经济学人85:环境保护遭遇攻击

搜索关注在线英语听力室公众号：tingroom，领取免费英语资料大礼包。

　　环境保护遭遇攻击

　　Soaring emissions¹

　　不断增加的废气污染

　　The rhetoric² about environmental controls killing³ jobs is getting louder and louder

　　声称环境保护会导致就业机会减少的言论愈演愈烈

　　Jun 2nd 2011 | WASHINGTON, DC | from the print edition

　　.

　　ISN’T it odd, asks Henry Waxman, a Democratic congressman⁴ from California, how the same Republicans who make such a fuss about abortion⁵ do not seem to care if the unborn are poisoned by toxic⁶ chemicals such as mercury? Isn’t it strange, Republicans retort, that people like Mr Waxman, who profess⁷ to care about working Americans, cheer on bureaucrats⁸ determined⁹ to smother¹⁰ business and destroy jobs? It may be hard to discern amid the melodramatic rhetoric, but the two sides are talking about the Environmental Protection Agency, and the various new rules it has in the works to curb¹¹ pollution. Besides the endless toing and froing about government spending, it has become the most fiercely debated topic in Congress.

　　来自加州的民主党议员Henry Waxman称，反对堕胎并对此大作文章的共和党人似乎并不担忧未出生的胎儿是否会受到例如水银这样的有毒物质的毒害；共和党则声称，像Mr Waxman这样宣称关心美国人就业问题却为誓要抑制美国企业成长减少就业的官僚们呐喊助威。我们似乎很难从这些夸张的言论中辨别事非，不过，民主党和共和党争论的对像都是美国环保局以及环保局正在起草的各类污染管制法规。继关于政府开支没完没了的争论之后，环境污染管制成了国会又一激烈争论的对象。

　　As soon as they took control of the House of Representatives in January, Republicans began summoning Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, and several of her underlings to answer questions about their job-killing ways. Fred Upton, the head of the committee responsible for energy and environmental regulation, joked that she would be on Capitol Hill so often she would need her own parking space.

　　1月，共和党刚接管众议院就随即召集了环保局主管Lisa Jackson以及她的几位下属，询问关于环保局制定的“扼杀就业”的各种环保措施。能源和环境管制委员会主席Fred Upton说，Lisa Jackson去国会的次数频繁到几乎要单独给她安排一个车位。

　　The Republicans’ chief concern is the EPA’s authority, as affirmed by the Supreme¹² Court in 2007, to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. But more broadly they worry that the EPA is constantly tightening¹³ restrictions¹⁴ on pollution, at ever higher cost to business but with diminishing returns in terms of public health. They point to a slew¹⁵ of new rules about industrial boilers¹⁶, cooling water at power plants, the disposal of coal ash, and emissions of mercury, ozone¹⁷ and other chemicals from smokestacks, which cumulatively¹⁸, they say, will have a crippling effect on power generation and other industries. “Even God,” says Joe Barton, a Republican congressman, “couldn’t meet some of the ozone standards.”

　　共和党人最为关注的是环保局的权限，最高法院于2007年授权环保局管制温室气体排放。广泛地说，他们担心环保局不断制定越来越严格污染管制措施，使得企业需要付出更高的成本，而对改善公共健康而言，收益却在递减。共和党指出，针对工业锅炉、发电厂水冷却、煤灰处理、汞排放、烟囱臭氧及其他化学物质排放等制定的众多法规，共同重创了电厂和其他工业。共和党议员Joe Barton说，即使上帝也无法满足其中的一些空气标准。

　　Mr Barton is among the many Republicans in Congress who question whether global warming is caused by human activity, let alone whether the EPA should be trying to mitigate¹⁹ it by limiting emissions of greenhouse gases. The House has passed a measure that would rescind²⁰ the EPA’s authority to do so, although it was blocked in the Senate, which the Democrats²¹ still control. The Republican leadership in the House has accused the administration of plotting to raise the price of energy through onerous²² regulation, in an effort to promote otherwise uncompetitive green technologies. It wants the EPA to give more weight to the impact on the economy and jobs when drawing up future rules.

　　许多共和党人仍然对人类活动是否是造成全球变暖的原因表示质疑，更别提环保局是否应该通过限制温室气体排放以缓和全球变暖。Mr Barton就是其中之一。众议院通过了一项旨在废除环保局温室气体管制权限的草案，但被共和党人控制的参议院驳回。众议院共和党领导人指责政府意图通过繁重的管制措施来提高能源价格进而促进本不具备竞争力绿色科技的发展。他们希望环保局在制定未来的管制措施时能够重视措施对经济的冲击和对就业的影响。

　　Republicans outside Congress are warming to the theme. In late May Chris Christie, the much-feted governor of New Jersey²⁴, withdrew his state from a regional pact²³ to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. Several prominent Republican candidates for president have recanted past support for curbs²⁵ on greenhouse gases. One of them, Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, says the EPA should be abolished altogether and an “environmental solutions agency” more sympathetic to business set up in its stead.

　　国会之外的共和党人也在积极参与这次争论，5月下旬，备受称赞的新泽西州州长Chris Christie 宣布新泽西退出旨在降低发电厂温室气体排放的一份区域协定。几位卓越的共和党总统候选人也已宣布不再支持对温室气体排放进行管制，前众议院发言人Newt Gingrich就是其中之一。他认为，应该撤销环保局，建立一个企业友好型的 “环境保护方案机构”来取代。

　　EPA officials appear baffled by this barrage²⁶ of hostility²⁷. All the regulations they are promulgating²⁸, they point out, are based on laws passed by Congress, usually on a bipartisan basis. The Clean Air Act, for example, which is the basis of the EPA’s proposed regulation of greenhouse gases, was signed by Richard Nixon, and strengthened with the support of George Bush senior, both Republicans. The agency, they say, already conducts cost-benefit analyses of all important regulations, in addition to submitting them for expert review and public comment. Every dollar spent on pollution controls mandated²⁹ by the Clean Air Act, including the ozone restrictions that Mr Barton is complaining about, will bring $30 in benefits to public health, the EPA reckons.

　　针对如此密集的反对声，环保局官员显得很不理解。他们指出，所有颁布的规定都是以国会（通常是共和党和民主党共同参与）批准通过法律为基础的。例如，环保局起草的温室气体管制方案是以洁净空气法案为基础的，而洁净空气法案是共和党人Richard Nixon签署并得到共和党人老布什总统的进一步支持。另外，环保局所有重要的法规不仅咨询了专家意见及公共建议，同时还进行了成本效益分析。环保局估计，用于洁净空气法案规定的污染控制的每一美元都将给公共健康带来30美元的回报。

　　Under Mrs Jackson many of the most significant new rules are also being subjected to a separate review of the impact on jobs; though since onerous environmental restrictions can be labour-intensive, that is not always a good measure of the overall economic benefit. Moreover, the EPA is producing so many regulations at once in part because it is legally bound to. One of the rules the Republicans are complaining about, regarding mercury, arsenic³⁰ and other toxic chemicals released by power plants, has been in the works for over 20 years. The EPA’s original regulations on the subject were thrown out by the courts as too lax. Anyway, so a combative³¹ official told her Republican interrogators earlier this year, complaints about the toll³² on business of pollution controls are almost always wildly exaggerated.

　　在Mrs Jackson领导下，许多重要的新法规都需要单独评估其对就业市场的影响，尽管繁重的环境管制措施可能会对劳动密集型产业产生影响，但是，这样的片面的评估并不总能体现出它对整体经济利益的影响。此外，环保局同时出台如此众多的管制措施，部分原因是由于其法律上的义务。共和党人控拆的其中一项规定是针对发电厂排放汞、砷及其它有毒物质的规定，这项规定用了20年才最终出台。法院曾以管制措施过于松散为由驳回了环保局最初的草案。无论如何，一名官员在面对共和党人质询时曾说，人们在报怨环境保护措施给企业带来不利影响时总是极尽夸张之能。

　　Yet the EPA is clearly stung by the criticism. The White House recently announced that the agency had scrapped³³ a rule requiring leaks of dairy products to be treated as oil spills, as part of a government-wide review of red tape that may be impeding³⁴ economic growth. It is now considering revisions to a further 31 regulations. It has also delayed the implementation³⁵ of the new regulations concerning industrial boilers, after loud complaints from the businesses affected³⁶. And it seems in no hurry to use its authority over greenhouse gases, settling instead for a lengthy³⁷ rule-drafting period that could forestall³⁸ the imposition of any restrictions until after next year’s elections.

　　但是批评显然让环保局备受煎熬。白宫近日宣布，在进行的一项政府范围内对可能阻碍经济发展的红头文件的复审中，环保局取消了一项要求将乳制品泄漏与石油泄漏同等处理的规定。同时环保局正考虑对另31项法规进行修订。另外，由于被影响企业的极力报怨，环保局推迟了有关工业锅炉管制的新法规的执行。看来，环保局并不急于使用他们的温室气体排放管制权利，而是满足于冗长的法规起草过程，从而阻止了任何管制条例在明年的选举之前的实施。

　　That is in part, presumably, because at the mid-terms last year the Republicans succeeded in portraying³⁹ the Democrats’ plans to restrict emissions via a cap-and-trade scheme as an all-out assault on the economy, to great effect. John Shimkus, another Republican congressman, says Republicans will benefit again if environmental regulation remains⁴⁰ a fraught⁴¹ issue next year. But Democrats like Mr Waxman argue that the Republicans are reading too much into their victory last year. Voters may put their immediate⁴² economic concerns ahead of more amorphous⁴³ worries about global warming in the wake of the recession, he says, but they are still not willing to tolerate a broader assault on regulations that protect public health.

　　部分原因可能是，去年的中期选举中，共和党将民主党通过设立排放上限并对减少排放的企业给予经济奖励的方式限制温室气体排放的计划成功地描述成了“竭尽所能阻挠经济发展”。共和党议员John Shimkus说，如果环境管制问题明年仍然充满争议的话，共和党则会从中获益。Mr Waxman等民主党人则认为，共和党高估了他们去年的胜利。尽管经历经济衰退之后，比较于交错复杂的全球变暖问题，选民更倾向于关注当前经济问题；即使如此，选民仍然不会容忍对保护公共健康法规的大规模的抨击。

　　In short, both the Democrats and the Republicans think they have found a winning theme in the other party’s environmental policies. And they may both, in fact, be right. Most polling suggests that the environment is not a critical issue in the eyes of many voters. But talking about it is a great way to fire up activists⁴⁴ and donors⁴⁵ on both sides.

　　简而言之，共和党和民主党都认为对方的环境政策有可攻之处，并且都认为各自可以取得胜利。实际上，双方可能都正确。众多民意调查显示，环境问题在许多选民眼中并不是十分重要的问题，但是，仅仅谈论这个话题就可以刺激到双方的积极活动份子和捐赠人。

分享到：