(单词翻译:单击)
Emissions intensity is not the same as emissions.
排放强度并不等同于排放。
French fossil fuel giant Total, for example, cut their emissions intensity by 6% but its total emissions rose by 8%.
例如，法国化石燃料巨头道达尔（Total）将其排放强度降低了6%，但其总排放量上升了8%。
And with a target 30 years in the future and very little enforcement protocols, BP can push the consequences of its climate destruction down the line all while profiting off its green image.
有了未来30年的目标和非常少的执法协议，英国石油公司可以在从其绿色形象中获利的同时，将其气候破坏的后果推向尽头。
In short, net-zero emissions doesn't mean zero emissions. And BP knows it.
简而言之，净零排放与零排放的含义不同。英国石油公司对此心知肚明。
BP is an extreme example of how companies abuse the loopholes of the net-zero framework.
英国石油公司是企业滥用净零框架漏洞的一个极端例子。
But in a capitalist global economy, profit and competition incentivizes this kind of greenwashing and political trickery.
但在资本主义的全球经济中，利润和竞争刺激了这种“漂绿”和政治诡计。
Under capitalism it's easier to make more money claiming you're not polluting than actually not polluting.
在资本主义下，声称自己没有污染比实际没有污染更容易赚到更多的钱。
As we've just seen, most net-zero climate targets fail to truly face the climate crisis head-on.
正如我们刚刚看到的，大多数净零气候目标未能真正直面气候危机。
Instead of focusing on emissions reductions, which is a sure way of minimizing the amount of greenhouse gases in the air,
没有专注于减排，这是将空气中的温室气体含量降至最低的可靠方式,
net-zero plans often rely on carbon capture and sequestration strategies, which either come in the form of natural offsetting through tree planting or technologies like direct air capture, which are currently impractical at scale.
净零计划通常依赖于碳捕获和封存战略，它们要么通过植树来自然抵消，要么采用直接空气捕获等技术，这些技术目前在规模上是不切实际的。
In the case of nature-based sequestration, most offsetting is doing more harm than good.
就以自然为基础的碳封存而言，大多数抵消措施弊大于利。
In a propublica investigative piece, journalist Lisa Song writes: if the world were graded on the historic reliability of carbon offsets, the result would be a solid F.
记者丽莎·宋在一篇公开的调查文章中写道：如果按照碳抵消的历史可靠性对世界进行评级，结果将是坚实的F。
She goes on to cite reports like a 2015 paper revealing that 75% of carbon offsets from one carbon trading scheme were unlikely to represent real reductions
她接着引用了一些报告，比如2015年的一篇论文，该论文揭示了一个碳交易计划75%的碳抵消不太可能代表真正的减排。
and that if countries had cut pollution on site instead of relying on offsets, global carbon emissions would have been 600 million tons lower.
如果各国能就地减少污染，而不是依靠抵消，全球碳排放量就会减少6亿吨。
In addition, natural sequestration in the form of tree planting and forest preservation are fueling new forms of green colonialism.
此外，以植树造林和森林保护的形式进行的自然封存正在助长绿色殖民主义的新形式。
Buying up and "preserving" huge tracts of land often in the imperial periphery corporations and countries push local residents off of forests or grasslands that they might have lived on for decades.
帝国周边的公司和国家购买和“保护”大片土地通常迫使当地居民离开他们可能生活了几十年的森林或草原。
But even if those nature-based carbon sequestration schemes were somehow effective, the sheer scale needed to make up for business as usual emissions is ecologically impossible.
但是，即使这些基于自然的碳封存计划在某种程度上是有效的，弥补一切照常排放所需要的巨大规模在生态上是不可能的。
In its quest to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, Royal Dutch Shell plans to deploy more carbon offsets by 2030 than were available globally in 2019.
在寻求到2050年实现净零排放的过程中，荷兰皇家壳牌（Royal Dutch Shell）计划到2030年在全球部署比2019年更多的碳抵消。
And that's just for one company and won't even make up for all of Shell's emissions.
这只是一家公司的碳抵消，甚至还不足以弥补壳牌的全部排放量。
So at the end of the day, net-zero targets are greenwashing at best.
因此，归根结底，净零目标充其量是在“漂绿”。
And at worst they work to lock in decades of inaction and give rise to colonial land grabs masquerading as carbon sequestration schemes.
在最坏的情况下，他们的工作是锁定数十年的不作为，并导致伪装成碳封存计划的殖民土地掠夺。
Given the inefficacy of net-zero, how do we carve a path towards real zero emissions?
考虑到净零排放的无效，我们如何开辟一条通往真正零排放的道路呢？
Future goals must be focused on eliminating emissions.
未来的目标必须集中在消除排放上。
There's no two ways about it.
这件事没有两条路可走。
Only ambitious emissions reduction schemes from the imperial core and multinational corporations can pull us back from the precipice of climate chaos.
只有帝国核心和跨国公司的雄心勃勃的减排计划才能把我们从气候混乱的悬崖上拉回来。
Real zero emissions targets force us to come to grips with destructive capitalist pursuits.
真正的零排放目标迫使我们正视破坏性的资本主义追求。
This means keeping all fossil fuels in the ground.
这意味着将所有化石燃料都埋在地下。
It also means building a 100% renewable world instead of fossil fuels replacing industrial agriculture with agroecological permaculture and embracing a simpler life instead of a consumerist one.
它还意味着建立一个100%可再生能源而不是化石燃料的世界，用农业生态永续养殖取代工业化农业，拥抱更简单的生活，而不是消费主义的生活。
But while we strive for a real zero world, we must reduce the harm of false net-zero targets.
但是，在我们努力实现真正的零世界的同时，我们必须减少虚假的净零目标的危害。
That means pushing for transparent pathways, tangible milestones or even as one paper argues separating targets for emissions reductions and negative emissions.
这意味着推动透明的途径、有形的里程碑，甚至正如一篇论文所主张的那样，将减排目标与负排放分开。
Because at their core, net-zero targets are a gamble.
因为从本质上讲，净零目标是一场赌博。
And if we're playing for the lives of billions of people, that gamble just isn't worth the risk.
如果我们是在为数十亿人的生命而赌，那么这场赌博就不值得冒这个险。
