美國人均資源消耗量驚人商品和服務(wù)消費是中國人的35倍
"Overpopulation" is Scientific Racism: A child born in the US will create 13 times as much ecological damage over their lifetime than a child in Brazil, the average American drains as many resources as 35 natives of India and consumes 53 times more goods and services than someone from China".譯文簡介
研究還發(fā)現(xiàn),美國消費者對自己對環(huán)境造成的影響最不可能感到內(nèi)疚,而那些對自己的影響感到最內(nèi)疚的消費者——那些來自中國、印度和巴西的消費者——實際上在選擇可持續(xù)的消費品方面處于領(lǐng)先地位。
正文翻譯
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯:s555555555 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.
眾所周知,美國人消耗的自然資源要比世界上任何其他大國的人多得多,生活的可持續(xù)性也要差得多?!霸诿绹錾暮⒆訉ι鷳B(tài)產(chǎn)生的破壞是出生在巴西孩子的13倍”美環(huán)保組織塞拉俱樂部的戴夫·蒂爾福德報告補充稱,美國人均消耗資源是印度人均消耗資源的35倍而消費的商品和服務(wù)是中國人的53倍。
Tilford cites a litany of sobering statistics showing just how profligate Americans have been in using and abusing natural resources. For example, between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17. “With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports. “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.”
蒂爾福德引用了一長串發(fā)人深省的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù),顯示出美國人在使用和浪費自然資源方面是多么地揮霍無度。例如,從1900年到1989年,美國人口增長了兩倍,而原材料的使用量則增長了17倍。他說:“美國人口不到世界人口的5%,卻使用了世界上三分之一的紙張、四分之一的石油、23%的煤炭、27%的鋁和19%的銅?!薄拔覀儗δ茉?、金屬、礦產(chǎn)、林產(chǎn)品、魚類、谷物、肉類甚至淡水的人均使用,讓發(fā)展中國家的人相形見絀?!?/b>
蒂爾福德引用了一長串發(fā)人深省的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù),顯示出美國人在使用和浪費自然資源方面是多么地揮霍無度。例如,從1900年到1989年,美國人口增長了兩倍,而原材料的使用量則增長了17倍。他說:“美國人口不到世界人口的5%,卻使用了世界上三分之一的紙張、四分之一的石油、23%的煤炭、27%的鋁和19%的銅?!薄拔覀儗δ茉?、金屬、礦產(chǎn)、林產(chǎn)品、魚類、谷物、肉類甚至淡水的人均使用,讓發(fā)展中國家的人相形見絀?!?/b>
He adds that the U.S. ranks highest in most consumer categories by a considerable margin, even among industrial nations. To wit, American fossil fuel consumption is double that of the average resident of Great Britain and two and a half times that of the average Japanese. Meanwhile, Americans account for only five percent of the world’s population but create half of the globe’s solid waste.
他還說,美國在大多數(shù)消費領(lǐng)域的排名都遙遙領(lǐng)先,甚至在工業(yè)國家中也是如此。也就是說,美國的化石燃料消耗量是英國平均水平的兩倍,是日本平均水平的2.5倍。與此同時,美國人只占世界人口的5%,卻制造了全球一半的固體廢物。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
他還說,美國在大多數(shù)消費領(lǐng)域的排名都遙遙領(lǐng)先,甚至在工業(yè)國家中也是如此。也就是說,美國的化石燃料消耗量是英國平均水平的兩倍,是日本平均水平的2.5倍。與此同時,美國人只占世界人口的5%,卻制造了全球一半的固體廢物。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Americans’ love of the private automobile constitutes a large part of their poor ranking. The National Geographic Society’s annual Greendex analysis of global consumption habits finds that Americans are least likely of all people to use public transportation—only seven percent make use of transit options for daily commuting. Likewise, only one in three Americans walks or bikes to their destinations, as opposed to three-quarters of Chinese. While China is becoming the world’s leader in total consumption of some commodities (coal, copper, etc.), the U.S. remains the per capita consumption leader for most resources.
美國人對私家車的喜愛是他們排名高居不下的一大原因。國家地理學(xué)會對全球消費習(xí)慣的年度綠色指數(shù)分析發(fā)現(xiàn),在所有國家中,美國人是最不喜歡乘坐公共交通的——只有7%的人在日常通勤中使用公共交通工具。同樣,只有三分之一的美國人步行或騎自行車前往目的地,而中國人的這一比例為四分之三。雖然中國在某些商品(煤、銅等)的總消費量上正成為世界第一,但美國仍是大多數(shù)資源的人均消費量的第一。
美國人對私家車的喜愛是他們排名高居不下的一大原因。國家地理學(xué)會對全球消費習(xí)慣的年度綠色指數(shù)分析發(fā)現(xiàn),在所有國家中,美國人是最不喜歡乘坐公共交通的——只有7%的人在日常通勤中使用公共交通工具。同樣,只有三分之一的美國人步行或騎自行車前往目的地,而中國人的這一比例為四分之三。雖然中國在某些商品(煤、銅等)的總消費量上正成為世界第一,但美國仍是大多數(shù)資源的人均消費量的第一。
Overall, National Geographic’s Greendex found that American consumers rank last of 17 countries surveyed in regard to sustainable behavior. Furthermore, the study found that U.S. consumers are among the least likely to feel guilty about the impact they have on the environment, yet they are near to top of the list in believing that individual choices could make a difference.
總體而言,《國家地理》的綠色指數(shù)發(fā)現(xiàn),在17個接受調(diào)查的國家中,美國消費者在可持續(xù)行為方面排名墊底。此外,研究還發(fā)現(xiàn),美國消費者對自己對環(huán)境造成的影響最不可能感到內(nèi)疚,但他們相信個人的選擇可以帶來改變,這一點幾乎排在首位。
總體而言,《國家地理》的綠色指數(shù)發(fā)現(xiàn),在17個接受調(diào)查的國家中,美國消費者在可持續(xù)行為方面排名墊底。此外,研究還發(fā)現(xiàn),美國消費者對自己對環(huán)境造成的影響最不可能感到內(nèi)疚,但他們相信個人的選擇可以帶來改變,這一點幾乎排在首位。
Paradoxically, those with the lightest environmental footprint are also the most likely to feel both guilty and disempowered. “In what may be a major disconnect between perception and behavior, the study also shows that consumers who feel the guiltiest about their impact—those in China, India and Brazil—actually lead the pack in sustainable consumer choices,” says National Geographic’s Terry Garcia, who coordinates the annual Greendex study. “That’s despite Chinese and Indian consumers also being among the least confident that individual action can help the environment.”
矛盾的是,那些對環(huán)境影響最小的人也最有可能感到內(nèi)疚和無助。國家地理雜志的特里·加西亞負責(zé)協(xié)調(diào)這項年度綠色消費者調(diào)查,他說:“研究還表明,那些對自己的影響感到最內(nèi)疚的消費者——那些來自中國、印度和巴西的消費者——實際上在選擇可持續(xù)的消費品方面處于領(lǐng)先地位?!薄氨M管中國和印度的消費者對個人行動能夠改善環(huán)境的信心也是最低的?!?/b>
矛盾的是,那些對環(huán)境影響最小的人也最有可能感到內(nèi)疚和無助。國家地理雜志的特里·加西亞負責(zé)協(xié)調(diào)這項年度綠色消費者調(diào)查,他說:“研究還表明,那些對自己的影響感到最內(nèi)疚的消費者——那些來自中國、印度和巴西的消費者——實際上在選擇可持續(xù)的消費品方面處于領(lǐng)先地位?!薄氨M管中國和印度的消費者對個人行動能夠改善環(huán)境的信心也是最低的?!?/b>
On average, one American consumes as much energy as
就人均而言,一個美國人消費的能源相當(dāng)于:
o 2 Japanese 日本人的2倍
o 6 Mexicans 墨西哥人的6倍
o 13 Chinese 中國人的13倍
o 31 Indians 印度人的31倍
o 128 Bangladeshis 孟加拉人的128倍
o 307 Tanzanians 坦桑尼亞人的307倍
o 370 Ethiopians 埃塞俄比亞人的370倍
就人均而言,一個美國人消費的能源相當(dāng)于:
o 2 Japanese 日本人的2倍
o 6 Mexicans 墨西哥人的6倍
o 13 Chinese 中國人的13倍
o 31 Indians 印度人的31倍
o 128 Bangladeshis 孟加拉人的128倍
o 307 Tanzanians 坦桑尼亞人的307倍
o 370 Ethiopians 埃塞俄比亞人的370倍
The average American individual daily consumption of water is 159 gallons, while more than half the world''''''''s population lives on 25 gallons.
美國人平均每天消耗159加侖的水,而世界上一半以上的人口每天只消耗25加侖的水。
美國人平均每天消耗159加侖的水,而世界上一半以上的人口每天只消耗25加侖的水。
Americans eat 815 billion calories of food each day - that''s roughly 200 billion more than needed - enough to feed 80 million people.
美國人每天要消耗8150億卡路里的食物,這比需要的多出足足了2000億卡路里,可以養(yǎng)活8000萬人。
美國人每天要消耗8150億卡路里的食物,這比需要的多出足足了2000億卡路里,可以養(yǎng)活8000萬人。
Americans throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily. While 250 million people have died of hunger-related causes in the past quarter-century roughly 10 million each year (that just shows that Americans dont really care about "famines".
美國人每天扔掉20萬噸的可食用食品。在過去的25年里,有2.5億人因饑餓相關(guān)的原因而死,每年大約有1000萬人死于饑餓(這說明美國人并不真的在乎“饑荒”。
美國人每天扔掉20萬噸的可食用食品。在過去的25年里,有2.5億人因饑餓相關(guān)的原因而死,每年大約有1000萬人死于饑餓(這說明美國人并不真的在乎“饑荒”。
Each person in the industrialized world uses as much commercial energy as 10 people in the developing world. The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption.
工業(yè)化國家的人均商業(yè)能源使用量相當(dāng)于發(fā)展中國家的10人。最窮的10%只占全部消費的0.5%,最富的10%占全部消費的59%。
工業(yè)化國家的人均商業(yè)能源使用量相當(dāng)于發(fā)展中國家的10人。最窮的10%只占全部消費的0.5%,最富的10%占全部消費的59%。
Why are we focusing on the United States? Because it consumes far more energy than any other country -- more than China and Russia put together. Just five percent of the world''''''''s population consumes 23% of its energy! That''''''''s really extravagant! Imagine if you wasted five times more gasoline as your neighbors... or five times more food... or produced five times more garbage. Your neighbors wouldn''''''''t be very happy! Yet, that''''''''s what we''''''''re doing.
為什么我們要關(guān)注美國?因為美國消耗的能源比其他任何國家都多——比中國和俄羅斯加起來還要多。世界上只有5%的人口消耗了23%的能源!這是奢侈的!想象一下,如果你比你的鄰居多浪費五倍的汽油……或者五倍的食物…或者產(chǎn)生了五倍多的垃圾。你的鄰居會不高興的!然而,這就是我們正在做的事。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
為什么我們要關(guān)注美國?因為美國消耗的能源比其他任何國家都多——比中國和俄羅斯加起來還要多。世界上只有5%的人口消耗了23%的能源!這是奢侈的!想象一下,如果你比你的鄰居多浪費五倍的汽油……或者五倍的食物…或者產(chǎn)生了五倍多的垃圾。你的鄰居會不高興的!然而,這就是我們正在做的事。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
How much energy does the average American consume? Well, if you list the countries of the world in order by their population , the U.S. comes in third... but the combined energy consumption of the other five largest added together doesn''''''''t match U.S. energy consumption! In other words, the 5% of the world''''''''s population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries.
美國人平均消耗多少能源?好吧,如果你把世界上的國家按人口數(shù)量排序,美國排在第三…但是另外五個最大的國家加起來的能源消耗總和還趕不上美國的能源消耗!換句話說,居住在美國的5%的世界人口比居住在其他五個最大國家加起來51%的世界人口對環(huán)境的影響更大。
美國人平均消耗多少能源?好吧,如果你把世界上的國家按人口數(shù)量排序,美國排在第三…但是另外五個最大的國家加起來的能源消耗總和還趕不上美國的能源消耗!換句話說,居住在美國的5%的世界人口比居住在其他五個最大國家加起來51%的世界人口對環(huán)境的影響更大。
Next time you hear about a woman in India who has seven children, remember that she''''''''d have to have more than 20 children to match the impact of an American woman with just one child. And an immigrant who moves to the U.S. is likely to consume far more energy just by moving here. Even if he scrimps and saves energy at home, every thing he buys will increase consumption of energy and other resources.
下次當(dāng)你聽說一個印度婦女有七個孩子時,記住她必須有20個以上的孩子才能達到美國婦女只有一個孩子的影響。而一個移民到美國的人只要搬到這里就可能消耗更多的能源。即使他在家里節(jié)約能源,他買的每一樣?xùn)|西都會增加能源和其他資源的消耗。
下次當(dāng)你聽說一個印度婦女有七個孩子時,記住她必須有20個以上的孩子才能達到美國婦女只有一個孩子的影響。而一個移民到美國的人只要搬到這里就可能消耗更多的能源。即使他在家里節(jié)約能源,他買的每一樣?xùn)|西都會增加能源和其他資源的消耗。
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 3 )
收藏
Yes exactly. Also while we have a huge energy resource footprint, developed nations also have infrastructure and a functioning educated society governed by laws, where we could begin forcing efficiency.
Many countries do not, and people only have a smaller footprint because they aren''''''''t able to get more resources by any means. I am pretty sure these stats are not very well thought out in any case. A couple small examples. What about dynamite fishing, or dumping toxins into the ground Those happen daily all over the planet where people are impoverished. That doesn''''''''t happen much at all in a developed nation. That kind of damage is not just inefficiency it''''''''s permanent destruction. That kind of thing isn''''''''t accounted for, there''''''''s just no comparison.
是的,沒錯。盡管我們擁有巨大的能源足跡,但發(fā)達國家也擁有基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和一個正常運轉(zhuǎn)的、受教育的法治社會,在這樣的社會里人類才可以有效率。
許多國家沒有效率,人們的足跡也更小,因為他們無法獲得更多的資源。我很確定這些數(shù)據(jù)在任何情況下都是不能完全反映真實情況的。舉幾個小例子。在這個星球上,人們每天都在貧窮的地方發(fā)生著用炸藥炸魚或向地下傾倒毒素污染的事情。這在發(fā)達國家根本不會發(fā)生。這種損害不僅是效率低下,而且是永久性的破壞。這類事情沒有考慮在內(nèi),沒有可比性。
so instead of counting heads count ecological footprint. Great. We''''''''re still massively overpopulated.
現(xiàn)在又不談數(shù)量談什么生態(tài)足跡了。很好,我們美國人果然還是太多了呢。
I agree that Western standards of living are far too wasteful, too opulent, too extreme to be standardized throughout the world. No doubt. And that’s kind of my point. When people — not just on Reddit, but elsewhere — have made the argument that Earth is overpopulated, they inevitably point to humanitarian crises in Asia, Africa, South America, Haiti, and claim that there’s a problem with resources being too scarce. The unspoken corollary is “there’s too many of them for them to live like me.”
The US alone has enough arable land and potable water that, if we managed it well, we could feed the entire population of the planet every year seven times over. If nobody else grew food, we could do it. But that would mean fewer industrial crops — like soy and cotton and hops and wine grapes — less livestock, better managed fisheries, and much better waste management. It would mean a drastic change to the western diet. It would mean a drastic change to the western economy. And doing all that would effectively turn the world’s population into beggars for american food.
But that’s an extreme scenario. Obviously, the US is not going to be the only producer of food, and we shouldn’t be. But the argument that there are too many people is wrong. There are enough resources to feed clothe and house the population of the world, if the world were organized around making sure that happened.
It isn’t, and we don’t care enough to do so. Why? Because starving people are mostly black, or brown, and living far away from us, and we like our cheeseburgers.
我同意,西方的生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)太浪費、太奢侈、太極端,在全世界范圍內(nèi)都無法以這個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)生活。毫無疑問。這就是我的觀點。當(dāng)人們——不僅僅是在Reddit上,其它地方也是——每當(dāng)提出地球人口過剩的問題時時,人們總是不可避免地指出亞洲、非洲、南美、海地的人道主義危機,并聲稱存在資源過于稀缺的問題。異口同聲的推論道“他們太多人了,不可能像我這樣子生活。”
單是美國就有足夠的耕地和飲用水,如果我們管理得當(dāng),我們每年可以喂飽地球上七倍的人口。如果沒有別人種食物,我們也能做到。但這將意味著更少的工業(yè)作物,如大豆、棉花、啤酒花和釀酒葡萄,更少的牲畜,更好的漁業(yè)管理,以及更好的垃圾管理。這將意味著西方飲食結(jié)構(gòu)的巨大變化。這將意味著西方經(jīng)濟的巨大變化。這樣做會有效地把世界人口變成乞討美國食物的乞丐。
但這是一個極端的情況。顯然,美國不會是唯一的糧食生產(chǎn)國,我們也不應(yīng)該是。但是我認為太多數(shù)美國人的觀點是錯誤的。我們有足夠的資源來滿足世界人口的衣食住行,如果整個世界都圍繞著這一點來組織運行的話。
但現(xiàn)實并非這樣,我們也沒有足夠的關(guān)心去這樣做。為什么?因為饑餓的人大多是黑人或棕色人種,他們離我們太遠,而我們又很喜歡吃芝士漢堡。
The Western standard of living isn’t wrong; it’s the Western style of living that creates the problems. Nothing wrong with wanting enough food, good healthcare and a decent education. Plenty wrong with a disposable trash lifestyle which derives its wealth by robbing future generations.
Generally speaking as people’s standard of living increases, birth rates decline. This is a good thing. We should be having kids out of love, not as a retirement plan.
西方的生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)沒有錯;是西方的生活方式造成了這些問題。想要足夠的食物、良好的醫(yī)療和良好的教育沒有錯。用了就扔的一次性生活方式是大錯特錯,是在掠奪子孫后代的財富。
一般來說,隨著人們生活水平的提高,出生率下降。這是一件好事。我們應(yīng)該出于愛來生孩子,而不是把孩子當(dāng)作退休養(yǎng)老計劃。
There''''''''s a difference between "we should all pollute less by doing xyz as suggested by the UN" and "America doesn''''''''t have to cut its emissions until those billions of Indians stop existing." The latter is seen all over reddit, even here, as well as in the mainstream media. And that is racist. Suggesting that an entire culture is responsible for a global crisis, and that oddly enough, the millions of Americans driving SUVS and eating beef three times a day is a drop in the bucket, is racist. And racism is the fundamental base for fascism, and since we''''''''re all worried about the rise of eco-fascism in its many forms, we should be trying to discredit this shit whenever we see it.
“我們都應(yīng)該像聯(lián)合國建議的那樣,通過做某某事來減少污染”和“在數(shù)十億印度人停止排放之前,美國不需要削減排放”是有區(qū)別的。后者在reddit上隨處可見,甚至在這里,以及在主流媒體上。這就是種族主義。而這樣荒誕不經(jīng)的整體文化可能就是造成全球環(huán)境危機的罪魁禍?zhǔn)?,說每天開越野車吃三次牛肉的數(shù)百萬美國人只是很小一部分人類的行為,簡直就是種族主義。種族主義是法西斯主義的基礎(chǔ),既然我們都在擔(dān)心各種形態(tài)生態(tài)的環(huán)境法西斯主義的崛起,我們就應(yīng)該在看到它的時候努力敗壞它的名聲。