【龙腾网】美国人均资源消耗量惊人商品和服务消费是中国人的35倍
正文翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：s555555555 转载请注明出处
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.
众所周知，美国人消耗的自然资源要比世界上任何其他大国的人多得多，生活的可持续性也要差得多。“在美国出生的孩子对生态产生的破坏是出生在巴西孩子的13倍”美环保组织塞拉俱乐部的戴夫·蒂尔福德报告补充称，美国人均消耗资源是印度人均消耗资源的35倍而消费的商品和服务是中国人的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.”
蒂尔福德引用了一长串发人深省的统计数据，显示出美国人在使用和浪费自然资源方面是多么地挥霍无度。例如，从1900年到1989年，美国人口增长了两倍，而原材料的使用量则增长了17倍。他说:“美国人口不到世界人口的5%，却使用了世界上三分之一的纸张、四分之一的石油、23%的煤炭、27%的铝和19%的铜。”“我们对能源、金属、矿产、林产品、鱼类、谷物、肉类甚至淡水的人均使用，让发展中国家的人相形见绌。”
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.
总体而言，《国家地理》的绿色指数发现，在17个接受调查的国家中，美国消费者在可持续行为方面排名垫底。此外，研究还发现，美国消费者对自己对环境造成的影响最不可能感到内疚，但他们相信个人的选择可以带来改变，这一点几乎排在首位。
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，那些对环境影响最小的人也最有可能感到内疚和无助。国家地理杂志的特里·加西亚负责协调这项年度绿色消费者调查，他说:“研究还表明，那些对自己的影响感到最内疚的消费者——那些来自中国、印度和巴西的消费者——实际上在选择可持续的消费品方面处于领先地位。”“尽管中国和印度的消费者对个人行动能够改善环境的信心也是最低的。”
On average, one American consumes as much energy as
就人均而言，一个美国人消费的能源相当于：
o 2 Japanese 日本人的2倍
o 6 Mexicans 墨西哥人的6倍
o 13 Chinese 中国人的13倍
o 31 Indians 印度人的31倍
o 128 Bangladeshis 孟加拉人的128倍
o 307 Tanzanians 坦桑尼亚人的307倍
o 370 Ethiopians 埃塞俄比亚人的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.
美国人平均每天消耗159加仑的水，而世界上一半以上的人口每天只消耗25加仑的水。
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.
美国人平均消耗多少能源?好吧，如果你把世界上的国家按人口数量排序，美国排在第三…但是另外五个最大的国家加起来的能源消耗总和还赶不上美国的能源消耗！换句话说，居住在美国的5%的世界人口比居住在其他五个最大国家加起来51%的世界人口对环境的影响更大。
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.
下次当你听说一个印度妇女有七个孩子时，记住她必须有20个以上的孩子才能达到美国妇女只有一个孩子的影响。而一个移民到美国的人只要搬到这里就可能消耗更多的能源。即使他在家里节约能源，他买的每一样东西都会增加能源和其他资源的消耗。
评论翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：s555555555 转载请注明出处
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,没错。尽管我们拥有巨大的能源足迹，但发达国家也拥有基础设施和一个正常运转的、受教育的法治社会，在这样的社会里人类才可以有效率。
许多国家没有效率，人们的足迹也更小，因为他们无法获得更多的资源。我很确定这些数据在任何情况下都是不能完全反映真实情况的。举几个小例子。在这个星球上，人们每天都在贫穷的地方发生着用炸药炸鱼或向地下倾倒毒素污染的事情。这在发达国家根本不会发生。这种损害不仅是效率低下，而且是永久性的破坏。这类事情没有考虑在内，没有可比性。
IBeLikeDudesBeLikeEr
so instead of counting heads count ecological footprint. Great. We''''re still massively overpopulated.
现在又不谈数量谈什么生态足迹了。很好，我们美国人果然还是太多了呢。
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.
西方的生活标准没有错;是西方的生活方式造成了这些问题。想要足够的食物、良好的医疗和良好的教育没有错。用了就扔的一次性生活方式是大错特错，是在掠夺子孙后代的财富。
一般来说，随着人们生活水平的提高，出生率下降。这是一件好事。我们应该出于爱来生孩子，而不是把孩子当作退休养老计划。
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.
“我们都应该像联合国建议的那样，通过做某某事来减少污染”和“在数十亿印度人停止排放之前，美国不需要削减排放”是有区别的。后者在reddit上随处可见，甚至在这里，以及在主流媒体上。这就是种族主义。而这样荒诞不经的整体文化可能就是造成全球环境危机的罪魁祸首，说每天开越野车吃三次牛肉的数百万美国人只是很小一部分人类的行为，简直就是种族主义。种族主义是法西斯主义的基础，既然我们都在担心各种形态生态的环境法西斯主义的崛起，我们就应该在看到它的时候努力败坏它的名声。
