美國人均消耗量是中國的13倍，終於有其他國家開炮了_風聞

據世界自然基金會《地球生命力報告》結論顯示：

截止2019年，人類生態耗竭率已達7成，人類如果繼續以超出地球資源極限的方式進行生活，到2040年，人類“將需要兩個地球來滿足需求”！

毫無疑問，世界自然基金會的調查報告是“令人擔憂”的——在所有人都逐漸沉溺於現代工業化社會所帶來的各項便利的同時，這種倒計時式的警告，令每一個人都不可避免的陷入了未來與現實的取捨掙扎….

1、Hathaway

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.

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。

“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.

“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！

So, I think before the underdeveloped areas can enjoy modern life,It is very important for Americans to reduce their luxury life first!

所以，我認為在欠發達地區還沒有享受到現代化生活之前，對美國人來説，首先減少他們的奢侈生活是非常重要的！

2、Geoffrey

Yes, your proposal is quite right. In fact, in my opinion, Americans are like moths of the earth!

是的，你的提議是相當正確的，事實上在我看來，美國人就像地球的蛀蟲！

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。

In my opinion, as long as Americans “save” a little bit, the environmental problem is not as complicated as it is now!

在我看來，只要美國人稍微“節約”一點，環境問題根本不可能像現在這麼複雜！

3、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.

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。

4、Mubarak

Ha ha ha ha, look, an American’s “defense”, you mean that all of us in the underdeveloped areas should die? We’re not people? Yes, you are more efficient and noble!

哈哈哈哈，快看啊，一個美國人的“辯白”，你的意思就是我們這些欠發達地區的人都該去死？我們不是人？是的，你們更有效率，更加高貴！

5、Thomson

Your accusation is “unprovoked”. It may mean “efficiency problem” related to environmental protection

你這樣的指責是“無端”的，他的意思可能是有關環境保護的“效率問題”

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.

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着用炸藥炸魚或向地下傾倒毒素污染的事情。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。

6、Ibrahim

Do you mean that the pollution of the world’s environment is due to the fact that people in poor countries use explosives to fry fish in order to eat enough? As for dumping toxins into rivers, where does the final industrial product flow? Who is the biggest gainer? This is a question worth thinking about!

你的意思是現在世界環境的污染，是因為貧窮國家的人為了吃飽肚子，而去用炸藥炸魚？至於向河流中傾倒毒素，那麼最後製成的工業品流向了哪裏？最大的獲利者是誰？這是一個值得思索的問題！

7、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.

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。

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.

“我們都應該像聯合國建議的那樣，通過做某某事來減少污染”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，甚至在這裏，以及在主流媒體上。這就是種族主義。

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.

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，説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。

8、Matsushita Rokuro

But in fact, what you call “the life of a few Americans” is most of the truth!

但事實上，你所説的“少數美國人的生活”卻是最真實的事實！

Americans like private cars and enjoy the feeling of abundant food. Just last year, Americans consumed 815 billion calories a day, which is 200 billion calories more than needed, and can feed 80 million people!

美國人喜歡私家車，享受食物豐盛的感覺，就在去年，美國人一天要消耗8150億卡路里，這比需要多出了整整2000億卡路里，可以養活8000萬人！

9、IBeLikeDudesBeLikeEr

SO，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.

所以，下次當你聽説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。

As long as an American lives in the United States, he may consume more energy. Even if he saves energy at home, everything he buys will increase the consumption of energy and other resources.

而一個美國人只要住在美國，就可能消耗更多的能源。即使他在家裏節約能源，他買的每一樣東西都會增加能源和其他資源的消耗。

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.

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！換句話説，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

10、Fang Cheng

Yes, Americans may not feel how much they have consumed!

是的，美國人可能感覺不到他們消費了多少！

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.

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。

“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.”

他説:“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。”

Meanwhile, 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.

與此同時，《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，然而，他們在相信個人選擇可能會產生影響方面接近榜首。

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，他説:“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。”

Hahaha，This is a satire!

哈哈哈，這簡直就是一個諷刺!

沒錯，在老鐵看來這確實是一個不折不扣的諷刺：

人均碳足跡最小的國家，竟然成為了環境保護上最中堅的力量，而與此同時，那些真正污染地球環境、消耗地球資源的最大受益者們，卻一邊用着一次性水杯，撕着硌牙的“麪包圈”、另一邊大談環保低碳….

就如同格蕾塔·桑伯格一樣。