本文提供英译汉翻译练习材料，原文选自2024年11月CATTI英语一级笔译英译汉真题，译文及解析由笔者提供，仅供参考，欢迎交流指正。本文收录于公众号【笔译练习】合集，文末可点击查看。
文末提供整合版原文和译文。
第一段
Carbon prices are the most cost-effective way to fight climate change. But for them to work properly, emissions must be priced everywhere. On July 14th the European Commission unveiled its plan to levy what would, in effect, be a tariff on some carbon intensive imports which, by virtue of having been produced outside the EU, are not subject to its cap and trade carbon pricing scheme. The idea is to stop European firms from responding to the carbon price by moving production to parts of the world where they can pollute without penalty, to shield them from being undercut by rivals from such places and to encourage foreign firms who want to sell to Europe to go green.
征收碳税是应对气候变化最具性价比的手段，但前提是全球各地都对碳排放定价。7月14日，欧盟委员会公布了一项计划，要对部分进口的碳密集型产品征收一种特别关税。由于生产地不在欧盟境内，这些产品无需服从欧盟的碳排放限制，独立于碳定价体系之外。欧盟此举意在实现多重目标：既要阻止欧盟企业为了逃避碳税迁至可以随意排污的国家，又要保护欧盟企业不被污染国的同行以低价抢走生意，还要鼓励有意向欧洲出口的外国企业走绿色发展之路。
1. Carbon prices are the most cost-effective way to fight climate change. But for them to work properly, emissions must be priced everywhere.
征收碳税是应对气候变化最具性价比的手段，但前提是全球各地都对碳排放定价。
“but for them to work properly”也即其生效的“前提条件”。
2. On July 14th the European Commission unveiled its plan to levy what would, in effect, be a tariff on some carbon intensive imports which, by virtue of having been produced outside the EU, are not subject to its cap and trade carbon pricing scheme.
7月14日，欧盟委员会公布了一项计划，要对部分进口的碳密集型产品征收一种特别关税。由于生产地不在欧盟境内，这些产品无需服从欧盟的碳排放限制，独立于碳定价体系之外。
先看原句的句子结构。on July 14th是时间状语，这句话的句子核心是：the European Commission unveiled its plan。to后面是目的状语，核心成分是：to levy a tariff on imports。what引导的是宾语从句，作levy的宾语，连接代词what相当于the thing that。（in effect是个插入语，读的时候可以先放在一边，不影响整体意思的理解）。which是关系代词引导定语从句，修饰imports。（by后面同样是方式状语作插入语，读的时候可以先不看）。这个从句的核心成分：imports are not subject to cap and scheme。
整句话的核心成分就是：the European Union unveiled a plan to levy a tariff on imports.（再把定语、状语和补充成分糅合进去）
由于定语从句太长，如果在翻译时把它处理成前置定语，中文里就会出现“的”前面内容过长的问题，因此笔者从which引导的定语从句这里把句子断成了两句。
第一句首先是时间状语交代事件背景，紧接着是核心句，然后用“要对......”衔接上目的状语。第二句（即which从句）把“by...”状语提前说明原因，后面是从句的核心内容（也即结果）。
cap【a limit on the amount of money that can be charged or spent in connection with a particular activity】（剑桥词典）指对（收费、花费等）设定的限制。
第二段
There are sound reasons for applying carbon prices to imports. But working out how to go about it without causing a cycle of damaging protectionism is a conundrum.
对出口产品实行碳定价，理由充分。但是在操作过程中，如何避免引发保护主义浪潮、进而造成破坏性后果，这确实是个难题。
a cycle of damaging protectionism如果翻译成“但如何操作才能避免陷入破坏性保护主义的恶性循环”，虽说也说得过去，但是“恶性循环”全面实际有两个定语，定语有点长，而且“破坏性保护主义”的说法不太符合中文语言表达习惯，因为具有“破坏性”的，实际上是“保护主义带来的影响和后果”。因此可以考虑把前面的两个定语拆开：“如何避免引发保护主义浪潮、进而造成破坏性后果”。
conundrum【a problem that is difficult to deal with】(剑桥词典)指“难题，复杂的问题”。
第三段
Were carbon prices global, the costs of fulfilling the Paris agreement on climate change could fall by 79%, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, a think tank. Market forces would find the cheapest ways to cut emissions. Yet a worldwide carbon market is a pipe dream. (China is due to launch the world’s largest emissions trading system on July 16th, after we go to press, but permits will be far too cheap.) Carbon tariffs are a fallback measure.
智库美国环保协会称，要是能在全球范围内实行碳定价，达成巴黎气候协定所需花费会降低79%。市场这只看不见的手会找到成本最低的减排途径。但在全球范围内形成碳市场很难实现。（本刊付印后，中国将在7月16日启动全球最大的碳交易体系，但碳配额价格仍低于应有水平)。征收碳关税不过是退而求其次的方案。
1. Were carbon prices global, the costs of fulfilling the Paris agree‐ment on climate change could fall by 79%, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, a think tank.
智库美国环保协会称，要是能在全球范围内实行碳定价，达成巴黎气候协定所需花费会降低79%。
“Were carbon prices global”是一个虚拟条件句，表示与现在的事实相反，用的是倒装语序，正常语序是：If carbon prices were global。“the cost...”是主句。according to作状语，表示信息来源。
2. Market forces would find the cheapest ways to cut emissions.
市场这只看不见的手会找到成本最低的减排途径。
这句话的理解：市场机制的优势在于，它不是由政府指定谁该减排、用什么技术减排，而是让无数个市场主体自行博弈。最终，社会整体会以最低的总成本实现减排目标。
3. Yet a worldwide carbon market is a pipe dream. (China is due to launch the world’s largest emissions trading system on July 16th, after we go to press, but permits will be far too cheap.) Carbon tariffs are a fallback measure
但在全球范围内形成碳市场很难实现。（本刊付印后，中国将在7月16日启动全球最大的碳交易体系，但碳配额价格仍低于应有水平)。征收碳关税不过是退而求其次的方案。
pipe dream【an idea or plan that is impossible or very unlikely to happen】指“行不通的计划”。
go to press【to start to be printed】表示“交付印刷”的意思。
be due to【Be due to is used to talk about things that are expected or planned to happen at a certain time.】表示“预期/计划发生”的状态。
fallback【A fallback plan or position can be used if other plans do not succeed or other things are not available.】指“退一步的，应变的”。
第四段
Free traders like The Economist typically reject tariffs on principle. Cheap imports bring lower prices, more choice, higher productivity and incentives to innovate. Firms and workers constantly plead for protection from foreign competitors, alleging that jobs and profits must be shielded from unfair foreign competition. Liberals respond that the harm done to incumbents by the free operation of markets what economists call “pecuniary externalities”- do not, unlike other types of harm, justify government intervention. “Society admits no right, legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors, to immunity from this kind of suffering,” wrote John Stuart Mill in 1859, 16 years after The Economist was founded to oppose the Corn Laws, which kept cheap food out of Britain to the benefit of its incumbent landowners.
作为自由贸易的拥趸，《经济学人》向来在原则上反对关税。进口产品越便宜，价格就越低，选择就更多，生产力就越高，创新激励也越大。企业和工人却常常要求受到保护，以防不公平的外来竞争侵占了工作机会和盈利空间。而自由派经济学家会反驳说，市场自由运行给既得利益者带来的损害，经济学家称之为“金钱外部性”。而这不同于其他类型的损害，并不构成政府干预的正当理由。“无论是在法律上还是道义上，社会都不承认落败的竞争者有权免于这种痛苦，”约翰·斯图亚特·密尔在1859年写道。16年前，《经济学人》创刊，旨在反对《谷物法》，该法让英国对廉价进口粮关上大门，使本地地主从中受益。
先从总体上解释一下这段话要表达的中心思想：这段话概括了三个不同主体对“关税”的不同看法，分别是拥护自由贸易的一方（《经济学人》），企业和工人（既得利益者），自由主义经济学家（约翰·斯图亚特·密尔）。
1. Free traders like The Economist typically reject tariffs on principle. Cheap imports bring lower prices, more choice, higher productiv‐ity and incentives to innovate.
作为自由贸易的拥趸，《经济学人》向来在原则上反对关税。进口产品越便宜，价格就越低，选择就更多，生产力就越高，创新激励也越大。
“拥趸”本来就是“支持者”的意思，所以不要再在后面加上“者”。第二句四个并列的名词，在译文中处理成了并列的“越.....”结构，把静态结构转换成了更具动态感的表达。
这一句描述拥护自由贸易的一方(站在消费者立场)的观点。他们反对关税：进口商品带来的低价、多样选择、竞争压力倒逼的生产率提升，这些都是惠及全社会（尤其是消费者）的。
2. Firms and workers constantly plead for protection from foreign competitors, alleging that jobs and profits must be shielded from unfair foreign competition.
企业和工人却常常要求受到保护，以防不公平的外来竞争侵占了工作机会和盈利空间。
这句话中“firms and workers plead for protection”为核心成分，“alleging”是现在分词作伴随状语，后面跟了一个that引导的宾语从句。笔者在翻译时将“现在分词结构”处理成了“目的状语”。
这句描述了企业和工人的动机（生产者视角）： 企业和工人并不关心宏观的“社会总福利”，他们关心的是自己的饭碗和利润。面对外来竞争者，他们的本能反应是筑起高墙，而他们最有力的武器就是“不公平”（指责对方倾销、补贴或使用廉价劳动力）。
shield【to protect someone or something】(剑桥词典)
3. Liberals respond that the harm done to incumbents by the free operation of markets what economists call “pecuniary externalities”- do not, unlike other types of harm, justify government intervention.
而自由派经济学家会反驳说，市场自由运行给既得利益者带来的损害，经济学家称之为“金钱外部性”。这种损害不同于其他类型的损害，并不构成政府干预的正当理由。
这是一个“主句+ 宾语从句”的复合句。宾语从句内部又包含了修饰成分和插入语。这句话的核心成分是：liberals respond that the harm do not justify government intervention。that引导宾语从句作respond的宾语，宾语从句内部：the harm是主语，“done to incumbents”是后置定语，“by the free operation of markets”是方式状语。what引导的是同位语从句（同时是插入语），对harm的具体内容进行解释说明。do not justify是that宾语从句里的谓语，unlike那部分是插入语。
笔者在翻译时进行了断句，将整句话的核心成分断为一句，其中的从句和修饰成分断为另一句。
这一部分描述自由主义经济学家（约翰·斯图亚特·密尔）的观点：市场竞争必然会产生失败者。技术革新会淘汰旧手艺，外来竞争会挤垮本地工厂。这种“痛苦”是经济活力的代价，也是常态。虽然你输了、你痛苦，但社会（或政府）并不欠你一张“免于受苦”的证书。只要对手是通过更低的价格、更好的质量（即“市场自由运作”）赢了你，而不是通过欺诈、侵权或武力，那么你的损失就是市场竞争的自然结果，而非需要政府纠正的不公。
这里需要理解和区分一下“金钱外部性”和“一般外部性”：“一般外部性”指一个经济主体的行为直接影响了另一个经济主体的生产或效用，通常不涉及市场因素，没有通过价格机制反映出来。比如工厂排污导致下游渔民的鱼死亡；邻居放音乐导致你失眠。“金钱外部性”指一个经济主体的行为通过改变市场价格，间接影响了另一个经济主体的利润或收入，是通过价格机制传导的。比如，沃尔玛开店导致周边小卖部客流量下降（因为沃尔玛价格更低）。
4. “Society admits no right, legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors, to immunity from this kind of suffering,” wrote John Stuart Mill in 1859, 16 years after The Economist was founded to oppose the Corn Laws, which kept cheap food out of Britain to the benefit of its incumbent landowner.
约翰·斯图亚特·密尔在1859年写道，“无论是在法律上还是道义上，社会都不承认落败的竞争者有权免于这种痛苦，”。16年前，《经济学人》创刊，旨在反对《谷物法》，该法让英国对廉价进口粮关上大门，使本地地主从中受益。
整句话的主句（倒装句）：wrote John Stuart Mill in 1859（即John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859），“ Society admits no right... ”为间接引语作wrote的宾语。“16 years after The Economist was founded to oppose the Corn Laws”为时间状语，which引导非限制性定语从句，指代the Corn Laws。
在翻译时，先识别间接引语中的核心成分：society admits no right in the disappointed competitors to immune from suffering，然后把插入语处理成状语，交代背景。在处理which非限制性定语从句时，用“该法”来指代前面已经出现的先行词。
incumbent【a person or business that holds a particular position in a company, market, industry, etc. at the present time】（剑桥词典)
第五段
Carbon tariffs, however, would not be inherently protectionist. They are an attempt to expand the reach of market forces rather than to limit them. The opportunity to pollute the atmosphere without penalty is itself a kind of distorting subsidy; more so if it exists unevenly across borders. Preventing climate change is a global public good, meaning every country's citizens have a direct interest in reducing emissions wherever they happen. Pricing carbon at the border should therefore be viewed as a special case, and not as a precedent for using tariffs as a bludgeon with which to impose local regulations or standards abroad.
但是碳关税从本实质上来说并不是保护主义的。这是一种扩大而非限制市场力量的表现。污染环境却不用承担处罚，这是一种扭曲的补贴。如果这种补贴在不同国家间厚此薄彼，那就更是如此了。应对气候变化是一个全球性任务。无论污染产生在哪里，都和全球居民的利益息息相关。因此，对进口商品征收碳关税应视作特例，不应开创先例，让关税沦为向别国强加本国法规或标准的大棒。
这段话的整体逻辑链条是：为了维护全球市场公平（因污染补贴而失衡）——基于气候问题的全球公共品属性（排放无国界）——可以对进口品征收碳税（这是市场逻辑的延伸）——但必须严守边界，仅限于气候，不能泛化为贸易霸凌的工具。
1. Carbon tariffs, however, would not be inherently protectionist. They are an attempt to expand the reach of market forces rather than to limit them.
但是碳关税从本实质上来说并不是保护主义的。这是一种扩大而非限制市场力量的表现。
两个逗号之间的插入语先不看，可以更快找到整个句子的主干。
2. The opportunity to pollute the atmosphere without penalty is itself a kind of distorting subsidy; more so if it exists unevenly across borders.
污染环境却不用承担处罚，这是一种扭曲的补贴。如果这种补贴在不同国家间厚此薄彼，那就更是如此了。
这句话的理解是：在企业的一般生产中，处理污染（比如购买碳排放配额）是需要花钱的。 如果一家企业可以免费向大气中排放，那么它实际上节省了一笔本应支出的成本。 这种成本的节省，虽然政府没有直接给它钱，但在经济效果上等同于政府给了它一笔钱。这就是“扭曲的补贴”的含义。
举个例子理解“more so if it exists unevenly across borders”：假设有两个国家生产同样的钢铁，A国（严格治污）要求钢铁厂必须购买碳配额，每吨钢成本增加 100元。B国（放任自由 允许钢铁厂免费排放，每吨钢成本增加 0元。结果就是，在国际市场上，B国的钢铁天然就比A国便宜100元。这种便宜不是因为B国技术更先进、效率更高，而是因为B国把本该由企业承担的治污成本，转嫁给了全人类。
3. Preventing climate change is a global public good, meaning every country's citizens have a direct interest in reducing emissions wherever they happen.
应对气候变化是一个全球性任务。无论污染产生在哪里，都和全球居民的利益息息相关。
meaning后面是现在分词作状语，对前面那句话的补充说明，翻译时可以单独成句。
4. Pricing carbon at the border should therefore be viewed as a special case, and not as a precedent for using tariffs as a bludgeon with which to impose local regulations or standards abroad.
因此，对进口商品征收碳关税应视作特例，不应开创先例，让关税沦为向别国强加本国法规或标准的大棒。
这句话的核心成分：pricing carbon should be viewed as a special case, not a precedent。for后面是目的状语，bludgeon后面有一个which引导的定语从句。
翻译的时候把for目的状语和后面的which从句拿出来，单独成一个分句。“bludgeon”在中文里常对应“挥舞关税的大棒”这个意象和表达，包含一种主动、张扬、带有攻击性和胁迫感的色彩。
bludgeon【a heavy stick that is thick at one end and is used as a weapon】（剑桥词典）
第六段
The problems with carbon tariffs are thus not moral or economic but practical and political. Implementing the policy fairly would mean ascertaining how much carbon has been emitted in the production of a given import, and to what extent foreign governments had already taxed those emissions. In 2018 the European Commission said that would be “clearly unmanageable”. Not much has changed since.
碳关税涉及的问题，已不再停留在道德或经济层面，而是一个现实和政治层面的问题。要想公平地实施这一政策，就得摸清两笔账：一是特定进口产品在生产过程中排放了多少碳，二是外国政府对此已征收了多少碳税。2018年欧盟委员会表示，这显然“难以操作”。时至今日，情况并未改观。
第二句中would mean后面有两个长宾语，笔者在译文中用序数词显化并列关系和内在逻辑。
第七段
The EU’s new plan applies only to select industries which at present are protected using subsidies. The products involved, such as cement and fertilizer, are commonplace. Even so, the plan relies on arbitrary rules. Where the carbon intensity of a foreign producer's processes cannot be estimated they will be assumed to be as dirty as the worst 10% of European companies.
欧盟的新计划仅适用于部分行业，目前这些行业享受着补贴形式的保护。适用的产品，如水泥和化肥，都是寻常之物。即便如此，这一计划也很随意。如果无法判定外国生产者产生的碳排放，则默认其排放量与欧盟企业中最劣的一成不相上下。
最后一句中，“ Where the carbon intensity of a foreign producer's processes cannot be estimated”是一个where引导的地点状语从句，“where”相当于“in case where”或者“if”。“they will be assumed to be as dirty as the worst 10% of European companies”是主句。在翻译的时候，可以把状语从句处理成条件状语。
第八段
Incumbents are rubbing their hands at the prospect of outsiders drowning in paperwork. Some members of the European Parliament are trying to amend the plan to favor local firms. John Kerry, America’s climate envoy, has said that the United States is also looking at carbon border taxes. That is indefensible unless America implements a proper carbon price at home.
既得利益者正幸灾乐祸，等着看外来者被繁文缛节淹没。欧洲议会的一些成员正试图修改该计划，让本地企业从中受益。美国气候特使约翰·克里表示，美国也在考虑征收碳边境税。若美国国内不先实行合理的碳价，此举便毫无道理可言。
关于这一段的理解。虽然碳关税在理论上是为应对气候变化，但在实际操作中，复杂的paperwork本身就是一道高墙。此使既得利益者（也就是本国内的企业和工人）的内心活动（rub their hands）：你们外国企业不是想进来吗？光是填表、证明你的碳排放、应付核查，就足以让你们成本飙升、焦头烂额。这种”行政性壁垒”比关税本身更有效。
第二句呼应了前文提到的“碳关税可能滑向保护主义”的担忧（偏袒本国企业，成为国内企业的保护伞）。
第三句则是挥舞关税大棒的例子，这种区别对待那就不再是“为了公平竞争”，而变成了纯粹的单边贸易惩罚。
rub one's hands【To be pleased because something has happened which gives you an advantage, especially because something bad has happened to someone else. 】
indefensible【If you say that a statement, action, or idea is indefensible, you mean that it cannot be justified or supported because it is completely wrong or unacceptable.】（柯林斯词典）
总
Carbon prices are the most cost-effective way to fight climate change. But for them to work properly, emissions must be priced everywhere. On July 14th the European Commission unveiled its plan to levy what would, in effect, be a tariff on some carbon in‐tensive imports which, by virtue of having been produced outside the EU, are not subject to its cap and trade carbon pricing scheme. The idea is to stop European firms from responding to the carbon price by moving production to parts of the world where they can pollute without penalty, to shield them from being undercut by rivals from such places and to encourage foreign firms who want to sell to Europe to go green.
征收碳税是应对气候变化最具性价比的手段，但前提是全球各地都对碳排放定价。7月14日，欧盟委员会公布了一项计划，要对部分进口的碳密集型产品征收一种特别关税。由于生产地不在欧盟境内，这些产品无需服从欧盟的碳排放限制，独立于碳定价体系之外。欧盟此举意在实现多重目标：既要阻止欧盟企业为了逃避碳税迁至可以随意排污的国家，又要保护欧盟企业不被污染国的同行以低价抢走生意，还要鼓励有意向欧洲出口的外国企业走绿色发展之路。
There are sound reasons for applying carbon prices to imports. But working out how to go about it without causing a cycle of damaging protectionism is a conundrum.
对出口产品实行碳定价，理由充分。但是在操作过程中，如何避免引发保护主义浪潮、进而造成破坏性后果，这确实是个难题。
Were carbon prices global, the costs of fulfilling the Paris agree‐ment on climate change could fall by 79%, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, a think tank. Market forces would find the cheapest ways to cut emissions. Yet a worldwide carbon market is a pipe dream. (China is due to launch the world’s largest emissions trading system on July 16th, after we go to press, but permits will be far too cheap.) Carbon tariffs are a fallback measure.
智库美国环保协会称，要是能在全球范围内实行碳定价，达成巴黎气候协定所需花费会降低79%。市场这只看不见的手会找到成本最低的减排途径。但在全球范围内形成碳市场很难实现。（本刊付印后，中国将在7月16日启动全球最大的碳交易体系，但碳配额价格仍低于应有水平)。征收碳关税不过是退而求其次的方案。
Free traders like The Economist typically reject tariffs on principle. Cheap imports bring lower prices, more choice, higher productiv‐ity and incentives to innovate. Firms and workers constantly plead for protection from foreign competitors, alleging that jobs and profits must be shielded from unfair foreign competition. Liberals respond that the harm done to incumbents by the free operation of markets what economists call “pecuniary externalities”- do not, unlike other types of harm, justify government intervention. “Society admits no right, legal or moral, in the disappointed com‐petitors, to immunity from this kind of suffering,” wrote John Stuart Mill in 1859, 16 years after The Economist was founded to oppose the Corn Laws, which kept cheap food out of Britain to the benefit of its incumbent landowners.
作为自由贸易的拥趸，《经济学人》向来在原则上反对关税。进口产品越便宜，价格就越低，选择就更多，生产力就越高，创新激励也越大。企业和工人却常常要求受到保护，以防不公平的外来竞争侵占了工作机会和盈利空间。而自由派经济学家会反驳说，市场自由运行给既得利益者带来的损害，经济学家称之为“金钱外部性”。而这不同于其他类型的损害，并不构成政府干预的正当理由。“无论是在法律上还是道义上，社会都不承认落败的竞争者有权免于这种痛苦，”约翰·斯图亚特·密尔在1859年写道。16年前，《经济学人》创刊，旨在反对《谷物法》，该法让英国对廉价进口粮关上大门，使本地地主从中受益。
Carbon tariffs, however, would not be inherently protectionist. They are an attempt to expand the reach of market forces rather than to limit them. The opportunity to pollute the atmosphere without penalty is itself a kind of distorting subsidy; more so if it exists unevenly across borders. Preventing climate change is a global public good, meaning every country's citizens have a direct interest in reducing emissions wherever they happen. Pricing car‐bon at the border should therefore be viewed as a special case, and not as a precedent for using tariffs as a bludgeon with which to impose local regulations or standards abroad.
但是碳关税从本实质上来说并不是保护主义的。这是一种扩大而非限制市场力量的表现。污染环境却不用承担处罚，这是一种扭曲的补贴。如果这种补贴在不同国家间厚此薄彼，那就更是如此了。应对气候变化是一个全球性任务。无论污染产生在哪里，都和全球居民的利益息息相关。因此，对进口商品征收碳关税应视作特例，不应开创先例，让关税沦为向别国强加本国法规或标准的大棒。
The problems with carbon tariffs are thus not moral or economic but practical and political. Implementing the policy fairly would mean ascertaining how much carbon has been emitted in the pro‐duction of a given import, and to what extent foreign govern‐ments had already taxed those emissions. In 2018 the European Commission said that would be “clearly unmanageable”. Not much has changed since.
碳关税涉及的问题，已不再停留在道德或经济层面，而是一个现实和政治层面的问题。要想公平地实施这一政策，就得摸清两笔账：一是特定进口产品在生产过程中排放了多少碳，二是外国政府对此已征收了多少碳税。2018年欧盟委员会表示，这显然“难以操作”。时至今日，情况并未改观。
The EU’s new plan applies only to select industries which at present are protected using subsidies. The products involved, such as cement and fertilizer, are commonplace. Even so, the plan relies on arbitrary rules. Where the carbon intensity of a foreign producer's processes cannot be estimated they will be assumed to be as dirty as the worst 10% of European companies.
欧盟的新计划仅适用于部分行业，目前这些行业享受着补贴形式的保护。适用的产品，如水泥和化肥，都是寻常之物。即便如此，这一计划也很随意。如果无法判定外国生产者产生的碳排放，则默认其排放量与欧盟企业中最劣的一成不相上下。
Incumbents are rubbing their hands at the prospect of outsiders drowning in paperwork. Some members of the European Parliament are trying to amend the plan to favor local firms. John Kerry, America’s climate envoy, has said that the United States is also looking at carbon border taxes. That is indefensible unless America implements a proper carbon price at home.
既得利益者正幸灾乐祸，等着看外来者被繁文缛节淹没。欧洲议会的一些成员正试图修改该计划，让本地企业从中受益。美国气候特使约翰·克里表示，美国也在考虑征收碳边境税。若美国国内不先实行合理的碳价，此举便毫无道理可言。
