已经想出了完美的解决方案来应对澳大利亚化石燃料在海外燃烧所产生的气候污染。
has come up with the perfect solution to deal with the climate pollution from when Australian fossil fuels are burned overseas.
我们要么假装它们不存在，要么忽视人们对它们的担忧，即使这些人包括多数高等法院法官或国际法院。
We should either just pretend they don't exist, or ignore the reason why people are concerned about them, even if those people include a majority of high court judges or the international court of justice.
本周，联盟党表示希望撤销新规，该规要求化石燃料生产商披露其产品在海外燃烧所产生的温室气体排放。
This week the Coalition said it wanted to roll back new rules that ask fossil fuel producers to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions that come from burning their products overseas.
此举是对保守派对上周高等法院裁决的强烈不满的回应。该裁决确认，新南威尔士州的规划者本应考虑对煤矿的海外排放设置条件。
The step comes in response to a barrage of conservative outrage over a high court ruling last week that confirmed planners in NSW should have considered putting conditions on the overseas emissions from a coalmine. The high court's decision was "absurd" and "madness", the Coalition said, with Nationals leader, Matt Canavan, calling it "
联盟党称高等法院的决定“荒唐”且“疯狂”，国民党领袖马特·卡纳文称其为“类零排放的类固醇”。化石燃料行业称其为“彻底的疯狂”，并警告这可能引发一波法律挑战。
net zero on steroids ". Fossil fuel groups called it " utter madness " and warned it could spark a wave of legal challenges.
但这些评论者都没有触及为何要计入并考虑海外排放——即范围3排放——的根本原因：它们对人们造成危害。
But none of those commentators tackle the reason why overseas emissions – known as scope 3 – are being counted and considered in the first place: they cause people harm.
目前正分阶段实施规则，要求公司——先是最大公司，随后是规模较小、达到阈值的公司——每年报告它们间接负责的这些排放。“把沉默的部分说出来”联盟党希望取消这些要求，称其为“荒唐”。另一种看法是，这些要求帮助企业和公众了解其活动对气候的全部影响。
Rules are being phased in that require companies – the largest first, followed by smaller companies up to a threshold– to report annually on these emissions which they are indirectly responsible for. 'The quiet part out loud' The Coalition wants these requirements gone, describing them as " absurd ".
对于化石燃料出口商而言，这些排放构成了其气候影响的主要部分。
Another way to look at them is that they help corporations and the public to understand the full impact of their activities on the climate.
此次宣布的导火索是上周一项同样涉及范围3排放的高等法院判决。
Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton's Clear Air column as a free newsletter For fossil fuel exporters, these emissions make up the lion's share of their climate impact.
高等法院的裁决以三名法官赞成、两名反对的结果作出，这显然是这对新南威尔士州退休夫妇的胜利。此前他们曾对阵芒特普莱森特煤矿项目，并在上诉法院胜诉。
What sparked that announcement was a high court judgment last week that also concerned scope 3 emissions. The high court's finding, by a majority of three judges to two, was clearly a victory for the retired NSW couple who had previously taken on the Mount Pleasant coalmine and won in the court of appeal.
从裁决内容来看，高等法院的法官们只是指出：新南威尔士州独立规划委员会并未妥善遵循该州现行法律。
In the cold light of the judgment, all that the high court judges said was that the NSW Independent Planning Commission had not followed the state's existing laws properly.
“要求规划委员会考量范围三排放的相关规定，以各种形式存在于新南威尔士州的规划体系中已近20年，”墨尔本大学国际知名气候法专家杰奎琳·皮尔教授说道。
"These requirements on the planning commission to consider scope 3 emissions have been part of the New South Wales planning system in one form or another for almost 20 years," said Prof Jacqueline Peel, a leading international climate law expert at the University of Melbourne.
“高等法院其实只是把大家都心知肚明的事实说了出来而已。多数法官审视法律条文后发现，决策机构并未遵守相关规定。”皮尔指出，高等法院所援引的条款本身并不禁止规划委员会批准煤炭项目。
"The high court has really just said the quiet part out loud. The majority of the court looked at the law and saw that the decision maker didn't follow it."
她补充道，该条款仅要求委员会必须考虑是否针对范围三排放设定相关限制条件。
Peel said the provision that the high court had considered did not prevent the planning commission from approving a coal project.
“或许在某些人看来这一裁决较为激进——因为一旦开始对海外产生的排放设定限制，煤炭生产成本可能随之上升。至于这种做法是好是坏，则取决于个人对气候变化的看法，”皮尔说道。不当裁决？
All that it did, she said, was say the commission had to consider whether to impose conditions in relation to scope 3 emissions. "Maybe [this decision] is construed as radical by some because if you do start to impose conditions on emissions generated overseas, then it could make coal production more expensive.
联盟党对该裁决极为不满，其理由是：根据联合国气候公约，温室气体排放量应计入排放发生国。若仅凭“这些排放仅是外国碳核算表格上的一个数据”便推卸责任，便忽视了设定此类核算指标的根本目的。
Whether you think that is good or bad depends on your views around climate change," Peel said. Wrongful act?
虽然这些排放确实发生在别国，但它们带来的危害却波及全球，气候科学家们如今已能较为准确地量化这些影响。而这些危害显然不会止步于新南威尔士州的边界。
The Coalition was angry with the decision because it said under the UN climate convention, greenhouse gas emissions are assigned to the country where they are released Being able to wave away responsibility for these emissions by suggesting it is just an entry on a carbon accounting spreadsheet in a foreign land, ignores the reason why they are being counted in the first place. The emissions might occur somewhere else, but they generate harms around the world that climate scientists are increasingly able to quantify.
作为在此案中支持反对矿业公司立场的法官之一，詹姆斯·埃德尔曼大法官指出，规划委员会的论证逻辑所体现的“最自然且无可辩驳的解读”是：该委员会“被温室气体排放分类相关的会计概念所误导”。
Those harms don't stop at the New South Wales border.
他写道，这意味着规划委员会认为自己无需“尽最大努力将第三类温室气体排放降至最低水平”。反对党则声称，关于第三类排放的问题“关键在于新南威尔士州规划法的具体措辞”——却对这类排放给全球带来的危害视而不见。
As one of the judges to side against the mining company on the issue, Justice James Edelman, wrote the "natural and irresistible interpretation" of the planning commission's reasoning was that it was "distracted by the accounting concepts of the scopes into which greenhouse gas emissions are divided." What that meant, he wrote, was that the commission thought it didn't need "to ensure that scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are minimised to the greatest extent practicable."
不过，要求各国着手控制第三类温室气体排放的呼声并非毫无依据。
The Coalition claimed the issue with scope 3 emissions "turns on the wording of NSW planning law" – ignoring the harms that emissions cause around the world.
事实上，这一规定在新南威尔士州的规划法规中已存在十余年（反对党正试图废除该规定）。去年，国际法院也作出裁决：一国若未能采取必要措施防止温室气体排放——包括限制化石燃料生产——则可能“构成国际违法行为”。在联合国表决中，141个国家支持这一裁决，仅有8个国家持反对意见，它们分别是沙特阿拉伯、俄罗斯、以色列、伊朗、也门、利比里亚、白俄罗斯，当然还有美国及其否认气候科学的总统。
But the notion that a country should start mitigating scope three emissions has not appeared from out of the blue. As well as it sitting on the NSW state planning rules for more than a decade (rules which the Coalition is pushing to have rescinded), the International Court of Justice declared last year that a failure of a state to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions "including through fossil fuel production" may "constitute an internationally wrongful act." At the UN, 141 countries voted to back the court's opinion, against eight dissenters – Saudi Arabia, Russia, Israel, Iran, Yemen, Liberia, Belarus and, of course, the United States and its climate science-denying president.
这些要求管控化石燃料生产的呼声，与其说是“极端版的净零排放目标”，不如说是为了遏制那些导致全球气候持续恶化至更危险程度的因素。
Rather than these growing calls to manage fossil fuel production being "net zero on steroids" they should more accurately be understood as an attempt to cut the steroids driving the planet's climate to ever deadlier extremes.
格雷厄姆·里德费恩是《卫报》澳大利亚版的环境与气候事务记者。
Graham Readfearn is Guardian Australia's environment and climate correspondent