绿色环保成消费新风尚

So what's new here? Two things, I think.
那么，有什么新观点呢？我认为有两个。

The first is that the science of behavioral economics, along with new work being done around happiness studies and climate change communications, offer fresh insights into how to get people to change. I've written about these developments before (see What's for lunch? Behavioral economics meets climate change and How to talk about climate change) and they are exciting.
第一，行为经济学所做的工作，和那些围绕着快乐研究和气候改变通讯系统一起，为怎样改变人们提供了新的观点。我之前曾写过这样的建议（参考《什么是午餐？行为经济学与气候改变想碰撞和怎样谈论气候变化》），而且这些建议让人十分兴奋。

One of the fundamental insights of behavioral economics is that people are not merely the rational, self-interested beings of Economics 101, but also emotional creatures, capable of altruism and influenced by the behavior of others. Much of our political discourse, including the debate about climate-change policies, focuses around the question of "what's in it for me?" (This is why we hear so much about "green jobs.") Some behavioral economists argue that environmentalists would do well to appeal to our better natures.
而行为经济学中的其中一个基本观点是：人类不仅仅是《经济101》中所提到拥有理性和自私，他们还是有感情的生物，敢于帮助别人，并且会受到其他人的影响。许多政治性的演讲，包括气候改变政策的争论，人们都会关注问题"我在里面会获得什么？"（这就是为什么词语"绿色工作"总是频繁出现。）部分行为经济家表示，环保人士会利好自然环境。

Here are a couple of brief excerpts from a draft paper by RPI's John Gowdy, who spoke at the event:
以下是RPI的约翰·高迪在讨论会上发言的部分摘录：

In contrast to the policy recommendations of most economists, relying on monetary incentives to tackle collective choice problems like global warming can actually have perverse effects. As many environmental philosophers have argued (Norton 2005; O'Neal 1993) giving people a shared responsibility and appealing directly to a sense of the common good is a much more effective way of gaining acceptance for environmental policies...
与大部分经济学家的政策建议相比，通过对货币激励政策的依赖而抓住共同选择的问题，例如全球变暖，这样做会造成不良影响。由于许多环保思想家（诺顿在 2005年曾说过；奥尼尔在1993年曾说过）争论道，让人们肩负共同的责任，并让人们直接感受到共同利益的吸引力，这样做比让环保政策获得通过更有效率。

Successfully dealing with global climate may require cooperation on an uNPRecedented scale among people with radically different values and radically different needs. Formulating policies that tap into our social and genetic heritage of cooperation offers the best hope for success.
气候问题的成功处理，需要全球价值观不一样的人们和需求不同的人们的通力合作。制定好社会和基因遗传的政策，这能给予人们成功的最大期待。

The other thing that's new here is the potential for a conversation about consumption. For the most part, businesses won't lead that conversation and, until recently, environmental groups haven't either. As Lehner put it: "We've talked about it passively on our website...What we are now exploring is talking about it a little more actively."
而另外一个新观点是关于排放量会议召开的可能性。重要的是，直至最近一段时间，商业人士和环保人士都没有举行这样的会谈。就像雷纳所说的："我们总在网站上被动地说来说去...而现在探究的是，我们要更积极地给个说法。"

This won't be easy. It's hard to talk about overconsumption without sounding like you are hectoring people. "It's tricky because it's personal," Lehner says. "It's hard to talk about somebody else's life."
（然而，）这并不容易。如果你说起来不像是去吼人们，那你很难说谁谁谁排放量超标了。雷纳说道："由于这是个人问题，所以要狡猾些。因为我们很难插口别人的生活。"

But as we used to say in the '60s, the personal is political. It's not simply a personal choice to drive an SUV when you don't need one; it's an anti-social act, as is idling your car when it's part outside the dry cleaners or Starbucks. The food we eat, the cars we drive, the size of the houses we build and buy and other choices we make have global environmental consequences-particularly because Americans are, on a per capita basis, among the biggest polluters on the planet. So let's get the conversation going.
然而，正如我们在60年代常说的：人的私生活被法律保护。只有你需要时，你才会有选择地去驾驶越野车；当车子是干衣机外部件或是星巴克的一部分，那车子就浪费了，而这也是反社会行为。我们所吃的食物、我们所驾驶的车、我们建造的房子尺寸和价格，还有我们所作的其它选择，都是特别的环境结果，因为美国是人均污染量最大的国家。那么，开那个该开的会议吧。