民意调查：英国公众支持“2030零碳”目标_风闻

【来源龙腾网】正文原创翻译：

Majority of UK public back 2030 zero-carbon target – poll

-Nearly half of Tory voters back plan, compared with 16% who back party’s 2050 target

民意调查：英国公众支持“2030零碳”目标

——近一半的保守党选民支持该计划，相比之下，只有16%的人支持党派“2050零碳”的目标

Just under half of those polled backed public spending to make large swathes of public transport free to use. Photograph: Guy Bell/Alamy

（接近一半的受访者支持旨在使大部分公共交通免费使用的公共支出。图片来源：盖伊·贝尔/Alamy）

A majority of the UK public and almost half of Conservative voters support a radical plan to transform the economy and tackle the climate crisis, a poll suggests.

一项民意调查显示，英国大多数公众和近一半的保守派选民支持一项彻底改革经济、应对气候危机的计划。

YouGov found that 56% of people back the total decarbonisation of the UK economy by 2030 and just under half support public spending to make large swathes of public transport free to use.

舆观调查网发现，56%的人支持英国经济到2030年实现完全脱碳，并且接近一半的受访者支持旨在使大部分公共交通免费使用的公共支出。

The findings appear to highlight a growing awareness of the scale of the climate crisis and the increasingly radical policy solutions the public is willing to support.

调查结果似乎突显出，人们越来越意识到气候危机的规模，并且公众愿意支持日益激进的政策解决方案。

Last week a separate survey found that the climate emergency would influence how most people vote, with almost two-thirds agreeing it was the biggest issue facing humankind.

上周的另一项调查发现，气候紧急情况将影响大多数人的投票，近三分之二的人认为这是人类面临的最大问题。

The new poll, commissioned by Green New Deal UK, a non-party-aligned campaign group, found that 47% of Conservative voters back a zero-emissions target by 2030, compared with just 16% who support the government’s current aim of reaching that point by 2050.

这项由“英国绿色新政”委托进行的新民调发现，47%的保守派选民支持到2030年实现零排放目标，相比之下，只有16%的人支持政府当前的目标，即到2050年才实现这一目标。

Labour wants the UK to hit zero carbon by 2030 as part of its Green Industrial Revolution agenda, the Green party also has a target date of 2030, and the Liberal Democrats have set a target of 2045.

作为“绿色工业革命”议程的一部分，工党希望英国到2030年实现零碳排放，绿党也设定了2030年零碳目标，而自由民主党则设定了2045年零碳目标。

Aliya Yule, a co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal, which campaigned for Labour to adopt the 2030 target, said the polling showed next month’s vote was becoming the UK’s first “climate election”.

工党“绿色新政”联合创始人阿利亚·尤尔表示，民调显示，下月的投票将成为英国首次“气候选举”。

“The figures demonstrate the huge public appetite for rapid and radical government action on climate change,” he said.

他说：“这些数据表明了公众对政府迅速采取激进行动应对气候变化的巨大需求。”

Yule said only Labour’s Green Industrial Revolution plans – which aim to tie radical action on the environment to huge job creation and housing upgrade schemes – would address the scale of the crisis.

尤尔表示，只有工党的“绿色工业革命”计划（旨在将环境方面的激进行动与大规模创造就业和住房升级计划联系起来）才能解决危机的规模。

“Not even Conservative voters support the Tories’ net zero 2050 target. They have no credibility on climate change, not even with their own supporters,” he added.

“甚至连保守派选民也不支持保守党2050年零排放的目标。后者在气候变化问题上没有可信度，甚至在自己的支持者中也没有，”他补充道。

“Parties should respond in kind by offering a Green New Deal which rapidly reduces emissions while improving living standards and expanding services like free bus travel.”

“各方应以同样的方式做出回应，提供一项绿色新政，在提高生活水平和扩大免费巴士旅行等服务的同时，迅速减少碳排放。”

评论翻译：

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：jiangye111 转载请注明出处

[–]RBII

Glad to see the message is starting to cut through. The problem is that people aren’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t very aware the associated costs and sacrifices we would have to make to meet the 2030 target.

I absolutely agree that we should make those sacrifices btw, but that’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s why it’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s polling so high.

很高兴看到这个信息开始被传开了。问题是，人们并没有意识到，为了实现2030年零碳的目标，我们将不得不付出相应的代价和牺牲。

顺便说一句，我完全同意我们应该做出这些牺牲，但这就是为什么民调这么高的原因。

[–]itchyfrog 

Maybe we should have a referendum on it, without telling people about the costs and sacrifices of course.

或许我们应该就此举行公投，当然不应该告诉人们（提前实现零碳所需的）成本和牺牲。

[–]ComfortableArt 

We could run a campaign telling people how much they’‘‘‘‘‘‘’ll save on their energy bills but not tell them they have to stop using electricity to get those savings, should work a charm.

我们可以发起一场运动，告诉人们他们将在能源账单上省下多少钱，但不告诉他们必须停止用电来节省这些钱，这应该会有效果。

[–]icameronLeft-of-Corbyn 

I don’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t believe the only way to hit ambitious net-zero targets is to leave the poor unable to afford heating, electricity and the ability to travel by anything faster than a bicycle. I think it is better done by putting in place programmes that will make those things as low carbon as possible in the average case. That is: shift away from fossil fuel on the energy grid as fast as possible, insulate homes, encourage and heavily invest in public transport (especially electric based, as soon as it is practical), etc.

我认为，实现净零排放这一宏伟目标的唯一途径，不是让穷人负担不起暖气、电力和任何比自行车快的交通工具。我认为在一般情况下，通过实施使这些事情尽可能低碳的计划才是更好的做法。那就是：尽快从化石燃料的能源网中抽身出来，造保温房屋，鼓励并大力投资公共交通（尤其是基于电力的，只要它是可行的），等等。

[–]CyclopsRock 

It’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s practically impossible to imagine a method of reducing co2 output to zero in 11 years that doesn’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t also reduce consumption of fossil fuels - and the only practical ways of doing that are to literally ban them or to make them very expensive. Someone who has just bought a car to drive to work in is not going to go out and buy an electric car tomorrow. And if they did, they’‘‘‘‘‘‘’d still need to charge it from a wall socket routinely powered with fossil fuels.

It’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s beyond the realms of the possible that we could build so much off-shore wind that we could fulfil our needs 100% within 11 years. It’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s probably impossible to adapt everyone’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s homes to huge electric boilers rather than gas boilers. But what about cars and lorries and planes and animals and all the stuff we buy from countries that won’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t be carbon neutral in 2030?

I just don’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t see a way it won’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t cost everyone a huge amount of money.

要想在11年内将二氧化碳排放量降至零，同时又不减少化石燃料的消耗，这几乎是不可能的——而要做到这一点，唯一切实可行的方法就是禁止使用化石燃料，或者让它们变得非常昂贵。一个刚买了一辆车去上班的人，明天是不会再去买一辆电动车的。如果他们这样做了，他们仍然需要从墙上的插座给它充电，而插座又通常是用化石燃料供电的。

我们建造这么多的离岸风力电站，在11年内100%满足我们的需求，这是不可能的。

我只是看不到一种不会让每个人都损失一大笔钱的“2030零碳”方法。

[–]WhiteSatanicMills 

It’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s beyond the realms of the possible that we could build so much off-shore wind that we could fulfil our needs 100% within 11 years.

It is because wind is systemically unreliable. A wind lull can affect most of western Europe at once, the result will be very low output, and we have to have an alternative (or just put up with frequent power cuts).

The only way we can replace fossil fuel generation with wind/solar is if we have sufficient storage, and that’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s simply too expensive (and will almost certainly remain so). To put the costs of batteries into perspective, it would cost about £17 billion to provide 1 hour’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s backup for the UK grid. A “typical” wind lull would require 7 days of backup, at a cost of around £3 trillion.

The cheapest form of storage is pumped hydro, which costs around £1 billion for an hour’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s storage for the UK. That would “only” cost £170 billion, but that assumes you can find more than 200+ storage sites in the UK, and in reality there are only a small number of suitable locations.

Just decarbonising electricity generation in the UK will be impossible by 2030. It requires either a large number of new nuclear reactors, and they are unlikely to be built by 2030 (although they could be, if political support was there) or a breakthrough in storage technology or carbon capture, neither of which looks likely.

“我们建造这么多的离岸风力电站，在11年内100%满足我们的需求，这是不可能的”

因为风能在系统上是不可靠的。风力停歇就会立刻影响到西欧的大部分地区，其结果将是非常低的能源产量，我们必须找到另一种选择（要么就得忍受频繁的停电）。

我们能够用风能和太阳能来替代化石燃料的唯一方法是我们有足够的储电能力，而这太贵了（而且几乎肯定会一直如此）。从电池的成本来看，为英国电网提供1小时的电力备份将花费170亿英镑。一次“典型的”风力停歇需要7天的备份，花费大约3万亿英镑。

最便宜的储存方式是抽水蓄能，在英国，抽水蓄能每小时要花费10亿英镑。这将“仅仅”花费1700亿英镑，但前提是你能在英国找到超过200个以上的储存地点，但实际上只有少数合适的地点。

到2030年，英国要实现发电脱碳是不可能的。它需要大量新的核反应堆，而这些反应堆不太可能在2030年前建成（尽管如果有政治支持的话，它们可能会建成），要么在存储技术或碳捕获方面取得突破，但这两种可能性都不大。

[–]CyclopsRock 

You’‘‘‘‘‘‘’re not wrong, but I think in terms of a general 0% fossil fuel goal, the problems you describe aren’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t fatal. The UK has a uniquely ideal offshore wind generation capacity, due to our large area of shallow seas. The larger you spread out your farms, the less variability you get. There have been a few different studies about how much backup you’‘‘‘‘‘‘’d need, should you have a wind farm capable of theoretically generating 100% of our energy needs - E.On did one that estimated we’‘‘‘‘‘‘’d need 95% backup (But, of course, they’‘‘‘‘‘‘’re a company that makes money with power stations, so maybe they would say that). Another study by the UK Energy Research Center (funded by central government) suggested it could be as low as 15%. Bearing in mind we currently generate about 25% of our energy through Nuclear - some of these stations are intended to be closed before 2030, but there’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s ongoing work to extend them, as well as build new ones. Combine these with some additional storage (I don’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t honestly antipate that we’‘‘‘‘‘‘’d need 7 days worth of storage for the entire country - that figure may well be accurate for our existing wind capacity, but the more we build, the less variability we will have) and some better power sharing with our neighbours with alternative sources and I think it’‘‘‘‘‘‘’s possible we could get low, or very, very close to it.

Of course, this is all almost borderline irrelevant if China, India, the US etc aren’‘‘‘‘‘‘’t playing ball.

你没有错，但我认为，就一般的零化石燃料目标而言，你所描述的问题并不是致命的。英国有一个独特的理想的离岸风力发电能力，因为我们的大面积的浅海。你的风力电厂分布得越大，风力变化就越小。有一些不同的研究，关于你需要多少电力备份，假如你有一个风力发电场，理论上能够产生100%的能源需求——E.On机构做了一个我们需要95%的电力备份的估计（(当然，他们是一家靠发电站赚钱的公司，所以他们可能会这么说）。另一项由英国能源研究中心（由中央政府资助）做出的研究暗示，这个数字可能低至15%。请记住，我们目前大约25%的能源是通过核能产生的——其中一些电站计划在2030年之前关闭，但仍在进行扩建工作，并建造新的电站。这些与一些额外的能源存储（老实说，我并不认为整个国家需要7天的储存量——这个数字对我们现有的风力发电能力来说可能是准确的，但我们建的越多，风力变化的影响就越小）加上与我们的邻居分享一些的更好的能源，我认为我们有可能降低碳能源需求或非常接近这个零碳目标。

当然，如果中国、印度、美国等国家不合作，那这几乎就是在纸上谈兵。