[2008.06.14] Let them heat coke 贫困人口的怨言

 Buttonwood
梧桐树专栏

Let them heat coke
贫困人口的怨言

Jun 12th 2008
From The Economist print edition

How green taxes hurt the poor
环保税对于贫困人口的负效应

AS SPANISH hauliers and French fishermen have shouted out for all the world to hear, higher fuel prices are not popular. This is uncomfortable for those-including this newspaper-who see increased taxation as a way of fighting global warming. Green taxes tend to fall hardest on the poor.
正如西班牙卡车司机和法国渔民所向全世界呼吁的那样，高油价并不受欢迎。包括这份报纸在内,对于那些希望借高额税收来抵抗全球变暖的人们来说，这令人感到不安.因为环保税给了这些穷人们重重一击。

You could see the rise in the oil price over the past five years as a gigantic carbon tax. It is, at last, succeeding in cutting demand in the developed world (although not yet in the developing one). But it has been extremely painful for some parts of society.
由于烟尘排放税，过去5年里原油价格有了显著上涨。虽然在发达国家里，这项措施对原油的需求获得了成功的抑制，但是这也无可避免地造成了某些社会阶层的痛苦。

There may be worse to come. Many climate experts favour the ambitious target of cutting carbon emissions by 80% before 2050. Technological change will help. But encouraging those new technologies may well call for higher energy taxes.
更糟的还在后面，很多气候学者希望在2050年之前把碳排放量减少80%，虽然依靠科技力量会有所帮助，但是科技的发展需要更高的能源税。

In America the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a cap-and-trade system, designed to cut emissions by 15%, would reduce the average income of the lowest quintile of the population by 3.3% and the richest quintile by just 1.7%.
在美国，国会预算办公室预计旨在将碳排放量减少15%的碳交易计划会将贫困家庭的收入减少3.3%，但是富裕家庭的收入只会损失1.7%。

The effect on the poor is not uniform; fewer drive cars, for example. But those that do spend a big part of their income on petrol. In 2007 Britain’s Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimated that a 5% rise in fuel duty would cut the income of the poorest decile of Britons by 0.27%; the richest decile would lose only 0.11%.
高油价所引发的效应对于穷人来说并不公平，比如，这部分人几乎不开车。但是他们却要为汽油买单。2007年，英国财政研究学会估计燃油供应量每上涨5%，贫困人口就会为此减少0.27%的收入，而富于人口就会为此减少0.11%的收入。

And although the poor may not all drive, they must all heat their houses in winter. According to an IFS paper* last year by Don Fullerton, Andrew Leicester and Stephen Smith, the poorest decile of British households spent 12% of their income on fuel in 2004, compared with just 4% for the richest decile. (It is a safe bet that the share has since risen.) In addition, the wealthy have more money to spend on products that improve energy efficiency, such as insulation and hybrid cars.
虽然穷人不开车，但是他们在冬天会取暖。去年英国财政研究学会的Don Fullerton, Andrew Leicester和Stephen Smith的一项研究指出，在2004年，英国的贫困人口会花费12%的收入用于燃料，而富人只会用于4%（这是一项保守的估计，显然这个份额会不断上升）。另外，富人们也会花更多的钱用于更节能的产品，比如隔热材料和混合动力汽车。

The link between fuel and food prices only worsens the burden on the poor. This has caught people’s attention because corn is being used as a biofuel. But oil is also a constituent of many fertilisers and the growth of emerging markets is affecting demand for both. Once again, the poor devote more of their budget to food than the wealthy do.
燃料和食品价格的紧密联系使得贫困人口的生活每况愈下。粮食用于生物燃料的消息引起人们的广泛关注。但是原油却是化肥的原料之一，并且新兴市场经济国家对于燃料和食品两者都有很大需求。但是，穷人对于食物的预算显然要比富人多。

The answer might seem simple. Let the green taxes rip and then compensate low earners by making more benefits available to them. A similar answer has been proposed for the adverse affects of globalisation; rather than restricting trade, governments should instead seek to cushion globalisation’s impact on those members of the population that lose.
似乎会有很简单的解决方案，让环保税分收入缴纳，另外对低收入者进行救济金补助。相似的解决方案着眼于全球化的负效应，与其限制交易，政府倒是应该保护那些低收入者尽量减少全球化对他们的影响。

A report** by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2004 suggested several ways to do this, for example by using a lower energy tariff for those on benefits or granting a free water allowance to some households. But the report came up against one difficulty. You could devise compensation packages that made the average poorer person better off. But widely differing uses of energy meant that around 20% of the poorest households would still lose out. In a way, governments would be faced with a similar problem to the one that bedevilled Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, earlier this year when he sought to abolish the country’s lowest rate of income tax. The change produced some losers, and their grievance counted for more than the gratitude of the numerous winners.
2004年Joseph Rowntree Foundation发布的一项报告中指出了解决这一问题的几种途径。比如，对受补助者适用低能源税，对某些家庭发放免费水使用许可。但是这项报告面临着一个困难。虽然有一揽子的补偿计划，但是由于能源存在极为广泛的使用，20%的贫困人口依然排出其外。在某种程度上，政府也面临同样的困境，备受困扰的英国首相布朗今年年初寻求废除低收入者的收入税，这个变化又造就了许多人利益受损，从而怨大于赞。

There would be other drawbacks with a tax-and-compensate system. If such an approach were means-tested, the effect would be to increase marginal tax rates for the poor (since benefits will be withdrawn as incomes rise). That will reduce incentives to work.
对于税收补偿计划，还有另外一个缺陷。如果一个方案意味着贫寒证明书的话，那么贫困人口将承担由于上述措施所至税差增大所带来的影响（随着收入增加，会停止这项补助），这样的话，反倒会削减工作的积极性。

Even if the benefits are not means-tested, they may counteract the effect of higher taxes on energy demand. In Britain, for example, all pensioners are given a winter-fuel allowance. But it seems odd to try to prevent energy use with higher taxes on the one hand and then to subsidise it on the other.
即使这项补助不意味着贫寒证明书，也将对应对高能源需求的高税收产生反作用。比如在英国，所有的退休人员都收到冬季却暖许可。但一方面使用高税收来阻止对于能源的需求，另一方面却发放补助，这就匪夷所思了。

The fundamental problem is difficult to get round. If governments desire people to use less energy, they have to ration supply by price. They can limit frivolous use (gas-guzzling cars, televisions on standby and the like). But there may be a core demand for energy (heat, light, commuting) where consumers will resist cuts. For that part, the rich will always be able to outbid the poor (not to mention the politically powerful middle class). And that will plague green campaigners.
基本的问题是分配上的困难。如果政府希望民众少用能源，那么就不得不用价格来实现定量配给。虽然政府可以限制不必要的能源使用（高耗油汽车，待机电视和诸如此类的东西）。但是在涉及必要的情况下（取暖，照明和公共交通），消费者就会有所抵制。但是在必要使用这一部分，富人将总能够出价高与穷人（当然不包括那些政治力量雄厚的中产阶级），这将是困扰环保人士的一大问题。

译者：chinapot   http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12075&extra=page%3D1