By Umair Irfan
The US, Japan, and Australia let the whole world down at the UN climate talks
In September, Hurricane Dorian rapidly intensified and stalled over the Bahamas, striking at Category 5 strength. The storm, which scientists said was worse because of global warming, killed at least 70 people and caused $3.4 billion in damages.
飓风多里安在九月中急剧强化至5级强度，并且在巴哈马群岛停滞不前。科学家们称这场杀死了70人，造成了34亿美元损失的风暴，之所以恶化，是由于全球变暖引起的。
Dorian was one of the most tragic examples in 2019 of how climate change has a disproportionate impact on poor countries that have contributed so little to the problem. Bahamas is responsible for just 0.02 percent of global emissions, and yet it keeps falling victim to extreme weather, and slower moving threats like sea-level rise.
作为2019年最为不幸的实例之一，多里安飓风向人们展现了贫困国家们在气候变化问题上受到的侵害和其自身本应担负的微弱责任是多么不成比例。
巴哈马群岛的排放量只占全球总量的百分之0.02，与此同时却总是成为极端天气和海平面上升这一类缓缓显露而出的威胁的受害方。
Along with other island countries like Vanuatu and Tuvalu, the Bahamas is demanding that wealthier countries with a longer record of greenhouse gas emissions stop blocking programs to help defray the costs of climate losses, whether that’s through aid, investment, or direct transfers of money. The argument is simple: Countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Australia, whose economies benefited greatly from burning fossil fuels, are morally obligated help less developed, more vulnerable countries cope.
与瓦努阿图和图瓦卢等其他岛屿国家一起，巴哈马现在强烈要求那些有着较长温室气体排放记录的富裕国家们停止对于弥补气候问题所带来损失的项目的阻挠，无论那是以援助，投资还是资金转移的形式所进行的。
他们的论点很简单：
美国，加拿大，日本，沙特阿拉伯和澳大利亚等国家的经济都从从燃烧化石燃料中获益巨大，它们有义务帮助那些欠发达的弱小国家应对气候变化所带来的问题。
This was one of the core issues at the highly fraught United Nations climate talks in Madrid, Spain known as COP25, that wrapped up on Sunday. The negotiations ultimately allocated a paltry amount of money for climate-related losses and left critical questions unresolved on who will pay for damages, according to a coalition of 44 island countries known as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS):
这也是星期日在西班牙马德里闭幕的，被称为COP25的这一世人忧虑的联合国气候大会上的一项主要议题。
谈判最终达成分拨出一份微不足道的金额作为气候相关损失的补偿的决定，而44个岛屿国家所形成的小岛屿国家联盟(AOSIS)所提出的，应该由谁来赔付的关键性问题则被搁置。
It’s a frustrating outcome for a high-stakes issue that affects the very survival of some countries, especially when scientists are warning that the window to limit climate change is rapidly narrowing.
就这样一项攸关一部分国家存亡的高风险性议题而言，这样的结果是令人沮丧的，尤其是当科学家们警示限制气候变化的窗口期正在加速收窄的时候。
Activists and some delegations said that the solution is simple. “Those responsible for the crisis must pay up,” said Harjeet Singh, the climate lead for the global activist group Action Aid. “This COP has failed the people and the planet.”
社会活动家和一些代表团们说解决方案其实很简单。
“损失需要由那些造成这一问题的国家承担，” 国际维权组织Action Aid的气候问题领袖 Harjeet Singh说道：
“这届COP辜负了全人类和整个地球。
”
But some of the countries that would end up paying — namely the US— pushed back at the meeting, working to limit their expectations to contribute to international climate financing and assistance.
但是有些本应以赔付告终的国家－换句话说美国－在会议上毫无作为，反而在降低公众对他们应承担的气候援助和资助的期望值上下足了功夫。
This back and forth can seem like petty bickering, but the terms under debate can have far-reaching impacts on how countries develop their economies, how they trade with each other, and how they survive a world under warmer temperatures. That’s why it’s important to understand the language being debated and why the meager outcome of COP25 is so alarming.
这一系列反复无常看上去像是儿戏，但这次处于讨论下的条款将对国家们如何发展自己的经济，如何与其他国家进行贸易活动以及如何在逐渐升高的气温中存活等方方面面造成深远的影响。
因此不难看到理解讨论中的术语的重要性以及COP25会议所产出的贫瘠的成果是多么的令人担忧。
The negotiations at COP25 started to tackle to core injustices of climate change.
The Paris climate agreement showed in 2015 that countries agree that everyone needs to curb their emissions, and at COP25, they agreed that everyone needs to take on even more aggressive targets to curb emissions.
COP25的谈判内容以解决气候变化所引发的不公正现象作为出发点。
巴黎协定显示与会国家们在2015年一致同意他们都需要抑制排放量（指温室气体），此次COP25大会也展示了与会国们认为他们中的每一位都需要采取更为激烈的手段来抑制排放量。
The problems are that every country didn’t contribute equally to the problem, everyone isn’t equally capable of curbing emissions, and none are equally vulnerable to climate change. The Paris agreement set the finish line, but every country has a different starting line.
但问题是并不是所有国家都对这一问题负有相同程度的责任，也不是每个国家都有同等程度的能力来抑制温室气体排放，更不是每个国家都受到同等程度的气候变化所带来的威胁的影响。
巴黎协定设置了统一的终点线，但是每个国家却站在了不同的起跑线上。
The UN attempted to address these imbalances with the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities, dividing up countries by wealth and emissions to target specific language on responsibilities and actions.
联合国试图以大家所共有的但是在程度上有所分别的责任来处理这一系列不平等问题，将国家们按富有程度以及排放量的不同来做分化，以此来处理责任和行动相关的具体问题。
For example, under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, countries are allowed to set up rules for trading carbon credits to help meet their goals. These rules, governed under a section of the accord known as Article 6, dominated the COP25 talks. Ideally, they would be a way for wealthier countries to pay for projects like land restoration and switching to cleaner fuels in developing countries while taking on more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals.
举例来说，在2015年巴黎气候协定之下，与会国们可以设立进行碳排放信用额度的交易的相关规定以达成他们的目标。
这些规定是巴黎协定的一部分，称为第6条款，主导了这届COP25大会。
理想中这些条款将为较为富有的国家提供土地恢复的方法，并且促使发展中国家转向较为清洁的能源，同时将设置更具备雄心壮志的温室气体减排目标。
But without proper rules, it could end up as a way for richer countries to simply buy their way out of reducing their own emissions, and if the credits aren’t designed right, they may not lead to the reductions that they promised. That’s why equity concerns are embedded in any international carbon trading scheme.
但是如果没有恰当的制约，而碳排放量额度没有经由良好的设计，最终可能演变成为一种富有国家从他们承诺的排放量中购买出路的方式。
这也是为什么公正公平正是根植于国际间碳交易系统中备受关切的问题。
Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, Costa Rica’s minister for energy and environment, specifically blamed the United States, Brazil, and Australia for blocking progress on Article 6 by insisting on language unacceptable to most countries.
哥斯达黎加的能源与环境部长Carlos Manuel Rodríguez特别就阻挠第6条款的进行和坚持不被其他国家所接受的提议等行为而责备了美国，巴西和澳大利亚等国。
The issue of loss and damage, meanwhile, gets directly to the core of injustices of climate change. In 2013, parties to the UN’s climate negotiation framework, the UNFCCC, established Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts, also called WIM in UN-speak.
与此同时，关于损失和毁坏的问题，直接触动了气候变化的不公正的核心。
联合国气候变化框架公约，UNFCCC的当事人们在2013年缔结了称为WIM的华沙气候变化损失与损害国际机制。
As the name suggests, it’s a way for countries to work together to help deal with the losses and damages that are occurring from the changes in the climate that are already underway, like rising oceans and weather becoming more extreme. This mechanism actually predates the Paris climate agreement, but the rules on how to fund and govern the program remain up in the air and were up for review at COP25.
像其称谓指出的那样，此机制致力于提供一种国家们一起处理由气候所引发的损失与毁坏的方法，例如海平面升高与极端天气的问题。
实际上这个机制成立的时间早于巴黎协定，但是关于如何资助和掌管这项项目的规定始终悬而未决并且有待于COP25进行复审。
So it’s not surprising that securing funding for a loss and damage mechanism was a top priority for the countries facing some of the highest climate risks: small island states, least-developed countries, African nations.
因此对于一些面临最为严重的气候变化威胁的国家，比如小岛国家，欠发达的国家以及非洲国家来说，损失与损害国际机制是他们的优先级任务就并不为人所惊。
“Loss and damage is an existential issue for us,” said Omar Figueroa, Belize’s environment minister. “We need clear and predictable finance that we can access to really compensate for the loss and damage that so many of our sister nations are feeling.”
“损失与毁坏对于我们来说是具有存在感的问题”，伯利兹的环境部长Omar Figueroa如是说，“我们需要更为透明以及可预测的资助用以赔偿那些我们与我们的兄弟国家所切身感受到的损失与破坏。
”
But wealthier countries were reluctant to sign onto language that would commit them to fund the program and instead agreed in broad strokes to study the issue. The United States in particular tried to introduce language that would put the WIM solely within the purview of the Paris agreement and not the larger UNFCCC. Since the US is withdrawing from the Paris agreement, but not the UNFCCC, this would draw a line around the program to exclude the US from contributing to prevent the US from being asked to chip in.
但是富裕国家们并不情愿资助这项项目，取而代之的是他们同意在大框架之中对这一议题进行研究。
尤其是美国，试图引入一种话术来使得华沙气候变化损失与损害国际机制位于巴黎协定的条款之中而非更大范围的联合国气候变化框架公约之内。
由于美国正从巴黎协定之中退出而非退出联合国气候变化框架公约，美国的做法可以圈出一条线来排除它在这项项目中被要求捐款的可能性。
Ian Fry, a delegate from Tuvalu, called out the United States without mentioning it by name for trying to introduce this provision. “Ironically, or strategically, this party will not be a party to the Paris agreement in 12 months time,” he said during the closing session of COP25. “This means if they get their way with the governance of the WIM, they will wash their hands or any actions to assist countries that have been affected by the impacts of climate change. This is an absolute tragedy and a travesty.”
图瓦卢的代表Ian Fry，在不指名的情况下疾呼美国想要引入的条例：
“讽刺的是又或者是具有战略意义的，当事人在12个月的时间内将不再是巴黎协定的当事人，”在COP25的闭幕期内他如是说到。
“这将意味着如果他们可以对WIM随心所欲，他们将从援助那些受气候变化影响的国家的活动中金盆洗手，这将绝对是一场悲剧和滑稽剧。
”
For some wealthier countries, they worry that they could be liable for climate damages, and want to indemnify themselves, but many of the countries most vulnerable to climate change say this is a non-starter. Instead, wealthy countries would prefer to provide disaster loss and damage money as charity on their own terms and not bound by any international rules.
对于某些较为富有的国家而言，他们也担心自己对气候变化负有一定责任，并且想要作出赔偿，但是那些最易受到气候变化影响的国家认为这是没有希望的。
与此相对的，富有国家更倾向于在自己的条件下给慈善机构捐款来对灾害带来的损失和破坏做出补偿而不是受到国际协定的约束。
The US delegation did not respond to requests for comment.
美国代表团没有对此请求作出回应。
There will likely be few ways to move forward on an international climate action without an agreement on how to fund loss and damage, but with countries so far apart on the issue, there may not be any progress anytime soon, and the topic will be on the table again in the next rounds of climate talks.
也许会有不通过对损失和毁坏作出赔偿的公约来推进国际间气候行动的可能性，但是在这一问题上国与国之间所持态度相悖甚远，短期内应该不会有任何进展，这项议题将会再次出现在下一届的国际气候大会之上。
All the while, some wealthy countries are continuing to make the problem worse. Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are on the rise, and Japan noted at COP25 that the country is planning to build more coal-fired power plants and export coal generators.
一直以来，一些富裕的国家一直在让问题恶化。
美国的温室气体排放在上升，日本在世界气候大会上说日本正打算建造更多的燃煤发电厂和出口更多煤炭发电机。
“In Japan, coal power is not seen as problematic as the international community does,” Japan Environment Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said at a press conference at COP25. “There is a plan to build coal-fired plants in Japan, but with that fact in mind I have some complex feelings about attending COP25.”
“在日本，煤电并不像国际社会所认为的那样有很大问题。
”日本环境大臣小泉进次郎在第25届联合国气候大会的一次记者招待会上说。
“日本有建造燃煤发电厂的计划，考虑到这一事实，我对参加此次气候大会百感交集。
”
Why it’s so damn hard to get an international climate deal
为什么达到一个国际气候协定如此困难
With all the consternation around the UN negotiation process, one might wonder if there is a better way to do this. These ongoing climate negotiations are governed by consensus, which means everyone has to agree.
由于联合国协商过程中的种种出乎意料之事，我们可能会想是否有更好的方式来处理这个问题。
正在进行的气候谈判建立在共同协商基础上，这意味着每一个人都要同意。
One would have a hard time even getting 197 countries to agree that the sky is blue without a multi-day summit, a dozen drafts of the resolution, and one country threatening to derail everything because they believe that turquoise should count as blue in some circumstances. On climate change, this process often results in the most tepid and toothless actions.
如果没有多日峰会，十几个决议草案，要让197个国家都同意天空是蓝的都很难。
一个国家威胁要使每个人脱轨，因为他们坚信青绿色在某种情况下也该被视为蓝色。
在气候变化问题上，这个过程所导致的结果经常是不温不火且效用甚微的行动。
At a time when scientists are warning that the world may have as little as a decade to get on track for the goals of the Paris climate agreement to limit warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius this century, if not 1.5 degrees Celsius, the byzantine UN process for negotiating a solution to climate change seems unbearably slow and inadequate.
科学家们发出警告，世界可能只有不到十年的时间用来实现巴黎气候协定的目标，即将本世纪的气候升温限制在2摄氏度以内。
在这个时间点上，如果没有控制在1.5摄氏度，这意味着为了协商出一个解决气候变化的方案，联合国复杂繁琐的谈判可能是非一般的低效率和力不从心。
If you live the #ClimateEmergency in a very real way almost on a daily basis, you’d understand why we in the Global South and the vulnerable countries are tremendously disappointed with #COP25. If you want to sugarcoat that, it’s up to you. Tired of this dishonest optimism.
如果你每天非常真切地感受到生活在#气候紧急状态，你就会明白我们这些生活在南半球和最容易受到影响的国家的人为什么会对今年的气候大会感到巨大失望。
如果你想要粉饰这个气候大会，那是你的问题。
反正我对这种欺骗性的乐观累觉不爱了。
— Yeb Saño (@YebSano) December 15, 2019
— Yeb Saño (@YebSano)2019，12月15日
But the key issue is that while everyone needs to act, there are few levers to compel countries to do so. Ultimately, international actions on climate change have to be self-driven and voluntary within countries. That’s why everything in the talks is framed in terms of “ambition” rather than “obligation.” There are lots of carrots, but very few sticks.
但是关键问题是，尽管每个国家都需要行动，但是很少有强制措施迫使各国采取行动。
最终，应对气候变暖的国际行动必须是各国内部的自我驱动和自愿行为。
这就是为什么会谈中所有内容都以“愿景（或野心）”而不是“义务”为框架的原因。
胡萝卜很多，但是棍棒很少。
That the world has gotten this far at all is a minor miracle, and the UNFCCC remains the only truly global framework to tackle climate change. But global emissions are still growing, the commitments to reduce them right now are nowhere near enough, and a small handful of countries are blocking more coordinated action.
这个世界迄今为止所达到的不过是一些很小的奇迹，联合国气候变化框架公约依旧是唯一一个能正确解决气候问题的全球框架。
但是全球排放还是在上升，致力于减排的承诺现在还是远远不够，而且一小撮国家正在阻止更多的协调行动。
At the same time, the biggest gains in fighting climate change are happening unilaterally outside the international negotiation process. The European Union last week introduced its European Green Deal that aims to zero out the EU’s contributions to climate change by midcentury. A key provision in the proposal is a border adjustment carbon tax that would add a tariff to imported goods from countries that are not as ambitious in limiting climate change. It’s an example of how one large, powerful bloc can nudge other countries to act.
同时，解决气候问题上的最大进展正在国际协商进程之外单方面发生的。
上周欧盟推出了《欧盟绿色协定》，旨在本世纪中叶使欧盟对气候变暖的推动降为零。
该提议中一个核心条款是一个碳税边界调整，如果一个国家从另一个不那么致力于控制气候变暖的国家进口货物时，这些进口货物会增加一项关税。
这是一个在强大的集团如何推动其他国家采取行动应对气候变化的例子。
So what’s needed right now is more countries to step up their own targets for curbing emissions, but also to be more willing to pressure others, with the largest pressure coming from the largest economies.
因此现在需要的是更多的国家更努力地实现他们抑制排放的目标，而且更愿意去给其他国家施加压力，最大的经济体要释放出最大的减排压力。
And there is no way around the money problem. Right now, developing countries are increasingly becoming larger sources of greenhouse gases and are also becoming more vulnerable to climate-linked disasters. Any meaningful attempt to limit climate change will have to bring these countries on board too, which will require a trans-national wealth transfer in some form. It will be especially tricky to get cajole countries that are large emitters, but are still developing, like India and China.
资金问题还没有解决。
现在，发展中国家正日益成为温室气体更大的来源，并且也越来越容易遭受与气候有关的灾难。
任何限制气候变化的任何有意义的尝试都必须把这些国家纳入其中，这将需要某种形式的跨国财富转移。
在此过程中，要想劝诱像中国和印度这样大排放但仍处于发展阶段中的国家，尤为棘手。
While negotiators didn’t finish what they had hoped to at COP25, several delegates said that they did move closer to an accord on the remaining issues. They will have more chances to resolve their differences next year in Bonn, Germany, and in Glasgow, United Kingdom. But they won’t have another chance at this moment, and time is running out.
尽管谈判者们没有完成他们在本次联合国气候大会上希望达成的目标，但一些代表团说他们在解决遗留问题的协议上更近了一步。
明年在德国波恩和英国格拉斯哥，谈判者会有更多机会来解决他们之间的分歧。
但此时此刻，谈判者们不再有机会了。
剩下的时间也不多了。
