The world is missing its lofty climate targets.

Time for some realism Global warming cannot be limited to 1.5°C

Nov 3rd 2022

To accept that the world’s average temperature might rise by more than 1.5°C, declared the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands in 2015, would be to sign the “death warrant” of small, low-lying countries such as his. To widespread surprise, the grandees who met in Paris that year, at a climate conference like the one starting in Egypt next week, accepted his argument. They enshrined the goal of limiting global warming to about 1.5°C in the Paris agreement, which sought to co-ordinate national efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

馬紹爾群島外交部長 2015 年時(shí)表示， 假如世界平均氣溫上升超過 1.5 ℃ 的話， 對馬紹爾群島這樣的低地小國將意味著 “ 死刑執(zhí)行令 ” 。讓人們感到驚訝的是，在當(dāng)年巴黎氣候會(huì)議（如同下周將在埃及舉辦的會(huì)議）上，那些出席的大人物 們接受了這一觀點(diǎn)。他們把將全球變暖幅度限制在 1 . 5 ℃ 左右這一目標(biāo)寫入了《巴黎協(xié)定》 。 該協(xié)定尋求通過協(xié)調(diào)各國努力以遏制溫室氣體排放。

No one remembered to tell the firing squad, however. The same countries that piously?signed the Paris agreement have not cut their emissions enough to meet its targets; in?fact global emissions are still growing. The world is already about 1.2°C hotter than it?was in pre-industrial times. Given the lasting impact of greenhouse gases already?emitted, and the impossibility of stopping emissions overnight, there is no way Earth?can now avoid a temperature rise of more than 1.5°C. There is still hope that the overshoot may not be too big, and may be only temporary, but even these consoling possibilities are becoming ever less likely.?

然而，沒有人提醒那些簽約國。那些莊嚴(yán)簽署巴黎協(xié)議的國家并沒有減少足夠?的排放量以達(dá)到協(xié)定目標(biāo)。事實(shí)上，全球排放量仍在增長。世界已經(jīng)比前工業(yè)化時(shí)代熱了約?1?.?2?℃?。已排放的溫室氣體會(huì)造成長久影響，而且我們不可能在一夜之間停止排放，所以現(xiàn)在沒有辦法避免地球溫度上升超過?1.5?℃?。我們?nèi)杂袡C(jī)會(huì)將超標(biāo)幅度控制在較小范圍內(nèi)，而且超標(biāo)也可能只是暫時(shí)的。但即使是這種可能性也變得越來越小。?

The consequences of the world’s failure to curb emissions are catastrophic, and not?just for coral atolls in the Pacific. Climate-related disasters are

proliferating, from?Pakistan, much of which was inundated by this summer’s unusually intense monsoon,?to Florida, which in September endured its deadliest hurricane since 1935. Even less?lethal distortions of the weather, such as this summer’s extraordinary heatwave in?Europe, do enormous economic damage, impeding transport, wrecking infrastructure?and sapping productivity.?

假如全球無法遏制碳排放的話，后果將是災(zāi)難性的，而且影響范圍不僅限于太平洋的珊瑚環(huán)礁。氣候?yàn)?zāi)害正在激增，從巴基斯坦（今年夏天時(shí)大部分國土被異常猛烈的季風(fēng)淹沒）到佛羅里達(dá)州（在九月經(jīng)歷了自?1?935?年以來最致命的颶風(fēng)）。即使是不那么致命的氣候異常現(xiàn)象，例如今年夏天歐洲的反常熱浪，也會(huì)造成巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失，阻礙運(yùn)輸，破壞基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施并削弱生產(chǎn)力。?

The response to all this should be a dose of realism. Many activists are reluctant to?admit that 1.5°C is a lost cause. But failing to do so prolongs the mistakes made in?Paris, where the world’s governments adopted a Herculean goal without any plausible?plan for reaching it. The delegates gathering in Egypt should be chastened by failure,?not lulled by false hope. They need to be more pragmatic, and face up to some hard?truths.?

我們應(yīng)該以更加現(xiàn)實(shí)的態(tài)度應(yīng)對這一切。許多氣候運(yùn)動(dòng)家不愿意承認(rèn)?1?.?5°C?這?一目標(biāo)是注定失敗的。但是，?如果不這樣做的話，?我們就會(huì)延續(xù)在巴黎犯下的?錯(cuò)誤。?世界各國政府制定了一個(gè)艱巨的目標(biāo)，?但卻沒有制定任何針對性的合理?計(jì)劃。?聚集在埃及的代表們應(yīng)該懊惱于這一目標(biāo)的失敗，?而不是被虛無的希望?所迷惑。?他們需要變得更加務(wù)實(shí)，?并接受那些嚴(yán)峻的事實(shí)。?

First, cutting emissions will require much more money. The world is missing its lofty climate targets. Time for some realism Global warming cannot be limited to 1.5°C Nov 3rd 2022 To accept that the world’s average temperature might rise by more than 1.5°C, declared the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands in 2015, would be to sign the “death warrant” of small, low-lying countries such as his. To widespread surprise, the grandees who met in Paris that year, at a climate conference like the one starting in Egypt next week, accepted his argument. They enshrined the goal of limiting global warming to about 1.5°C in the Paris agreement, which sought to co-ordinate national efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

馬紹爾群島外交部長 2015 年時(shí)表示， 假如世界平均氣溫上升超過 1.5 ℃ 的話， 對馬紹爾群島這樣的低地小國將意味著 “ 死刑執(zhí)行令 ” 。 讓人們感到驚訝的是， 在當(dāng)年巴黎氣候會(huì)議（如同下周將在埃及舉辦的會(huì)議）上， 那些出席的大人物 們接受了這一觀點(diǎn)。 他們把將全球變暖幅度限制在 1 . 5 ℃ 左右這一目標(biāo)寫入了 《巴黎協(xié)定》 。 該協(xié)定尋求通過協(xié)調(diào)各國努力以遏制溫室氣體排放。

No one remembered to tell the firing squad, however. The same countries that piously signed the Paris agreement have not cut their emissions enough to meet its targets; in fact global emissions are still growing. The world is already about 1.2°C hotter than it was in pre-industrial times. Given the lasting impact of greenhouse gases already emitted, and the impossibility of stopping emissions overnight, there is no way Earth can now avoid a temperature rise of more than 1.5°C. There is still hope that the overshoot may not be too big, and may be only temporary, but even these consoling possibilities are becoming ever less likely. 然而， 沒有人提醒那些簽約國。 那些莊嚴(yán)簽署巴黎協(xié)議的國家并沒有減少足夠 的排放量以達(dá)到協(xié)定目標(biāo)。 事實(shí)上， 全球排放量仍在增長。世界已經(jīng)比前工業(yè) 化時(shí)代熱了約 1 . 2 ℃ 。 已排放的溫室氣體會(huì)造成長久影響， 而且我們不可能在一 夜之間停止排放， 所以現(xiàn)在沒有辦法避免地球溫度上升超過 1.5 ℃ 。 我們?nèi)杂袡C(jī) 會(huì)將超標(biāo)幅度控制在較小范圍內(nèi)， 而且超標(biāo)也可能只是暫時(shí)的。但即使是這種 可能性也變得越來越小。

The consequences of the world’s failure to curb emissions are catastrophic, and not just for coral atolls in the Pacific. Climate-related disasters are proliferating, from Pakistan, much of which was inundated by this summer’s unusually intense monsoon, to Florida, which in September endured its deadliest hurricane since 1935. Even less lethal distortions of the weather, such as this summer’s extraordinary heatwave in Europe, do enormous economic damage, impeding transport, wrecking infrastructure and sapping productivity. 假如全球無法遏制碳排放的話，后果將是災(zāi)難性的，而且影響范圍不僅限于太 平洋的珊瑚環(huán)礁。氣候?yàn)?zāi)害正在激增，從巴基斯坦（今年夏天時(shí)大部分國土被異常猛烈的季風(fēng)淹沒）到佛羅里達(dá)州（在九月經(jīng)歷了自 1935 年以來最致命的颶風(fēng)）。即使是不那么致命的氣候異?，F(xiàn)象，例如今年夏天歐洲的反常熱浪，也會(huì)造成巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失，阻礙運(yùn)輸，破壞基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施并削弱生產(chǎn)力。

The response to all this should be a dose of realism. Many activists are reluctant to admit that 1.5°C is a lost cause. But failing to do so prolongs the mistakes made in Paris, where the world’s governments adopted a Herculean goal without any plausible plan for reaching it. The delegates gathering in Egypt should be chastened by failure, not lulled by false hope. They need to be more pragmatic, and face up to some hard truths. 我們應(yīng)該以更加現(xiàn)實(shí)的態(tài)度應(yīng)對這一切。許多氣候運(yùn)動(dòng)家不愿意承認(rèn) 1 . 5°C 這 一目標(biāo)是注定失敗的。但是， 如果不這樣做的話， 我們就會(huì)延續(xù)在巴黎犯下的錯(cuò)誤。世界各國政府制定了一個(gè)艱巨的目標(biāo)，但卻沒有制定任何針對性的合理 計(jì)劃。聚集在埃及的代表們應(yīng)該懊惱于這一目標(biāo)的失敗，而不是被虛無的希望所迷惑。他們需要變得更加務(wù)實(shí)，并接受那些嚴(yán)峻的事實(shí)。

First, cutting emissions will require much more money. Roughly speaking, global investment in clean energy needs to triple from today’s $1trn a year, and be concentrated in developing countries, which generate most of today’s emissions. Solar and wind power can be cheaper to build and run than more polluting types, but grids need to be rebuilt to cope with the intermittency of the sun and the wind. Concessionary lending and aid from rich countries are essential and a moral imperative. However, the sums required are far greater than what might plausibly be squeezed out of Western donors or multilateral organisations such as the World Bank.

首先，減少碳排放需要更多資金支持。粗略地說，全球?qū)η鍧嵞茉吹耐顿Y需要在當(dāng)前每年1萬億美元資金基礎(chǔ)上再增加兩倍。 因?yàn)榇蠖鄶?shù)碳排放都集中在發(fā)展中國家， 因此投資應(yīng)集中于這些國家。太陽能和風(fēng)能的建設(shè)和運(yùn)行成本可能 比那些污染嚴(yán)重的能源更低，但我們需要重建電網(wǎng)以應(yīng)對太陽能和風(fēng)能的間歇性。在道義上， 發(fā)達(dá)國家的優(yōu)惠貸款和援助是必要的，而且至關(guān)重要。然而，現(xiàn)在從西方捐助者或世界銀行等多邊組織中能獲得的資金遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)滿足不了所需。

So the governments of developing countries, especially middle-income ones, will have to work with the rich world to mobilise private investment. On the part of developing countries, that will involve big improvements to the investment climate and an acceptance that they will have to cede some control over energy policy. On the part of donors, it will involve focusing spending on schemes that “crowd in” private capital, such as indemnifying investors against political and regulatory risks, taking equity stakes in private projects and agreeing to absorb the first tranche of losses if things go wrong. They will have to do things they dislike, such as helping the poorest countries shut coal plants. But without give on both sides, the world will bake.

因此，發(fā)展中國家政府，特別是中等收入國家政府，將不得不通過與發(fā)達(dá)國家 合作以吸引私人投資。對這些發(fā)展中國家而言，這意味著它們必須大力改善投 資環(huán)境，并不得不放棄對（本國）能源政策的部分控制。對捐助方而言， 這意 味著它們需要將支出集中于那些可以大量吸引私人資本的計(jì)劃上，例如補(bǔ)償投資者面臨的政治和監(jiān)管風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，買入私人項(xiàng)目的股權(quán)，以及同意在意外發(fā)生時(shí)承 擔(dān)首波損失。他們將不得不做他們不喜歡的事，例如幫助最貧窮國家關(guān)停煤電站。但如果雙方都不讓步的話，世界就會(huì)陷入水深火熱中。

The second hard truth is that fossil fuels will not be abandoned overnight. Europe is scrambling to build import facilities for natural gas, having lost access to Russian supplies, precisely because it cannot come up with any immediate alternative. For some poorer countries investments in gas, in conjunction with renewables, are still necessary: helping more citizens get life-enhancing electricity is a moral imperative, too.

第二個(gè)嚴(yán)酷事實(shí)是，我們無法在一夜之間拋棄化石燃料。 因?yàn)闅W洲失去了俄羅 斯的天然氣供應(yīng)以及歐洲無法馬上找到其替代品， 因此歐洲正在艱難地建設(shè)天 然氣進(jìn)口設(shè)施。 對于一些較貧窮國家來說， 在天然氣和可再生能源方面的投資 仍然是必要的。因?yàn)榈懒x上來說，國家應(yīng)該幫助更多公民獲得電力以改善生活。

The third truth is that because 1.5°C will be missed, greater efforts must be made to adapt to climate change. Adaptation has always been the neglected step-child of climate policy, mistrusted by activists as a distraction from cutting emissions or, worse, an excuse not to make any cuts. But no matter what, the world now faces morefloods, droughts, storms and wildfires. For developing countries especially, but also for rich ones, preparing for these calamities is a matter of life and death.

第三個(gè)嚴(yán)酷事實(shí)是，由于我們無法實(shí)現(xiàn) 1 . 5 ℃ 這一目標(biāo)， 我們必須付出更大努力 來適應(yīng)氣候變化。 在氣候政策中， 適應(yīng)氣候變化這一選項(xiàng)一直被忽視， 并被活 動(dòng)家們質(zhì)疑。 這些氣候活動(dòng)家認(rèn)為適應(yīng)氣候變化這一方案會(huì)干擾減排努力， 甚至可能被作為抵制減排的借口。 但無論如何，世界現(xiàn)在面臨更多的洪水、干旱、風(fēng)暴和野火災(zāi)害。 特別是對于發(fā)展中國家，做好應(yīng)對這些災(zāi)害的準(zhǔn)備事關(guān)生死。發(fā)達(dá)國家也不例外。

Fortunately, as our special report argues, a lot of adaptation is affordable. It can be as simple as providing farmers with hardier strains of crops and getting cyclone warnings to people in harm’s way. Better still, such measures tend to have additional benefits beyond helping people cope with climate change. This is an area where even modest help from rich countries can have a big impact. Yet they are not coughing up the money they have promised to help the poorest ones adapt. That is unfair: why should poor farmers in Africa, who have done almost nothing to make the climate change, be abandoned to suffer as it does? If the rich world allows global warming to ravage already fragile countries, it will inevitably end up paying a price in food shortages and proliferating refugees.

幸運(yùn)的是，特別報(bào)告指出，我們承擔(dān)得起很多適應(yīng)措施。它可以簡單到為農(nóng)民提供更強(qiáng)壯的農(nóng)作物品種， 并向處于危險(xiǎn)中的人們發(fā)出旋風(fēng)警報(bào)。更好的是，這些措施除了幫助人們應(yīng)對氣候變化之外，往往還有其他好處。 在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域， 即使富國的適度幫助也能產(chǎn)生巨大的影響。然而， 他們并沒有拿出他們所承諾 的資金來幫助最貧窮的人適應(yīng)。這是不公平的：為什么非洲的貧困農(nóng)民幾乎沒有做任何事情來使氣候發(fā)生變化， 卻要被拋棄， 讓他們像氣候一樣受苦？如果 富裕的世界允許全球變暖蹂躪已經(jīng)脆弱的國家，它最終將不可避免地付出糧食 短缺和難民激增的代價(jià)。

Cool it Finally, having admitted that the planet will grow dangerously hot, policymakers need to consider more radical ways to cool it. Technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, now in their infancy, need a lot of attention. So does “solar geoengineering”, which blocks out incoming sunlight. Both are mistrusted by climate activists, the first as a false promise, the second as a scary threat. On solar geoengineering people are right to worry. It could well be dangerous and would be very hard to govern. But so will an ever hotter world. The worthies in Egypt need to take that on board. Overshooting 1.5°C does not doom the planet. But it is a death sentence for some people, ways of life, ecosystems, even countries. To let the moment pass without some hard thinking about how to set the world on a better trajectory would be to sign yet more death warrants.