Well, you can think of it as a dinner party for 25,000 people

你可以把它想成2萬5千人出席的晚宴

and none of them really get along that well

雖然沒什麼人享受就是了

and they have to save the world from total climate disaster

他們要拯救世界，避免氣候災害

But will it actually work?

但有用嗎？

To start, let's take a look back the last 25 years of negotiations.

開始前，先看看過去25年的談判重點

In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro the UN created a treaty to stabilize greenhouse gas levels so they wouldn't actually mess with the climate.

1992年，聯合國首次在里約熱內盧協議，抑制溫室氣體排放以免影響氣候

But the treaty mostly just said that

但那份協議其實主要是

countries should figure out how to actually accomplish that goal using

指導各國如何利用未來的氣候協議

other future treaties.

來達成目標

The Kyoto Protocol required industrialized countries to cut their GHG emissions... a little

京都議定書要求工業國家稍微減排溫室氣體

but developing countries including China and India

但對中、印等開發中國家

weren't required to curb emissions at all and the US didn't ratify the treaty.

卻沒有特別要求，美國則根本不願簽署協定

So that didn't really work.

所以這份協議無效

After 12 years of negotiations dragged on

拖了12年後

the big dinner party that was supposed to result in a planet saving deal actually

晚宴再度展開，本該達成協議拯救地球

went pretty badly.

結果卻出奇地糟

So last year, in Lima,

直到去年在秘魯首都利馬

diplomats agreed on a new approach.

各國外交官終於定出新方針

Let a country decide for itself how it will fight climate change

讓各國決定該如何對抗氣候變遷

These countries specific pledges are called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs.

各國的承諾保證稱為「國家自定預期貢獻」（INDCs）

So now we're in Paris

來到巴黎

where diplomats hope to reach an agreement

各國期望達成共識

that centers around countries INDCs.

尤其是針對各國的INDCs

But how can companies accountable

可是各公司怎麼可能

to those pledges... and what actually goes into them?

遵守承諾？他們討論了什麼？

There are a bunch of different options on the menu

菜單上的選擇五花八門

And, the prices vary dramatically.

價格也差很大

So India leans over to the United States and says

印度靠向美國：

"I got 300 million people without electricity"

「我國有3億人口沒得用電，」

"I think I'm just gonna stick with a bunch of the cheap coal."

「我打算繼續使用便宜的煤炭」

And the U.S., kinda hypocritically says "No way India, you've got to try the green energy, it is phenomenal."

美國則虛偽地答道：「不行，你必須發展清潔能源，這是趨勢」

And India says "No, I really think I want the coal. You used to love it, you look great and I think I should give it a shot."

印度則說：「不，我很需要煤炭。你以前用很多，現在那麼成功，或許我也可以」

And then China leans over to Indian and deadpans " you should really try the green energy."

中國則面無表情地向印度說：「你的確該要發展清潔能源」

But if India think it deserves to use cheap and easy coal to

但若印度打定主意要使用便宜、方便的煤炭

speed up its development and lift several millions out of poverty

來加速國家發展，消除上百萬的窮困人口

Who is the U.S. or China to say that it shouldn't?

那麼美國和中國還有資格反對嗎？

And that's just the first course.

這只是第一道菜而已

There are plenty of other courses to be picked through and paid for.

後面還有許多道等著上桌、買單

How much effort do we put forth preventing climate change

我們到底多努力防止氣候惡化

by regulating power plants or replacing

我們規範電廠、取消

fossil fuel subsidies with renewable energy subsidies versus adapting to it,

化石燃料補助，改贊助再生能源，不願向氣候變遷妥協

by saying, building seawalls

我們建築新的防波堤

versus compensating those already screwed by it, by awarding emergency funding to repair

而不願彌補那些被氣候損壞的；或獎勵急難救助金

damage caused by natural disasters. The more we can mitigate climate change the

幫助修復遭天然災害毀損之處。我們越努力緩和氣候變遷

less we actually have to adapt to it but climate change is already hitting some communities

就越不需要適應變遷後的氣候，但這在某些地區

heavier than others.

已造成嚴重的傷害

Furthermore, can we make clean technology easy for developing countries to acquire?

再者，我們能否幫開發中國家更容易取得潔淨能源技術呢？

And what does it even mean to be a developing country? How do we make sure

而到底開發中國家的定義是什麼？怎麼確定

that countries have the strongest institutions and best information to

各國有夠強硬的體系及足夠資訊

deal with climate change? And then, as with all dinners the tensest moment

來對抗氣候變遷？接著，所有晚餐最後的緊張時刻

arrives. What do we do with the bill? Poorer countries could develop cheaply and

到來：要怎麼買單？窮國若要低成本

sustainably if richer countries were covering a lot of the expense.

且永續發展，必須由富國擔當大部分開支。

After Copenhagen, richer countries agreed to mobilize a hundred billion dollars annually

哥本哈根峰會後，富國決定每年挪用1000億

by 2020 in funding for countering climate change in developing countries.

來幫助開發中國家對抗氣候變遷，直到2020年

But where exactly will the money come from and how much more will

但到底要怎麼籌錢？總共需要

be needed? All these questions are on the table in Paris. So what might actually be achieved?

多少資金？巴黎峰會就是討論這個。那麼到底討論結果如何？

In 2010, world leaders decided that we’d have to keep global warming below 2 degrees

2010年，各國領導人認為我們該把暖化溫度控制在2℃內

Celsius or we'd be in for full-scale world felt. The bad news is that

否則全世界將明顯感受到氣候變遷。壞消息是

there's no way any Paris agreement will achieve that, but the good news is that doesn't mean the

巴黎峰會不會商討這部分；但好消息是，這不代表

world has to end. If we continue things business as usual we would be in for 4.5

世界必定毀滅。若我們持續不改惡習，則會面臨上升4.5℃

degrees of warming, but if countries committed to existing INDCs, that helps us

的全球暖化，但若各國遵守自己的INDCs，就能

bring that down to about 3 degrees. Hotter than we want, but better than nothing.

減少為上升3℃。雖然還是太高，但總比坐以待斃好

And a Paris deal could at least start to figure out how to mobilize that money

而且巴黎峰會可以開始想辦法調動資金

and technology to make that follow through happen. And the better news is that even

或技術，好達成目標。還有一項更好的消息

if Paris totally flops and everybody's just hurling Brie and baugette at one another,

即使巴黎會議失敗，搞得大家互丟布里起司和長棍麵包

cities and private companies can take action to cut emissions and make a

至少還有城市和私營企業會穩住，著手進行減排

difference. In fact, they are the real key players here, because diplomacy isn't

其實後兩者才是關鍵角色，因為外交手段

real climate action. How does an treaty matter if no one does what it says.

並非實質的行動，若無人遵守，協議也只能作廢

Grist will be in Paris this November and December covering the climate conference.

Grist 會出席今年的巴黎峰會（註：Grist為獨立的非營利性媒體組織）

Check in with us then for all the policy news and baugettes you could ever want.

隨時追踪我們的訊息，就可以得到所有政策新聞或是長棍麵包