本文選自大西洋刊

學長建議

1. 在語境中學習表達用法；

2. 著重把握學長標注的內容；

3. 嘗試通過閱讀文章回答標題問題。

Not Even Free Money Can Fix a Carbon Tax？

A carbon dividend seemed like a great way to solve climate politics. But it might not work.

碳紅利似乎是解決氣候政治的一個好方法。但它可能不起作用。

Once more unto the breach, my friends—once more to talk about carbon pricing.

朋友們，再一次進入突破口，再一次談及碳定價。

For 40 years, economists and environmentalists have proposed a simple solution to climate change: Put a price on it. If the government levies a fee on every ton of heat-trapping pollution that goes into the air, then the economy will move to cleaner, cheaper energy sources, and carbon pollution will fall over time.

40年來，經濟學家和環(huán)保主義者已經提出了一個簡單的氣候變化解決方案。給它定個價。如果政府對進入空氣的每一噸熱誘導污染征收費用，那么經濟將轉向更清潔、更便宜的能源，碳污染將隨著時間的推移而下降。

In practice, this means raising the cost of fossil fuels—and doing that is easier said than done. Despite support from literally thousands of economists, carbon-price schemes have no near-term chance of passage in the United States, and they cover only about one-fifth of the world’s emissions overall. Researchers have come to understand that carbon pricing presents an unusually difficult political challenge, because it marries very salient costs (all fossil-fuel costs go up, for everyone) to somewhat opaque benefits. Worse, some economists argue that carbon prices fall hardest on the poor, because lower-income households spend more of their income on energy.

在實踐中，這意味著提高化石燃料的成本，而這樣做說起來容易做起來難。盡管有數以千計的經濟學家支持，但碳價格計劃在美國短期內沒有通過的機會，而且它們只涵蓋了世界總排放量的約五分之一。研究人員已經認識到，碳定價提出了一個不同尋常的政治挑戰(zhàn)，因為它將非常突出的成本（每個人的所有化石燃料成本上升）與有點不透明的利益結合起來。更糟糕的是，一些經濟學家認為，碳價格對窮人的影響最大，因為低收入家庭在能源方面的支出更大。

So in the past few years, advocates have proposed a twist meant to bypass those obstacles and make an uncomfortable idea more acceptable, even popular. Under this new scheme, known as a revenue-neutral carbon price, the government taxes every ton of carbon pollution but, instead of using that money, simply returns it to taxpayers as a payment. In theory, this helps voters see not only the costs (higher prices) but also the benefits (a big juicy check).

因此，在過去的幾年里，倡導者們提出了一個轉折辦法，旨在繞過這些障礙，使一個不便的想法更容易被接受，甚至受歡迎。在這個被稱為 "收入中立 "碳價格的新方案下，政府對每一噸碳污染征稅，但不使用這些錢，而只是將其作為付款返還給納稅人。在理論上，這有助于選民不僅看到成本（更高的價格），而且看到好處（一張大的多汁支票）。

In America, this “tax and dividend” idea has become fashionable as a nonideological, theoretically bipartisan salve to climate change, a way to tax carbon without growing the size of the government. It is championed by the Climate Leadership Council, the Citizens Climate Lobby, and … nearly zero sitting Republican politicians(alas). But abroad, some countries have actually gone and implemented the policy. And “there are a good number of hypothetical scenarios that show the idea has some promise,” Matto Mildenberger, a political-science professor at UC Santa Barbara, told me. This week, a team of researchers, including Mildenberger, published the first major study of whether a revenue-neutral carbon price actually increases support for climate policy. The results weren’t as good as the theory.

在美國，這種 "稅收和紅利 "的想法已經成為一種非意識形態(tài)的時尚，理論上是兩黨對氣候變化的救命稻草，是一種在不擴大政府規(guī)模的情況下對碳征稅的方法。氣候領導委員會、公民氣候游說團和......幾乎沒有現(xiàn)任的共和黨政治家（唉）都在倡導這個想法。但在國外，一些國家實際上已經開始實施這一政策。加州大學圣巴巴拉分校的政治科學教授馬托-米登伯格告訴我，"有很多假設的情況表明這個想法有一定的前景。本周，包括Mildenberger在內的一個研究小組發(fā)表了關于收入中立的碳價格是否真的增加了對氣候政策的支持的第一個重要研究。結果并不像理論那樣好。

“We don’t find strong evidence that rebates are increasing people’s comfort with carbon pricing,” Mildenberger said. Even when people receive more in dividends than they pay out in the tax, they resent higher energy prices and tend to view the policy in light of their broader politics. “My basic view is that we’re not seeing evidence that dividends are a transformative way to overcome the politics of climate change.”

"Mildenberger說："我們沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)強有力的證據表明退稅正在增加人們對碳價格的舒適度。即使人們收到的紅利多于他們支付的稅款，他們也對更高的能源價格感到不滿，并傾向于根據他們更廣泛的政治來看待這項政策。"我的基本觀點是，我們沒有看到證據表明紅利是克服氣候變化政治的一種變革性方式。"

Mildenberger and his colleagues surveyed citizens of Canada and Switzerland, the two countries that have implemented something close to a revenue-neutral carbon price. In Canada, residents of some provinces receive a lump-sum carbon rebate as part of their annual tax return; all Swiss residents see the rebate as a discount on their health-insurance premiums.

Mildenberger和他的同事調查了加拿大和瑞士的公民，這兩個國家已經實施了接近于收入中立的碳價格。在加拿大，一些省份的居民收到一次性的碳退稅，作為他們年度納稅的一部分；所有瑞士居民將退稅視為他們的醫(yī)療保險費的折扣。

Neither of these policies is the “ideal” tax-and-dividend scheme that some economists endorse, in which everyone receives a monthly or quarterly check. But they’re close, and they’re admirably progressive: In Canada, for instance, 80 percent of residents receive more in the rebate than they pay out in the tax.

這些政策都不是一些經濟學家認可的 "理想 "的稅收和分紅計劃，即每個人每月或每季度收到一張支票。但它們很接近，而且是令人欽佩的累進制：例如，在加拿大，80%的居民收到的退稅多于他們支付的稅收。

Yet “in practice, people in Switzerland and Canada don’t know much about the rebates they’re receiving,“ Mildenberger told me. “They underestimated the benefit of the policy, and they overestimated the cost.”

然而，"實際上，瑞士和加拿大的人們對他們收到的退稅并不了解，"Mildenberger告訴我。"他們低估了政策的好處，也高估了成本。"

In Ontario, for instance, nearly half of respondents didn’t know they had received a rebate. In Saskatchewan, most respondents did know but thought their rebate was, on average,

444. Support for the carbon tax was informed by party ID: Members of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, which implemented the tax, supported it; members of the Conservative Party opposed it. When the researchers showed respondents their true rebate, nobody’s views changed, but right-wing respondents disliked the policy more. “They became more likely to believe they were getting ripped off by the policy,” he said.

例如，在安大略省，近一半的受訪者不知道他們已經收到了退稅。在薩斯喀徹溫省，大多數受訪者知道，但認為他們的退稅平均為每年268美元，而實際上是444美元。對碳稅的支持是由政黨身份決定的。實施碳稅的總理賈斯汀-特魯多的自由黨成員支持碳稅；保守黨成員則反對。當研究人員向受訪者展示他們的真實退稅時，沒有人改變觀點，但右翼受訪者更不喜歡該政策。"他說："他們更有可能認為他們被這個政策欺騙了。

In Switzerland, most respondents just didn’t know about the rebate. When told how much they had made from the policy, approval of the policy went up, but by a very small amount, the survey found. “There was nothing to support the more ambitious carbon taxes in the future that scientists say are necessary,” Mildenberger said. Last summer, Swiss voters narrowly rejected a larger tax-and-dividend scheme in a national referendum.

在瑞士，大多數受訪者只是不知道退稅的事。調查發(fā)現(xiàn)，當被告知他們從該政策中賺了多少錢時，對該政策的支持率上升了，但幅度非常小。"Mildenberger說："沒有任何東西可以支持科學家所說的未來更宏大的碳稅。去年夏天，瑞士選民在全國公投中以微弱優(yōu)勢否決了一個更大的稅收和分紅計劃。

These tepid reactions to the policy are strictly irrational for most taxpayers, who are receiving what is, in effect, free money. Yet it makes a certain amount of sense: If you don’t support transforming society (and paying more at the pump) to address one of the major challenges of our time, why should $444 a year change that? “There’s a certain … weirdness to using dividends to solve the political challenges of carbon pricing,” Mildenberger said. “Because the actual benefit of carbon pricing is having a stable climate in 10 years. The payment is, like, a side benefit.”

對于大多數納稅人來說，這些對政策的不溫不火的反應嚴格來說是不理性的，因為他們得到的實際上是免費的錢。然而，這也有一定的道理：如果你不支持改造社會（并在加油站支付更多的費用）來解決我們這個時代的主要挑戰(zhàn)之一，為什么每年444美元應該改變這種情況？"Mildenberger說："用紅利來解決碳定價的政治挑戰(zhàn)，有一定的......怪異之處。"因為碳定價的實際好處是在10年內有一個穩(wěn)定的氣候。支付是，像，一個副作用。"

For Mildenberger, the results suggested that subjective costs and benefits will always trump real economic facts. Because carbon prices affect every facet of the economy, and provoke lots of controversy, “there’s a fundamental asymmetry to the potential benefit you’re getting and the intense messaging you’re getting about costs,” he noted. In Ontario, for instance, the provincial Conservative government put stickers on every gas pump warning about the effect of the carbon price. A onetime yearly payment can’t beat such omnipresent messaging, he said. (Canada is planning to switch to quarterly checks soon, to raise the payments’ mind share.)

對Mildenberger來說，這些結果表明，主觀的成本和效益將永遠壓倒真實的經濟事實。由于碳價格影響到經濟的每一個方面，并引發(fā)了很多爭議，"你所得到的潛在利益和你所得到的關于成本的強烈信息是根本不對稱的，"他指出。例如，在安大略省，省保守黨政府在每個加油泵上都貼上了關于碳價格影響的警告。他說，一年一次的付款不能擊敗這種無處不在的信息傳遞。(加拿大正計劃很快改用季度支票，以提高付款的思想份額）。

Gernot Wagner, an economist at NYU, was more sanguine about the results. “There are people out there who are convinced their policy design is the answer, and, look, it never is,” he told me. “At the end of the day, it’s all politics. And it’s all identity politics, which is not what we’d like to be the case, but it is.”

紐約大學的經濟學家Gernot Wagner對這個結果更為樂觀。"他告訴我："有些人相信他們的政策設計就是答案，但是，你看，它從來不是。"在一天結束時，這都是政治。而且都是身份政治，這不是我們所希望的情況，但確實如此。"

In his native Austria, he said, the government just implemented a carbon-tax-and-dividend scheme, along with a slew of business-friendly tax cuts and a national public-transit subsidy. “The whole package is what’s going to make the difference,” he said. More than 20 years passed between the first carbon-tax proposal in Austria, he noted, and the specific combination of policies and coalitions that made it possible.

他說，在他的祖國奧地利，政府剛剛實施了一項碳稅和股息計劃，以及一系列有利于企業(yè)的減稅措施和國家公共交通補貼。"他說："整個方案將使情況發(fā)生變化。他指出，從奧地利的第一個碳稅提案到使之成為可能的政策和聯(lián)盟的具體組合，已經過去了20多年。

For Mildenberger, though, the results show that it’s very hard to make policy create political feedback loops. In American history, only a few programs—such as Social Security, the GI Bill, and Medicare—have created political conditions that sustain and broaden them going forward. In general, “people are not mobilizing to defend their material interests,” he said.

不過，對Mildenberger來說，這些結果表明，要使政策產生政治反饋循環(huán)是非常困難的。在美國歷史上，只有少數項目——如社會保障、大兵法案和醫(yī)療保險——創(chuàng)造了政治條件，維持并擴大了它們的發(fā)展。一般來說，"人們沒有動員起來捍衛(wèi)他們的物質利益，"他說。

In a political environment where election results themselves are contested, it’s folly to expect people to gravitate toward a reality-based understanding of costs and benefits, he said. “There’s much crazier things that people now believe than that the benefits or costs of a policy are

5,000. There may be real limits to how much we can expect the objective structure of policies to reshape politics in this moment.”

他說，在一個選舉結果本身就有爭議的政治環(huán)境中，期望人們傾向于對成本和效益的現(xiàn)實理解是愚蠢的。"現(xiàn)在人們相信的更瘋狂的事情是，一項政策的收益或成本是500美元，而不是5000美元。在這個時候，我們能期望政策的客觀結構在多大程度上重塑政治，可能有真正的限制。"

It’s a discouraging finding—and one that may point to a more hardball politics of climate change going forward. At least corporations can be counted on to mind their cash flow.

這是一個令人沮喪的發(fā)現(xiàn)——一個可能指向未來的氣候變化的更強硬的政治。至少可以指望企業(yè)注意他們的現(xiàn)金流。