但仅仅应用于英国的布利茨精神几乎不会取得任何成效，因为英国的温室气体排放量仅占全球总量的区区2%。因此，鲁德豪斯等人应当呼吁的是，在全球范
但仅仅应用于英国的布利茨精神几乎不会取得任何成效，因为英国的温室气体排放量仅占全球总量的区区2%。因此，鲁德豪斯等人应当呼吁的是，在全球范围内建立一个可交易的个人排放权制度，期限不是只有10 年，而是无限的未来。很显然，有“控制狂”倾向的平等主义者可能会欢迎这样一个对多数人进行官方控制的系统。但为何其他人也要欢迎这样做呢？为何每个人都应该认为它可以行得通呢？
Yet Mr. Roodhouse is at least logical. He does also accept that his ration coupons should be tradable. Meanwhile, Mr. Cameron suggests that each individual might have some sort of "green air miles allowance", with a sliding scale of taxation on those who travel most. The difficulty of monitoring such travel would prove immense: one can already foresee the host of business people taking their flights from Paris. Mr. Cameron is right that air travel should be included in the scope of taxation.
不过，鲁德豪斯的观点至少还合乎逻辑。他的确也承认，他的“配给券”应该是可交易的。与此同时，卡梅隆提出，每个人或许都可以有某种“温室气体里程津贴”，对旅行最多的人计征浮动税率。监测这类旅行的难度会极其巨大：我们可以预见，从巴黎搭乘航班的商业人士数量是多大的一个数字。卡梅隆关于乘飞机旅行应该被纳入征税范围的观点是对的。
He is right, too, that the taxation of emissions should, other things being equal; replace other taxes, rather than raise the overall level of taxation.
他的另外一个观点也是对的：在其它条件不变的情况下，碳排放税应当取代其它税种，而不是提高整体税负。
But this is surely no more than a populist gimmick.
但这无疑只是一个民粹主义者的小花招罢了。
Then there is the government. In its new climate change bill, it proposes "a series of clear targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions - including making the UK's targets for a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 and a 26 to 32 per cent reduction by 2020 legally binding". In this case, as I understand it, the government would be held legally liable for failing to compel the people of this country to behave as it desires over the next half century.
接下来是政府。在最新的气候变化方案中，英国政府提议“为降低二氧化碳排放设定一系列明确的目标，包括让英国在 2050年之前减排60%、 2020年之前减少26%至 32%的目标具有法律约束力”。我的理解是，在这种情况下，如果英国政府在未来半个世纪不能迫使其民众按照要求的方式行事，那政府将承担法律责任。
I find that frightening.
我发现这种情景很恐怖。
Meanwhile, in a typically wide-ranging speech this week, the chancellor proposed a raft of initiatives and incentives on light bulbs, efficiency standards, and home insulation and micro-generation. It is impossible for the outsider to judge whether these would be cost-effective. Is the plan to make new homes "zero carbon" an efficient way to achieve emissions reductions? I have no idea. I suspect the government does not have any idea either.
与此同时，在本周一次典型的、内容广泛的演讲中，劳森爵士针对灯泡、效率标准、家居绝缘和微型发电等，提出了大量创造性建议和激励计划。让外人来判断这些东西是否具有成本效益，这是不可能的。让新建房屋实现“零排放”的计划是实现减排目标的有效途径吗？我不知道。我猜想政府也不知道。
Let us concentrate on the big issues: any workable policy system must be global; it must create stable incentives; it must be administratively simple; it must include investment in creation and dissemination of new technologies; and, not least, it must allow people to get on with their lives with as much freedom as possible. Uniform prices on emissions -ideally, through taxation - will do most of this job.
（责任编辑:admin）
