经济学人商业 || 航空公司与气候

原文:http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU1MDQwNTgzMg==&mid=2247490982&idx=1&sn=606489548df634b2a44f41949c0c6528&chksm=fba04e01ccd7c71769e4543c454ac45306673d727ed186ca89cae537424ef9d040cc52c8ee19#rd

1


导读


感谢思维导图作者

Monica,女,MTIer,死不悔改的理想主义者


2


听力|精读|翻译|词组

Airlines and the climate

航空公司与气候

英文部分选自经济学人20200704期Business版块

Airlines and the climate

航空公司与气候变化


Setting a new CORSIA

设立新的《国际航空碳抵消和减排计划》


注:CORSIAthe Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation

https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/corsia/


A carbon-intensive industry defangs an already mostly toothless offset scheme2

碳密集型产业使已经式微的碳抵消计划走向末路


“The worst year in the history of aviation” is how the International Air Transport Association (IATA) describes 2020. The global airline-industry body expects carriers’ revenues to fall by half and debt to swell by $120bn to $550bn. To cut costs airlines have grounded planes and put staff on unpaid leave.


国际航空运输协会(IATA表示,2020将成为“航空业史上最糟糕的一年”。全球航空业组织IATA预计,航空公司的收入会减半,债务将增加1200亿美元,达到5500亿美元。为了削减成本,航空公司已经采取飞机停飞以及员工无薪休假措施。


Another slashed expense is that of climate action. Aviation emits 3% of man-made carbon dioxide. That share could rise to 5-9% by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency, a forecaster. To curb these emissions, in 2013 the European Union tried to add international aviation to its emissions-trading programme, including flights connecting EU airports to those outside the bloc. The industry cried foul. In a compromise the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), an agency of the UN, devised the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. CORSIA, as it is known for short, is due to start next year. It compels airlines to buy offsets for any additional CO2 produced by international flights above a baseline.


另一项大力削减的开支与气候行动相关。航空业碳排放占人类制造碳排放总量的3%根据国际能源署(IEA的预测,到2050年这一比重会增至5%-9%2013年,为减排,欧盟试图将国际航空业纳入欧洲碳排放交易计划,包括来往于欧盟内外机场的航班。但航空业对此做法怨声载道。联合国下属的国际民用航空组织(ICAO)退让一步,做出妥协,设立了《国际航空碳抵消和减排计划》,简称即众所周知的CORSIA,将在明年生效。该计划迫使航空公司补偿超过基准的国际航班产生的任何额外的二氧化碳排放


注:

Cry foul to complain that sb else has done sth wrong or unfair 


That baseline has become hotly contested. It was originally set at the industry’s average emissions for 2019 and 2020. Now emissions are forecast to fall by 37% this year, which would mean a lower baseline and so, in time, higher offsetting costs. So IATA proposed using just emissions from just 2019 instead. On June 30th ICAO’s 36-member council agreed, at least for CORSIA’s first three years (see chart).

这个排放基准线饱受争议。起初,CORSIA基准线的计算是基于2019年和2020年的平均排放量。目前预计今年排放量会减少37%,这同时意味着更低的基准线和更高的碳排放开支。因此,国际航空运输协会(IATA)提议使用2019的排放量为基准。630日,由36个理事国组成的国际民航组织理事会同意,至少在《国际航空碳抵消和减排计划》实施的前三年仍以2019的排放量为基准


注:国际民航组织理事会鉴于疫情影同意对CORSIA进行保障性调整:http://www.tanjiaoyi.com/article-31540-1.html


Environmental groups are up in arms. The scheme already lacked bite, since it is voluntary until 2027 and does not include domestic flights, about a third of the industry’s emissions. Countries representing three-quarters of aviation’s carbon footprint have signed up but flights between those which have opted in and those which have not are excluded. Dan Rutherford of the International Council on Clean Transportation, an ngo, calculates that on pre-pandemic trends the original plan would have covered only 9% of aviation emissions from 2021 to 2035 (when the scheme is scheduled to end).


然而,这一决定遭到了环境保护组织的极力反对。因为该计划在2027年前都是非强制性计划,并没有包含航空业碳排放三分之一的境内航班,所以CORSIA本身就缺乏说服力。产生碳足迹四分之三的国家选择签署该计划,但选择加入该计划的国家和未加入该计划的国家之间的航班被排除在外。被排除在外。根据非政府组织——国际洁净运输理事会丹·卢瑟福(Dan Rutherford)计算,按照疫情前的趋势,从20212035(该计划完全落幕)原计划仅会覆盖9%的航空排放。


注:


Up in arms angry and ready to fight or argue


In fact, the two-year average was expressly designed to account for low-emission yearsa lesson learned from an early attempt to set the baseline in 2010, which was thwarted by the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, an Icelandic volcano which grounded flights in Europe.


实际上,取两年碳排放平均值是特意为了考虑到低排放量年份,这是2010年早期基准线设计中得出的经验,那一年因为冰岛火山Eyjafjallajökull喷发而导致了欧洲境内飞行受阻。


Another complaint is that many of the offsets airlines can buy are ineffective. A report in November last year by the NewClimate Institute and the Stockholm Environment Institute, two think-tanks, found that 80% of corsia’s potential offsets are unlikely to have any additional benefit to the climate. Since then ICAO has, to its credit, limited the availability of junk offsets in the scheme, though green campaigners say it has not gone far enough.


另一抱怨是很多航空公司可购买的碳抵消没有效用。智库新气候机构和斯德哥尔摩环境研究所,在去年十一月发现80% CORSIA计划中售卖的碳抵消都不太可能对气候有任何益处。值得赞扬的是,即使一些环保运动参与者认为该计划力度远远不够,在那之后ICAO限制了计划中无用碳抵消,。


Offsets’ bargain prices also suggest something is amiss. In 2018 the average price in the “voluntary market” (outside of mandated schemes) was $3 per tonne of CO2, about a sixth of the carbon price in the eu emissions-trading scheme. Last year EasyJet, a British low-cost carrier, announced plans to offset all its annual emissions. This will cost it a footling $32m. New offest projects created in anticipation of corsia boosted supply, which is expected to be four times higher than demand.


抵消公司的廉价价格也表明有些地方出了问题 2018年,自愿市场(强制性计划之外)每吨二氧化碳均价为3美元,仅为欧盟排放交易体系中碳价的1/6。去年,英国低成本航空公司易捷航空(EasyJet)宣布计划抵消全年排放量仅需微不足道的3200万美元。CORSIA建立的碳补偿新计划会增加供给,预计比需求高出四倍。


Industry executives claim that the original baseline would have imposed crippling costs. That seems overblown. Sparse coverage and the cheap offsets mean the cost to the industry is low. Assuming an offset price of $5 per tonne of CO2, Mr Rutherford estimates the change in the baseline will save airlines $350m a year. That is less than 1% of the forecast operating cashflow in 2021 for a panel of 37 listed airlines.


航空业高管声称,原先的基准线会增加巨大的成本,这似乎有些言过其实。星星点点的覆盖范围和廉价的抵消价格意味航空业只承受微薄成本。假设每吨二氧化碳的抵消价格为5美元的话,卢瑟福先生估计基准线的变化每年将为航空公司节省3.5亿美元。这比37家上市航空公司预测的2021年运营所需现金流的1%都少。


Forgoing those savings would have been a small price to pay for burnishing airlines’ reputations as they seek billions in government bail-outs. Accusations of greenwashing will make calls to attach potentially much costlier green strings to the rescue packages grow louder. 


在他们向政府申请数十亿款项纾困之际,放弃这些蝇头小利来赚取好名声,不失为不错的买卖。漂绿的指责使得要求援助拨款附上高昂的环保条款的呼声越来越高。


翻译组:

Hannah女,教书匠,经济学人粉丝
Megan, 女,外企民工,好想一身都是月
Angela, 女, Northwestern 本科在读,double major 数学哲学


校对组:

Humi,女,CATer,Catti二笔

Elle,女, 靠着土豆腿前行的小土豆
Sophie
,女,HR让我做自己,券商带我看世界


3


观点|评论|思考


本次感想

VeRy,男,电气民工,经济学人资浅爱好者

几乎每次看到有关碳排放的文章时,我的脑海里就会想起柴静采访丁仲礼的那段视频,那段视频里的内容我就不赘述了,但至少柴静的屁股是坐哪儿的已经一清二楚了。我当然不会去说谁好谁不好,但是如果一定要有一点点客观地看待这个问题,丁的话其实也只是站在了自己国家的利益角度,这无可厚非,因为按照他的这个理论,印度、印尼和巴基斯坦就更加有一肚子委屈了,所以讨论碳排放的分配问题,无非就是个国家强弱排名的问题,我们之所以现在会面临很多国际问题,归根结底就是我们强了,忍不了过去一直在忍的东西了,但表面上我们还是无法很赤裸裸地表达这个观点,我们也缺乏一些对我们有利的科学理论依据或者世界上大部分国家认可的价值观,所以在这段复杂的过渡期,冲突和矛盾是在所难免的,当然结果也是不确定的,即便综合国力上成了第一,要把我们的价值体系输出到世界各地,被他们认可,这又需要花费更多的时间和精力,需要更多的属于我们的各种大家。当然这里还有需要新旧势力的博弈,也有可能最终果实被第三者摘得,谁知道呢。


这个问题太大,我也没这个水平“说三道四”一番,但直觉是现在网上的部分观点还是太极端了,动不动就是干到新德里,干4v,一副不服就是干的架势,估计大概率是个真的要让他上前线了立马就缩头的主。我浅薄的认知中,战争的痛苦是巨大和深远的,而且具体到参与的某一个家庭而言,那就是几乎百分百的惨剧,无论结局是喜是悲,总会有若干的家庭支离破碎,老百姓颠沛流离,所以除非是到了万不得已,切莫因为一己私欲而让那么多人受苦受难,可能我的观念太仁慈了些,太软弱了些,不太符合这艘高速行进中的大船的价值取向。船虽然是金属制成的冷冰冰的庞然大物,但驭船者却总归是有血有肉有感情的人吧,他们不应该被这艘船裹挟了思想,不应该被这急速向前的动力冲昏了头脑,毕竟我们是人-是有爱、有感情的动物。


4


愿景


打造

独立思考 | 国际视野 | 英文学习

小组

现有经济学人讨论群一个,如果您也有兴趣,可联系小编WeChat : Education0603。由于每天加小编人很多,为提高效率,大家添加小编,暗号“TE讨论群", 通过后,请做好以下三点,否则不回复,谢谢理解。

1.转发译文到100人以上英语学习群或者朋友圈

2.回答三个问题(在公众号后台回复群规,请务必仔细阅读群规以及出现的三个问题)

3.加小编后做个简单的自我介绍,谢谢大家。