Even the experts can tie themselves in knots. Duncan Clark, author of The Rough Guide to Green Living, unveiled “10 eco-myths” in a Guardian podcast in November. Many of them were well chosen, but unfortunately his number one “myth” was not a myth at all: that switching off lights will reduce CO2 emissions. Clark's logic is seductive: some European carbon emissions, including those generated by electricity, are subject to a cap. Clark is right to say that conserving electricity will allow other sectors to take up the resulting slack, because they will be able to buy permits to emit more cheaply than if we left our lights blazing.
就連專家也會把自己弄糊涂。去年11月，《綠色生活簡明指南》一書的作者克拉克在衛(wèi)報(bào)的播客 中揭露了“環(huán)保的十大誤區(qū)”。其中許多條都選得不錯，但遺憾的是，他所說的第一個“誤區(qū)”根本不是誤區(qū)：隨手關(guān)燈將減少碳排放?？死说倪壿嫼芫哒T惑性：歐洲某些部門的碳排放，包括電產(chǎn)生的那些排放，都受到上限約束。因此，克拉克有關(guān)節(jié)約用電不過會讓其它部門得以利用由此省下的那部分限額的說法是對的，因?yàn)榕c任憑燈火通明相比，省電讓這些部門能夠買到碳排放許可，從而以更低廉的成本排放二氧化碳。
　　
Where Clark goes wrong is in assuming the cap will remain fixed forever. If we all turn out our lights, the price of permits will fall and politicians will find it politically easier to tighten the cap. So, keep installing those energy-efficient light bulbs. (Another less-than-obvious truth is that it's not worth waiting for your old bulbs to burn out before you fit the new ones.)
但克拉克的錯誤在于假定那個上限會永遠(yuǎn)保持不變。如果我們大家都把燈關(guān)掉，碳排放許可的價(jià)格就會下降，政治家們會發(fā)現(xiàn)收緊上限所面臨的政治阻力降低。因此，讓我們繼續(xù)安裝那些節(jié)能燈泡吧。（另一個不那么顯而易見的事實(shí)是，等到你的舊燈泡燒壞再換新燈泡是不合算的。）
　　
After picking through the ideas of Vaze, Clark, David MacKay (a Cambridge physicist) and others, my view is that it is hopeless to expect that volunteers will navigate this maze of decisions.
仔細(xì)了解過瓦茲、克拉克和麥凱——劍橋大學(xué)的一名物理學(xué)家——等人的觀點(diǎn)之后，我的看法是，不要指望志愿者們能夠理清這一團(tuán)謎宮般的決定。
　　
That is why a broad-based, credible carbon price will be the foundation of any successful policy on climate change. The price would affect the cost of every decision we make; it would take away the guesswork. Current carbon pricing schemes, such as the European emissions trading scheme, are a good start, but they leave out too many sectors, and permits are too cheap.
這正是一個基礎(chǔ)廣泛、公平可靠的碳價(jià)格體系之所以將成為氣候變化政策成功基石的原因。碳價(jià)格會影響我們每一個決定的成本，能夠排除一切臆測。目前的碳定價(jià)機(jī)制（例如歐洲的碳排放交易機(jī)制）是一個良好的開端，但它們遺漏了太多的行業(yè)，而且排放許可的價(jià)格過低。
　　
And a final admission: not every feature of the low-carbon lifestyle is impossibly obscure. I felt rather smug when I realised I could stop drinking cappuccino in favour of espresso, saving 90kg of CO2 a year. Then I totted up my carbon footprint from air travel in 2009. It is the equivalent of almost 50 tonnes of CO2 – or more than the entire footprint of a typical British family of three. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to shrink that particular footprint. This year I shall do better.
最后我得承認(rèn)：并不是低碳生活方式的所有特征都晦澀得讓人無法想象。當(dāng)我意識到，用意式濃咖啡取代卡布其諾后，我可以每年減少90千克的二氧化碳排放量時，感到頗為自得。接著我合計(jì)了自己2009年乘飛機(jī)出行產(chǎn)生的碳足跡，結(jié)果相當(dāng)于近50噸二氧化碳——比一個英國典型的三口之家一年的碳足跡總量還要多。不需要什么天賦，你就能知道該如何縮減這部分碳足跡。今年我會做得更好。