The Guardian-More aid money spent on clean air than fossil fuels for first time
September 27, 2023 3 min 602 words
这篇报道揭示了一个令人深思的现象：首次有关国际援助资金，清洁空气项目的支出超过了化石燃料。然而，这一进展仍然微不足道，因为清洁空气项目仅获得不到国际发展资金的1%支持。尽管大气中的有毒颗粒物是全球第四大杀手，但改善大气质量的努力一直饱受“长期”资金不足之苦。只有血压、吸烟和饮食对人们过早死亡的影响更大。 这份报告的发现显示，国际援助资金在2019年达到峰值，但迅速下降，尽管如此，在2021年，仍然有大约15亿美元（约合120亿英镑）用于化石燃料项目，如建设煤电厂或天然气管道，相比两年前的119亿美元有所减少。与此相比，用于应对室外空气污染的支出增至23亿美元。 尽管发生了这一转变，清洁空气项目的国际发展资金仅占2015年至2021年间国际发展资金的1%，占国际公共气候融资的2%。报告发现：“趋势是好的，但资金从一个非常低的基础上增加，增长速度还不够快。” 此外，资金并没有投入到最需要的地方。报告发现，在2017年至2021年期间，尽管非洲是世界上空气污染最严重的10个国家之一，但仅获得了5%的空气质量资金。与此同时，五个污染严重的亚洲国家——中国、菲律宾、孟加拉国、蒙古和巴基斯坦——获得了86%的资金。 这篇报道突出了一个令人震惊的事实：由于燃烧化石燃料导致的空气污染，每年有数百万人丧生，但科学家们尚不确定具体数字。世界卫生组织（WHO）数据显示，2019年室外空气污染导致420万人过早死亡，大多数死亡事件发生在贫穷和中等收入国家。 值得注意的是，不仅是富裕国家，即使在欧洲，人们也深受有毒污染物的危害。上周《卫报》的一项调查发现，欧洲98%的人呼吸着空气中有太多污染物的空气，违反了WHO的指导方针。 总的来说，这份报道提醒我们，改善空气质量至关重要，它不仅拯救生命，还有助于经济增长并减缓气候危机。但我们需要更多的投入，尤其是在那些最需要的地方，以解决全球的空气污染问题。
Governments, agencies and development banks have spent more aid money on clean air than fossil fuels for the first time on record, a report has found.
However, such projects still receive less than 1% of international development funding, according to the Clean Air Fund, an environmental charity.
Toxic particles in the air are the fourth-biggest killer globally, but campaigners say efforts to get rid of them have been “chronically” starved of cash. Only blood pressure, smoking and diet play a bigger role in whether people die too early.
Jane Burston, the executive director of the Clean Air Fund, said cleaning the air saves lives, grows economies and slows the climate crisis, adding: “It’s the single thing that has the biggest bang for your buck if you fund it.”
The report found that international aid for fossil fuels peaked in 2019 and has fallen fast but still lingers. In 2021, about $1.5bn (£1.2bn) was spent on fossil fuel projects like building coal plants or gas pipelines, down from $11.9bn two years earlier. The amount spent on tackling outdoor air pollution has risen to $2.3bn.
Despite this shift, spending targeted at clean air made up just 1% of international development funding and 2% of international public climate finance between 2015 and 2021, the report found.
“The trend is good but the funding is increasing from a very low base,” said Burston. “It’s not increasing quickly enough,” she added.
Nor has the money been spent in the places that need it most, the report found. Africa received 5% of air quality funding between 2017 and 2021, despite being home to five of the 10 countries with the highest levels of air pollution in the world. At the same time, five polluted Asian countries – China, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Mongolia and Pakistan – received 86% of the funding.
Scientists are unsure just how many people are killed by dirty air each year but estimates of the death toll run into the millions just from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. Fertiliser from farms, road dust from car tyres and natural factors all add to the mortality burden.
Outdoor air pollution, which was the focus of the Clean Air Fund report, caused 4.2m premature deaths in 2019, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Most of the deaths happen in poor and middle-income countries. In countries across Africa and Asia, in which large parts of the population lack access to electricity, governments have struggled to afford clean sources of energy that are cheaper to run than fossil fuel plants but cost more upfront.
Some countries have taken big steps to clean up their air. China declared a “war against pollution” in 2014 and has brought levels of fine particulates down 40% in a decade. As a result, residents of Beijing can expect to live four years longer on average, according to a report from the Air Quality Life Index of the University of Chicago in August.
People in rich countries are also choking on dangerous levels of toxic pollutants. An investigation by the Guardian last week found 98% of people in Europe are breathing air clogged with so many pollutants it breaches WHO guidelines.
Zorana Jovanovic Andersen, an epidemiologist at the University of Copenhagen and the chair of the environment committee at the European Respiratory Society, said: “The cost of inaction on air pollution to our health and our societies and economies is already too high and unacceptable. It is time to shift these costs from people and the health sector to those who produce pollution.”