来源：《卫报》
原文刊登日期：2022年3月21日
Raising taxes on petrol and diesel is an important policy that governments can use to put the brakes on runaway climate change. However, it appears that the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, wants to accelerate rather than slow the pace of planetary damage. In this week’s mini-budget, he looks likely to announce a temporary 5p per litre reduction on fuel duty. This could cut the cost of filling an average family car by around £2.75 and might help some who have suffered as pump prices jumped. However, this is a false economy. Even with the pandemic lockdowns, transport remained the largest emitting sector, responsible for 24% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions.
提高汽油和柴油税是一项重要的政策，政府可以用它来遏制失控的气候变化。然而，财政大臣里希·苏纳克似乎希望加快而不是减缓地球破坏的步伐。在本周的小预算中，他很可能宣布将燃油税每升暂时降低5便士。这将使一辆普通家庭汽车的每次加油成本减少2.75英镑左右，并可能帮助一些因汽油价格飙升而蒙受损失的人。然而，这是一种假节约。即使在大流行封锁期间，交通仍然是最大的排放部门，占英国所有温室气体排放量的24%。
Cutting fuel duty flies in the face of the government’s claim to be a green leader. It is also a regressive measure. The New Economics Foundation says that only 7% of the savings from cutting fuel duty will go to the poorest fifth of households – while one-third will go to the richest fifth. If he were to go ahead with the policy, Mr Sunak would be handing money to people in proportion to how much they drive and how fuel-inefficient their car was. Labour has supported Mr Sunak. This is a triumph of political expediency over the environment. Neither party thinks it can afford to upset a significant number of voters.
削减燃油税与政府自称要做环保领袖的目标背道而驰。这也是一种递减的措施。新经济基金会表示，削减燃油税所节省的费用中，只有7%将流向最贫穷的五分之一家庭，而三分之一将流向最富有的五分之一家庭。如果苏纳克要实施这项政策，则相当于开车里程越长、燃油效率越低的家庭，剩下的钱越多。工党支持苏纳克。这是政治权宜之计对环境的胜利。两党都不认为自己能承受得起惹恼大量选民的后果。
If the government did cut fuel duty as suggested, the Treasury could lose about £4bn a year in tax receipts. Surely, it would be better for the government to spend such sums on stepping up investment in secure, clean energy such as solar and onshore wind or to fund policies that reduce energy demand in homes and industry. Short-term costs to the Treasury translate into much larger long-term benefits for the country, by staving off the climate emergency.
如果政府真的像建议的那样削减燃油税，英国财政部每年可能会损失约40亿英镑的税收。当然，政府最好将这些资金用于加强对太阳能和陆上风能等安全、清洁能源的投资，或为减少家庭和工业能源需求的政策提供资金。通过避免气候危机，财政部的短期成本转化为国家更大的长期利益。
While growth will be lower and inflation higher than expected, Mr Sunak has cash to spend – even within the Treasury’s self-imposed fiscal rules. Goldman Sachs, Mr Sunak’s former employer, says that the government will have “between £45bn and £75bn of fiscal headroom”. Ministers could be more imaginative by, say, introducing cheap, or even free, public transport. If Mr Sunak wanted such policies to be fiscally neutral, he could tax car drivers and use the cash to fund public transport. Fuel duty has not increased since 2010. During this period the volume of traffic has grown, producing more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing costs for motorists is politically difficult because it involves political risk. But not increasing costs for them risks ruining the planet.
尽管经济增长将低于预期，通胀将高于预期，但苏纳克仍有现金可花——即便是在财政部自行制定的财政规则范围内。苏纳克的前雇主高盛表示，政府将拥有“450亿至750亿英镑的财政净空”。部长们可以更有想象力，比如，引入廉价甚至免费的公共交通。如果苏纳克先生想要这样的政策在财政上中立，他可以向汽车司机征税，并用这些钱来资助公共交通。自2010年以来，燃油税一直没有提高。在此期间，交通量增加，产生了更多的空气污染和温室气体排放。增加驾车者的成本在政治上是困难的，因为它涉及政治风险。但如果不增加成本，就有毁灭地球的风险。