纽约：美国柴油供应并不短缺，但共和党人在中期选举中的胜算似乎越来越渺茫。因此，尽管禁止柴油出口这个想法本身很糟糕，但现在看来它变得更有可能被实施。
NEW YORK: The US is not short of diesel but Republicans’ odds for the midterms appear ever longer. So a ban on diesel exports terrible idea though it is, now looks more likely.
上个月我就曾指出：尽管大型石油公司与唐纳德·特朗普总统关系密切，但由于高能源价格导致他的支持率不断下降，他可能会转而反对这个行业。
I suggested last month that, despite deep affinity between Big Oil and President Donald Trump, his declining support amid high energy prices might lead him to turn on the industry.
多位共和党政治人物或官员已经表示支持或至少对禁止柴油出口的想法持开放态度，最近表态的包括参议员约翰·图恩（John Thune）和查克·格拉斯利（Chuck Grassley）。周二，特朗普本人也发表了意见：“我们不应该出口柴油。”虽然特朗普经常说些模棱两可的话，但真正能说明问题的是美国石油协会（American Petroleum Institute）当晚发出的声明——该协会通常是本届政府的坚定支持者，却明确反对这一提议。休斯顿方面已经感到非常担忧。
Various Republican politicians or officials have signalled openness to or outright support of an export ban, most recently Senators John Thune and Chuck Grassley. The president added his own distinctive voice on Tuesday: “Let’s not send out the diesel.” Trump says a lot of things, obviously, but the real tell was a missive sent out that same evening by the American Petroleum Institute, usually a reliable fan of this administration, pushing back on the idea. Alarm bells are ringing in Houston.
紧急解决方案：由于柴油价格在9月21日创下了每加仑近6.53美元的历史新高，这一禁令的想法开始获得更多支持。这对农民（因此格拉斯利才提出这一建议）、使用取暖油的房主以及整个通胀形势都非常不利。这一问题的根源很大程度上可以归咎于特朗普在2026年发起的伊朗战争；当然，乌克兰战争也起到了重要作用。
A QUICK FIX The idea has gathered momentum because diesel prices hit an all-time record of almost US$6.53 a gallon on Monday (Sep 21). This is bad for farmers (hence Grassley’s call), homeowners using heating oil and inflation in general. It can also be fairly blamed on Trump’s signature project in 2026, the Iran war; although the Ukraine war also plays a starring role.
鉴于共和党在11月可能面临惨败，而特朗普本人的支持率也持续下滑，人们迫切需要一个“紧急解决方案”。
With the GOP facing a possible hammering in November, and Trump’s own polling gone subterranean, a quick fix is sought.
美国炼油厂每天生产约520万桶馏分燃料油（其中大部分为柴油），国内需求约为350万至400万桶；另有约150万桶柴油被出口。因此，美国实际上并不缺乏柴油供应。
US refineries produce about 5.2 million barrels of distillate fuel oil, which is largely diesel, per day. Domestic demand is about 3.5 million to 4.0 million barrels a day. Roughly another 1.5 million barrels a day, fluctuating up and down around that figure, get exported. So there is no shortage.
柴油价格之所以高昂，是因为它是一种全球交易的商品，而世界上许多其他地区都面临柴油短缺的情况，这导致全球柴油价格普遍上涨，包括美国的柴油价格也随之上涨。
Diesel is expensive because it is a globally traded commodity and much of the rest of the world is short, bidding up the price of available barrels, including US ones.
出口禁令，或者另一种更为温和的方案——即实施配额制度（将出口量限制在某一特定水平以下）——的目的是切断这种供需之间的联系。原本要出口到海外的柴油将不再流向海外市场，而是被储存到美国的储罐中。
An export ban, or, alternatively, a quota system that restricts exports below a certain level, aims to break that linkage. Bottled-up barrels of diesel would no longer flow overseas but into US storage tanks instead.
由于墨西哥湾沿岸的炼油厂与东西海岸市场之间存在物流上的障碍，美国国内柴油价格很可能会大幅下跌（尽管这种价格下降可能并不均匀）。这样一来，特朗普就能实现他的目标。
The price of diesel inside the suddenly glutted US would drop, probably significantly, if unevenly due to logistical constraints between Gulf Coast refineries and East and West Coast markets. Trump would get his win.
柴油禁令的后果：然而，任何措施都不会没有代价；柴油禁令带来的影响将是深远且持久的。
RAMIFICATIONS OF A DIESEL BAN Nothing comes for free, though, and the ramifications of a ban would be pernicious and lasting.
新闻提示：石油炼油企业本质上是盈利导向的商业机构。如果柴油的利润空间大幅缩水，它们会想办法减少柴油的产量。
News alert: Oil refiners are commercial entities that like to make money. If diesel margins collapse, refiners will find ways to produce less of it.
一种可能的办法是调整原油的采购种类以及所生产燃料的成分比例（例如，增加汽油和航空燃料的产量，减少柴油的产量）。
One way is to alter their intake of different grades of crude oil and proportions of the fuels that come out of them: More gasoline and jet fuel rather than diesel, say.
或者，它们干脆可以完全停止生产。由于今年夏天炼油厂为追求利润而过度运转，禁令可能会导致炼油厂进入维护停机状态。理论上，特朗普可以动用紧急权力强制炼油厂继续生产，但这可能会进一步损害他与这些企业的关系。
Or they could simply dial back production altogether. Having run unusually hard this summer, chasing those margins, a ban might herald a bout of maintenance shutdowns. Trump could, in theory, invoke emergency powers to force refineries to run, but at the risk of even deeper damage to his ties to the industry.
后续影响：在禁令实施初期，柴油价格会迅速下跌；但随后柴油产量会逐渐减少，以重新平衡市场供需并稳定价格（这符合任何可交易商品的市场规律）。
So after the initial rush of diesel prices dropping at the stroke of a pen, diesel production would start falling to rebalance things and support those prices, as is the usual way with any traded commodity.
此外，禁令还会引发其他连锁反应：美国国内柴油价格会低迷，而其他地区由于美国柴油供应受限，柴油价格则会飙升。虽然美国炼油企业的利润会受到影响，但欧洲和亚洲的炼油企业反而会因利润增加而受益。
Other forces would be set in motion, too. The ban would create a two-tier market with depressed prices inside the US but soaring prices elsewhere now that critical US barrels were unavailable. Even as American refiners took a hit to profits, European and Asian ones would get a further windfall as margins blew out.
这种状况最终会反过来影响美国：进口商品价格会上涨（因为柴油是商业活动的重要燃料来源），同时出口市场也可能因能源成本上升而陷入衰退。
That would blow back on the US in the form of higher imported inflation, since diesel is the fuel of commerce, and a possible recession in export markets succumbing to even higher energy costs.
声誉与外交方面的负面影响最严重的后果将体现在美国的声誉和外交关系上。
REPUTATIONAL AND DIPLOMATIC BLOWBACK The bigger blowback would be reputational and diplomatic.
特朗普政府一直表示希望扩大美国的石油精炼能力；不过这一目标本身就极具挑战性，更何况如果炼油企业担心新建的精炼厂可能会在未来受到出口市场的限制或干预，那么实现这一目标会更加困难。
The Trump administration has talked of expanding US refining capacity; always a big ask, it would be even harder if refiners thought a brand new plant might get caught up in some lingering or future intervention in the export market.
那些早已对美国的可靠性产生怀疑的盟友，将会获得更多证据来证明美国的不可靠性。在当前动荡的石油市场环境下，他们以及其他国家将有更多理由彻底摆脱对美国出口产品及化石燃料的依赖。
Allies, who hardly need further evidence of America’s newfound unreliability, would get yet more anyway. They, and other countries, would have even more reason amid the current turmoil in traded oil markets to shift away from dependence on now questionable US exports and fossil fuels altogether.
柴油市场的动荡还会波及美国蓬勃发展的液化天然气产业——该产业需要其他国家的信任才能签订长期供应合同。
Diesel’s ripples would extend to the burgeoning US liquefied natural gas sector, which needs other countries to trust its reliability in order to sign multi-decade supply contracts.
具有讽刺意味的是：特朗普一直以美国石油和天然气出口的增长作为实现“能源主导地位”的手段，但这种“能源优势”最终却可能反过来阻碍美国的能源出口。
It would be ironic if “energy dominance”, Trump’s mantra built around the leverage offered by rising US oil and gas exports, should degenerate into a form of energy expedience that blocks those exports.
面对这样一个两难境地——即必须通过短期措施来解决主要由自身政策造成的问题，但这样做却会损害美国的能源生产和安全——你认为特朗普会做出怎样的选择呢？
Faced with the dilemma of getting a short-term fix for his largely self-inflicted problems but at the expense of long-term damage to US energy production and security, though, what do you think Trump would choose?