原文標題：
Carbon?and?the?economy
Debunking?degrowth
The?link?between?economic?growth?and?rising?emissions?has?been?broken.?Now?this?decoupling?must?speed?up
碳與經(jīng)濟
揭穿“去增長”的謬誤
經(jīng)濟增長和排放量上升之間的聯(lián)系已經(jīng)被打破?，F(xiàn)在，這種脫鉤必須加快
?
Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions
經(jīng)濟增長不再依靠與日俱增的碳排放

[Paragraph 1]
GOOD NEWS on the fight against climate change can be hard to find.
很難聽到關于應對氣候變化的好消息。
?
Targets are missed, promises are broken and the planet gets hotter.
目標和承諾都已失效，地球變得越來越熱。
?
But as worthies from across the world meet in Sharm el-Sheikh for the latest UN conference to pledge to do more to tackle this enormous?problem, there is at least one reason for optimism.
但是，來自世界各地的知名人士在沙姆沙伊赫召開最新的聯(lián)合國會議，承諾采取更多措施解決這一巨大問題。這至少給了我們一個樂觀的理由。
?
A large and growing group of mostly rich countries has severed?the link between economic growth and rising emissions of greenhouse gases.
越來越多的富裕國家切斷了經(jīng)濟增長和溫室氣體排放量之間的聯(lián)系。
?

[Paragraph 2]
For the three centuries or so since the fossil-fuel age began in earnest, living standards and emissions have risen hand in hand.
自化石燃料時代正式開始以來的大約三個世紀里，生活水平和排放量一直在同步上升。
?
Coal, then oil and natural gas, all brought prosperity?while also raising global temperatures.
煤炭、石油和天然氣，雖都帶來了經(jīng)濟繁榮，但也提高了全球氣溫。
?
This link has led some environmentalists and scientists to argue that only a programme of “degrowth”—reducing the pace of improvements in overall prosperity, or reversing?them altogether—would avoid the worst effects of climate change.
因此， 一些環(huán)保主義者和科學家認為，只有“去增長”計劃，即降低整體繁榮的增長速度，或者完全舍棄繁榮，這樣才能避免氣候變化的最壞影響。

[Paragraph 3]
Yet over the past decade a growing number of countries—33 by TE’s count, home to over 1bn people—have managed to increase their GDP?while reducing their emissions.
過去十年，越來越多的國家（據(jù)本報統(tǒng)計有33個），總?cè)丝诔^了10億規(guī)模，已經(jīng)成功提高了GDP，同時也減少了碳排放。
?
After a peak in 2007 America reduced its territorial emissions from 6.13bn tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent?to 5.26bn before the pandemic.
在2007年達到峰值后，美國本土排放量從61.3億噸二氧化碳當量減少到新冠疫情前的52.6億噸。
?
And that is not because Americans are simply importing their toys and electronics from dirtier places.
這也并不是因為美國從更落后的國家進口了玩具和電子產(chǎn)品。

Strikingly, consumption emissions, which include a measure of the carbon embedded in imports, have fallen by 15% over the same period.
引人注目的是，消費排放量（包括進口中的碳含量）同期下降了15%。
?
[Paragraph 4]
Decoupling is largely a result of two big shifts.
脫鉤很大程度上是兩大轉(zhuǎn)變的結果。
?
One is the changing structure of economies.As countries became richer they expanded their service sectors, which use less energy than manufacturing.
一是因為經(jīng)濟結構的轉(zhuǎn)變。隨著各國變得更加富裕，服務業(yè)得到了拓展，其能源消耗比制造業(yè)少。
?
In Britain, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, four-fifths of output is now generated by accountants, shop assistants and other service workers.
在工業(yè)革命的發(fā)源地英國，五分之四的產(chǎn)出是由會計、店員和其他服務工作者創(chuàng)造的。
?
Even in Germany, famed for its industrial prowess, manufacturing’s share of GDP?is falling.
即使在以工業(yè)實力著稱的德國，制造業(yè)在國民生產(chǎn)總值中所占的份額也在下降。
?
That has reduced the energy intensity of growth.
這降低了經(jīng)濟增長的能源強度。
?
[Paragraph 5]
Second, imports are getting greener.
二是因為進口產(chǎn)品越來越環(huán)保。
?
In the decade after the financial crisis, China’s export sector decarbonised?faster than the rest of its economy.
在金融危機后的10年里，中國出口行業(yè)的脫碳速度超過了其他經(jīng)濟領域。
?
This has helped reduce the total carbon footprint of rich countries.
這有助于減少富裕國家的碳足跡。
?
[Paragraph 6]
This decoupling is unambiguously?good news.
這種脫鉤無疑是好消息。
?
But, with the link unbroken in many poorer countries, it has not been enough to reduce the pace of increase in global emissions.
但是，由于許多較貧窮的國家沒有切斷這種聯(lián)系，這還不足以減緩全球排放的增長速度。
?
The task is therefore to speed up decoupling.
因此，我們的任務是加快脫鉤。
?
That will not only demonstrate that tackling climate change and improving living standards can go together; it will also allow poorer parts of the world to use more of the remaining?global carbon budget to get richer.
這不僅很好地證明了應對氣候變化和提高生活水平是可以共同實現(xiàn)的，它還將允許世界上較貧窮的地區(qū)使用更多剩余的全球碳預算來變得更富裕。
?
[Paragraph 7]
Hearteningly, there are reasons to think such an acceleration is possible.
令人振奮的是，我們可以相信這種加速是可能實現(xiàn)的。
?
So far, decoupling has been achieved largely by reducing the energy needed per unit of output.
目前為止，脫鉤主要是通過減少每單位產(chǎn)出所需的能源實現(xiàn)的。
?
But there are big gains to be had from making energy greener in the first place.
但是，從一開始就使用更環(huán)保的能源會有更大的好處。
?
Thanks to investment in renewables and greater electrification, such gains could soon be realised.
多虧了對可再生能源的投資和更大程度的電氣化，這些收益可能很快就會實現(xiàn)。
?
That might even boost long-term growth: an economy that must scrimp and save to conserve energy is less dynamic than one in which power is green, abundant and cheap.
這甚至可能促進長期增長:一個更具的活力的經(jīng)濟應該靠綠色的、充足的、廉價的能源，而不是靠節(jié)儉來節(jié)約能源。
?
[Paragraph 8]
Some environmentalists may fret that celebrating such good news can have a perverse?effect, by breeding complacency?or making fighting climate change seem less urgent.
一些環(huán)保主義者可能會擔心，慶祝這樣的好消息可能會適得其反，滋生自滿情緒，或者應對抗氣候變化不再那么緊迫。
?
In fact, the lack of a trade-off?between improving living standards and tackling climate change should be a reason to go faster still.
而事實上，正是因為之前提高生活水平和應對氣候變化未能兼顧，我們才更有理由加快步伐。
?
It means one less excuse for timidity in Sharm el-Sheikh.
這意味著在沙姆沙伊赫會議上又少了一個怯懦的借口。
?
（恭喜讀完，本篇英語詞匯量660左右）
原文出自：2022年11月11日《The Economist》Leaders版塊。

精讀筆記來源于：自由英語之路

本文翻譯：Maree

本文編輯校對: Irene
僅供個人英語學習交流使用。

【補充資料】（來自于網(wǎng)絡）
Sharm el-Sheikh沙姆沙伊赫，一譯“沙爾姆謝赫”或“沙藍埃薛克”，是一個位于西奈半島(Sinai)南端的沙漠城市，瀕臨埃及西奈半島東南端小海灣紅海亞喀巴灣。扼蒂朗海峽要沖，控亞喀巴灣通紅海門戶，建有炮臺和軍事要塞，戰(zhàn)略位置重要。附近海中多小島、礁石，深水航道最窄處僅300米，是游覽圣地。11月6日，《聯(lián)合國氣候變化框架公約》第二十七次締約方大會（COP27）在埃及海濱城市沙姆沙伊赫正式開幕，會議將持續(xù)到11月18日。近200個國家的代表為了人類共同的命運齊聚這里，規(guī)劃未來。

【重點句子】（3 個）
A large and growing group of mostly rich countries has severed the link between economic growth and rising emissions of greenhouse gases.
越來越多的富裕國家切斷了經(jīng)濟增長和溫室氣體排放量之間的聯(lián)系。
?
One is the changing structure of economies. As countries became richer they expanded their service sectors, which use less energy than manufacturing.
一是因為經(jīng)濟結構的轉(zhuǎn)變。隨著各國變得更加富裕，服務業(yè)得到了拓展，其能源消耗比制造業(yè)少。
?
In fact, the lack of a trade-off between improving living standards and tackling climate change should be a reason to go faster still.
而事實上，正是因為之前提高生活水平和應對氣候變化未能兼顧，我們才更有理由加快步伐。