We economists had climate change all worked out. We recognised carbon emissions were a negative externality, and endlessly econo-splained what negative externality meant. We envisioned governments using carbon prices to make companies bear the cost of their emissions, preferably harmonising prices into a multilateral global one. We scoffed at inefficient state subsidies and regulations compared to market-based mechanisms.
我们经济学家早就把气候变化问题分析透了。我们指出碳排放是一种负外部性，然后用经济学家的口吻不厌其烦地解释“负外部性”的含义。按照我们的设想，各国政府应该利用碳定价，让企业承担其排放造成的成本，最好还能协调各国的碳价，形成一个多边的全球碳价体系。相比市场机制，我们嘲笑效率低下的国家补贴和监管措施。
We were right in theory; we always are. But we didn’t necessarily think the trading bloc that followed our prescription would end up facing fierce accusations of protectionism. We didn’t foresee the role of state-backed exports from a geoeconomic superpower. We certainly didn’t predict a helping hand from a ridiculous war started by a climate change denier.
理论上，我们是对的；我们经济学家在理论上总是对的。但我们未必想得到，接受我们处方的贸易集团到头来面临激烈的“保护主义”指控。我们没有预见到一个地缘经济超级大国由国家支持的出口会扮演怎样的角色。我们当然也没有预料到，由某个气候变化否认者发动的一场荒谬战争，竟会意外地起到帮助作用。
The EU created the emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2005 and is currently expanding it. The scheme has reduced pollution in covered sectors, though not spectacularly, with the effect diluted by the “free allocations” given to high-emitting industries such as steel and chemicals. The European Commission now wants to include those sectors while protecting them from unfair competition through the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which charges importers carbon prices to equalise costs. An example of the EU’s prized “Brussels Effect”, CBAM is supposed to encourage other countries to align with the EU carbon regime via global trade.
欧盟在2005年就建立了碳排放交易体系(ETS)，目前正在扩大该体系。该体系确实减少了目标行业的污染——尽管效果并不惊人，而且被给予高排放行业（例如钢铁和化工行业）的“免费配额”削弱了。欧盟委员会(European Commission)现在希望纳入这些行业，同时通过碳边境调节机制(CBAM)保护它们免受不公平竞争。该机制向进口商收取碳排放费用，以平衡成本。碳边境调节机制是欧盟引以为傲的“布鲁塞尔效应”(Brussels Effect)的一个例子，理论上它应该通过全球贸易，推动其他国家与欧盟的碳排放制度接轨。