评论
打印
“It's the deeply painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and somehow unworthy of connection, love and belonging.”
“这是一种极度痛苦的感觉或经历，认为我们有缺陷，不值得与人交往、不值得有爱和归属感。”
That’s Brene Brown, a renowned shame researcher urging us to understand the shame in all of us.
这个人就是著名的羞耻感研究专家布琳·布朗，她敦促我们去理解我们所有人的羞耻感。
When it comes to climate action and the claims of hypocrisy that inevitably come with it, we need to understand what shame and guilt really are.
当谈到气候行动以及不可避免地随之而来的伪善言论时，我们需要理解到底什么是羞耻和内疚。
According to Brene Brown, shame and guilt are two very different things.
根据布琳·布朗的说法，羞耻和内疚是两码事。
While shame comes from believing our very selves are flawed, guilt comes from believing our actions are flawed, and the two can be intertwined and play off each other.
羞耻来自于相信我们自己是有缺陷的，而内疚来自于相信我们的行为是有缺陷的，两者可以交织在一起，相互发挥作用。
It’s easy to feel guilty for our carbon-intensive actions when we are consistently told to vote with our dollars, that change comes from the atomized individual, and that our world is run by consumer demand.
如果不断有人告诉我们，要用我们的美元投票，改变的来源是原子化的个人，我们的世界是由消费者需求运行，那么我们就很容易为我们的碳密集行动感到内疚。
Buying a bag of chips suddenly becomes a world-destroying choice.
买一袋薯条突然就变成了一个毁灭世界的选择。
And this guilt over our actions might seep into shame.
而这种因我们行为而产生的内疚感可能会渗透到羞愧中。
Shame that we are bad climate activists.
之所以羞愧，是因为我们作为气候活动家表现不佳。
Shame that can hold back decisive and vulnerable action against the fossil fuel industry.
这种羞愧可能会阻碍对化石燃料行业采取果断而脆弱的行动。
Instead of cultivating vulnerability and empathy for our emissions-based actions, climate activists, including me at times, often employ the very same rhetoric that fossil capital has drilled into our heads.
气候活动人士，有时甚至包括我在内，会经常使用化石资本灌输给我们的同样的言论，而不会因为我们的排放行动变得脆弱并产生同理心。
We individualize the problem.
我们会把问题归咎于个人。
One of the more prominent examples of this is flight shaming.
一个比较突出的例子就是飞行羞辱。
A reaction to the massive emissions output of commercial flights that seeks to create a culture of anti-flying.
这是对商业航班大量排放的反应，旨在营造一种反飞行文化。
In 2019 the idea of flight-shaming gained traction when Greta Thunberg traveled across the world without flying.
2019年，当格里塔·通伯格在不坐飞机的情况下环游世界时，飞行羞辱的想法得到了支持。
At the core of this flight-shaming, is individual behavior change.
这种飞行羞辱的核心是个人行为的改变。
The hope is that if enough people stop flying we can cut the emissions of the airline industry.
持这种观念的人希望，如果有足够多的人不再坐飞机，我们就可以减少航空业的排放。
A goal eerily similar to the calls of hypocrisy coming out of oil industry marketing and conservative pundits.
这个目标与石油行业的营销和保守派专家发出的虚伪呼声惊人地相似。
Yes, taking fewer flights will mean less carbon in the atmosphere.
没错，少坐飞机能够减少大气中的碳排放。
If these flights are born out of luxury or pleasure, then by all means cancel them or don’t take flights.
如果坐飞机是为了奢侈或娱乐，那肯定要取消航班，或者不乘坐航班。
If you have the time to travel by train, do it.
如果你有时间坐火车旅行，那就去吧。
But not flying is an extremely difficult task for many who can only see their family through air travel or are required to fly for their job.
但对于许多人来说，不坐飞机是一项极其困难的任务，他们只有坐飞机才能去看望家人，或者因工作需要而不得不坐飞机。
Taking fewer planes is akin to one mosquito trying to drain an elephant of blood.
少坐飞机就像一只蚊子试图吸干一头大象的血。
The mosquito will die long before it begins to do any damage, and the elephant won’t feel a thing.
蚊子在开始对大象造成任何破坏之前就会早早死亡，而大象则不会有任何感觉。
We are that mosquito because the fossil fuel industry wins every moment we exhaust ourselves with the guilt of taking a flight or figuring out some obscure alternative means of transportation.
我们就是那只蚊子，因为在我们因乘坐飞机或寻找某种模糊的替代交通工具而感到内疚、疲惫不堪的每一刻，化石燃料行业都赢了。
While we’re busy trying to cleanse ourselves of emissions before we feel ready to start dismantling the fossil fuel industry, fossil capitalists continue to pour money into oil and gas investments.
我们忙于清理自己的排放，直至我们觉得可以开始拆除化石燃料行业时，化石资本家们继续将资金投入到了石油和天然气投资中。
Considering BP’s carbon footprint campaign and Exxon’s decades of individual blame marketing, I can’t help but worry that the culture of flight-shaming or calls for zero-waste are playing right into the hands of oil and gas operations.
考虑到英国石油公司的碳足迹运动和埃克森美孚数十年来的个人指责营销，我不禁担心，飞行羞辱或呼吁零废物的文化恰恰对石油和天然气业务有利。
Because these solutions are ultimately what Leigh Phillips calls “austerity ecology.”
因为这些解决方案归根结底就是利·菲利普斯所说的“紧缩生态”。
We will never win if we create a politics of less that guilts ourselves and other people for taking a trip to visit family or driving to go to work.
如果我们创造一种“少”的政治，让自己和其他人因为去探亲或开车去上班而感到内疚，我们就永远不会获胜。
Much like the self-flagilators of the Bubonic Plague, these personal austerity politics seek contraction and sacrifice as virtue and moral goodness.
就像黑死病的自我鞭挞者一样，这些个人紧缩政治将紧缩和牺牲视为美德和道德善行。
Climate action thus becomes about having less instead of building a world with more.
因此，气候行动的主题变成了少做某些事，而不是建立一个可以做更多事的世界。
This “politics of less” framework might hold a few who care deeply about avoiding the worst outcomes of climate change, but won’t be popular for the vast majority of people who are trying to get by day by day.
这个“少的政治”的框架可能会让一些非常关心避免气候变化最坏后果的人满意，但对于绝大多数每天努力过日子的人来说，这并不受欢迎。
Shaming, guilting, and calling out hypocrisy builds brittle action.
羞辱、内疚和谴责伪善只会让行动变得脆弱。
A study from 2020 even found that urging individual behavioral change when it came to climate action created more backlash and resistance than change.
2020年的一项研究甚至发现，在气候行动方面，敦促个人改变行为会产生更多的反弹和阻力，而不是改善现状。
So, do I care if you fly?
所以，我在乎你坐不坐飞机吗？
No, not really.
答案是不，不怎么在乎。
Flying less is certainly better, but what I really want is for you to agitate for fossil fuel abolition so we can live in a world where no one has to feel the ecological guilt or shame for the choices they want to make.
少坐飞机当然更好，但我真正想要的是你们倡导废除化石燃料，好让我们可以生活在一个没有人因为自己想要做出的选择感到生态内疚或羞愧的世界里。
