鉴。
尽管英国的钢铁制造业仍在使用煤炭，而煤炭排放占全国温室气体排放的2%，但专家们表示，英国从煤炭发电的过渡历程为其他寻求逐步淘汰煤炭的国家提供了借鉴。
Joel Jaeger, a climate and energy research at the World Resources Institute, said Britain’s transition from coal is “truly historic” and “proves that other countries can also achieve rapid speeds of coal reduction.”
世界资源研究所气候与能源研究员乔尔-耶格说，英国的煤炭转型“确实具有历史意义”，“证明其他国家也可以实现煤炭使用的快速削减”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
世界资源研究所气候与能源研究员乔尔-耶格说，英国的煤炭转型“确实具有历史意义”，“证明其他国家也可以实现煤炭使用的快速削减”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Few economically developed countries have completely phased out coal. Most that have, such as Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, have little need for coal because they generate plenty of power with an older generation of carbon-free technologies: hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants and geothermal reservoirs.
经济发达国家很少完全淘汰煤炭。大多数国家，如冰岛、瑞士、瑞典和挪威，几乎不需要煤炭，因为它们使用老一代无碳技术发电：水电大坝、核电站和地热。
经济发达国家很少完全淘汰煤炭。大多数国家，如冰岛、瑞士、瑞典和挪威，几乎不需要煤炭，因为它们使用老一代无碳技术发电：水电大坝、核电站和地热。
Britain is one of the first countries, and the largest, to phase out coal by relying heavily on wind and solar. Portugal also did so, but it is smaller and less heavily industrialized. Germany has tried, but it still produces about a quarter of its power with coal and does not plan to complete its phaseout until 2038.
英国是最早淘汰煤炭的国家之一，也是淘汰规模最大的国家，现在其主要依靠风能和太阳能。葡萄牙也这样做了，但它的规模较小，工业化程度较低。德国也进行了尝试，但其煤炭发电量仍占总发电量的四分之一左右，并计划在2038年之前完成淘汰工作。
英国是最早淘汰煤炭的国家之一，也是淘汰规模最大的国家，现在其主要依靠风能和太阳能。葡萄牙也这样做了，但它的规模较小，工业化程度较低。德国也进行了尝试，但其煤炭发电量仍占总发电量的四分之一左右，并计划在2038年之前完成淘汰工作。
Germany’s clean-energy transition has been slower because it has few hydroelectric dams, and it shut down all of its nuclear plants, which together generated 30 percent of the country’s electricity in 2000. Britain gets about 15 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, while Portugal makes about a quarter of its power with hydroelectricity.
德国的清洁能源转型速度较慢，因为它的水电大坝很少，而且它关闭了所有的核电站，这些核电站在2000年时的发电量占全国总发电量的30%。英国约15%的电力来自核电站，而葡萄牙约四分之一的电力来自水力发电。
Although market forces — first competition from cheap natural gas and later from cheaper renewables — helped Britain phase out coal, experts say government policy played a major part.
尽管市场力量--首先是来自廉价天然气的竞争，后来是来自廉价可再生能源的竞争--帮助英国逐步淘汰煤炭，但专家表示，政府政策也发挥了重要作用。
尽管市场力量--首先是来自廉价天然气的竞争，后来是来自廉价可再生能源的竞争--帮助英国逐步淘汰煤炭，但专家表示，政府政策也发挥了重要作用。
“The United Kingdom demonstrated that with the right policies, it’s possible to transition away from coal power while maintaining the reliability of the electricity system,” said Jennifer Morris, a principal research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative.
麻省理工学院能源计划首席研究科学家詹妮弗-莫里斯说：“英国证明，只要政策得当，就有可能在保持电力系统可靠性的同时实现煤电转型。”
麻省理工学院能源计划首席研究科学家詹妮弗-莫里斯说：“英国证明，只要政策得当，就有可能在保持电力系统可靠性的同时实现煤电转型。”
The European unx created a cap-and-trade regime in 2005, when Britain was still a member, but that policy was not very effective because the price of carbon was too low, Morris said. But in 2013, the country set a higher carbon price, forcing many coal plants to close.
莫里斯说，2005年，当英国还是欧盟成员国时，欧盟就建立了限额交易制度，但由于碳价过低，该政策并不十分有效。但在2013年，英国制定了更高的碳价格，迫使许多煤炭工厂关闭。
莫里斯说，2005年，当英国还是欧盟成员国时，欧盟就建立了限额交易制度，但由于碳价过低，该政策并不十分有效。但在2013年，英国制定了更高的碳价格，迫使许多煤炭工厂关闭。
Even as political power shifted between the Labour and Conservative parties, Britain pressed ahead with policies to promote clean energy. It set legally binding greenhouse gas emissions targets, regulated air pollution, and encouraged the expansion of renewable energy by introducing a system to ensure wind and solar developers could sell power at a stable, profitable price.
即使在工党和保守党的政治权力交替之际，英国仍大力推行促进清洁能源的政策。英国制定了具有法律约束力的温室气体排放目标，对空气污染进行监管，并通过引入一项制度来确保风能和太阳能开发商能够以稳定、有利可图的价格出售电力，从而鼓励可再生能源的发展。
即使在工党和保守党的政治权力交替之际，英国仍大力推行促进清洁能源的政策。英国制定了具有法律约束力的温室气体排放目标，对空气污染进行监管，并通过引入一项制度来确保风能和太阳能开发商能够以稳定、有利可图的价格出售电力，从而鼓励可再生能源的发展。
The transition away from coal has been slower in the United States than in Britain. Although the United States has adopted some similar policies, including pollution controls and incentives for renewable developers, U.S. policy has fluctuated more dramatically as party control of Congress and the White House has alternated between Republicans and Democrats.
与英国相比，美国的煤炭淘汰进程较为缓慢。尽管美国采取了一些类似的政策，包括污染控制和对可再生能源开发商的激励措施，但随着共和党和民主党轮流控制国会和白宫，美国的政策波动更为剧烈。
与英国相比，美国的煤炭淘汰进程较为缓慢。尽管美国采取了一些类似的政策，包括污染控制和对可再生能源开发商的激励措施，但随着共和党和民主党轮流控制国会和白宫，美国的政策波动更为剧烈。
For instance, an Environmental Protection Agency rule finalized in April requires coal plants expected to operate past 2039 to reduce their emissions by 90 percent by 2032. But it faces legal challenges, and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has vowed to overturn it if elected.
例如，环境保护局在四月份敲定的一项规定，要求预计会运营到2039年以后的煤电厂在2032年之前将排放量减少90%。但这一规定面临着法律挑战，共和党总统提名人特朗普誓言如果当选，将推翻这一规定。
例如，环境保护局在四月份敲定的一项规定，要求预计会运营到2039年以后的煤电厂在2032年之前将排放量减少90%。但这一规定面临着法律挑战，共和党总统提名人特朗普誓言如果当选，将推翻这一规定。
Although a quarter of U.S. coal capacity is set to retire by 2029, “it will take dedicated policies to phase out the remaining coal plants,” Morris said. She recommended a carbon tax, which lawmakers have consistently rejected, or an emissions cap such as the EPA rule.
莫里斯说，尽管美国四分之一的煤炭产能将在2029年之前会退役，但仍“需要专门的政策来逐步淘汰剩余的煤电厂”。她建议征收碳税（立法者一直拒绝征收碳税），或制定排放上限（如美国环保署的规定）。
莫里斯说，尽管美国四分之一的煤炭产能将在2029年之前会退役，但仍“需要专门的政策来逐步淘汰剩余的煤电厂”。她建议征收碳税（立法者一直拒绝征收碳税），或制定排放上限（如美国环保署的规定）。
Among the world’s advanced economies, South Korea and Japan have made the slowest progress on replacing coal. These countries have less land available for wind and solar farms, and have fewer natural-gas reserves.
在世界发达经济体中，韩国和日本在煤炭替代方面的进展最为缓慢。这些国家可用于风能和太阳能发电场的土地较少，天然气储量也较少。
在世界发达经济体中，韩国和日本在煤炭替代方面的进展最为缓慢。这些国家可用于风能和太阳能发电场的土地较少，天然气储量也较少。
Japan’s clean-energy transition was also hampered in 2011 by the Fukushima meltdown, after which the country scaled back nuclear generation.
2011年，日本的清洁能源转型也因福岛核泄漏事故而受阻。
2011年，日本的清洁能源转型也因福岛核泄漏事故而受阻。
Developing countries such as China and India have no prospect of abandoning coal anytime soon. China is installing renewable power faster than any other country in the world, but coal generation is also necessary to fuel the country’s rapid development.
中国和印度等发展中国家并不指望在短期内放弃煤炭。中国安装可再生能源发电设备的速度比世界上任何其他国家都快，但煤炭发电也是推动中国快速发展所必需的。
Last year’s United Nations climate change negotiations in Dubai stalled over resistance from China and India to committing to phasing out fossil fuels. The conference finally adopted a plan to phase “down” fossil fuels.
去年在迪拜举行的联合国气候变化谈判因中国和印度抵制承诺逐步淘汰化石燃料而陷入僵局。会议最终通过了一项逐步“减少”化石燃料的计划。
Even after coal is gone from the electricity mix, countries will be confronted with the next phase of the clean-energy transition: completely decarbonizing the power sector.
即使在煤炭从电力组合中消失之后，各国还将面临清洁能源转型的下一阶段：电力部门完全去碳化。
即使在煤炭从电力组合中消失之后，各国还将面临清洁能源转型的下一阶段：电力部门完全去碳化。
“The environmental community has been pretty focused on coal because it is the most polluting fossil fuel and because it is low-hanging fruit,” Jaeger said. “I think it’s going to be harder than the coal transition.”
“环保界一直非常关注煤炭，因为它是污染最严重的化石燃料，也因为它是较容易实现的目标，”耶格说。“我认为这将比煤炭转型更加困难。”
“环保界一直非常关注煤炭，因为它是污染最严重的化石燃料，也因为它是较容易实现的目标，”耶格说。“我认为这将比煤炭转型更加困难。”
Renewables are fueled by blowing wind and shining sun, which are not always available. Beyond some share of power generation — 80 percent or so, Jaeger said — renewables must be backed up by dependable supplies that don’t emit greenhouse gases, which rules out natural gas.
可再生能源的动力来源于风吹日晒，但风吹日晒并非随时都有的。耶格说，除了一定比例的发电量（80%左右）外，可再生能源还必须有不排放温室气体的可靠供应作为后盾，这就排除了天然气。
可再生能源的动力来源于风吹日晒，但风吹日晒并非随时都有的。耶格说，除了一定比例的发电量（80%左右）外，可再生能源还必须有不排放温室气体的可靠供应作为后盾，这就排除了天然气。
Grid-scale batteries have become cheaper but can still provide only about eight hours of backup power. The U.S. and British governments have shown revived interest in nuclear power, but both countries have struggled in recent decades to build plants quickly and cheaply.
电网规模的电池已经变得越来越便宜，但仍然只能提供大约八小时的备用电力。美国和英国政府对核电重新表现出了兴趣，近几十年来，两国都在努力快速、廉价地建造核电站。
电网规模的电池已经变得越来越便宜，但仍然只能提供大约八小时的备用电力。美国和英国政府对核电重新表现出了兴趣，近几十年来，两国都在努力快速、廉价地建造核电站。
Meanwhile, as electric vehicles and heat pumps become more common and power-hungry technologies such as artificial intelligence grow, Britain, the United States and others will be trying to make this daunting energy transition just as electricity demand is rising.
与此同时，随着电动汽车和热泵的普及，以及人工智能等耗电技术的发展，英国、美国和其他国家将在电力需求不断增长的同时，努力实现这一艰巨的能源转型。
与此同时，随着电动汽车和热泵的普及，以及人工智能等耗电技术的发展，英国、美国和其他国家将在电力需求不断增长的同时，努力实现这一艰巨的能源转型。
评论翻译
@Dignity and Truth
Great graphics. Super lead, with Britain down to zero coal. We can do it, too. Scary graphs for China, India, and Indonesia. Would have liked to see nuclear clearly shown for each country.
图文并茂。领导力超强的英国已实现无碳化。我们也能做到。中国、印度和印度尼西亚的图表很吓人。希望能清楚显示每个国家的核电发展情况。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Great graphics. Super lead, with Britain down to zero coal. We can do it, too. Scary graphs for China, India, and Indonesia. Would have liked to see nuclear clearly shown for each country.
图文并茂。领导力超强的英国已实现无碳化。我们也能做到。中国、印度和印度尼西亚的图表很吓人。希望能清楚显示每个国家的核电发展情况。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
And where will the United States be in five years? Ten years? Only Democrats and Greens show vigorous awareness of global warming, our role in it, and urgency about the future.
五年后的美国会怎样？十年后呢？只有民主党和绿党对全球变暖、我们在其中扮演的角色以及对未来的紧迫感表现出强烈的意识。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
五年后的美国会怎样？十年后呢？只有民主党和绿党对全球变暖、我们在其中扮演的角色以及对未来的紧迫感表现出强烈的意识。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
For now, a Blue vote for Democrats is the greenest thing any of us can do. Blue gets the job done -- from infrastructure to jobs to environment. Vote Blue. It's the greenest thing you can do.
就目前而言，为民主党投票是我们每个人能做的最环保的事情。从基础设施、就业到环境，蓝党（民主党）都能完成工作。投蓝票。这是你能做的最环保的事情。
就目前而言，为民主党投票是我们每个人能做的最环保的事情。从基础设施、就业到环境，蓝党（民主党）都能完成工作。投蓝票。这是你能做的最环保的事情。
@Sussham
So Brexit wasn’t such a disaster, eh?
所以英国脱欧并不是一场灾难，是吗？
So Brexit wasn’t such a disaster, eh?
所以英国脱欧并不是一场灾难，是吗？
@XtraSense
Yes, vote Blue, and then buy your winter holiday gifts from UK instead of from China!
是的，投蓝票，然后从英国而不是中国购买您的冬季节日礼物！
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yes, vote Blue, and then buy your winter holiday gifts from UK instead of from China!
是的，投蓝票，然后从英国而不是中国购买您的冬季节日礼物！
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@nancyjt
Had nothing to do with the reduction in coal fired electricity plants. Brexit was a disaster.
与燃煤电厂的减少无关。英国脱欧确实是一场灾难。
Had nothing to do with the reduction in coal fired electricity plants. Brexit was a disaster.
与燃煤电厂的减少无关。英国脱欧确实是一场灾难。
@R
The UK is such a tiny piece of worldwide emissions. And now they punish their people with ever increasing home energy rates as a sacrifice for the Church of Climatology.
英国的排放量只占全球排放量的很小一部分。而现在，他们却用不断提高的家庭能源费率来惩罚他们的人民，以此作为气候学教会的祭品。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The UK is such a tiny piece of worldwide emissions. And now they punish their people with ever increasing home energy rates as a sacrifice for the Church of Climatology.
英国的排放量只占全球排放量的很小一部分。而现在，他们却用不断提高的家庭能源费率来惩罚他们的人民，以此作为气候学教会的祭品。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Wordsmith007
Swapping Coal with Natural Gas reduces particulates but does not reduce CO2 aka "greenhouse gas" much
用天然气替代煤炭可以减少颗粒物排放，但并不能减少多少二氧化碳（又称“温室气体”）排放。
Swapping Coal with Natural Gas reduces particulates but does not reduce CO2 aka "greenhouse gas" much
用天然气替代煤炭可以减少颗粒物排放，但并不能减少多少二氧化碳（又称“温室气体”）排放。
@Labsnark
High electricity prices here are a consequence of how the electricity market is structured. Our electricity prices are, for historical reasons, tied to the price of gas, rather than the cost of generation. UK government energy policy is effectively being used to artificially create tax revenue, so they have no interest in changing that structure.
这里的高电价是电力市场结构造成的。由于历史原因，我们的电价与天然气价格挂钩，而不是发电成本。英国政府的能源政策实际上是用来人为创造税收的，因此他们没有兴趣改变这种结构。
High electricity prices here are a consequence of how the electricity market is structured. Our electricity prices are, for historical reasons, tied to the price of gas, rather than the cost of generation. UK government energy policy is effectively being used to artificially create tax revenue, so they have no interest in changing that structure.
这里的高电价是电力市场结构造成的。由于历史原因，我们的电价与天然气价格挂钩，而不是发电成本。英国政府的能源政策实际上是用来人为创造税收的，因此他们没有兴趣改变这种结构。
@Allgemein
Problem is, natural gas is not really less of a greenhouse gas producer than coal. It burns cleaner, i.e. produces no fine particle pollution and less CO2 per amount of energy produced. But natural gas is really just methane. And unburned methane is up to 80x worse for the climate than CO2, its greenhouse effect is that much worse than that of CO2.
问题是，天然气产生的温室气体并不比煤少。它的燃烧更清洁，即不产生微粒污染，单位能量产生的二氧化碳也更少。但天然气实际上就是甲烷。而未燃烧的甲烷对气候的影响是二氧化碳的80倍，其温室效应比二氧化碳严重得多。
Problem is, natural gas is not really less of a greenhouse gas producer than coal. It burns cleaner, i.e. produces no fine particle pollution and less CO2 per amount of energy produced. But natural gas is really just methane. And unburned methane is up to 80x worse for the climate than CO2, its greenhouse effect is that much worse than that of CO2.
问题是，天然气产生的温室气体并不比煤少。它的燃烧更清洁，即不产生微粒污染，单位能量产生的二氧化碳也更少。但天然气实际上就是甲烷。而未燃烧的甲烷对气候的影响是二氧化碳的80倍，其温室效应比二氧化碳严重得多。
When you factor in the methane released during the whole process of using "natural gas" -- during drilling and pumping, after a well is exhausted and "capped", en route to the end users, and at the end users -- it turns out it is at least as bad for the climate as burning coal.
如果把使用“天然气”的整个过程--钻井和抽气过程、油井枯竭和“封盖”之后、运往最终用户的途中以及在最终用户那里--所释放的甲烷计算在内，就会发现它对气候的影响至少也跟燃烧煤炭一样严重。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
如果把使用“天然气”的整个过程--钻井和抽气过程、油井枯竭和“封盖”之后、运往最终用户的途中以及在最终用户那里--所释放的甲烷计算在内，就会发现它对气候的影响至少也跟燃烧煤炭一样严重。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Humanity can only beat this by massively expanding nuclear power, combined with keeping coal but implementing CO2 sequestration directly at coal fired plants and use of wind and solar wherever possible. But the core is nuclear.
人类只有通过大规模扩大核能，同时保留煤炭，但直接在燃煤电厂就实施碳封存，并尽可能利用风能和太阳能，才能战胜这一挑战。核心是核能的使用。
人类只有通过大规模扩大核能，同时保留煤炭，但直接在燃煤电厂就实施碳封存，并尽可能利用风能和太阳能，才能战胜这一挑战。核心是核能的使用。
China understood this, they are currently building 23 new nuclear plants and will build 150 new ones until 2035. I don't often praise China but on this they are exactly right.
中国深谙此道，目前正在新建23座核电站，到2035年还将新建150座。我并不经常称赞中国，但在这一点上，他们是完全正确的。
中国深谙此道，目前正在新建23座核电站，到2035年还将新建150座。我并不经常称赞中国，但在这一点上，他们是完全正确的。
@MoreWinterPlease
To add, methane escaping previously frozen permafrost due to warming climate is off the charts.
此外，由于气候变暖，甲烷从先前冻结的永久冻土层中释放出来，其数量之多令人咋舌。
To add, methane escaping previously frozen permafrost due to warming climate is off the charts.
此外，由于气候变暖，甲烷从先前冻结的永久冻土层中释放出来，其数量之多令人咋舌。
@GreginFtCollins
Yes, we should absolutely ditch coal. Next up is natural gas. Let solar, wind and geothermal reign over the energy market. Get the fossil fuel lobbyists out of Congress!!
是的，我们绝对应该放弃煤炭。接下来是天然气。让太阳能、风能和地热能统治能源市场。把化石燃料说客赶出国会！
Yes, we should absolutely ditch coal. Next up is natural gas. Let solar, wind and geothermal reign over the energy market. Get the fossil fuel lobbyists out of Congress!!
是的，我们绝对应该放弃煤炭。接下来是天然气。让太阳能、风能和地热能统治能源市场。把化石燃料说客赶出国会！
@Allgemein
Won't work, the math is clear, only massive expansion of nuclear combined with coal but CO2 sequestration right where it's burned, and then solar and wind to fill out gaps, will be enough to beat the climate catastrophe.
这行不通，道理很清楚，只有大规模扩大核能和煤炭的使用，但在燃烧的地方进行二氧化碳封存，然后用太阳能和风能填补空白，才能战胜气候灾难。
Won't work, the math is clear, only massive expansion of nuclear combined with coal but CO2 sequestration right where it's burned, and then solar and wind to fill out gaps, will be enough to beat the climate catastrophe.
这行不通，道理很清楚，只有大规模扩大核能和煤炭的使用，但在燃烧的地方进行二氧化碳封存，然后用太阳能和风能填补空白，才能战胜气候灾难。
@Concerned Northern Neighbour
As great as it is to read an opion from someone whose screen name encourages the inference that she or he is German advocating for a role for nuclear power, if you want to make a technical or mathematical argument, then in order to be convincing, you need lixs to credible sources to back you up.
如果你想提出一个技术或数学方面的论点，那么为了让人信服，你需要有可靠来源的链接来支持你。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
As great as it is to read an opion from someone whose screen name encourages the inference that she or he is German advocating for a role for nuclear power, if you want to make a technical or mathematical argument, then in order to be convincing, you need lixs to credible sources to back you up.
如果你想提出一个技术或数学方面的论点，那么为了让人信服，你需要有可靠来源的链接来支持你。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
As it is, I don't think there's much point to laypeople making engineering arguments. The role of citizens in a democracy is to specify required outcomes -- economic cost, environmental cost, availability, etc. -- and then let the professionals and the market do what they have to do meet those requirements, while noting that what is possible will almost always be more than proponents of the status quo will insist.
事实上，我不认为外行人提出工程学论点有什么意义。公民在民主社会中的作用是明确所需的结果--经济成本、环境成本、可用性等--然后让专业人士和市场去做他们必须做的事情，以满足这些要求。同时注意到可能实现的结果几乎总是比维持现状的支持者所坚持的要多。
事实上，我不认为外行人提出工程学论点有什么意义。公民在民主社会中的作用是明确所需的结果--经济成本、环境成本、可用性等--然后让专业人士和市场去做他们必须做的事情，以满足这些要求。同时注意到可能实现的结果几乎总是比维持现状的支持者所坚持的要多。
My personal bet is that for the next 30 years we will need some kind of fission -- maybe uranium, maybe thorium -- but such opinions are widely and freely available and generally worth what you paid for them. I do hope to live to see at least the demonstration of net energy gain from controlled nuclear fusion, but I'm unwilling to bet human civilization on the prospect.
我个人打赌，在未来30年里，我们将需要某种裂变材料--也许是铀，也许是钍--可以广泛自由获得，而且通常物有所值。我希望至少能活着看到受控核聚变带来的净能源增益的展示，但我不愿意把人类文明的赌注押在这一前景上。
我个人打赌，在未来30年里，我们将需要某种裂变材料--也许是铀，也许是钍--可以广泛自由获得，而且通常物有所值。我希望至少能活着看到受控核聚变带来的净能源增益的展示，但我不愿意把人类文明的赌注押在这一前景上。
@Tom278
5 years ago, we switched to solar plus battery; it covers our family and car all year round. I was surprised to find out that we can be completely energy independent and only export excess to the grid.
5年前，我们改用太阳能加蓄电池发电，全年为家人和汽车提供电力。我惊讶地发现，我们可以做到能源完全独立，只向电网输出多余的电力。
5 years ago, we switched to solar plus battery; it covers our family and car all year round. I was surprised to find out that we can be completely energy independent and only export excess to the grid.
5年前，我们改用太阳能加蓄电池发电，全年为家人和汽车提供电力。我惊讶地发现，我们可以做到能源完全独立，只向电网输出多余的电力。
Sure your panel size has to be a bit extra large and you can’t run the dishwasher and charge the car willy nilly. It takes a bit of planning but really doable. I am a lot less sceptical now that I experienced it myself.
当然，你的电池板尺寸要大一些，而且你不能随意开洗碗机和给汽车充电。这需要一些规划，但确实可行。有了亲身体验，我对它的怀疑少了很多。
当然，你的电池板尺寸要大一些，而且你不能随意开洗碗机和给汽车充电。这需要一些规划，但确实可行。有了亲身体验，我对它的怀疑少了很多。
New large scale batteries are developed and could be used for businesses as well. Solar and wind are great.
新开发的大型电池也可用于企业。太阳能和风能都很棒。
新开发的大型电池也可用于企业。太阳能和风能都很棒。
@protectamerica
Yes. Better battery capacity, and being able to use EVs themselves as batteries, is the best way to smooth out energy production and consumption. Decentralizing energy production with solar panels also makes for a much more resilient power grid. This is the real energy independence of the future - independent down to the local community and household level.
更好的电池容量，以及将电动汽车本身作为电池使用，是平滑能源生产和消费的最佳方式。利用太阳能电池板分散能源生产，还能使电网更具弹性。这才是未来真正的能源独立--独立到当地社区和家庭。
Yes. Better battery capacity, and being able to use EVs themselves as batteries, is the best way to smooth out energy production and consumption. Decentralizing energy production with solar panels also makes for a much more resilient power grid. This is the real energy independence of the future - independent down to the local community and household level.
更好的电池容量，以及将电动汽车本身作为电池使用，是平滑能源生产和消费的最佳方式。利用太阳能电池板分散能源生产，还能使电网更具弹性。这才是未来真正的能源独立--独立到当地社区和家庭。
@Bran Allen
The vertical chart is fantastic. Great article with excellent visuals.
纵向图表太棒了。文章很棒，视觉效果极佳。
The vertical chart is fantastic. Great article with excellent visuals.
纵向图表太棒了。文章很棒，视觉效果极佳。
@duckkdownn
If there weren't so many black lung MAGA voters in Appalachia, we, too, might be further along the road to sensible, sustainable energy generation.
如果阿巴拉契亚州没有那么多黑肺（矽肺病）的MAGA选民，我们也可能会在合理、可持续能源生产的道路上走得更远。
If there weren't so many black lung MAGA voters in Appalachia, we, too, might be further along the road to sensible, sustainable energy generation.
如果阿巴拉契亚州没有那么多黑肺（矽肺病）的MAGA选民，我们也可能会在合理、可持续能源生产的道路上走得更远。
@R
Democrats can be so tasteless. USA isn't half the country it is today if not for the sacrifices made by coal mining families.
民主党人真是没品味。如果没有采煤家庭的牺牲，美国连今天的一半成绩都没有。
Democrats can be so tasteless. USA isn't half the country it is today if not for the sacrifices made by coal mining families.
民主党人真是没品味。如果没有采煤家庭的牺牲，美国连今天的一半成绩都没有。
@arawak319
I understand that they are racists and stupid. Maybe equally so.
我知道他们是种族主义者，也很愚蠢。也许我们也同样如此。
I understand that they are racists and stupid. Maybe equally so.
我知道他们是种族主义者，也很愚蠢。也许我们也同样如此。
Also so shouldn’t corporations pay to train their own workers? If all taxpayers fund training programs will companies pass on those savings?
同样，企业难道不应该自己花钱培训员工吗？如果所有纳税人都为培训计划提供资金，企业还是否会将节省下来的资金用于培训？
同样，企业难道不应该自己花钱培训员工吗？如果所有纳税人都为培训计划提供资金，企业还是否会将节省下来的资金用于培训？
Plus don’t forget, companies aren’t going to eagerly hire older workers who as established members of the workforce, often with families and mortgages, thus want to earn more than their younger, single counterparts. Plus companies are going to think it’s difficult to “learn’em” new skills, especially when they live in a region high on Beeble memorization but weak on reading’ writing’, rithmetic and . . . science.
另外别忘了，公司不会热衷于雇用年龄较大的工人，因为他们已经是劳动力中的一员，通常有家庭和抵押贷款，因此希望比年轻的单身工人挣得更多。另外，公司会认为他们“学习”新技能很困难，尤其是当他们生活在一个“死记硬背”的地区，而在阅读、写作、算术和……科学方面却很薄弱的时候。
另外别忘了，公司不会热衷于雇用年龄较大的工人，因为他们已经是劳动力中的一员，通常有家庭和抵押贷款，因此希望比年轻的单身工人挣得更多。另外，公司会认为他们“学习”新技能很困难，尤其是当他们生活在一个“死记硬背”的地区，而在阅读、写作、算术和……科学方面却很薄弱的时候。
And by the way, unlike the racist myth that they “cling” to, before the Obama administration, coal mining jobs were in decline since the 1920s. The reason, surprise, surprise, technology.
顺便说一句，与他们“坚持”的种族主义神话不同，在奥巴马政府执政之前，煤矿工作岗位自20世纪20年代以来一直在减少。原因，竟然、竟然是技术（发展）。
顺便说一句，与他们“坚持”的种族主义神话不同，在奥巴马政府执政之前，煤矿工作岗位自20世纪20年代以来一直在减少。原因，竟然、竟然是技术（发展）。
Increased mechanization increased production and reduced the need for the same number of workers, and that’s before cheaper computing fuel sources such a natural gas and hydroelectric power—brought to you by the free market and the government subsidization that corporations want (for dam construction, etc) are figured into the mix.
机械化程度的提高增加了产量，减少了对相同数量工人的需求，而这还不包括由自由市场带来的更便宜的燃料来源，如天然气和水力发电，以及企业希望得到的政府补贴（用于大坝建设等）。
机械化程度的提高增加了产量，减少了对相同数量工人的需求，而这还不包括由自由市场带来的更便宜的燃料来源，如天然气和水力发电，以及企业希望得到的政府补贴（用于大坝建设等）。
That’s the same reason the U.S. Armed Forces doesn’t need the same number of aircraft that they fielded had during WW2. (The U.S. Navy also eliminated battleships as a class.)
这与美国武装部队已经不再需要与二战期间同样数量的飞机是一个道理（美国海军也淘汰了战列舰）。
这与美国武装部队已经不再需要与二战期间同样数量的飞机是一个道理（美国海军也淘汰了战列舰）。
We have bigger, faster, more energy efficient aircraft with precision weapons, Advsnces in technology are the reason why beginning with the introduction of the helicopter during the Korean War—and advance in medicine—more U.S. military battlefield casualties survived their injuries.
我们拥有更大、更快、更节能的飞机和精确的武器，这就是为什么从朝鲜战争期间引进直升机开始的技术进步，再加上医学进步，美军战场上更多的伤员得以幸存的原因。
我们拥有更大、更快、更节能的飞机和精确的武器，这就是为什么从朝鲜战争期间引进直升机开始的技术进步，再加上医学进步，美军战场上更多的伤员得以幸存的原因。
@grodrog
I’ve read that global Crypto “mining” consumes more power than many countries. Perhaps these businesses, as well as AI server farms, should be expected to generate their own clean power independent of the national grid. Put them out in the desert with dedicated solar and grid-scale batteries.
我读到过，全球加密货币“挖矿”消耗的电力比许多国家发电量都要多。或许，这些企业以及人工智能服务器农场应该独立于国家电网，自己生产清洁电力。让它们在沙漠中使用专用太阳能和电网规模的电池。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I’ve read that global Crypto “mining” consumes more power than many countries. Perhaps these businesses, as well as AI server farms, should be expected to generate their own clean power independent of the national grid. Put them out in the desert with dedicated solar and grid-scale batteries.
我读到过，全球加密货币“挖矿”消耗的电力比许多国家发电量都要多。或许，这些企业以及人工智能服务器农场应该独立于国家电网，自己生产清洁电力。让它们在沙漠中使用专用太阳能和电网规模的电池。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@AJL Aussie
Another bit of good news. 20 years ago renewables were around 1.0% of Australia's grid power. And we have enough easily mineable coal to toast the whole world!
另一个好消息。20年前，可再生能源发电约占澳大利亚电网发电量的1.0%。而我们拥有的易开采煤炭足以烤熟整个世界！
Another bit of good news. 20 years ago renewables were around 1.0% of Australia's grid power. And we have enough easily mineable coal to toast the whole world!
另一个好消息。20年前，可再生能源发电约占澳大利亚电网发电量的1.0%。而我们拥有的易开采煤炭足以烤熟整个世界！
Yet now wind and solar make up close to 50% of our power..... and that doesn't count private rooftop solar substituting for grid power on a sunny day.
然而，现在风能和太阳能在我们的电力占比接近50%，这还不包括在晴天替代电网供电的私人屋顶太阳能。
然而，现在风能和太阳能在我们的电力占比接近50%，这还不包括在晴天替代电网供电的私人屋顶太阳能。
We hit a record last week... for a few hours we had 74% of the power suplied to the grid via renewables.
上周，我们创下了一项纪录……在几个小时内，我们通过可再生能源向电网供应了74%的电力。
上周，我们创下了一项纪录……在几个小时内，我们通过可再生能源向电网供应了74%的电力。
@AJL Aussie
There is an extra dimension that maybe got ignored here. Use LESS energy! Look at the UK graph. In 2000 there were 59 million in the UK. In 2023 there are 67 million - over a 10% increase. Yet the graph shows UK energy use peaking around 2000, and maybe 25% LOWER today!
这里还有一个可能被忽视的层面。更少的能源使用！看看英国的图表。2000年，英国有5900万人口。2023年，英国人口为6700万，增长超过10%。然而，从图中可以看出，英国的能源使用量在2000年左右达到顶峰，而现在可能比那时降低了25%！
There is an extra dimension that maybe got ignored here. Use LESS energy! Look at the UK graph. In 2000 there were 59 million in the UK. In 2023 there are 67 million - over a 10% increase. Yet the graph shows UK energy use peaking around 2000, and maybe 25% LOWER today!
这里还有一个可能被忽视的层面。更少的能源使用！看看英国的图表。2000年，英国有5900万人口。2023年，英国人口为6700万，增长超过10%。然而，从图中可以看出，英国的能源使用量在2000年左右达到顶峰，而现在可能比那时降低了25%！
A focus on using LESS energy / person pays a huge dividend in speeding up the transition away from coal.... and later gas.
专注于减少能源/人的使用，将为加快煤炭，随后是天然气的过渡带来巨大的红利。
专注于减少能源/人的使用，将为加快煤炭，随后是天然气的过渡带来巨大的红利。
@Clevbrian19d
How much of that is efficiency and conservation versus how much is the movement of high energy use industries to less developed countries
其中有多少是由于效率和节能，又有多少是由于高能耗产业向欠发达国家的转移呢
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
How much of that is efficiency and conservation versus how much is the movement of high energy use industries to less developed countries
其中有多少是由于效率和节能，又有多少是由于高能耗产业向欠发达国家的转移呢
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Name Displayed1066
Yep, just like many developed countries, the UK de-industrialized a huge amount in the last 30 years. But looking at the graph, that reduction was mostly accounted for by less gas usage. Coal was entirely replaced by renewables.
是的，就像许多发达国家一样，英国在过去30年中也进行了大量的去工业化。但从图表上看，这种减少主要是由于天然气用量的减少。煤炭完全被可再生能源所取代。
Yep, just like many developed countries, the UK de-industrialized a huge amount in the last 30 years. But looking at the graph, that reduction was mostly accounted for by less gas usage. Coal was entirely replaced by renewables.
是的，就像许多发达国家一样，英国在过去30年中也进行了大量的去工业化。但从图表上看，这种减少主要是由于天然气用量的减少。煤炭完全被可再生能源所取代。
@AJVH01
In the Netherlands we closed our coal mines in 1966 and used gas since then.
在荷兰，我们于1966年关闭了煤矿，并从那时起开始使用天然气。
In the Netherlands we closed our coal mines in 1966 and used gas since then.
在荷兰，我们于1966年关闭了煤矿，并从那时起开始使用天然气。
Because gas extraction led to small earthquakes, resulting in damage to homes, we also closed gas extraction since 2023.
由于天然气开采导致小地震，造成房屋受损，我们也从2023年起关闭了天然气开采。
由于天然气开采导致小地震，造成房屋受损，我们也从2023年起关闭了天然气开采。
Because of the boycott of Russia, there is also no more Russian natural gas in our country.
由于抵制俄罗斯，我国也没有了俄罗斯的天然气。
由于抵制俄罗斯，我国也没有了俄罗斯的天然气。
We have a lot of solar and wind.
我们拥有大量的太阳能和风能。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
我们拥有大量的太阳能和风能。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Since the boycott of Russia, we have been buying LNG in the US.
自从抵制俄罗斯以来，我们一直在美国购买液化天然气。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
自从抵制俄罗斯以来，我们一直在美国购买液化天然气。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Cat Pawrent
Great greenwashing, WaPo. Natural gas isn't actually cleaner than coal--it is worse for global warming, a lot worse. Yes it burns cleaner--but natural gas is a greenhouse gas when unburnt, and just leaked into the atmosphere--and it is leaks EVERYWHERE. The well head, the pipes, the pressure vessels, the fittings, you name it. We've known it leaks for so long, and that the leaks are almost impossible to detect, that commercial natural gas in the USA is legally required to have rotten-eggs smell added to it--after a school and everyone in it was outright blown up by a gas leak from a leak in Texas.
环保宣传真不错啊，《华盛顿邮报》。天然气实际上并不比煤炭更清洁--它对全球变暖的影响更严重，严重得多。是的，它燃烧起来更清洁--但天然气在未燃烧时却是一种温室气体，泄漏到了大气中--而且到处都有泄漏。井口、管道、压力容器、配件，应有尽有。我们早就知道天然气会泄漏，而且泄漏几乎不可能被识别，以至于美国的商业天然气都被依法添加了臭鸡蛋味气体--此前，德克萨斯州的一所学校和学校里的所有人都被泄漏的天然气给直接炸死了。
Great greenwashing, WaPo. Natural gas isn't actually cleaner than coal--it is worse for global warming, a lot worse. Yes it burns cleaner--but natural gas is a greenhouse gas when unburnt, and just leaked into the atmosphere--and it is leaks EVERYWHERE. The well head, the pipes, the pressure vessels, the fittings, you name it. We've known it leaks for so long, and that the leaks are almost impossible to detect, that commercial natural gas in the USA is legally required to have rotten-eggs smell added to it--after a school and everyone in it was outright blown up by a gas leak from a leak in Texas.
环保宣传真不错啊，《华盛顿邮报》。天然气实际上并不比煤炭更清洁--它对全球变暖的影响更严重，严重得多。是的，它燃烧起来更清洁--但天然气在未燃烧时却是一种温室气体，泄漏到了大气中--而且到处都有泄漏。井口、管道、压力容器、配件，应有尽有。我们早就知道天然气会泄漏，而且泄漏几乎不可能被识别，以至于美国的商业天然气都被依法添加了臭鸡蛋味气体--此前，德克萨斯州的一所学校和学校里的所有人都被泄漏的天然气给直接炸死了。
And while that fact about leaks and how bad they were has been known for decades...it is something the entire natural gas industry completely ignored when it got the Obama Administration to authorize the mass-buildout of the fracking industry under the farcical guise of being a "bridge fuel" for "energy security". And the head of Obama's Department of Energy knew it, because he was literally a researcher for the fracking industry.
几十年来，人们一直都知道天然气泄漏的事实及其严重性……但当整个天然气行业打着“能源安全”的“过渡性燃料”的滑稽幌子，让奥巴马政府授权大规模发展压裂工业时，却完全忽略了这一点。奥巴马能源部的负责人对此心知肚明，因为他就是压裂行业的研究员。
几十年来，人们一直都知道天然气泄漏的事实及其严重性……但当整个天然气行业打着“能源安全”的“过渡性燃料”的滑稽幌子，让奥巴马政府授权大规模发展压裂工业时，却完全忽略了这一点。奥巴马能源部的负责人对此心知肚明，因为他就是压裂行业的研究员。
@Allgemein
This is a point of essential importance. When it comes to natural gas everyone is really just fooling themselves, the British, the Germans, and those advocating it as "clean" here in the US. Natural gas is really worse than coal. Because coal offers the option to install massive carbon capture at the plants burning it.
这一点至关重要。说到天然气，每个人其实都是在自欺欺人，英国人、德国人以及那些在美国鼓吹天然气“清洁”的人都是如此。天然气确实比煤炭更糟糕。因为煤炭可以在燃烧它的工厂安装大量的碳捕集装置。
This is a point of essential importance. When it comes to natural gas everyone is really just fooling themselves, the British, the Germans, and those advocating it as "clean" here in the US. Natural gas is really worse than coal. Because coal offers the option to install massive carbon capture at the plants burning it.
这一点至关重要。说到天然气，每个人其实都是在自欺欺人，英国人、德国人以及那些在美国鼓吹天然气“清洁”的人都是如此。天然气确实比煤炭更糟糕。因为煤炭可以在燃烧它的工厂安装大量的碳捕集装置。
But while you could do that also at gas burning plants, it wouldn't do any good regarding the greenhouse effect as with gas the main problem is the leaking methane, which carbon capture... can't capture.
但虽然天然气发电厂也可以这样做，但这对温室效应没有任何好处，因为天然气的主要问题是甲烷泄漏，而碳捕集……无法捕集甲烷。
但虽然天然气发电厂也可以这样做，但这对温室效应没有任何好处，因为天然气的主要问题是甲烷泄漏，而碳捕集……无法捕集甲烷。
So instead of building out gas plants and shutting down coal what should be done is building out carbon capture at existing coal plants. But I guess the gas lobby is stronger than the coal lobby?
因此，与其建设天然气发电厂，关闭煤炭发电厂，不如在现有的煤炭发电厂建设碳捕集设施。但我猜天然气游说团体比煤炭游说团体更强大吧？
因此，与其建设天然气发电厂，关闭煤炭发电厂，不如在现有的煤炭发电厂建设碳捕集设施。但我猜天然气游说团体比煤炭游说团体更强大吧？
@BacktobasicsRob
Only when China and India actually start substantially reducing fossil fuel emissions will carbon spewed into the atmosphere be reduced. But corporate America could not care less about LOCAL effects from local emissions. Were high level corporate executives required to live with their families downwind of one of their company's major fossil fuel emission sources, perhaps they would care a bit more about those emissions.
只有当中国和印度真正开始大幅减少化石燃料排放时，排放到大气中的碳才会减少。但美国公司根本不在乎本地排放对本地的影响。如果公司的高层管理人员必须与家人住在公司主要化石燃料排放源的下风向，也许他们会更关心这些排放。
Only when China and India actually start substantially reducing fossil fuel emissions will carbon spewed into the atmosphere be reduced. But corporate America could not care less about LOCAL effects from local emissions. Were high level corporate executives required to live with their families downwind of one of their company's major fossil fuel emission sources, perhaps they would care a bit more about those emissions.
只有当中国和印度真正开始大幅减少化石燃料排放时，排放到大气中的碳才会减少。但美国公司根本不在乎本地排放对本地的影响。如果公司的高层管理人员必须与家人住在公司主要化石燃料排放源的下风向，也许他们会更关心这些排放。
@DVGBest12
Enough of the propaganda. The US spews twice as much CO2, per capita, as China.
宣传够了吧。美国人均二氧化碳排放量是中国的两倍啊。
Enough of the propaganda. The US spews twice as much CO2, per capita, as China.
宣传够了吧。美国人均二氧化碳排放量是中国的两倍啊。
@Aaron Midland
For those who haven't seen, Trump has a "Make America Healthy Again" arm of his campaign. I'm not kidding. And there is no device that can measure the irony (or hypocrisy) of that when you consider he promises to work to eliminate the newest EPA regulations on coal.
对于那些还没看到的人来说，特朗普的竞选团队中有一个“让美国再次健康”的口号。我不是在开玩笑。可当你考虑到他还承诺要努力消除美国环保署对煤炭的最新规定时，没有任何设备可以衡量出这其中的讽刺（或虚伪）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
For those who haven't seen, Trump has a "Make America Healthy Again" arm of his campaign. I'm not kidding. And there is no device that can measure the irony (or hypocrisy) of that when you consider he promises to work to eliminate the newest EPA regulations on coal.
对于那些还没看到的人来说，特朗普的竞选团队中有一个“让美国再次健康”的口号。我不是在开玩笑。可当你考虑到他还承诺要努力消除美国环保署对煤炭的最新规定时，没有任何设备可以衡量出这其中的讽刺（或虚伪）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@FLTransplant
One interesting, at least me me, takeaway from the UK stats was generation capacity peaked around 2005 and over the past 20 years has decreased to what it was back in 1990 -- 35 years ago. Greater efficiencies means the UK has created a larger economy that uses significantly less electricity.
从英国的统计数据中，我发现了一个有趣的现象，那就是发电能力在2005年左右达到顶峰，而在过去的20年中，发电能力已经下降到了1990年的水平，也就是35年前的水平。效率的提高意味着英国创造了一个用电量大幅减少的大型经济体。
One interesting, at least me me, takeaway from the UK stats was generation capacity peaked around 2005 and over the past 20 years has decreased to what it was back in 1990 -- 35 years ago. Greater efficiencies means the UK has created a larger economy that uses significantly less electricity.
从英国的统计数据中，我发现了一个有趣的现象，那就是发电能力在2005年左右达到顶峰，而在过去的20年中，发电能力已经下降到了1990年的水平，也就是35年前的水平。效率的提高意味着英国创造了一个用电量大幅减少的大型经济体。
很赞 6
收藏