報(bào)告稱，超低排放區(qū)幫助倫敦比英國(guó)其他地區(qū)更快地減少了道路污染

shysaver
Was working in London this week and definitely noticed loads of EVs, way more than what you'd see in my home city, along with the electric buses and vans, at least in Zone 1.
although I'd probably attribute it to the discount you get on congestion charge for driving a BEV, and from my understanding that will get scrapped next year.

這周我在倫敦工作，絕對(duì)注意到大量的電動(dòng)汽車，比你在我的家鄉(xiāng)看到的要多得多，還有電動(dòng)公交車和貨車，至少在一區(qū)是這樣。
盡管我可能會(huì)把它歸因于駕駛純電動(dòng)汽車的擁堵費(fèi)折扣，但據(jù)我所知，這項(xiàng)政策明年將被取消。

limited8Greater London
London has installed far more EV charge points than the rest of the UK as a result of the Mayor’s policies, enabling far greater uptake of EVs than the rest of the country. London hosts more than 1/3 of all the UK’s charge points, despite only hosting 13% of the population. Other cities could do it too — it comes down to political will, which is woefully lacking from most mayors.

由于市長(zhǎng)的政策，倫敦已經(jīng)安裝了比英國(guó)其他地區(qū)更多的電動(dòng)汽車充電站，使得電動(dòng)汽車的使用率遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于英國(guó)其他地區(qū)。倫敦?fù)碛杏?guó)超過三分之一的充電站，盡管倫敦人口只占英國(guó)總?cè)丝诘?3%。其他城市也可以這樣做——?dú)w根結(jié)底是政治意愿，但大多數(shù)市長(zhǎng)都嚴(yán)重缺乏政治意愿。

LifeMasterpiece6475
If you live and work in a city public transport works, if you don't it doesn't. Especially if you need to cross a country border.

如果你在城市生活和工作，那么公共交通就有用，如果你不是，那它就沒用。尤其是當(dāng)你需要跨越國(guó)界的時(shí)候。

Happytallperson
I've literally caught commuter trains that cross borders. International rail is not some mythic concept.

我真的搭過跨國(guó)界的通勤火車。國(guó)際鐵路并不是什么神話般的概念。

Greenawayer
Also, if you live on the fringes of a city public transport rarely works well as the centre of that city.

此外，如果你住在城市的邊緣，公共交通很少能像城市的中心那樣好用。

merryman1
That's where urban planning comes in though right? Something we seem shockingly bad at. I lived in Clifton near Nottingham for a while and honestly their tram network felt fucking revolutionary. But just felt wild being able to live right outside a city and have something that reliably turned up every ~10 minutes and got you into the center of the city with no traffic or delays or even having to keep aware of where your stop was.

這就是城市規(guī)劃的由來，對(duì)吧？這是我們非常不擅長(zhǎng)的。我在諾丁漢附近的克利夫頓住過一段時(shí)間，老實(shí)說，他們的有軌電車網(wǎng)絡(luò)感覺很tmd有革命性。但是能住在城市外面感覺很瘋狂，每隔10分鐘就會(huì)有一些可靠的東西出現(xiàn)，帶你進(jìn)入城市中心，沒有交通堵塞，也沒有延誤，甚至不必知道你的站在哪里。

Sammy91-91
Make it unaffordable to drive, pollution goes down.
Let’s make flights 1000% more expensive then we’ll achieve more!

讓人們買不起汽車，污染就會(huì)減少。
讓我們把航班價(jià)格提高1000%，然后我們會(huì)取得更多成就！

Careful_Ad265
This but unironically

就是這個(gè)，真不諷刺

HereticLaserHaggis
I'm curious, do you mean that? Only the rich can travel? That's the world you want to live in?

我很好奇，你是這個(gè)意思嗎？只有富人才能旅行？這就是你想生活的世界嗎？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Manxymanx
Tbh air travel in many places is way too affordable considering the actual cost it is to operate a plane and the environmental damage it causes down the line that taxpayers will inevitably have to pay to fix when ocean levels start to rise and temperatures increase. It hasn’t happened in the UK yet but if you look at countries like Japan and the US, planes are actually cheaper to use than trains… The environmental damage pricing policies like that cause is probably horrific.
If we want to curb climate change we will need to cut back on flights. Either prices will need to rise high enough to discourage a lot of air traffic and to invest in green energy and the likes. Or we need to add a cap on how many flights a year people can take or how many miles they can fly. It also might be a good idea to restrict where you can get flights to. Why should you be allowed to fly somewhere that is easily accessible by train or boat? Like seriously why the fuck do we have flights between London and Birmingham/Manchester?
None of this will ever happen. But if you want to be serious about climate change then crying about how we shouldn’t have any restrictions in our lifestyles isn’t the way to go about it. Especially when planes are one of the worst contributors to emissions.

考慮到運(yùn)營(yíng)飛機(jī)的實(shí)際成本和它所造成的環(huán)境破壞，當(dāng)海平面開始上升和氣溫升高時(shí)，納稅人將不可避免地不得不支付修復(fù)費(fèi)用，許多地方的航空旅行都過于便宜了。這在英國(guó)還沒有發(fā)生，但如果你看看像日本和美國(guó)這樣的國(guó)家，飛機(jī)票價(jià)實(shí)際上比火車更便宜……這種對(duì)環(huán)境造成破壞的定價(jià)政策可能是可怕的。
如果我們想遏制氣候變化，我們就需要減少航班。無論是哪種價(jià)格，都需要漲到足夠高的水平，以抑制大量的空中交通，并投資于綠色能源等等。或者我們需要對(duì)人們一年可以乘坐多少次航班或飛行多少英里增加一個(gè)上限。限制你可以乘坐航班的地方可能也是一個(gè)好主意。為什么你要被允許飛到一個(gè)很容易坐火車或輪船到達(dá)的地方？說真的，為什么我們要開通倫敦和伯明翰/曼徹斯特之間的航班？
這一切都不會(huì)發(fā)生。但是，如果你想認(rèn)真對(duì)待氣候變化問題，那么叫嚷我們的生活方式不應(yīng)該有任何限制，這是行不通的。尤其是當(dāng)飛機(jī)是排放最嚴(yán)重的貢獻(xiàn)者之一時(shí)。

tomoldbury
We do need to clean up air travel. The problem is it's very unlikely that air travel will ever operate on anything other than hydrocarbon fuels, simply because the energy density of these fuels is so high. Electric aircraft are non-viable beyond very short haul low passenger number flights (think a flight to the Shetland Isles for instance). Hydrogen aircraft have many significant technical hurdles to overcome and most aircraft manufacturers have scaled back their hydrogen research due to these challenges.
The best way forward is sustainable aviation fuel, which is either synthetically produced hydrocarbon fuels (produced from a Fischer-Tropsch reaction) or biofuels when produced from genuinely carbon negative sources.
Thankfully the EU have introduced legislation which will ratchet up the requirements for SAF in aircraft. Unfortunately, it's starting quite low, at only 2% in 2025 and up to 70% in 2050. And there doesn't seem to be any requirement on flights that fly into the EU.
This needs to be tightened up and accelerated but it is at least good step. A full carbon tax would further accelerate development.

我們確實(shí)需要整頓航空旅行。問題是，除了碳?xì)浠衔锶剂?，航空旅行幾乎不可能使用其他燃料，因?yàn)榍罢叩哪芰棵芏群芨?。除了載客量很低的短途航班（比如飛往設(shè)得蘭群島的航班），電動(dòng)飛機(jī)是不可用的。氫燃料飛機(jī)有許多重大的技術(shù)障礙需要克服，由于這些挑戰(zhàn)，大多數(shù)飛機(jī)制造商已經(jīng)縮減了氫燃料的研究力度。
最好的出路是可持續(xù)的航空燃料，這種燃料要么是合成的碳?xì)浠衔锶剂希ㄓ少M(fèi)托反應(yīng)產(chǎn)生），要么是由真正的負(fù)碳源生產(chǎn)的生物燃料。
值得慶幸的是，歐盟已經(jīng)出臺(tái)了立法，將逐步提高對(duì)飛機(jī)可持續(xù)航空燃料的要求。不幸的是，這一比例很低，2025年僅為2%，到2050年將達(dá)到70%。而且似乎對(duì)飛往歐盟的航班沒有任何要求。
這需要加強(qiáng)和加速，但這至少是良好的一步。全面征收碳稅將進(jìn)一步加速發(fā)展。

OnlyBritishPatriot
There's a proposal called the "frequent flyer tax". You or me or anyone else might get 6 flights a year -- three overseas holidays, which is a fair amount! Any more than that you pay a carbon tax, steadily rising until you are paying the true cost of your air travel in terms of ecological damage.

有一項(xiàng)提案叫做“頻繁旅客稅”。你、我或任何其他人一年可能有6次航班——3次海外假期，這其實(shí)相當(dāng)多了！超過這個(gè)數(shù)，你就要繳納碳排放稅，這個(gè)稅會(huì)穩(wěn)步上升，直到你為你的航空旅行支付了真正的生態(tài)破壞成本。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

tomoldbury
I'd also like to see the law changed around business travelers. If you fly on business and expense the airfare, you shouldn't be able to get any kind of personal "points" for such a flight. The awarding of such points, which many companies permit in their expense rules, creates an incentive to fly more often than truly necessary.

我也希望看到有關(guān)商務(wù)旅行者的法律有所改變。如果你乘飛機(jī)出差并支付機(jī)票費(fèi)用，你就不應(yīng)該獲得任何形式的個(gè)人“積分”。許多公司在其報(bào)銷規(guī)定中允許這樣的積分獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)，這會(huì)激勵(lì)人們比實(shí)際需要更頻繁地乘坐飛機(jī)。

OkTear9244
What an idiotic comment. Do you really think people fly on business solely to collect points ? Clients insist on face to face contact so you simply have travel.

多么愚蠢的評(píng)論。你真的認(rèn)為人們乘飛機(jī)出差只是為了攢積分嗎？客戶堅(jiān)持面對(duì)面接觸，所以你只能出差。

tomoldbury
I am absolutely certain some do it in part for points, given the sales guy I work with was bragging about the air miles he has got from his trips all across the world, which allowed him and his partner to fly to Asia for very little. I am not saying business travel is no go, but we should not create incentives for it like that!
If it is not a perverse incentive then there should be no issue with banning the collection of personal points for business travel, right?

我絕對(duì)肯定，有些人這樣做就是為了積分，因?yàn)榕c我一起工作的銷售人員吹噓他在世界各地旅行所積累的航空里程，這些里程使他和他的伙伴可以花很少的錢飛到亞洲。我并不是說商務(wù)旅行不可行，但我們不應(yīng)該為它創(chuàng)造這樣的激勵(lì)機(jī)制！
如果這不是一種不正當(dāng)?shù)募?lì)，那么禁止為商務(wù)旅行收集個(gè)人積分應(yīng)該就沒什么不對(duì)，對(duì)吧？

plawwell
Ulez just makes those empty roads the speedways for those who can afford to pay the penalty. The rich toffs and hangers on who now have uninterrupted access to roads that the common man on the street pays for. Remember that next time you are waiting on the bus.

超低排放區(qū)只是把那些空曠的道路變成了那些能付得起罰款的人的高速公路。那些有錢的紈绔子弟現(xiàn)在可以不受干擾地使用街道上的普通百姓支付建設(shè)費(fèi)用的道路了。下次你在等公共汽車的時(shí)候，記住這一點(diǎn)。

RawLizard
Londoners are also about the only bit of the country that can afford electric cars...
On my road, not even that far from London, along the M4, I would say the majority of cars are pre-2013.
People don't have 10s of thousands to splash out on electrics.
The cherry on top? Londoners have a scrappage scheme, the rest of the country doesn't. Even in places where schemes as restrictive as ULEZ are being rolled out.

倫敦人也是這個(gè)國(guó)家唯一買得起電動(dòng)汽車的人。
我在離倫敦不遠(yuǎn)的M4公路上行駛，我覺得大多數(shù)車都是2013年以前的車。
人們沒有幾萬英鎊的錢來砸在電車上。
錦上添花？倫敦人有舊車報(bào)廢計(jì)劃，而英國(guó)其他地方?jīng)]有。即使在像超低排放區(qū)這樣的限制性計(jì)劃正在推行的地方。

brajandzesika
Heathrow Airport is the single largest polluter in UK, and one of the largest in the World. That ULEZ rules make very small difference, as it concentrates only on cars which make small percentage of the Londons pollution problem...

希思羅機(jī)場(chǎng)是英國(guó)最大的污染源，也是世界上最大的污染源之一。超低排放區(qū)規(guī)定的影響很小，因?yàn)樗会槍?duì)汽車，而汽車在倫敦污染問題中所占的比例很小。

Garfie489Greater London
The focus is on air quality, not pollution overall

重點(diǎn)是空氣質(zhì)量，而不是整體污染

brajandzesika
Heathrow is champion in both categories, not sure what your point is...

希思羅機(jī)場(chǎng)在這兩方面都是冠軍，不知道你的意思是什么……
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

limited8Greater London
Heathrow and aviation in general aren’t a major contributor to local air pollution levels in London, even if they contribute to the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions as a whole.

希思羅機(jī)場(chǎng)和航空業(yè)總體上不是倫敦當(dāng)?shù)乜諝馕廴舅降闹饕暙I(xiàn)者，盡管它們對(duì)英國(guó)整體溫室氣體排放有所貢獻(xiàn)。

SDLRob
or maybe build a rail line that means you can erase internal UK flights, remove cars from the roads and get more freight on the tracks

或者修建一條鐵路線，這意味著你可以消除英國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)的航班，從道路上移除汽車，而讓鐵路上的貨物更多
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

PropitiousNog
Next, we will all be locked up at home to prevent any pollution.

接下來，我們都將被鎖在家里，以防止任何污染。