评论
打印
What can we do? Well, two things: decrease oil consumption, preferably by a stiffef gasoline tax; and increase production, preferably by less-hostile regulation. The Qbama administratipn isn’t doing either. Instead, it’s touting a goal of 1 million electrie hybrid45 vehicles by 2015. This is more public relations than policy. The goal is probably unrealistic； first-year sales of the Chevy Volt may reach 25,000. Even if the 1 million is attained, the oil savings would ba tiny — perhaps 40,000 barrels a day, about two-tenths of 1 percent of U.S. consumption of 19 million barrels a day. There are already 240 million cars and light trucks using gasoline.
我们该怎么办？做两件事:一是减少石油消费，主要是通过增收高额汽油税；二 是增加石油产量，主要是放松管制。但是奥巴马政府一样也没有做。相反,它在竭力 宣扬时至2015年，美国将拥有100万辆充电式混合动力汽车，虽然这只是公众的事 情,而不是政策。这一目标或许是不现实的:第一年，雪佛兰伏特(一种插电式电动 汽车)可能仅达到2500年。即使这100万辆的目标达到了，也仅仅能节约4000(_石 油，这只是美国每天1900万桶石油消耗量的1%的20%(0.002),还有2400万小轿车 和轻卡在使用石油。
By contrast, lost production from restrictions on drilling In the Gulf of Mexico oould total 200,000 barrels a day in 2012, by one government astimate. There hasn't been much enaouragement of on -shore drilling, either, despite batter prospects. In 2009, domestic oil production rose for the first time since 1991，in part because higher prices and hew drilling techniques (hydmulic fracturing, horizontal drilling) made it profitable to extract once-inaGcessible oil,
相形之下，根据政府估计,限制墨西哥湾石油开采造成的损失产量到了 2012年 可能高达每日20万桶。尽管前景更好，但陆上开采也不会受到多大的鼓励。2009年， 美国国内石油产量自1991年以来首次增加，部分是因为油价上涨，新的开采技术 (水力压裂，水平钻井)令开采一度遥不可及的石油变得有利可图。
A higher gasoline tax — gradually introduced to avoid wrecking the economic recovery — would dampen wild swings in fuel prints and push consumers to buy the morB-fuel-efftaient vehicles that the government is ordering auto companies to make. Americans have traditionally preferred bigger vehicles and, without the prod, might cling to old habits. There is a convergence7 here between energy and budget policy, An energy tax would help both. It would improve oil security and, with spending cuts, curb budget dBfiGits, Neither the Obama administration nor congressional RapubliGans seem willing to grasp the possibilities.
增加汽油税将打压住燃料价格的疯狂波动，推动消费者购买政府正下令汽车 公司制造的高能效汽车，但要逐步实行以避免破坏经济复苏。美国人一直喜欢排气量大的汽车,这样做可以不打破这个传统’保持美国人的这一老习惯。能源与预算 政策之间在这个方面有重叠:能源税将对双方都有助益。由于削减开支,遏制预算 赤字，它将会提高石油安全。奥巴马政府和国会似乎要紧紧抓住这项政策。
None of this will aohieve energy independ0nceM) which has been a mirage8 since it was proposed in the 1970s. Our need for imported oil — now about half our oonsumption 一 is simply too g_t to be overpoitie by produetlon inoreases or efficiencies. But we cGuld tetnper thait dependence and the cost of imports, which routinely exceeds $250 billion annually.
所有这一切都不会实现“能源自主”。这一概念自从在20世纪7(阵代提出以来， 就一直是海市蜃楼。我们对进口石油的需求——现在约占我们的消耗量的一 半——太大了,无法靠扩大产量或者提高能效来克服。但是，我们是可以减轻依赖 性和降低进口成本的。进口成本一般来说每年超过2500亿美元。
Barring unforeseen technological breakthroughs, oil isn’t going gently into the night. Thatconfirmed by recent projections of future energymartets: from the International Energy Agenqy in Paris; from the U.S. Energy Information Administration;; and from ExxonMobil. All make generous assumptions9 about gains from energy efficiencfes, inoludirig vehicles, and expanded renewable supplies. All still eonclude that oil will meet a quarter or mare of global energy demand for deGades. ExxonMobil projects that the number of light-duty vehicles worldwide； will grow 50 percent, to 1 2 billion, by 2Q30. Most will Use gasoline. Two-fiftha Qf the increase will occur in China. Competition for global oil supplies will intensify. We cannot escape that reality, even if we ignore it.
除非实现未预见到的技术突破，否则,石油就不会慢慢消失。最近对未来能源 市场的推测证实了这一点。这些推测来自巴黎的国际能源机构、美国的能源部情报 局以及埃克森美孚公司。所有上述机构和公司都对提高能效带来的收益做出了慷 慨的假设。它们也都得出结论认为,在几十年时间里,石油仍将满足四分之一或更 多的全球能源需求。埃克森美孚公司预计，轻型汽车在2030年将在世界范围内达到 1亿2000万辆，比现在增加50%,这些车将仍使用石油作为动力，增长的2/5将在中 国。对全球石油供应的角逐将会日趋激烈。我们逃避不了这一现实，尽管我们对此 视而不见。
