亿万富豪生活的奢华程度往往远离普通人的想象能力，有研究显示，很多平时高调提倡环保和防止气候变化的名人与富豪，自身的碳足迹其实也远远超过人们的想象。
The world's wealthiest people make a huge contribution to climate change through carbon-hungry activities. How can we reduce emissions from the rich?
In 2018, Stefan Gössling and his team spent months scouring the social media profiles of some of the richest celebrities, from Paris Hilton to Oprah Winfrey. The tourism professor from Linnaeus University in Sweden was looking for evidence of how much they were flying.
瑞典林奈大学的旅游教授格斯令（Stefan Gössling ）和他所领导的研究小组2018年用了几个月时间搜索美国名媛帕丽斯·希尔顿（Paris Hilton）和媒体名人奥普拉（Operah Winfrey）等全球最富有名人在他们社交媒体上的资料，寻找他们乘搭飞机次数的证据。
The answer was a lot. Bill Gates, one of the world's most high-profile environmental advocates, took 59 flights in 2017, according to Gössling's calculations, covering a distance of around 343,500km (213,000 miles) – more than eight times around the world – generating more than 1,600 tonnes of greenhouse gases (that's equivalent to the average yearly emissions of 105 Americans).
找到的答案是：乘搭量惊人。例如，比尔·盖茨，这位全球最高调的环保倡言者之一，他2017年共飞行了59次，飞行距离总长34.35万公里，比环绕地球八圈还要多，而产生的温室气体高达1600吨，相当于105个美国人年平均碳排放量的总和。
The last few decades have shone a spotlight on global inequality. From the 2008 financial crisis, to the pandemic and the increasingly severe impacts of climate change – disruptive events tend to hit the poorest first and hardest.
过去几十年来，全球贫富差距日趋悬殊现象引起广泛关注。诸如2008年金融危机、新冠病毒的大流行，以及气候变化等天灾人祸对经济民生影响日益严重，受影响最大并最先受到冲击的往往是最贫穷的人。
But in debates about how to solve inequality, over-consumption is often overlooked. "Each unit you overshoot means someone has to give [something] up," says Lewis Akenji, managing director of Hot or Cool Institute, a Berlin-based think tank. As a result, the outsized carbon footprints of society's richest entrench inequality and threaten the world's ability to stave off catastrophic climate change.
不过在如何解决“碳排放不平等”的争议方面，人们通常会忽略富裕者的超高碳消费这一点。位于德国柏林的地球暖化问题研究智库——气候暖化问题研究所（Hot or Cool Institute）的负责人阿肯吉（Lewis Akenji）表示：“你每排放一个单位的碳，就意味着必须有人失去（一点东西)”。而结果是，社会上最富有的人产生的巨大碳足迹强化了贫富差距，威胁着全球抵御灾难性气候变化的能力。
Who is the 1%?
谁属于全球最富有的1%？
When we think of "the rich", we might think of millionaires and billionaires with private jets and multiple mansions.
一说到全球百分之几的“有钱富人”，人们或许想到的是有私人飞机和诸多豪宅的百万、亿万富翁。
But an income of $38,000 (£27,500) is enough to put someone in the world's richest 10%, and $109,000 (£79,000) puts them in the top 1%.
但实际只要年收入达到 $3.8万美元已属于全球 10%的最富有者，达到$10.9万美元则进入顶端 1%的最富圈子。
The statistics are startling. The world's wealthiest 10% were responsible for around half of global emissions in 2015, according to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute. The top 1% were responsible for 15% of emissions, nearly twice as much as the world's poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7% and will feel the brunt of climate impacts despite bearing the least responsibility for causing them.
统计数字会令人吃惊。根据乐施会(Oxfam)和斯德哥尔摩环境研究所2020年的一份报告，全球在2015年约一半的碳排放来自最富有的10%人口，顶端最富的1%人口的碳排放量占全球碳排放总量的15%，几乎是世界上最贫穷的50%人口的两倍，后者的排放量仅为7%。尽管穷人对造成气候变化的责任最小，但承受气候变化的灾难性影响他们却首当其冲。
As the rich race through the remaining "carbon budget" – the amount of greenhouse gas it's possible to emit without pushing the world beyond 1.5C of warming by the end of the century – they "aren't making the space for the bottom 50% of the population to grow their emissions to the point where they're actually getting their needs met", says Emily Ghosh, a staff scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute.
斯德哥尔摩环境研究所的科学家艾米丽·高希(Emily Ghosh)说，全球富裕人口争抢剩余的“碳排放量配额”，即为达到本世纪末全球气候升温不超过摄氏1.5度可允许排放的温室气体量上限，但却“未给全球最穷50%人口留下可让他们满足民生所需的排放量空间”。
Dario Kenner, the author of Carbon Inequality: The Role of the Richest in Climate Change, coined the term "polluter elite" to describe the wealthiest in society who invest extensively in fossil fuels, as well as having a strong climate impact from their high-carbon lifestyles. But while the polluter elite have a disproportionate impact, the world's wealthiest encompasses a much broader swathe of the population.
《碳排放不平等：地球最富有者在气候变化中的角色》(Carbon Inequality: the Role of the Richest in Climate Change)一书的作者肯纳（Dario Kenner）发明了“污染精英”（polluter elite）这个词，用来指大量投资化石燃料，或高碳生活方式对气候产生巨大影响的最富有社会阶层。但是，虽然污染精英人数很少，对气候的影响却很大，不过所谓世界上最富有者的涵盖面比我们所想的要大很多。
As things stand, most people in wealthy countries are consuming in ways that are accelerating climate catastrophe. When you take into account the emissions from imported goods, the average person in the UK emits 8.5 tonnes of carbon a year according to the Hot or Cool Institute, a figure that rises to 14.2 tonnes in Canada, the country with highest emissions among those the institute surveyed. In order to stay within 1.5C of warming, these figures need to come down dramatically to 0.7 tonnes per person by 2050.
就目前情况来看，富裕国家大多数人的消费方式正在加速气候灾难。根据柏林气候暖化问题研究所的数据，如果将进口商品的碳排放考虑在内，英国人均每年的碳排放量为8.5吨，而加拿大的这一数字则高达14.2吨，后者是是研究所调查的国家中人均碳排放量最高的国家。为了实现把地球升温控制在1.5摄氏度以内这个目标，到2050年，人平均碳排放量需要大幅下降到0.7吨。
Personal consumption is a thorny topic to address. It can quickly spiral into a well-worn debate about whether tackling climate change hinges on individual actions or systemic changes from governments and corporations.
个人消费方式是一个棘手的话题，可能很快会演变成一种久议无决的争论，即解决气候变化之途究竟是取决于个人行动还是有赖政府和企业的制度性变革。
"This is a false dichotomy," says Akenji. "Lifestyles don't exist in a vacuum, lifestyles are shaped by context." People live their lives within the mostly unsustainable political and economic systems that exist. But, without addressing the lifestyles of the wealthiest and most polluting in our societies, and the power they hold, we won't be able to address climate change.
阿肯吉说，“这是一种非此即彼的错误认识。个人生活方式不是存在于真空中，而是被社会所左右”。 人类现在赖以生活的既有政治和经济体制几乎是不可持续的。要是不正视社会中最富有、产生污染最严重的这部份人的生活方式及其所拥有的权力，就无法从根本上解决气候变化问题。
"Wealthy people set the tone on consumption to which everybody aspires. That's where the toxic effects are," says Halina Szejnwald Brown, professor emerita of environmental science and policy at Clark University in the US.
美国克拉克大学（Clark University）环境科学与政策名誉教授布朗（Halina Szejnwald Brown）表示，富人的消费模式引起人人仿效，这就是毒性影响之所在。"
Take aviation. "As soon as you fly, you belong to a global elite," says Gössling. More than 90% of people have never flown and just 1% of the world's population is responsible for 50% of emissions from flying. From the business elite crisscrossing the globe to the celebrities who have made travel part of their personal brands, their behaviour has helped make a high carbon lifestyle aspirational and desirable, says Gössling.
以乘搭飞机为例。格斯令说，“只要你是飞机旅客，就属于全球精英阶层”。因为全球人口中，有超过90%的人从未乘搭过飞机，而仅止于世界人口1%的富裕者就产生了全球民用航空碳排放量的50%。格斯令表示，遍布全球的商业精英和将旅行视为个人品牌一部分的名流，他们的行为让高碳生活方式令人艳羡和向往。
The SUVs that ferry around presidents, business leaders and celebrities – and increasingly middle class families in cities – have also become a status symbol despite their environmental impact. Making up 42% of global car sales in 2019, SUVs were the only sector to see emissions rise in 2020. The increase in people buying SUVs last year effectively cancelled out the climate gains of electric cars.
接载总统、商界领袖、名流，以及越来越多的城市中产阶级家庭的运动型多用途轿车SUV虽然碳排量高，对环境有影响，但也成为代表社会地位的一种符号。2019年，SUV的销量已占到全球汽车总销量的42%，到2020年更是碳排放量不降反升的唯一行业。2020年购买SUV的消费者增加，实际抵消了电动汽车对减少温室气体排放的正面影响。
Bigger homes are another consumption hotspot. "Housing choices signify prestige and social status," writes Kimberly Nicholas, a sustainability scientist at Lund University, and her co-authors in a recent study on the role of wealthy people in driving climate change. In Europe, nearly 11% of emissions from housing came from the top 1% of emitters who own large – and often multiple – homes.
豪宅巨室是另一项热门的豪华消费。针对富人在气候变化所起作用，瑞典隆德大学（Lund University）可持续发展科学家尼古拉斯（Kimberly Nicholas ）最近做了一项研究，她同合著者在研究报告中指出，“住宅的选择彰显一个人的名望和社会地位。”在欧洲，近11%的住房碳排放来自于拥有大型（通常是多套）豪宅的1%的顶端富豪。
The last few years, however, have seen social norms start to shift. In Sweden, Thunberg's activism helped inspire flygskam (the Swedish word for "flight shame"), a concept which led people to question how much they should be flying. The movement was linked to a 4% drop in the number of people flying from Sweden's airports in 2018 – a rare fall at a time when global passenger numbers were increasing.
然而在最近几年，社会的消费观念开始发生变化。通伯格发起的环保运动使得瑞典人开始质疑自己是否应该乘坐那么多次飞机，从而产生flygskam（瑞典语，意思是以乘搭飞机为耻）观念。2018年在全球乘客数量增长之际，从瑞典机场起飞的乘客量反而罕见地下降了4%。
Covid-19, which dramatically curtailed business travel, proved that video calls can replace in-person meetings. A Bloomberg survey found 84% of businesses plan to spend less on work travel post-pandemic.
随后新冠病毒大爆发，商务旅行大幅减少，视频通话开会已证明可以取代面对面的会议。彭博社的一项调查发现，84%的企业计划在疫情过后将减少出差的开支。
But these changes are too gradual for the emergency we are in, says Kenner: "We're going past climate tipping points and species are going extinct." The issue is about speed, and for that government action is necessary, he says.
但肯纳认为，对于人类面临的气候变化的紧急危机，上述改变是缓不济急。他说，“我们正在经历气候变化的临界点，地球物种正在走向灭绝”。他指出，现在关键在于速度，因此政府采取行动应该是迫不及待。
For example, proceeds from a frequent flyer tax could be invested into a cheaper or even free public transport system, and money from a "mansion tax" could be put towards insulating houses, bringing down levels of fuel poverty. The problem, though, is if the richest can simply absorb these costs and continue as before.
例如，可以将“飞行常客税”的收益投资于较便宜甚至免费的公共交通系统，“豪宅税”的收入则用于资助修建有隔热层的房屋，从而降低住户的燃料贫困水平。然而，问题在于，对最富有者来说，这些额外的碳成本可能不值一提，他们会一如既往地享受其高碳奢华生活。
Another policy idea that's gaining popularity is "choice editing", where governments restrict carbon-intensive products – like private jets or mega yachts – from coming to market in the first place. The idea is low-carbon options, many of which already exist, will fill the gap.
另一项越来越受欢迎的政策理念是“消费选择修订”。此政策是让政府控制和限制消费者的消费选择以达到减碳目标，首先是限制私人飞机或大型游艇等碳排放密集型产品进入市场。其设想是让消费者只能作低碳选择。其实现今已经存在许多相类政策，而“消费选择修订”政策将会补上所有缺口和漏洞。
Choice editing may sound radical but it's not new, says Akenji. The UK government, for example, uses choice editing on public safety grounds to ban the sale of guns or cars with no seatbelts. "Undoing unsustainable behaviours is a whole lot harder than preventing unsustainable products from coming to market in the first place," concluded an April report on behaviour change co-authored by Newell.
阿肯吉说，消费选择修订政策可能听起来很激进，但却并非新观念。例如，英国政府以公共安全为由，已使用选择修订政策，禁止销售枪支或无安全带汽车。2021年4月，纽威尔与人合著的一份行为改变报告总结说，“停止不可持续行为比从一开始就阻止不可持续产品进入市场要困难得多”。
But even as time runs out for tackling climate change, many governments baulk at behaviour-change policies fearing they will be politically toxic to voters and unpalatable to the rich. The control that the wealthiest have over governments through lobbying and hefty donations gives them huge influence to dilute climate action and shape the choices available for everyone, says Kenner. "There's this other future, this alternative future, which is being denied on a daily basis," he says.
但是，即使化解气候变化危机的时间已经所剩无几，许多政府仍对采用改变民众消费行为的政策迟疑不决，担心这些政策是政治毒药，会得罪选民，也会让富人感到不快。肯纳说，最富有的人能够通过游说和巨额捐款左右政府，这让他们拥有巨大的影响力，从而可以消弱气候行动，影响每个人的消费选择。他说，人类应该还有“另一种未来，另一种可以选择的未来”，但这个未来却被我们每天的行为所否定。
For all the policies that target the behaviour of consumers, ultimately, it's very hard to bring down emissions if the infrastructure isn't there for people to live low-carbon lives. "There's a lot that needs to go into building a more sustainable society and it's beyond just reducing private jets and luxury yachts," says Ghosh.
不过最终所有针对消费者行为的政策，如果没有配套的低碳基础设施，也很难成功实现降低碳排放的目标。高希说：“要建设一个较为可持续的社会，还有很多事情需要做，还不仅仅是减少私人飞机和豪华游艇就行”。
Some governments are making big changes. The Welsh government has suspended investment in new road building to meet emissions targets, the Netherlands has proposed cutting livestock numbers by 30% to reduce pollution and councils in UK cities such as Norwich and Exeter have started building energy-efficient social housing.
一些国家和地方的政府正在进行重大改革。英国威尔士政府为了达到减排目标，已经暂停投资建设新公路，荷兰政府提议将牲畜饲养数量减少30%以降低污染，英国城市如诺维奇和埃克塞特的议会已经开始建造节能性的社会住房。
Others have targeted the role of advertising in driving unsustainable consumption. "People try to stake out their place in society by distinguishing themselves from those that are below them," says Brown, and advertising "builds its entire industry on this insecurity." In 2021, Amsterdam banned adverts for emissions-intensive products including SUVs and cheap short-haul flights, following in the footsteps of cities such as São Paulo and Chennai, which have banned or strictly limited billboard advertising.
也有政府针对商业广告在推动不可持续消费方面的作用采取行动。布朗说，“人们想要将自己与不如自己的人作出区隔来确立、凸显自己的社会地位。整个广告业就是建立于这种社会地位不安全感之上”。继巴西圣保罗和印度钦奈等城市禁止或严格限制街头商业广告之后，2021年荷兰阿姆斯特丹下令禁止SUV和廉价短途航班等碳排放密集型产品作广告宣传。
"But this is really not enough," says Akenji. The pace is glacial and the world is running out of time. Governments need to overhaul infrastructure, he says, putting sustainability at the heart of policy. That means creating fast, extensive and affordable public transport networks; decarbonising electricity; building denser, well-insulated housing; banning the use of gas-powered cars; and considering measures such as a four-day working week.
阿肯吉说，“但这真的还做得不够”，行动是如此的缓慢，我们当今的世界已时日无多。他说，政府需要彻底改革基础设施，将可持续性建设作为重中之重。也就是说需要建立快速、广泛和平价的公共交通网络，生产无碳排放的电力，提高建筑群的密度，建设隔热性能更好的房屋，禁止使用燃油汽车，并考虑实行每周四天工作制等等诸如此类的措施。
Governments and the wealthy, with their outsized role in influencing social norms, can also help to change the narrative that climate action is all about loss of personal freedom and quality of life. "The sad thing about this is that things that have been shown to be more sustainable for the environment are almost always better for our own wellbeing and social cohesion," says Akenji.
对社会规范影响甚巨的政府和富人也可以出力，帮助改变认为气候行动会剥夺个人自由和降低生活品质的偏见。阿肯吉说，“这个偏见令人可悲，因为与事实相违背，其实已证明有助于环境更可持续的事，绝大多数一直有利于民生福祉和社会和谐”。
"No one gets up in the morning and says, 'I'm going to wreck the environment'," says Akenji. People consume for many reasons: to meet their needs, to show affection, to feel good or because they feel pressured into it by advertising or social expectations.
阿肯吉说，“没有人早上起来就说，‘我要去破坏环境’”。人们消费过度的原因有很多，有的是为了满足生活需求，有的是为了表达情感，有的是为了自我感觉良好，抑或是因为受到广告的诱惑或社会期望的压力。
Very few people ever really question their consumption, says Brown. "These are pretty deep questions: 'Who am I and what do I need for a good life?' I mean, how many people want to sit down and actually ask that question?"
布朗说，很少有人会对自己的消费模式认真思考，予以质疑。“我是谁？”“我需要什么才能过上美好的生活？” 这些都是非常深奥的问题。多数人可能不会扪心自问。
Individual actions won't be enough to tackle climate change, says Akenji, and guilt and shame won't help. But choices and actions do matter. "I think we should all become political activists in one way or another," he says. "What we're going to do is very deliberately and decisively go after our governments and ask them to live up to their commitments."
阿肯吉说，光靠个人消费行为不足以解决气候变化危机，只是内疚和羞愧也无济于事。但是政策改弦易辙和付诸行动则至关重大。他说，“我认为我们无论如何都应该参与政治活动，要特意和决断地向政府施压，要他们履行应对气候变化的承诺”。