評(píng)論
打印
What does responsible energy pricing mean?
負(fù)責(zé)的能源定價(jià)是指什么？
Moving on to my second point today—how can policymakers design responsible energy pricing?
下面是我今天要談的第二點(diǎn)——政策制定者如何設(shè)計(jì)負(fù)責(zé)的能源定價(jià)？
Using fiscal instruments to reflect environmental damage in energy prices is not rocket science. It is really a matter of basic tax principles, or actually just common sense. The two main issues are the appropriate tax base and the appropriate tax rate.
運(yùn)用財(cái)政工具，讓能源價(jià)格體現(xiàn)對(duì)環(huán)境的破壞，這并不是艱深的科學(xué)。這其實(shí)是基本的稅收原則，或者，實(shí)際上就是常識(shí)。兩個(gè)主要問(wèn)題是，適當(dāng)?shù)亩惢瓦m當(dāng)?shù)亩惵省?/div>
Carefully targeting the source of the environmental harm is critical. This means, for example, making sure that charges on different fuels are proportional to emissions from those fuels. That way, we get the relative prices of dirty, intermediate, and clean fuels right—and environmental damage is properly factored into energy prices.
仔細(xì)瞄準(zhǔn)環(huán)境危害源十分重要。例如，要保證對(duì)不同燃料的收費(fèi)與這些燃料的排放量成比例。這樣，我們就能正確地設(shè)定污染性燃料、中級(jí)燃料、清潔燃料的價(jià)格，從而使環(huán)境損害正確地反映在能源價(jià)格中。
In turn, that encourages people to make green choices all across the spectrum—such as power generators switching to less polluting fuels or installing emissions-control technologies; and households driving less often, or upgrading to more energy-efficient vehicles and appliances.
這進(jìn)而會(huì)促動(dòng)人們?cè)诟鱾€(gè)方面做出環(huán)保的選擇——例如，發(fā)電機(jī)采用輕污染燃料或安裝排放控制技術(shù)；住戶(hù)減少開(kāi)車(chē)，或升級(jí)到更節(jié)能的車(chē)輛或家電。
Using a single fiscal instrument targeted at a particular source of environmental harm is both effective and administratively simple. It is better than relying on a patchwork of uncoordinated policies—such as telling some manufacturers to install certain control technologies, requiring others to use certain fuels, or rewarding households for buying certain vehicles.
運(yùn)用針對(duì)具體環(huán)境損害源的單一財(cái)政工具既是有效的，在管理上也是簡(jiǎn)便易行的。它好于零散的、未經(jīng)協(xié)調(diào)的政策——例如，讓一些制造商安裝某些控制技術(shù)，要求其他制造商使用某些燃料，或獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)住戶(hù)購(gòu)買(mǎi)某些車(chē)輛。
The bottom line is that we can spur the same kinds of virtuous behavior by using a much simpler tool—a single fiscal instrument. And once we price bad things right, we will not need to worry so much about subsidizing good things—like renewable energy.
總的說(shuō)來(lái)，我們可以使用簡(jiǎn)單得多的手段——單一財(cái)政工具，來(lái)促進(jìn)同樣的良性行為。一旦我們對(duì)壞的事物定對(duì)了價(jià)，就無(wú)需過(guò)于擔(dān)心如何為好的事物（如可再生能源）提供補(bǔ)貼。
Once we know what to tax, the next logical question becomes how much to tax. Again, this is straightforward in principle. Aligning tax rates with environmental damage provides an automatic check and balance.
一旦我們知道對(duì)什么征稅，下一個(gè)問(wèn)題自然就是征多少稅。同樣，這在原則上簡(jiǎn)單明確。根據(jù)環(huán)境破壞程度確定稅率，這構(gòu)成自動(dòng)的制約與平衡關(guān)系。
If taxes are too low, many socially desirable changes to energy production and use will not be made, and the environment suffers. If taxes are too high, energy will be produced with excessive costs, and the economy suffers.
如果稅太低，能源的生產(chǎn)和使用就不會(huì)產(chǎn)生從社會(huì)上講有益的許多變化，環(huán)境就會(huì)受到損害。如果稅太高，能源生產(chǎn)成本就會(huì)過(guò)高，經(jīng)濟(jì)就會(huì)受到損害。
So this is a delicate—but very important—balance to get right. To do this, policymakers need to have some sense of the magnitude of environmental damage and what this implies for appropriate energy tax systems.
所以，這是一種微妙的、但極其重要的平衡關(guān)系，我們必須保持這種平衡。為此，政策制定者需要在一定程度上了解環(huán)境破壞程度，以及這對(duì)于適當(dāng)?shù)哪茉炊愂罩贫纫馕吨裁础?/div>
Putting principle into practice
將原則付諸實(shí)踐
This brings me to my third area—putting principle into practice. This is really the whole point of the new IMF book—providing actionable guidance to policymakers on “pricing it right”.
這把我?guī)У降谌齻€(gè)問(wèn)題——將原則付諸實(shí)踐。這正是基金組織新書(shū)的重點(diǎn)所在——為政策制定者提供關(guān)于“定對(duì)價(jià)”的可行指導(dǎo)。
The unique contribution of the book—or the toolkit—is that it lays out a practical methodology for quantifying environmental damage across developed and developing countries alike. It shows what this damage implies for appropriate energy taxes, and the benefits of policy reform.
這本書(shū)（或“工具箱”）的獨(dú)特貢獻(xiàn)是，它給出了一種實(shí)用方法，用來(lái)量化發(fā)達(dá)和發(fā)展中國(guó)家的環(huán)境破壞。它顯示了這種破壞對(duì)于適當(dāng)?shù)哪茉炊愐馕吨裁矗约罢吒母锏暮锰帯?/div>
Let me raise an obvious but important caveat. There are many controversies and uncertainties involved in measuring environmental damage—for example, in putting a price tag on future global warming or on the lives saved from cleaner air. It is possible to come up with many plausible values for such things, but the IMF is not in the business of telling governments what to assume here.
我首先提醒大家注意一個(gè)顯而易見(jiàn)、但至關(guān)重要的方面。在衡量環(huán)境破壞方面，有很多爭(zhēng)議和不確定性——例如，對(duì)于未來(lái)的全球變暖程度，或更清潔空氣能夠挽救多少生命，我們?cè)撚迷鯓拥膬r(jià)格來(lái)體現(xiàn)。有可能對(duì)這些事物賦予很多看來(lái)合理的數(shù)值，但基金組織并不負(fù)責(zé)告訴各國(guó)政府應(yīng)該做出什么樣的數(shù)值假設(shè)。
Rather, what the book provides is a framework for understanding the issues—the key factors that determine the environmental damage. It provides estimates of tax levels needed to incorporate environmental costs in the prices of coal, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel—for over 150 countries. It also offers an accompanying spreadsheet tool—available online—that traces out the implications of alternative assumptions for these factors.
這本書(shū)提供的是一個(gè)理解這個(gè)問(wèn)題的框架——決定環(huán)境破壞的主要因素。它針對(duì)150多個(gè)國(guó)家，估計(jì)了煤、天然氣、汽油和柴油價(jià)格能體現(xiàn)各自的環(huán)境成本所需的稅收水平。它還提供了附帶的電子表格工具（可在線(xiàn)使用），用來(lái)分析這些因素在其他假設(shè)下的政策啟示。
So we see our contribution as helping to inform the debate, make transparent the policy implications of alternative assumptions, and provide a benchmark against which other—less efficient—policies can be evaluated so policymakers better understand the tradeoffs.
所以我們認(rèn)為，我們的貢獻(xiàn)是，協(xié)助為關(guān)于這一問(wèn)題的討論提供信息，表明其他假設(shè)的政策含義，并提供一個(gè)基準(zhǔn)，據(jù)以評(píng)價(jià)其他不那么高效的政策，從而使政策制定者能夠更好地了解其中的權(quán)衡取舍關(guān)系。
This is not the place to get into a technical discussion of how to measure concepts like deaths from air pollution or the costs of traffic congestion—for that you should read the book!
我們這里不是展開(kāi)技術(shù)討論的場(chǎng)合——即，如何衡量空氣污染導(dǎo)致的死亡或交通擁堵成本。想了解這些，去讀那本書(shū)吧！
Instead, let me mention just one other important aspect—how pervasively energy seems to be mispriced at present, based on our assessment.
我只想談?wù)劻硪粋€(gè)重要的方面——根據(jù)我們的評(píng)估，能源定價(jià)不當(dāng)?shù)那闆r非常普遍。
Take coal, for example. This is about the dirtiest of all fuels, yet almost no country imposes meaningful taxes on its use. Our work suggests that, to reflect the carbon damages alone, a reasonably-scaled charge would amount, on average, to around two-thirds of the current world price of coal. In countries where a lot of people are exposed to air pollution, the coal charge should be even higher—several times higher in some cases.
拿煤作個(gè)例子。煤是所有燃料中污染最嚴(yán)重的，但幾乎沒(méi)有哪個(gè)國(guó)家對(duì)煤的使用征收有意義的稅。我們的工作顯示，即使只體現(xiàn)碳排放對(duì)環(huán)境造成的破壞，對(duì)煤炭的合理征稅水平平均而言應(yīng)達(dá)到當(dāng)前世界煤炭?jī)r(jià)格的三分之二左右。在大量人口暴露于空氣污染的國(guó)家，煤炭稅還應(yīng)更高，在有些國(guó)家應(yīng)達(dá)到幾倍之高。
What about motor fuels? There are many costs to count here—the obvious carbon and air pollution damages, and also the costs coming from congestion and the risk of additional traffic accidents. If all of these costs were reflected in gasoline and diesel taxes, it would mean substantial charges across developed and developing countries.
機(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)燃料呢？這方面應(yīng)考慮很多成本——顯而易見(jiàn)的成本是碳排放和空氣污染方面的破壞，另外還包括道路擁堵和交通事故風(fēng)險(xiǎn)增大帶來(lái)的成本。如果所有這些成本都體現(xiàn)在汽油和柴油稅中，發(fā)達(dá)和發(fā)展中國(guó)家都要征收相當(dāng)高的稅。
Some countries are already in the vanguard here. Many countries in Europe, for example, already impose taxes on fuel at levels that seem broadly appropriate for the damage they cause. The more important question for them going forward will be the appropriate mix between traditional fuel taxes and more novel approaches—such as per-mile charges for peak-period driving on busy roads to deal with congestion.
在這方面，一些國(guó)家已經(jīng)走在前面。例如，許多歐洲國(guó)家已經(jīng)對(duì)燃料征收了與其破壞程度基本相稱(chēng)的稅。對(duì)這些國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)，今后更為重要的問(wèn)題是，傳統(tǒng)燃料稅與更新型方法之間的適當(dāng)搭配（這些新方法如，在交通繁忙的道路上，對(duì)高峰期駕車(chē)按行駛里程收費(fèi)）。
We also need to make sure that the poorest and most vulnerable households are protected. But let’s be clear: keeping energy prices artificially low is no way to help the poor. Instead, policymakers should focus on the overall fairness of the tax system—and make sure that all have access to decent healthcare, education, and social benefits.
我們還需確保最貧窮和最脆弱住戶(hù)得到保護(hù)。但需要明確的一點(diǎn)是：將能源價(jià)格人為地維持在低水平并不利于保護(hù)窮人。相反，政策制定者應(yīng)將重點(diǎn)放在稅收體系的總體公平性上——并確保所有人都能獲得充分的醫(yī)療、教育和社會(huì)福利。
Pushing ahead with energy price reform might not be easy, but it will certainly be worth it—many times over. It produces a triple benefit—saving lives, saving the planet, and saving the budget. For example, we have estimated that these policies reduce fossil fuel deaths by 63 percent, reduce carbon emissions by 23 percent, and raise revenues by 2.6 of percent of GDP.
推進(jìn)能源價(jià)格改革可能并不容易，但顯然是非常有意義的。能源價(jià)格改革能帶來(lái)三個(gè)好處——挽救生命，挽救地球，挽救預(yù)算。例如，我們估計(jì)，這些政策能將礦物燃料導(dǎo)致的死亡減少63%，使碳排放下降 23%，使收入增加 GDP的2.6%。
When we put it in these terms, the case for action becomes urgent. Yes, we need global cooperation to overcome global challenges like climate change. In this vein, we fully support ongoing international efforts to move climate mitigation policies forward. Yet this is proving hard because the costs of action are clear and they are borne by local communities while the benefits of action are more long-term and more dispersed across the globe.
以上分析說(shuō)明了行動(dòng)的緊迫性。是的，我們需要通過(guò)全球合作，應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化這樣的全球挑戰(zhàn)。為此，我們大力支持目前國(guó)際上在推進(jìn)減輕對(duì)氣候影響的政策方面所做的努力。不過(guò)，事實(shí)證明這項(xiàng)工作很困難，因?yàn)椴扇∵@種行動(dòng)的成本是顯而易見(jiàn)的，并且是由當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?huì)承擔(dān)的，而行動(dòng)的好處在更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才體現(xiàn)出來(lái)，并且在更大程度上分散于全球范圍。
But this is not an excuse for individual countries to stay in a holding pattern. As we have shown, there is a lot that countries can do to protect the environment on their own, by acting in their own national interests. If everyone cleans up their own neighborhood, our entire planet will be in much better shape.
但各國(guó)不應(yīng)以此為借口不采取行動(dòng)，正如我們已經(jīng)指出的，各國(guó)能從本國(guó)利益出發(fā)，獨(dú)立采取很多措施保護(hù)環(huán)境。如果每個(gè)國(guó)家都能有效治理自己的環(huán)境，我們整個(gè)地球就會(huì)變得更好。
Conclusion
結(jié)語(yǔ)
Let me conclude on that note. We do not expect energy price reform to happen overnight. It will require education about why substantially higher fuel prices are needed—and indeed unavoidable—to deal with mounting environmental challenges.
我來(lái)就此做個(gè)總結(jié)。我們不能期望能源價(jià)格改革一蹴而就。需要讓人們了解，為了應(yīng)對(duì)日趨嚴(yán)峻的環(huán)境挑戰(zhàn)，顯著提高能源價(jià)格是必要的，實(shí)際上也是不可避免的。
Yet as Nelson Mandela once said, “it always seems impossible until it’s done”. So let’s get it done—at the national level and at the global level. We know where we need to go, and how to get there, so let us start the journey.
但正如納爾遜·曼德拉曾經(jīng)說(shuō)過(guò)的：“在事情未成功之前，總看似不可能。”所以，讓我們行動(dòng)起來(lái)——在國(guó)家和全球?qū)用娌扇⌒袆?dòng)。我們知道該往哪兒走，也知道怎么走，所以，讓我們踏上征程吧。
I promise you that the IMF will help countries move forward here—with our policy advice and, as countries seek it, our technical assistance. We are all in this together.
我向你們承諾，基金組織將幫助各國(guó)向前邁進(jìn)——我們將提供政策建議，在各國(guó)需要時(shí)還將提供技術(shù)援助。我們將同舟共濟(jì)。
Thank you very much.
十分感謝。
| 重點(diǎn)單詞 | 查看全部解釋 | |||
| conclusion | [kən'klu:ʒən] |
想一想再看 n. 結(jié)論 |
||
| vein | [vein] |
想一想再看 n. 靜脈，紋理，葉脈，巖脈 |
||
| spectrum | ['spektrəm] |
想一想再看 n. 光譜，范圍，系列 |
聯(lián)想記憶 | |
| efficient | [i'fiʃənt] |
想一想再看 adj. 效率高的，勝任的 |
聯(lián)想記憶 | |
| obvious | ['ɔbviəs] |
想一想再看 adj. 明顯的，顯然的 |
聯(lián)想記憶 | |
| inform | [in'fɔ:m] |
想一想再看 v. 通知，告訴，向 ... 報(bào)告，告發(fā) |
聯(lián)想記憶 | |
| delicate | ['delikit] |
想一想再看 n. 精美的東西 |
||
| decent | ['di:snt] |
想一想再看 adj. 體面的，正派的，得體的，相當(dāng)好的 |
聯(lián)想記憶 | |
| impose | [im'pəuz] |
想一想再看 v. 加上，課征，強(qiáng)迫，征收(稅款) |
聯(lián)想記憶 | |
| logical | ['lɔdʒikəl] |
想一想再看 adj. 符合邏輯的，邏輯上的，有推理能力的 |
聯(lián)想記憶 |
- 閱讀本文的人還閱讀了：
