正文翻譯
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：s555555555 轉載請註明出處
It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.
眾所周知，美國人消耗的自然資源要比世界上任何其他大國的人多得多，生活的可持續性也要差得多。“在美國出生的孩子對生態產生的破壞是出生在巴西孩子的13倍”美環保組織塞拉俱樂部的戴夫·蒂爾福德報告補充稱，美國人均消耗資源是印度人均消耗資源的35倍而消費的商品和服務是中國人的53倍。
Tilford cites a litany of sobering statistics showing just how profligate Americans have been in using and abusing natural resources. For example, between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17. “With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports. “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.”
蒂爾福德引用了一長串發人深省的統計數據，顯示出美國人在使用和浪費自然資源方面是多麼地揮霍無度。例如，從1900年到1989年，美國人口增長了兩倍，而原材料的使用量則增長了17倍。他說:“美國人口不到世界人口的5%，卻使用了世界上三分之一的紙張、四分之一的石油、23%的煤炭、27%的鋁和19%的銅。”“我們對能源、金屬、礦產、林產品、魚類、穀物、肉類甚至淡水的人均使用，讓發展中國家的人相形見絀。”
Overall, National Geographic’s Greendex found that American consumers rank last of 17 countries surveyed in regard to sustainable behavior. Furthermore, the study found that U.S. consumers are among the least likely to feel guilty about the impact they have on the environment, yet they are near to top of the list in believing that individual choices could make a difference.
總體而言，《國家地理》的綠色指數發現，在17個接受調查的國家中，美國消費者在可持續行為方面排名墊底。此外，研究還發現，美國消費者對自己對環境造成的影響最不可能感到內疚，但他們相信個人的選擇可以帶來改變，這一點幾乎排在首位。
Paradoxically, those with the lightest environmental footprint are also the most likely to feel both guilty and disempowered. “In what may be a major disconnect between perception and behavior, the study also shows that consumers who feel the guiltiest about their impact—those in China, India and Brazil—actually lead the pack in sustainable consumer choices,” says National Geographic’s Terry Garcia, who coordinates the annual Greendex study. “That’s despite Chinese and Indian consumers also being among the least confident that individual action can help the environment.”
矛盾的是，那些對環境影響最小的人也最有可能感到內疚和無助。國家地理雜誌的特里·加西亞負責協調這項年度綠色消費者調查，他說:“研究還表明，那些對自己的影響感到最內疚的消費者——那些來自中國、印度和巴西的消費者——實際上在選擇可持續的消費品方面處於領先地位。”“儘管中國和印度的消費者對個人行動能夠改善環境的信心也是最低的。”
On average, one American consumes as much energy as
就人均而言，一個美國人消費的能源相當於：
o 2 Japanese 日本人的2倍
o 6 Mexicans 墨西哥人的6倍
o 13 Chinese 中國人的13倍
o 31 Indians 印度人的31倍
o 128 Bangladeshis 孟加拉人的128倍
o 307 Tanzanians 坦桑尼亞人的307倍
o 370 Ethiopians 埃塞俄比亞人的370倍
The average American individual daily consumption of water is 159 gallons, while more than half the world''''s population lives on 25 gallons.
美國人平均每天消耗159加侖的水，而世界上一半以上的人口每天只消耗25加侖的水。
How much energy does the average American consume? Well, if you list the countries of the world in order by their population , the U.S. comes in third... but the combined energy consumption of the other five largest added together doesn''''t match U.S. energy consumption! In other words, the 5% of the world''''s population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries.
美國人平均消耗多少能源?好吧，如果你把世界上的國家按人口數量排序，美國排在第三…但是另外五個最大的國家加起來的能源消耗總和還趕不上美國的能源消耗！換句話說，居住在美國的5%的世界人口比居住在其他五個最大國家加起來51%的世界人口對環境的影響更大。
Next time you hear about a woman in India who has seven children, remember that she''''d have to have more than 20 children to match the impact of an American woman with just one child. And an immigrant who moves to the U.S. is likely to consume far more energy just by moving here. Even if he scrimps and saves energy at home, every thing he buys will increase consumption of energy and other resources.
下次當你聽說一個印度婦女有七個孩子時，記住她必須有20個以上的孩子才能達到美國婦女只有一個孩子的影響。而一個移民到美國的人只要搬到這裡就可能消耗更多的能源。即使他在家裡節約能源，他買的每一樣東西都會增加能源和其他資源的消耗。
評論翻譯
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：s555555555 轉載請註明出處
meninblacksuvs
Yes exactly. Also while we have a huge energy resource footprint, developed nations also have infrastructure and a functioning educated society governed by laws, where we could begin forcing efficiency.
Many countries do not, and people only have a smaller footprint because they aren''''t able to get more resources by any means. I am pretty sure these stats are not very well thought out in any case. A couple small examples. What about dynamite fishing, or dumping toxins into the ground Those happen daily all over the planet where people are impoverished. That doesn''''t happen much at all in a developed nation. That kind of damage is not just inefficiency it''''s permanent destruction. That kind of thing isn''''t accounted for, there''''s just no comparison.
是的,沒錯。儘管我們擁有巨大的能源足跡，但發達國家也擁有基礎設施和一個正常運轉的、受教育的法治社會，在這樣的社會里人類才可以有效率。
許多國家沒有效率，人們的足跡也更小，因為他們無法獲得更多的資源。我很確定這些數據在任何情況下都是不能完全反映真實情況的。舉幾個小例子。在這個星球上，人們每天都在貧窮的地方發生著用炸藥炸魚或向地下傾倒毒素汙染的事情。這在發達國家根本不會發生。這種損害不僅是效率低下，而且是永久性的破壞。這類事情沒有考慮在內，沒有可比性。
IBeLikeDudesBeLikeEr
so instead of counting heads count ecological footprint. Great. We''''re still massively overpopulated.
現在又不談數量談什麼生態足跡了。很好，我們美國人果然還是太多了呢。
mehum
The Western standard of living isn’t wrong; it’s the Western style of living that creates the problems. Nothing wrong with wanting enough food, good healthcare and a decent education. Plenty wrong with a disposable trash lifestyle which derives its wealth by robbing future generations.
Generally speaking as people’s standard of living increases, birth rates decline. This is a good thing. We should be having kids out of love, not as a retirement plan.
西方的生活標準沒有錯;是西方的生活方式造成了這些問題。想要足夠的食物、良好的醫療和良好的教育沒有錯。用了就扔的一次性生活方式是大錯特錯，是在掠奪子孫後代的財富。
一般來說，隨著人們生活水平的提高，出生率下降。這是一件好事。我們應該出於愛來生孩子，而不是把孩子當作退休養老計劃。
1920sremastered
There''''s a difference between "we should all pollute less by doing xyz as suggested by the UN" and "America doesn''''t have to cut its emissions until those billions of Indians stop existing." The latter is seen all over reddit, even here, as well as in the mainstream media. And that is racist. Suggesting that an entire culture is responsible for a global crisis, and that oddly enough, the millions of Americans driving SUVS and eating beef three times a day is a drop in the bucket, is racist. And racism is the fundamental base for fascism, and since we''''re all worried about the rise of eco-fascism in its many forms, we should be trying to discredit this shit whenever we see it.
“我們都應該像聯合國建議的那樣，通過做某某事來減少汙染”和“在數十億印度人停止排放之前，美國不需要削減排放”是有區別的。後者在reddit上隨處可見，甚至在這裡，以及在主流媒體上。這就是種族主義。而這樣荒誕不經的整體文化可能就是造成全球環境危機的罪魁禍首，說每天開越野車吃三次牛肉的數百萬美國人只是很小一部分人類的行為，簡直就是種族主義。種族主義是法西斯主義的基礎，既然我們都在擔心各種形態生態的環境法西斯主義的崛起，我們就應該在看到它的時候努力敗壞它的名聲。
閱讀更多 龍騰網看世界 的文章
