正文翻譯
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：jiangye111 轉載請註明出處
Convert half of UK farmland to nature to fight the climate crisis and restore wildlife, urges top scientist
-New woodlands and wild places are needed to fight climate crisis and improve people’s health
頂級科學家呼籲，將英國一半的農田退耕還林，以應對氣候危機，恢復野生動物數量
——應對氣候危機和改善人們的健康需要新的林地和野生環境
(Converting the farmland would create new landscapes across a third of the country.)
（改造農田將在全國三分之一的地區創造新的地貌景觀。）（譯註：奔跑著歡快羚羊的英國大地……）
新聞：
Half of the nation’s farmland needs to be transformed into woodlands and natural habitat to fight the climate crisis and restore wildlife, according to a former chief scientific adviser to the UK government.
英國政府一位前首席科學顧問表示，需要將英國一半的農田改造成林地和自然棲息地，以應對氣候危機，恢復野生動物。
Prof Sir Ian Boyd said such a change could mean the amount of cattle and sheep would fall by 90%, with farmers instead being paid for storing carbon dioxide, helping prevent floods and providing beautiful landscapes where people could boost their health and wellbeing.
伊恩·博伊德教授表示，這樣的變化可能意味著牛羊的數量將減少90%，而農民將獲得儲存二氧化碳，從而幫助預防洪水，並提供人們可以在那裡增進健康和福祉的美麗風景的補償費用。
He said the 20% of food production lost by converting half of farmland could be made up by the development of vertical farms, where food is produced indoors in controlled and more efficient conditions. Boyd said: “I know there are big companies looking at how to really scale this up.”
他說，將一半的農田改造成農田所損失的20%的糧食產量可以通過發展立體農場來彌補，在立體農場中，糧食是在室內控制和更有效的條件下生產的。博伊德說：“我知道有一些大公司正在考慮如何真正擴大生產規模。”
A series of studies have concluded that people in rich nations need to eat much less meat to tackle the climate emergency and improve their health. “Most of the livestock production in the UK is unprofitable without public subsidy,” said Boyd. “The public are subsidising the production of livestock to produce huge environmental damages, all the way from greenhouse gas emissions to water pollution. Why should we continue to do that? It’s not sensible.
一系列研究得出結論，富裕國家的人們需要少吃肉來應對氣候緊急情況，改善健康狀況。博伊德說：“要是沒有公共補貼，英國大部分的畜牧業都是無利可圖的。從溫室氣體排放到水汙染，政府一直在補貼牲畜的生產，造成了巨大的環境破壞。我們為什麼要繼續這樣做呢？這不是明智的做法。”
“If anybody asked me: ‘If there is one thing I can do to help save the planet, what would it be?’ I would say just eat a lot less meat. It’s the easiest thing to do. I’ve done it.”
“如果有人問我：‘如果我能為拯救地球做一件事，我會做什麼？’我想說的是少吃肉。這是最簡單的方法。我照做了。”
People could reduce the meat they eat by 90% and have a perfectly balanced diet, Boyd said: “Freeing up 50% of the land would probably result in a reduction in the amount of livestock by about that amount, because it would be mostly livestock land we would be taking out of production.”
人們可以減少他們90%的吃肉量，並有一個完美平衡的飲食，博伊德說：“騰出50%的土地可能會導致牲畜數量大約相應量的減少，因為我們將要停止生產的大部分都是牲畜用地。”
Farmers should be paid for changing the way land is used, he said. Current subsidies are largely based on the amount of land owned, but the government has pledged it will “move to a system based on public money for public goods” after the UK leaves the EU’s subsidy regime.
他說，農民應該為改變土地使用方式而獲得報酬。目前的補貼主要基於擁有的土地面積，但政府承諾，在英國退出歐盟補貼機制後，將“轉向一個基於公共資金購買公共產品的體系”。
Boyd said: “This proposal is not about being negative about farmers. It’s about being positive about their futures and helping them to adapt and continue providing support for society, but in a different way from in the past.”
博伊德稱：“這項提案並不是要否定農民。而是要對他們的未來持積極態度，幫助他們適應並繼續為社會提供支持，只是方式與過去不同而已。”
評論翻譯
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：jiangye111 轉載請註明出處
[–]xjalw478949p
Great Britain is a small island. Years ago now our energy consumption was already 1.25 watts per metre squared available land. Our energy consumption will grow by at least 40% over the next 25 years.
You could make everything from the South coast to somewhere near Birmingham one big solar farm and we could be energy independent for a few decades at least, but I doubt ''''the electorate'''' would go for that.
In terms of attempting to pro-actively combat climate change reforestation is probably the only realistic option we have (based on the actual evidence so far, rather than the basic assessment that ''''yes, that should be possible from an engineering point of view'''', we should forget BECCS, but even if you don''''t forget BECCS, under best case scenarios elephant grass only yields half a watt per meter squared (and that is in the tropics, not Northern Europe) so how is the UK supposed to cover its energy needs and food production)?
At some point something has to give. It gives bit by bit, quality of life declines. People get used to their new reality. Zero hours contracts become acceptable. Choosing between heating and bathing becomes normal.
At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, our economic and political systems amount to little more than ''''get what you can and fuck the weak and the poor''''. Poor people voting against immigration in the UK is simple self preservation. I wish it wasn''''t the case, but these are emergent properties of the political liberalism we have (now little more than barely disguised economic liberalism). The race to the bottom is on. Full speed ahead! We are riding this sort straight off the nearest cliff!
The alternative is to change our political and economic systems. Does one care to try this (and I am talking about nothing violent or anything, just simple activism, changing the system from within)? Or does one say ''''fuck it, we are going to evolve through crisis. Most of the humans in positions of wealth or power are simply not good enough, and they are protected by police and military personnel who, batons raised, pepper spray at the ready are certainly not good enough - at least in this context - so we will get what we deserve''''.
英國是一個小島。幾年前，我們的能源消耗已經是每平方米1.25瓦特。我們的能源消耗在未來25年將至少增長40%。
你可以把從南部海岸到伯明翰附近的任何地方都建成一個大型太陽能發電廠，我們至少可以在幾十年內實現能源獨立，但我懷疑“選民們”是否會為此努力。
就積極主動地應對氣候變化而言，重新造林可能是我們唯一現實的選擇（根據到目前為止的實際證據，而不是基於“是的，從工程的角度來看，這應該是可能的”這一基本評估，我們應該忘記生物能碳捕捉與封存技術，但即使你不忘記該技術，在最好的情況下，象草每平方米只能產生半瓦功率（而且這還是在熱帶地區，而不是北歐）），因此，英國應該如何滿足其能源需求和糧食生產呢？
在某種程度上，有些東西必須放棄。一點一點地放棄，生活質量下降。人們習慣了新的現實。零時工合同變得可以接受。在取暖和洗澡之間二選一變得很正常。
在當前和可預見的未來，我們的經濟和政治制度不過是“盡你所能去撈，去tmd弱者和窮人”。在英國，窮人投票反對移民就是簡單的自我保護。我希望事實並非如此，但這些都是我們所擁有的政治自由主義（如今只不過是幾乎不加掩飾的經濟自由主義）的突現特徵。逐底競爭已經開始了。全速前進！我們正從最近的懸崖上直衝下去！
另一種選擇是改變我們的政治和經濟體制。有人願意嘗試一下嗎（我說的不是暴力或其他什麼，只是簡單的激進主義，從內部改變體制）？或者有人會說，“去tmd，我們將在危機中發展。大多數擁有財富或權力的人根本不夠好，他們受到警察和軍事人員的保護，他們舉起警棍，準備好胡椒噴霧，當然不夠好——至少在這種情況下——所以我們會爭取我們應得的”。
[–]justalongbowguy
The decline is already evident. In the UK, the life expectancy has already dropped, and the US isn’t faring well either. We have already peaked, and it seems it’s only downhill from here.
下降已經很明顯了。在英國，預期壽命已經下降，美國的情況也不太好。我們已經觸頂了，似乎只會繼續下滑。
[–]Dixnorkel
Great Britain is a small island now, but was only a small part of Doggerland.
英國現在是一個小島，但以前只是“多格蘭”的一小部分（譯註：北海深處發現的類似亞特蘭蒂斯的遺址。“多格蘭”是一個巨大的陸地的名字，它在至少8500年前被淹沒在海洋中。它證明了現在英國的島嶼曾經與歐洲其他地區相連。）。
[–]xjalw478949p
Wait, are you a Doggerland separatist or something?
等下，你是多格蘭分離主義者或其他什麼人嗎？
[–]hopeitwillgetbetter
Well, if climate change keeps throwing extreme weather curved balls all over the place, more farmers will have no choice but to give up on farming. Which means the land will be left alone regardless.
Even industrial farming already has trouble making a profit. The Biggest Little Farm documentary for example is about a sustainable farm which spent a lot of money and like 7 years to repair very badly degraded soil.
The Sustainability doc also featured a farm with soil so abused that the sustainable type farmer who bought it was thought a fool. They managed to heal the soil.
I suppose a silver lining is that farming will get more and more difficult-expensive that finally the only option are sustainable methods.
好吧，如果氣候變化繼續把極端天氣的曲線球扔得到處都是，更多的農民將別無選擇，只能放棄耕作。這意味著不管怎樣，這片土地都將被遺棄。
即使是工業化的農業也很難盈利。例如，《最大的小農場》紀錄片是講一個可持續的農場的，它花了很多錢，花了7年的時間來修復嚴重退化的土壤。
《可持續發展宣言》還特別提到了一個農場，它的土壤被濫用，購買它的可持續發展型農民設法使土壤復原，卻被認為是傻瓜。
我想，令人欣慰的是，農業將變得越來越困難，最終唯一的選擇只能是可持續的耕作方法。
[–]merikariuReciprocal Destruction
If you have visited certain parts of Scotland, you would have seen how destructive an animal the common sheep is. It strips the landscape of anything except turf.
In West Texas, the cattle destroyed the first layer of biomass, then the sheep were brought in and reduced areas to desert and scrubland.
如果你去過蘇格蘭的某些地方，你就會看到普通綿羊這種動物的破壞性有多大了。除了草皮之外，它把任何東西都啃光了。
在西德克薩斯，牛破壞了第一層的生物量，然後羊來了，把該地區啃成了不毛之地。
[–]call-me-ischmael
That’s why they need wolves to act as shepherds. Wolves move sheep away from places they shouldn’t be, like open pastures.
Wolves are awesome. All this, According to this mind blowing gorgeous documentary https://youtu.be/ysa5OBhXz-Q
這就是為什麼他們需要狼來扮演牧羊人的角色。狼把羊群從不該去的地方轉移出去，比如開闊的牧場。
狼太棒了。這一切，都能在這部震撼人心的紀錄片裡看到：
https://youtu.be/ysa5OBhXz-Q
[–]merikariuReciprocal Destruction
Also, wilderness is view by our culture as something like a virgin that everyone eagerly wants to rape. Its animals are viewed as a nuisance such as foxes and racoons. Its timber begs to be removed.
同樣，在我們的文化中，荒野就像處女，人人都渴望強jian她。她上面的動物則被視為討厭鬼，比如如狐狸和浣熊。她的木材請求被移走。
[–]dunderpatron
Not to mention, be utterly defaced by a solar power plant.
更不用說被太陽能發電廠徹底破壞了。
[–]hopeitwillgetbetter
To keep ruminants from doing too much damage, they gotta be moved along by predators. If we want cattle raising to be sustainable, it has to mimic nature more.
為了防止反芻動物造成太大的傷害，它們必須被捕食者驅趕。如果我們想讓養牛變得可持續，就必須更多地模仿自然（行為）。
[–]antidamage
This is such utter rubbish.
The major cause of climate change is CO2 emissions. The major panacea for that is ocean algae (like it has ALWAYS been) and the risk is that the oceans are heating up and there''''ll be a period where most of the algae dies and new variants take their place.
The number of trees we have means nothing. The number of trees we burn means nothing. It''''s all about how much coal and oil we use, and it''''s all about how much CO2 we put out. It''''s never been about intentionally re-sequestering it. What trees can provide is a meaningless, infinitesimally small fraction of what we need to do.
這真是一派胡言。
氣候變化的主要原因是二氧化碳排放。解決這一問題的主要靈丹妙藥是海洋藻類（就像一直以來那樣），而風險在於海洋正在升溫，將會有一段時間大部分藻類死亡，取而代之的是新的變種。
我們擁有的樹的數量沒有任何意義。我們燃燒的樹木的數量沒有任何意義。關鍵在於我們用了多少煤和石油，關鍵在於我們排放了多少二氧化碳。從來都不是故意重新隔離它。樹所能提供的只是我們所需要做的事情的一個毫無意義的、無窮小的一部分。
[–]sherpa17
It''''s an honest question. It''''s hard to believe that you have trouble answering it and are instead poking fun at my intelligence. I will reply like a complete cunt, which seems to be a language you understand. You do realize that there are units of measurement called calories, right? And when you remove one sort of food calorie (meat, let''''s say) you will have to replace all or part of it with another source (veggies, let''''s say)...with me so far or already lost again?
Replacing meat calories with veggie calories seems like a great idea on the surface. It''''s partially true, if the meat being sourced is the CAFO, grain-fed sort. But it does nothing to store carbon. Food waste becomes a larger issue and, most importantly, mob-grazed land with deep, rich soils built like many of the world''''s great soils (cattle of one variety or another) disappear completely.
I''''m finished speaking with you. I really want to believe you aren''''t a douche but it''''s a conceit you can''''t rely on anymore.
這是一個誠實的問題。很難相信你在回答這個問題上有困難，反而在取笑我的智商。我將像一個十足的賤人一樣回答——這似乎才是一種你能理解的語言。你知道有一種測量單位叫做卡路里，對吧？當你減少了一種食物的卡路里攝入（比如肉類），你就必須用另一種食物（比如蔬菜）來全部或部分替代它……到目前為止思維有沒有跟上我？還是已經掉隊了？
從表面上看，用蔬菜卡路里代替肉類卡路里似乎是個好主意。如果肉的來源是圍欄畜牧業，穀物餵養的那些種類，那麼有一部分是正確的。但是它不能儲存碳。食物浪費變成了一個更大的問題，最重要的是，像世界上許多大的土壤一樣，被大量放牧過的（各種各樣的牲畜）被水覆蓋的土地和深厚肥沃的土壤會完全消失。
我和你說完了。我真地很想相信你不是一個笨蛋，但這是一個你不能再相信的幻想。
[–]BENJ4x
What''''s that actually going to do in the grand scheme of things though? The UK is tiny compared to other countries and I don''''t see how just straight up converting half of all farmland is going to make much of a dent.
It''''s probably just the article being outrageous or just taking one part the scientist said out of context to get clicks really.
但從大局來看，這到底有什麼用呢？與其他國家相比，英國的面積很小，我看不出僅僅將一半的農田改作耕地會有多大影響。
可能只是這篇文章太離譜了，或者只是斷章取義地拿了科學家說的一部分內容來獲取點擊量吧。
[–]robespierrem
most of the UK is green like next to nothing is urban or built up, would be better if it was wild but there are no wild animals to give land to in the UK.
英國大部分地區是綠色的，幾乎沒有什麼是城市或建築，如果是野生的會更好，但是在英國沒有野生動物可以在土地上奔跑啊。
[–]thedignityofstruggle
Vertical farmng is a tech joke.
立體農場就是個科技笑話。
[–]liizard
Why''''s it a tech joke?
為什麼這是個科技笑話？
[–]RestlesslyWandering
it definitely isn''''t any kind of joke, it is a very useful tool for growing crops in confined spaces such as inner cities
這絕對不是什麼笑話，它是一種非常有用的工具，可以在狹窄的空間裡種植作物，比如在市中心
[–]sinkmyteethin
That''''s 100% incorrect. You can''''t grow any crops, only greens and salads and shit. Useless veggies, not staple foods
100%錯誤。你不能種莊稼，只能種蔬菜、沙拉和其他垃圾。沒用的蔬菜，種不了主食
[–]-big_booty_bitches-
Sounds like a real good way to make themselves needlessly dependent on food imports. Why is the solution to climate change always white countries fucking themselves over one way or another?
聽起來真是個讓他們不必要地依賴食品進口的好辦法。為什麼解決氣候變化的辦法總是讓白人國家以這樣或那樣的方式操他們自己呢？
閱讀更多 龍騰網看世界 的文章
