中国和法国称巴黎气候协议应该5年评估一次 [英国媒体]

China and France say Paris climate pactshould have five-year reviews

中国和法国称巴黎气候协议应该5年评估一次



French president François Hollande claimedChina and France hadtaken an “historic” step towards tackling climate change on Monday after thetwo countries agreed any deal reached in Paris next month should include checkson whether signatories are keeping their commitments to reduce emissions.

法国总统奥朗德周一称中国和法国已走出历史性的一步以应对气候变化问题，两国一致认为如果下个月在巴黎有形成任何协议的话，那么应该对签署国是否履行承诺减少排放进行评估。

In a jointstatement released weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference,China and France said such progress should be reviewed every five years inorder to “reinforce mutual confidence and promote efficient implementation”.

联合国气候变化大会将于几周后在巴黎举行，中法两国在一份联合声明中称如果有达成任何协议的话，应该每五年进行核查从而“强化互信和推进高效执行”。

“The Paris agreement must send out a clearsignal for the world to transition to green and low-carbon, climate-resilientand sustainable development,” the two countries said, also calling for an“ambitious and legally binding” deal in Paris.

“巴黎协议应该发出一个清晰的讯息，那就是全世界都要向绿色，低碳，气候友好和可持续的发展道路转变，“两国如此说道，二者还呼吁在巴黎达成一个”雄心勃勃和有法律约束力的“协议。

kasprowy 3h ago
Like a Chinese, or old Soviet, five yearplan?

像中国人或者苏联那样形成一个五年计划？

RobKiley 3h ago
I'm not sure how deniers can debate the 97%consensus of a climate catastrophe predicted not too far in the future, do theyrealize what their denial means for the planet.
I don't see the logic here, they have noproof otherwise.

在不远的将来将产生气候突变，这已经是97%的共识，我不知道那3%的否认者们是怎么看的，他们意识到他们的否认对地球来说意味着什么吗？
我不知道他们的逻辑在哪里，他们根本就不能证明地球不会发生气候突变。

YER_MAW 7h ago
In 5 years the Antarctic will have meltedand it will be too late

5年后，南极地区将融化，那时候就太迟了。

notEvenNibling  YER_MAW 7h ago
I think you may have a point...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stable-antarctic-ice-is-suddenly-melting-fast/

我认为楼上的说的有道理。。。。
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stable-antarctic-ice-is-suddenly-melting-fast/

YER_MAW notEvenNibling 6h ago
Actually I was wrong the Antarctic isgaining ice apparently.

实际上我说错了，南极地区的冰块显然在增加。

Don9000 YER_MAW 6h ago
Not lately, as the Antarctic is currentlyheading toward the southern hemisphere summer. Overall, the mass balance of theice on the continent is also declining and has been for some years.

最近可没有增加，因为南极地区现在正接近南半球的夏季。总体来说，南极冰块的质量平衡也在下降，而且已经多年了。

sedison 8h ago
Yes, reviews are important, and enbale usto take account of the latest facts,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11970682/NASA-reveals-that-Antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice.html#disqus_thread

是吖，审查是很重要的，这样我们才会考虑到最新出现的情况。
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11970682/NASA-reveals-that-Antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice.html#disqus_thread

Thelarch 8h ago
This is great news, another significantstep in the right direction.

这是个好消息，这是另一个正确的关键步骤。

CanadaChuck 10h ago
If the words used in this announcement arecorrect, this could indicate
an important climb-down by the French andEU commission people.
The Draft document, of early October, isriddled with statements like this:
Countries (shall)(should)(other) dosomething or other.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/8infnot.pdf
I'm not sure how a UN treaty can be madelegally binding but 'should' do something
is less of a commitment than 'shall' dosomething. More of the parties may agree
with 'should'.
It will be interesting to compare the drafttreaty with the treaty that they eventually
come up with.

如果这份公告中所使用的字眼是正确的，那么这表明了法国和欧盟委员会所作出的重大退让。
在10月初的草案文件中，出现了如下这样的声明：
国家（必须）（应该）采取措施或者其他。
我不知道一个联合国的条约如何具备法律约束力，但是“应该“比”必须“更不具备承诺力度。更多的签署国可能更倾向于“应该”。
将最终达成的协议与这个草案协议进行比较肯定很有意思。

OPatrick CanadaChuck 9h ago
If the words used in this announcement arecorrect, this could indicate
an important climb-down by the French andEU commission people.
You don't seem even to be trying to makesense anymore. Your desperation to play down any positive aspect to thisprocess is palpable.

“如果这份公告中所使用的字眼是正确的，那么这表明了法国和欧盟委员会所作出的重大退让。”
你说的对一点意义也没有。你急于对这个过程的积极方面进行轻描淡写，司马昭之心路人皆知。

CanadaChuck OPatrick 8h ago
Totally wrong, why would you think that?
This could be an important development.
The EU position had been that there werethings they wanted
in a treaty and "They Would Not TakeNo For An Answer".
The only way for the process to move aheadis if they
come off of their previous position.

你错了，为什么你会那么觉得？
这可以是一个非常重要的进展。
欧盟之前的立场是协议中必须规定他们想要的条款，不会因为别人说不而屈服。
所以欧盟能否放弃之前的立场是事情能否取得进展的关键。

MCourtney 12h ago
The whole focus of the conference seemsmisplaced.
The Oil and gas Industry is far larger thanthe Arms Industry. So why pick a fight that’s harder to win? Instead ofabolishing fossil fuels the world should come together to abolish War.
• This has lessentrenched opposition.
• This issubstantially cheaper in terms of damage to the economy.
• This is moreurgent – we already have war refugees.
• And it’s just asfeasible.
If all the world can come together to makea deal on climate then they can make a deal on War.
Especially as some countries will benefitfrom a warmer climate but no-one benefits from more War.

整个会议的重点貌似弄错了。
石油与天然气产业比军需产业大得多。所以为什么偏偏要挑选更加棘手的对手？与其废除化石燃料，全世界还不如团结起来废除战争。因为：
1、根深蒂固的反对力量更小
2、对经济造成的损害更小
3、我们已经拥有战争难民，所以情况更加紧急
4、而且可行性一样高
如果全世界可以聚集在一起制定气候方面的协议，那么也可以制定战争方面的协议。
而且某些国家可以从气候变暖中获得好处，而没有国家可以从战争中获得好处。