评论
打印
What does responsible energy pricing mean?
负责的能源定价是指什么？
Moving on to my second point today—how can policymakers design responsible energy pricing?
下面是我今天要谈的第二点——政策制定者如何设计负责的能源定价？
Using fiscal instruments to reflect environmental damage in energy prices is not rocket science. It is really a matter of basic tax principles, or actually just common sense. The two main issues are the appropriate tax base and the appropriate tax rate.
运用财政工具，让能源价格体现对环境的破坏，这并不是艰深的科学。这其实是基本的税收原则，或者，实际上就是常识。两个主要问题是，适当的税基和适当的税率。
Carefully targeting the source of the environmental harm is critical. This means, for example, making sure that charges on different fuels are proportional to emissions from those fuels. That way, we get the relative prices of dirty, intermediate, and clean fuels right—and environmental damage is properly factored into energy prices.
仔细瞄准环境危害源十分重要。例如，要保证对不同燃料的收费与这些燃料的排放量成比例。这样，我们就能正确地设定污染性燃料、中级燃料、清洁燃料的价格，从而使环境损害正确地反映在能源价格中。
In turn, that encourages people to make green choices all across the spectrum—such as power generators switching to less polluting fuels or installing emissions-control technologies; and households driving less often, or upgrading to more energy-efficient vehicles and appliances.
这进而会促动人们在各个方面做出环保的选择——例如，发电机采用轻污染燃料或安装排放控制技术；住户减少开车，或升级到更节能的车辆或家电。
Using a single fiscal instrument targeted at a particular source of environmental harm is both effective and administratively simple. It is better than relying on a patchwork of uncoordinated policies—such as telling some manufacturers to install certain control technologies, requiring others to use certain fuels, or rewarding households for buying certain vehicles.
运用针对具体环境损害源的单一财政工具既是有效的，在管理上也是简便易行的。它好于零散的、未经协调的政策——例如，让一些制造商安装某些控制技术，要求其他制造商使用某些燃料，或奖励住户购买某些车辆。
The bottom line is that we can spur the same kinds of virtuous behavior by using a much simpler tool—a single fiscal instrument. And once we price bad things right, we will not need to worry so much about subsidizing good things—like renewable energy.
总的说来，我们可以使用简单得多的手段——单一财政工具，来促进同样的良性行为。一旦我们对坏的事物定对了价，就无需过于担心如何为好的事物（如可再生能源）提供补贴。
Once we know what to tax, the next logical question becomes how much to tax. Again, this is straightforward in principle. Aligning tax rates with environmental damage provides an automatic check and balance.
一旦我们知道对什么征税，下一个问题自然就是征多少税。同样，这在原则上简单明确。根据环境破坏程度确定税率，这构成自动的制约与平衡关系。
If taxes are too low, many socially desirable changes to energy production and use will not be made, and the environment suffers. If taxes are too high, energy will be produced with excessive costs, and the economy suffers.
如果税太低，能源的生产和使用就不会产生从社会上讲有益的许多变化，环境就会受到损害。如果税太高，能源生产成本就会过高，经济就会受到损害。
So this is a delicate—but very important—balance to get right. To do this, policymakers need to have some sense of the magnitude of environmental damage and what this implies for appropriate energy tax systems.
所以，这是一种微妙的、但极其重要的平衡关系，我们必须保持这种平衡。为此，政策制定者需要在一定程度上了解环境破坏程度，以及这对于适当的能源税收制度意味着什么。
Putting principle into practice
将原则付诸实践
This brings me to my third area—putting principle into practice. This is really the whole point of the new IMF book—providing actionable guidance to policymakers on “pricing it right”.
这把我带到第三个问题——将原则付诸实践。这正是基金组织新书的重点所在——为政策制定者提供关于“定对价”的可行指导。
The unique contribution of the book—or the toolkit—is that it lays out a practical methodology for quantifying environmental damage across developed and developing countries alike. It shows what this damage implies for appropriate energy taxes, and the benefits of policy reform.
这本书（或“工具箱”）的独特贡献是，它给出了一种实用方法，用来量化发达和发展中国家的环境破坏。它显示了这种破坏对于适当的能源税意味着什么，以及政策改革的好处。
Let me raise an obvious but important caveat. There are many controversies and uncertainties involved in measuring environmental damage—for example, in putting a price tag on future global warming or on the lives saved from cleaner air. It is possible to come up with many plausible values for such things, but the IMF is not in the business of telling governments what to assume here.
我首先提醒大家注意一个显而易见、但至关重要的方面。在衡量环境破坏方面，有很多争议和不确定性——例如，对于未来的全球变暖程度，或更清洁空气能够挽救多少生命，我们该用怎样的价格来体现。有可能对这些事物赋予很多看来合理的数值，但基金组织并不负责告诉各国政府应该做出什么样的数值假设。
Rather, what the book provides is a framework for understanding the issues—the key factors that determine the environmental damage. It provides estimates of tax levels needed to incorporate environmental costs in the prices of coal, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel—for over 150 countries. It also offers an accompanying spreadsheet tool—available online—that traces out the implications of alternative assumptions for these factors.
这本书提供的是一个理解这个问题的框架——决定环境破坏的主要因素。它针对150多个国家，估计了煤、天然气、汽油和柴油价格能体现各自的环境成本所需的税收水平。它还提供了附带的电子表格工具（可在线使用），用来分析这些因素在其他假设下的政策启示。
So we see our contribution as helping to inform the debate, make transparent the policy implications of alternative assumptions, and provide a benchmark against which other—less efficient—policies can be evaluated so policymakers better understand the tradeoffs.
所以我们认为，我们的贡献是，协助为关于这一问题的讨论提供信息，表明其他假设的政策含义，并提供一个基准，据以评价其他不那么高效的政策，从而使政策制定者能够更好地了解其中的权衡取舍关系。
This is not the place to get into a technical discussion of how to measure concepts like deaths from air pollution or the costs of traffic congestion—for that you should read the book!
我们这里不是展开技术讨论的场合——即，如何衡量空气污染导致的死亡或交通拥堵成本。想了解这些，去读那本书吧！
Instead, let me mention just one other important aspect—how pervasively energy seems to be mispriced at present, based on our assessment.
我只想谈谈另一个重要的方面——根据我们的评估，能源定价不当的情况非常普遍。
Take coal, for example. This is about the dirtiest of all fuels, yet almost no country imposes meaningful taxes on its use. Our work suggests that, to reflect the carbon damages alone, a reasonably-scaled charge would amount, on average, to around two-thirds of the current world price of coal. In countries where a lot of people are exposed to air pollution, the coal charge should be even higher—several times higher in some cases.
拿煤作个例子。煤是所有燃料中污染最严重的，但几乎没有哪个国家对煤的使用征收有意义的税。我们的工作显示，即使只体现碳排放对环境造成的破坏，对煤炭的合理征税水平平均而言应达到当前世界煤炭价格的三分之二左右。在大量人口暴露于空气污染的国家，煤炭税还应更高，在有些国家应达到几倍之高。
What about motor fuels? There are many costs to count here—the obvious carbon and air pollution damages, and also the costs coming from congestion and the risk of additional traffic accidents. If all of these costs were reflected in gasoline and diesel taxes, it would mean substantial charges across developed and developing countries.
机动车燃料呢？这方面应考虑很多成本——显而易见的成本是碳排放和空气污染方面的破坏，另外还包括道路拥堵和交通事故风险增大带来的成本。如果所有这些成本都体现在汽油和柴油税中，发达和发展中国家都要征收相当高的税。
Some countries are already in the vanguard here. Many countries in Europe, for example, already impose taxes on fuel at levels that seem broadly appropriate for the damage they cause. The more important question for them going forward will be the appropriate mix between traditional fuel taxes and more novel approaches—such as per-mile charges for peak-period driving on busy roads to deal with congestion.
在这方面，一些国家已经走在前面。例如，许多欧洲国家已经对燃料征收了与其破坏程度基本相称的税。对这些国家来说，今后更为重要的问题是，传统燃料税与更新型方法之间的适当搭配（这些新方法如，在交通繁忙的道路上，对高峰期驾车按行驶里程收费）。
We also need to make sure that the poorest and most vulnerable households are protected. But let’s be clear: keeping energy prices artificially low is no way to help the poor. Instead, policymakers should focus on the overall fairness of the tax system—and make sure that all have access to decent healthcare, education, and social benefits.
我们还需确保最贫穷和最脆弱住户得到保护。但需要明确的一点是：将能源价格人为地维持在低水平并不利于保护穷人。相反，政策制定者应将重点放在税收体系的总体公平性上——并确保所有人都能获得充分的医疗、教育和社会福利。
Pushing ahead with energy price reform might not be easy, but it will certainly be worth it—many times over. It produces a triple benefit—saving lives, saving the planet, and saving the budget. For example, we have estimated that these policies reduce fossil fuel deaths by 63 percent, reduce carbon emissions by 23 percent, and raise revenues by 2.6 of percent of GDP.
推进能源价格改革可能并不容易，但显然是非常有意义的。能源价格改革能带来三个好处——挽救生命，挽救地球，挽救预算。例如，我们估计，这些政策能将矿物燃料导致的死亡减少63%，使碳排放下降 23%，使收入增加 GDP的2.6%。
When we put it in these terms, the case for action becomes urgent. Yes, we need global cooperation to overcome global challenges like climate change. In this vein, we fully support ongoing international efforts to move climate mitigation policies forward. Yet this is proving hard because the costs of action are clear and they are borne by local communities while the benefits of action are more long-term and more dispersed across the globe.
以上分析说明了行动的紧迫性。是的，我们需要通过全球合作，应对气候变化这样的全球挑战。为此，我们大力支持目前国际上在推进减轻对气候影响的政策方面所做的努力。不过，事实证明这项工作很困难，因为采取这种行动的成本是显而易见的，并且是由当地社会承担的，而行动的好处在更长时间才体现出来，并且在更大程度上分散于全球范围。
But this is not an excuse for individual countries to stay in a holding pattern. As we have shown, there is a lot that countries can do to protect the environment on their own, by acting in their own national interests. If everyone cleans up their own neighborhood, our entire planet will be in much better shape.
但各国不应以此为借口不采取行动，正如我们已经指出的，各国能从本国利益出发，独立采取很多措施保护环境。如果每个国家都能有效治理自己的环境，我们整个地球就会变得更好。
Conclusion
结语
Let me conclude on that note. We do not expect energy price reform to happen overnight. It will require education about why substantially higher fuel prices are needed—and indeed unavoidable—to deal with mounting environmental challenges.
我来就此做个总结。我们不能期望能源价格改革一蹴而就。需要让人们了解，为了应对日趋严峻的环境挑战，显著提高能源价格是必要的，实际上也是不可避免的。
Yet as Nelson Mandela once said, “it always seems impossible until it’s done”. So let’s get it done—at the national level and at the global level. We know where we need to go, and how to get there, so let us start the journey.
但正如纳尔逊·曼德拉曾经说过的：“在事情未成功之前，总看似不可能。”所以，让我们行动起来——在国家和全球层面采取行动。我们知道该往哪儿走，也知道怎么走，所以，让我们踏上征程吧。
I promise you that the IMF will help countries move forward here—with our policy advice and, as countries seek it, our technical assistance. We are all in this together.
我向你们承诺，基金组织将帮助各国向前迈进——我们将提供政策建议，在各国需要时还将提供技术援助。我们将同舟共济。
Thank you very much.
十分感谢。
