Over the past several years, I’ve been making the case that we have to eliminate global carbon emissions. To avoid the worst effects of climate change, we need new zero-carbon ways to generate electricity, grow food, make things, move around, and keep warm and cool.
在过去的几年中，我一直在解释我们为何必须消除全球碳排放。为了避免气候变化可能带来的最坏影响，我们需要利用新的零碳方法去发电、种植、制造、出行以及采暖和制冷。
But knowing what we need to accomplish is very different from knowing how to do it—or even whether we can.
但知道我们需要做什么与知道该如何做——抑或我们能否做到——具有很大不同。
Do we have everything we need to deliver enough affordable electricity for the world, or do we need more innovation? What about things like clean fuels, steel, and cement—are they viable options yet? In short, which clean sources are effective enough and cheap enough now, and which ones aren’t yet?
我们已经具有为世界提供足够价格可负担电力所需的一切，还是我们需要更多的创新？再比如像清洁燃料、钢铁和水泥，它们是可行的选择吗？简言之，哪些清洁能源现在已经足够有效和便宜，而哪些还做不到？
Understanding the answers to these questions will help us make sure we’re putting our best minds and resources on the toughest problems in climate and energy. In my view it boils down to one issue: What is the difference in cost between a product that involves emitting carbon and an alternative that doesn’t? This difference in cost is what I call the Green Premium, and understanding it is key to making progress on climate change. (It is also a central idea in my book about climate change, which will come out in February.)
理解这些问题的答案，将帮助我们确保自己将最优秀的头脑和资源投入解决最棘手的环境和能源问题。在我看来，这些可以归结为一个问题：会产生碳排放的产品与不会产生碳排放的替代品之间的成本差异是多少？这一成本差异被我称之为“绿色溢价”，理解这一点对于在应对气候变化方面取得进展至关重要。（这也是我关于气候变化新书的中心思想，这本书将于明年2月出版。）
Here’s an example of a Green Premium: The average retail price for a gallon of jet fuel in the United States over the past few years has been around $2.22, while advanced biofuels for jets cost around $5.35 per gallon. The Green Premium is the difference between the two, which is $3.13, or an increase of more than 140 percent.
举一个“绿色溢价”的例子：过去几年，美国航空燃油的平均零售价约为2.22美元/加仑（约4元人民币/升，译注），而供喷气式飞机使用的高级生物燃料价格约为5.35美元/加仑（约9.6元人民币/升，译注）。“绿色溢价”就是二者之间的差额，即3.13美元/加仑（约5.6元人民币/升，译注），或可理解为超过140%的增长。
Since airlines would not be willing to pay more than twice as much to fuel their planes—and many customers would balk at the resulting increase in air fares—the Green Premium on biofuels suggests that we need to find ways to either make them cheaper or make jet fuel more expensive. Or a combination of the two.
由于航空公司不愿为飞机燃料支付两倍以上的费用，而且许多客户会对由此造成的机票价格上涨感到不满，因此生物燃料的“绿色溢价”意味着我们需要找到办法，要么使生物燃料更便宜，要么让航空燃油更昂贵，或者采用两者的组合。
Unfortunately, calculating Green Premiums is not an exact science. It involves making assumptions about the cost of emerging technologies, for example, that well-informed people can disagree about. It is also important to note that one reason the Green Premiums exist is that the prices of fossil fuels don’t factor in the damage they inflict by making the planet warmer. In many cases, clean alternatives appear more expensive because fossil fuels are artificially cheap.
遗憾的是，计算“绿色溢价”并不是一门精确的科学。例如，它涉及到对新兴技术的成本做出假设，而懂行的人可能会不同意这些假设。另外值得注意的一点是，“绿色溢价”的存在原因之一，是化石燃料的成本价格没有考虑到它们通过让地球变暖而带来的损害。在许多情况下，清洁替代产品看起来更昂贵，那是因为化石燃料的价格便宜得不太正常。
So even though Green Premiums are an imperfect measure, they are better than no measure at all.
所以即使“绿色溢价”是个不完美的衡量标准，它也比没有任何衡量标准要好。
For one thing, they help us measure our progress toward eliminating carbon emissions. The bigger a Green Premium is—especially for lower-income countries like India and Nigeria whose energy needs are growing—the further we are from a zero-carbon future.
一方面，它帮助我们衡量在消除碳排放上获得的进展。“绿色溢价”越高，我们离零碳未来就越远——尤其是对像印度和尼日利亚这样能源需求不断增长的低收入国家来说。
They also serve as a guide to action. In cases where the Green Premiums are big, we know we need innovations that will close the price gap. In cases where they’re small—or where clean products are actually cheaper than the polluting version—it suggests that something other than the cost is keeping zero-carbon products from being deployed, and we need to understand why.
它还能作为行动指南。在“绿色溢价”很高的情况下，我们知道我们需要能够减少这一成本差距的创新。如果“绿色溢价”很低，或者清洁替代产品实际上比会产生污染的产品要便宜，那么这表明除了成本以外，还有一些其他原因阻挠了零碳产品的应用。我们需要了解其中的原因。
I’ll give you two examples that show why I find Green Premiums so useful.
我下面举两个例子来说明为什么我觉得“绿色溢价”很有用。
First, electricity. The Green Premium for electricity amounts to the additional cost of getting all power in our grid from non-emitting sources like wind, solar, nuclear power, and fossil fuel plants equipped with carbon-capture technology. For the reasons I explained in this post, there’s a high Green Premium for electricity in most parts of the world, and we need innovation to drive it closer to zero.
首先，电力。电力的“绿色溢价”等于从不产生排放的能源获得电力的额外成本，这些能源包括风能、太阳能、核能和加装了捕碳技术的化石燃料电厂。出于我在这篇文章里解释的原因，世界大部分地区具有很高的电力“绿色溢价”，我们需要创新使其接近于零。
But clean alternatives are within striking distance in the U.S. and Europe. One study suggested that decarbonizing Europe’s power grid by 90 to 95 percent would cause rates to go up roughly 14 euros per month for a typical household in the European Union. In the United States, it would cost an extra $18 a month for the average home. While that is still a substantial premium, especially for low-income people, it’s encouraging that Europeans and Americans may be able to generate most of their electricity carbon-free for the cost of a few cups of coffee each month.
但在美国和欧洲，使用清洁能源作为替代品触手可及。一项研究表明，对欧洲电网进行90%至95%的脱碳处理，会使欧盟成员国中一个普通家庭的电费每月上涨约14欧元。在美国，这会使一个普通家庭每月多交18美元的电费。尽管这仍然是一笔不小的溢价，尤其对于低收入群体而言，但欧洲人和美国人也许能以每月几杯咖啡的成本来实现大部分的无碳发电，这依然令人感到鼓舞。
Once we know what’s driving a given Green Premium, it acts like a roadmap—it tells us the route we need to take to get to zero. In the case of electricity, one step is to keep deploying renewables where they make sense. Another is to invest more in developing technologies like long-term electricity storage, carbon capture, and advanced nuclear. And we need to modernize and expand the grids that deliver clean electricity from where it’s generated to where it’s needed—often a distance of thousands of miles.
一旦我们知道是哪些因素造成了“绿色溢价”，它就会充当一张路线图，告诉我们需要为实现零碳排放而选择的路线。就电力而言，其中的一个步骤是继续在合适的地方应用可再生能源。另一个步骤是加大投资技术开发，如长期电力存储、碳捕捉和先进核能等。我们还需对电网进行现代化改造和扩展，将清洁电力从发电的地方输送到需要的地方（这通常是数千英里的距离）。
Electricity is a relatively straightforward case. A much more complicated one is manufacturing.
电力是一个相对直接的案例，制造业的情况要复杂得多。
Consider the process of making cement. It’s responsible for releasing carbon dioxide in two ways: when fossil fuels are burned to generate heat for cement production, and during the chemical reactions involved in the manufacturing process.
想想制造水泥的过程，它在两个时候释放二氧化碳：当燃烧化石燃料产生用于水泥生产的热量时，以及伴随着制造过程而发生的化学反应期间。
We don't yet know how to make cement without releasing this carbon. The best we can do is to capture it once it has been released and stash it away permanently, a process that adds between 75 percent and 140 percent to the cost of cement. Few construction firms would be up for absorbing such a price increase in any competitive market.
我们现在还不知道怎么在不释放碳的情况下制造水泥。我们所能做的是当二氧化碳被释放后立即将其捕捉并永久地储存起来。这一过程会使水泥成本增加75%至140%。很少有建筑公司愿意在自由竞争的市场中承受这样的价格上涨。
Other Green Premiums in manufacturing—for steel, for example—are also quite high. This tells us that we don’t have the tools we need to make clean manufacturing anywhere near economical enough that everyone will adopt it. We need more innovation.
制造业中的其他“绿色溢价”（如钢铁的）也很高。这告诉我们，我们还不具备所需的工具，使得任何地方的清洁制造具有足够的经济性，从而让每个人都能采用。我们需要更多的创新。
As a rule, there are three levers we can pull to reduce Green Premiums:
一般来说，我们可以使用三种办法来降低“绿色溢价”：
  • Governments can use policies to either make the carbon-based version of something more expensive, or make the clean version cheaper—or, ideally, some of both. This could include requiring a certain amount of electricity or fuel to be generated in zero-carbon ways.
政府可以使用政策手段使某产品有碳排放的版本更贵，或使该产品的清洁版本更便宜——抑或在理想情况下让二者同时发生。这可能包括要求一定量的电力或燃料以零碳方式获得。
  • Companies and investors can commit to buying and using cleaner alternatives, investing in research and development, supporting clean-energy entrepreneurs and startups, and advocating for helpful government policies.
公司和投资者可以承诺购买和使用更清洁的替代品，投资研发，支持清洁能源企业家和初创企业，以及倡导政府出台有利的政策。
  • Individuals can help create markets for better, cleaner alternatives. When you buy an electric vehicle or a plant-based burger even though it costs more than the alternative, you’re saying to the companies that make these products: “There’s demand for these items. Make more and we’ll buy them.” That will drive investment in research, which helps decrease the price and ultimately makes clean products more affordable and available for everyone.
个人可以帮助创造更好、更清洁的替代品市场。当你购买电动汽车或用植物制作的汉堡包时，尽管其价格比其他同类产品要贵，但你是在告诉制造这些产品的公司：“对这些产品的需求是存在的。加大生产，我们会为此买单。”这将推动对科研的投入，从而有助于降低价格，并最终使清洁产品更实惠、更普及。
Not everyone can afford these premiums, but if you can, it’s a productive way to contribute.
并不是每个人都能承受这些溢价，但如果你可以，这是一种做出贡献的有效方式。
I’m convinced that the Green Premium concept can bring clarity to a debate where it is badly needed right now. I hope more people embrace it and help improve the idea. Understanding the Green Premiums will help the world make the most of its efforts and funding as we work together to avoid a climate disaster.
我坚信“绿色溢价”这一概念可以让当下亟需进行的一场辩论变得清晰。我希望更多人可以拥抱这一想法并帮助改进它。当我们共同努力避免一场气候灾难时，理解“绿色溢价”将有助于世界充分利好我们的资金与努力。
继续阅读
阅读原文