特斯拉游说英国提高汽油和柴油税
Elon Musk’s Tesla lobbied UK to raise tax on petrol and diesel
译文简介
“我觉得实际结果将是在全国范围内大幅削减开支，以弥补缺失的这270亿美元。”——《卫报》文章。
正文翻译
Elon Musk’s Tesla lobbied UK to raise tax on petrol and diesel
-Electric carmaker’s submission to the government said grants for battery powered cars could be revenue-neutral
埃隆·马斯克的特斯拉游说英国提高汽油和柴油税
——电动汽车制造商向政府提交的报告称，对电池驱动汽车的补贴可能不会影响财政收支平衡
-Electric carmaker’s submission to the government said grants for battery powered cars could be revenue-neutral
埃隆·马斯克的特斯拉游说英国提高汽油和柴油税
——电动汽车制造商向政府提交的报告称，对电池驱动汽车的补贴可能不会影响财政收支平衡
(A Tesla Model Y Long Range on display. The company told the UK government that making fossil-fuelled cars pay for the damage they do to the environment was ‘entirely reasonable and logical’.)
（特斯拉Model Y长航程版展示。该公司告诉英国政府，让化石燃料汽车为它们对环境的破坏买单是“完全合理和合乎逻辑的”。）
新闻：
Elon Musk’s Tesla lobbied the UK government to raise taxes on petrol and diesel cars in order to fund bigger subsidies for electric vehicles, alongside a ban on hybrids.
埃隆·马斯克领导的特斯拉游说英国政府提高汽油和柴油汽车的税率，以便为电动汽车提供更多补贴，同时禁止使用混合动力车。
埃隆·马斯克领导的特斯拉游说英国政府提高汽油和柴油汽车的税率，以便为电动汽车提供更多补贴，同时禁止使用混合动力车。
The US electric car pioneer called for a rise in fuel duty and a charge on petrol and diesel car purchases to pay for grants and tax breaks such as a VAT exemption for battery-powered cars, according to submissions to the government seen by the Guardian.
据《卫报》所见，这家美国电动汽车行业的领头羊向政府提交的意见书称，该公司呼吁提高燃油税，并对购买汽油和柴油汽车收费，以支付补贴和税收减免，比如对电池驱动汽车免征增值税。
据《卫报》所见，这家美国电动汽车行业的领头羊向政府提交的意见书称，该公司呼吁提高燃油税，并对购买汽油和柴油汽车收费，以支付补贴和税收减免，比如对电池驱动汽车免征增值税。
The proposals would theoretically add thousands of pounds to the cost of a new petrol or diesel car, while making electric cars cheaper.
理论上，该提议将使一辆新的汽油或柴油汽车的成本增加数千英镑，同时使电动汽车更便宜。
理论上，该提议将使一辆新的汽油或柴油汽车的成本增加数千英镑，同时使电动汽车更便宜。
“Supporting zero-emissions vehicle uptake via mechanisms to make new fossil-fuelled cars pay for the damage they cause is entirely reasonable and logical,” Tesla wrote in a submission in July last year. “The result can be a revenue-neutral system for the government.”
特斯拉在去年7月提交的一份报告中写道：“通过让新的化石燃料汽车为它们造成的损害买单的机制，支持零排放汽车的使用，是完全合理和合乎逻辑的。结果可能是为政府创造一个收支平衡的体系。”
特斯拉在去年7月提交的一份报告中写道：“通过让新的化石燃料汽车为它们造成的损害买单的机制，支持零排放汽车的使用，是完全合理和合乎逻辑的。结果可能是为政府创造一个收支平衡的体系。”
Higher taxes on fossil fuels are seen by many environmental campaigners as a key part of tackling the climate crisis. However, governments fearful of a political backlash such as France’s gilets jaunes (yellow vests) protests have proven reluctant to raise short-term costs for drivers. In the UK the Conservative government has frozen fuel duty for 11 years, a subsidy for petrol and diesel that has been worth more than £50bn.
许多环保人士认为，提高化石燃料税是解决气候危机的关键部分。然而，由于害怕政治反弹，比如法国的黄背心抗议，政府不愿意提高司机的短期成本。在英国，保守党政府已将燃油税冻结了11年，这是一项价值逾500亿英镑的汽油和柴油补贴。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
许多环保人士认为，提高化石燃料税是解决气候危机的关键部分。然而，由于害怕政治反弹，比如法国的黄背心抗议，政府不愿意提高司机的短期成本。在英国，保守党政府已将燃油税冻结了11年，这是一项价值逾500亿英镑的汽油和柴油补贴。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, has pioneered mass production of electric vehicles to tackle carbon emissions from transport, although the company’s purchase of $1.5bn (£1.1bn) in bitcoin has been criticised by some environmental campaigners because of the cryptocurrency’s high energy use.
特斯拉首席执行官马斯克率先大规模生产电动汽车，以解决交通运输中的碳排放问题，尽管该公司购买价值15亿美元（合11亿英镑）的比特币的行为遭到了一些环保人士的批评，因为这种加密货币的能耗很高。
特斯拉首席执行官马斯克率先大规模生产电动汽车，以解决交通运输中的碳排放问题，尽管该公司购买价值15亿美元（合11亿英镑）的比特币的行为遭到了一些环保人士的批评，因为这种加密货币的能耗很高。
Tesla’s views on fossil fuel bans set it at odds with many of its rivals in the car industry, which have lobbied intensely against government proposals to ban all petrol and diesel cars, including hybrids, in 2030. In November the government said hybrids would be allowed until 2035, a relief to many traditional carmakers which still make large profits from fossil fuel engines.
特斯拉关于化石燃料禁令的观点，与汽车行业的许多竞争对手产生了分歧。这些竞争对手一直在大力游说，反对政府在2030年禁止所有汽油和柴油汽车（包括混合动力车）的提议。去年11月，政府表示，混合动力汽车将被允许使用到2035年，这让许多传统汽车制造商松了一口气，因为它们仍然在从化石燃料发动机中获得巨额利润。
特斯拉关于化石燃料禁令的观点，与汽车行业的许多竞争对手产生了分歧。这些竞争对手一直在大力游说，反对政府在2030年禁止所有汽油和柴油汽车（包括混合动力车）的提议。去年11月，政府表示，混合动力汽车将被允许使用到2035年，这让许多传统汽车制造商松了一口气，因为它们仍然在从化石燃料发动机中获得巨额利润。
Tesla was the only carmaker in the submissions reviewed by the Guardian which argued in favour of a total ban on all petrol and diesel cars, including a ban by 2032 on hybrids, which combine batteries with an internal combustion engine. That would be in line with the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, which said hybrids should be banned in 2032.
在《卫报》看到的提交材料中，特斯拉是唯一一家支持全面禁止所有汽油和柴油汽车的汽车制造商，包括到2032年禁止混合动力车（这种混合动力车将电池与内燃机结合在一起）的企业。这将与英国气候变化委员会的意见保持一致，该委员会表示，混合动力车应该在2032年被禁止。
在《卫报》看到的提交材料中，特斯拉是唯一一家支持全面禁止所有汽油和柴油汽车的汽车制造商，包括到2032年禁止混合动力车（这种混合动力车将电池与内燃机结合在一起）的企业。这将与英国气候变化委员会的意见保持一致，该委员会表示，混合动力车应该在2032年被禁止。
Research by InfluenceMap, a lobbying monitor, found that carmakers “opposing higher climate ambition” have met the UK government more often than those that generally supported a faster transition. Between 2017 and 2020 the government met those opposed 209 times, compared with 153 for more supportive companies.
游说监督机构“影响力地图”的研究发现，“反对更高气候变化目标”的汽车制造商与英国政府会面的频率，高于那些普遍支持更快转型的汽车制造商。在2017年至2020年期间，政府与表示反对的企业会面了209次，而支持度更高的企业会面了153次。
游说监督机构“影响力地图”的研究发现，“反对更高气候变化目标”的汽车制造商与英国政府会面的频率，高于那些普遍支持更快转型的汽车制造商。在2017年至2020年期间，政府与表示反对的企业会面了209次，而支持度更高的企业会面了153次。
Tesla argued that £3,000 grants for new electric cars could be “revenue-neutral” at about £49 per petrol or diesel car sold in 2019. However, that would have to rise to about £750 per petrol or diesel car once electric car market share reached 20%. Grants would directly benefit Tesla sales.
特斯拉辩称，用于新电动汽车的3000英镑补贴，在2019年每辆销售的汽油或柴油汽车加税大约49英镑时可能实现财政“收支平衡”。然而，一旦电动汽车的市场份额达到20%，每辆汽油车或柴油车的加税将升至750英镑左右。补贴将直接有利于特斯拉的销售。
特斯拉辩称，用于新电动汽车的3000英镑补贴，在2019年每辆销售的汽油或柴油汽车加税大约49英镑时可能实现财政“收支平衡”。然而，一旦电动汽车的市场份额达到20%，每辆汽油车或柴油车的加税将升至750英镑左右。补贴将直接有利于特斯拉的销售。
Tesla also argued that car manufacturers should be forced to sell a certain proportion of zero-emission vehicles – a “zero-emissions mandate” similar to the company’s home state of California. Other proposals included paying people to switch away from older polluting vehicles, tax breaks for corporate car users, and a “charging promise” that the government would install chargers on any street in the UK when requested.
特斯拉还提出，应该强制汽车制造商销售一定比例的零排放汽车——一项类似于该公司总部所在的加利福尼亚州的“零排放规定”。其他建议包括向人们支付费用，让他们不再使用老旧的污染车辆，对公用车用户减税，以及政府在英国任何街道上安装充电器的“可充电承诺”。
特斯拉还提出，应该强制汽车制造商销售一定比例的零排放汽车——一项类似于该公司总部所在的加利福尼亚州的“零排放规定”。其他建议包括向人们支付费用，让他们不再使用老旧的污染车辆，对公用车用户减税，以及政府在英国任何街道上安装充电器的“可充电承诺”。
Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.
特斯拉没有回应本报的置评请求。
特斯拉没有回应本报的置评请求。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
Reddit seems to be bipolar with Musk - either people love him or they hate him. I think the reality is the sensible middle. He's not the messiah, he's often not on time with his predictions, he can go a bit crazy on twitter sometimes.
On the other hand, he has almost single-handedly started to shift one of the most polluting industries in the world over to electric. He's revolutionised home and grid storage (yes, I know batteries are not a new idea, but producing them at such scale is new), is a vocal advocate for solar and renewable, and is trying to get humanity to mars to preserve human civilization and life in the event of a catastrophic event on earth (one asteroid is all it takes).
Sure the guy is not perfect, but he didn't have to start Tesla and SpaceX. He was a billionaire, he could have chosen the easy life and kicked back on a beach in the Caribbean.
Now he is lobbying our government to increase tax on climate-change-enhancing products. Good!
红迪网友对马斯克的评价似乎走两个极端——人们不是爱他就是恨他。我认为现实是合理的中间地带。他不是救世主，他的预测经常不准时，他有时在推特上有点疯狂。
而另一方面，他几乎凭一己之力开始将世界上污染最严重的行业之一转变为电力行业。他彻底改变了家庭和电网存储（是的，我知道电池并不是一个新概念，但生产出如此大规模的电池是一个新概念），积极倡导太阳能和可再生能源，并且正在试图把人类送上火星，以便在地球上发生灾难性事件（只需要一颗小行星）时保护人类文明和生命。
当然，这个人并不完美，但他没必要创立特斯拉和SpaceX。他是个亿万富翁，他本可以选择安逸的生活，躺在加勒比海的沙滩上享受。
现在，他正在游说我们的政府对促进气候变化的产品增税。很好！
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I can't stand him. But most* of the companies he is involved in are doing awesome engineering, and Tesla especially has helped move forward electric vehicles by decades.
Except the Boring company / hyper whatsit. That's just trying to re-invent trains.
我受不了他。但他所参与的大多数公司在工程设计方面都做得很出色，尤其是特斯拉，帮助电动汽车向前发展了几十年。
除了那个钻探公司/超级啥啥啥的。这只是试图重新发明火车。
He's a lightning rod for the anti-billionaire/eat the rich idea. Which makes sense because he stands out so damn much, if he weren't such a 'character' I don't think he would get anywhere near as much hate as he does. As it stands I find it funny that people jump to him over Bezos, or whatever oil tycoons you want to pick up. Just shows you that impact isn't necessarily as important as how much people dislike you as a person.
I generally side with you, really not a fan of him as a person - though honestly he is much more palatable when he's doing an interview about SpaceX or something. But hard to deny his impact either.
他是反对亿万富翁/啃富思想的避雷针。这是有道理的，因为他如此突出，如果他不是这样一个“角色”，我不认为他会拉到如此多的仇恨。就目前的情况来看，我觉得很有趣的是，人们会跳过贝索斯（或者你想挑选的任何石油大亨），直接关注他。这只是告诉你，影响力并不像人们有多讨厌你这个人那么重要。
我通常和你的观点一样，真的不喜欢他这个人——不过说实话，他在接受关于SpaceX或其他公司的采访时更讨人喜欢。但也很难否认他的影响力。
the Boring company / hyper whatsit. That's just trying to re-invent trains.
Not to comment on the feasibility of those projects, but reinventing trains isn't a terrible idea.
Train infrastructure is ridiculously expensive and unpopular. Look at HS2. If the technology existed to create something like HS2, but underground where it wouldn't disturb anyone, for a comparable or lower cost, that would be literally world changing.
I don't think The Boring Company will succeed in that, but I hope to be wrong. People said the same about SpaceX and look where that is now...
“除了那个钻探公司/超级啥啥啥的。这只是试图重新发明火车。”
不要评论这些项目的可行性，但重新发明火车并不是一个糟糕的主意。
铁路基础设施昂贵得离谱，而且不受欢迎。看看HS2（译注：英国高铁计划）。如果有技术可以创造出像HS2这样的东西，但它放在在地下，不会干扰任何人，而且成本相当或更低，那将真正改变世界。
我不认为钻探公司会在这方面取得成功，但我希望是错误的。人们当初对SpaceX也是这么说的，但看看现在的情况吧…
Train infrastructure is ridiculously expensive and unpopular.
Only because trains are confined to that pesky thing known as reality. Of course trains looks dirty and expensive when compared against fanciful technologies that don't exist, and are basically just some fancy CGI and made up numbers.
As for HS2, that project includes huge redevelopments of multiple stations, it will be the most high tech railway in the world when it opens, and it offers a doubling or tripling of capacity on not one, but three main lines into London. Could HS2 be cheaper? Probably? Is it worse value than the 10 billion a year we spend on roads? Unlikely. Is it worse value that Musk's ridiculous ideas of millions of miles of runnels for single occupancy cars? Unambiguously no.
“铁路基础设施昂贵得离谱，而且不受欢迎”
那只是因为火车被限制在一个叫“现实世界”的讨厌的东西里。显然，与那些不存在的、基本上只是一些奇特的CGI和虚构的数字的幻想技术相比，火车看起来又脏又贵。
至于HS2，这个项目包括对多个车站的大规模改造，当它开放时，它将是世界上最高科技的铁路，并且它提供了两到三倍的载客量，不是一条，而是三条通往伦敦的主要线路。HS2会更便宜吗？也许吧？它的价值比我们每年花在公路上的100亿美元还要低吗？不太可能。马斯克为单人汽车修建数百万英里的隧道的荒唐想法，还有比这价值更糟糕的吗？绝对没有。
Only because trains are confined to that pesky thing known as reality. Of course trains looks dirty and expensive when compared against fanciful technologies that don't exist
Of course. If anything better than trains existed, then we'd be doing it. Hopefully someone invents something better, right?
basically just some fancy CGI and made up numbers.
Just like SpaceX was 20 years ago.
Is it worse value that Musk's ridiculous ideas of millions of miles of runnels for single occupancy cars?
Am I saying we should scrap HS2? No, of course not. I love HS2 (and trains in general) and wish we'd just get on with it immediately.
However, if you could get the cost of building tunnels down a lot, Musk's idea isn't half bad. Maintaining rails is expensive, and shared transport is always slower than private transport on a like for like basis - because it has to make stops you're not interested in and involves mode changes at either end. Trains are also only energy efficient compared to EVs above a certain passenger density.
Underground automated EVs that don't have to stop and could run in "convoys" could - theoretically - be both faster and more energy-efficient than a train over the entire journey.
Where private transport can never beat shared transport is space efficiency, but if the cost of building tunnels is low enough, that's not a problem.
As I said... I don't think Musk's company will succeed. But people were wrong about SpaceX and I hope I'm wrong about The Boring Company too. And if that's what he wants to spend his billions on, that can only be a good thing.
“那只是因为火车被限制在一个叫‘现实世界’的讨厌的东西里。显然，与那些不存在的、基本上只是一些奇特的CGI和虚构的数字的幻想技术相比，火车看起来又脏又贵”
当然可以。如果有比火车更好的东西存在的话，那我们早就去制造了。希望有人能发明出更好的东西，对吧？
“基本上只是一些奇特的CGI和虚构的数字”
就像20年前我们看SpaceX一样。
“马斯克为单人汽车修建数百万英里的隧道的荒唐想法，还有比这价值更糟糕的吗？”
我是说我们应该废弃HS2吗？不，当然不是。我喜欢HS2（和普通的火车），希望我们能马上开始建造它。
然而，如果你能把修建隧道的成本降低很多，马斯克的想法就不错了。维护铁路是昂贵的，而且在同类对比的基础上，大众交通总是比私人交通慢——因为它必须要停靠你不感兴趣的站点，并且涉及到两端的模式更改。与电动汽车相比，列车只有达到一定的乘客密度以上才更节能。
从理论上讲，地下自动电动汽车无需停车，理论上可以“护航车队”模式行驶，能在整个旅程中比火车更快、更节能。
在空间效率方面，私人交通永远比不上大众交通，但如果建造隧道的成本足够低，那就不是问题。
就像我说过的……我不认为马斯克的公司会成功。但人们对SpaceX的看法是错误的，我希望我对这家钻探公司的看法也是错误的。如果他想把数十亿美元花在这上面，那只能是一件好事。
Just like SpaceX was 20 years ago.
Not really. SpaceX is strictly an engineering challenge (and also a business challenge in terms of making the business model viable). Transport is also about human behaviour, which is messy and changes frequently. For example, we have known for decades that adding private transport capacity in high demand areas rarely improves journey times because more people start using private transport until the journey times are back to where they were. We also know that in areas with high quality transit, the private transport journey times depend on journey times by public transport, not the availability of private transport capacity (Downs-Thomson paradox). Double road capacity in such areas and journey times by car don't change. But improve public transport journey times, and private transport journey times will improve at the same rate, due to fewer people driving.
“就像20年前我们看SpaceX一样”
不是的。SpaceX是一个严格意义上的工程挑战（在使商业模式可行方面也是一个商业挑战）。交通也与人类行为有关，人类行为混乱且频繁变化。例如，几十年来我们都知道，在高需求地区增加私人交通能力并不能改善旅行时间，因为更多的人开始使用私人交通工具，直到旅行时间又回到原来的位置。我们还知道，在拥有高质量交通工具的地区，私人交通出行时间取决于公共交通出行时间，而不是私人交通能力的可用性（唐斯-汤姆森悖论）。在这些地区，两倍的道路容量和驾车旅行的时间没有改变。但是只要改善公共交通出行时间，那么私人交通出行时间将以同样的速度改善，因为开车的人更少了。
Good thing done for bad reason
（马斯克）出于不好的原因做了好事
Its not a good thing because you are making driving more expensive for people. Do you think driving should only be something the rich can afford?
Improving the affordability of greener forms of transport what should be done.
这不是一件好事，因为你让人们的驾车成本更高了。你认为只有富人才能买得起车吗？我们应该做的是提高绿色交通方式的可承受性。
I agree with your conclusion. But affordability isn't the only metric involved with why people use thier cars. It's just as much about convenience and luxury. Amazing public transport is the cornerstone of any measure to move people away from cars. But you're going to need other ways to disincentivise the use of cars and this will invariably effect the rich the least.
我同意你的结论。但负担能力并不是人们使用汽车的唯一标准。这和便利和奢侈一样重要。完善的公共交通是让人们远离汽车的任何措施的基石。但你还需要其他方法来抑制汽车的使用，而这对富人的影响总是最小的。
This is an argument against wealth inequality, not against making motorists pay more of the real cost of their driving. Literally everything that costs money or time is less accessible to the poor. Strangely, the concern about that seems to get much louder when someone proposes a tax that would affect the well-off.
这是一种反对财富不平等的观点，而不是反对让驾车者为他们的驾驶支付更多的实际成本。毫不夸张地说，穷人很难获得任何需要花费金钱或时间的东西。奇怪的是，当有人提议征收一项影响富人的税时，对此的担忧却似乎越来越大。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That's not the intent though, the intent is to incentivize electric - clearly.
但这不是目的，目的是鼓励电力，很明显。
You're absolutely right. The problem is that, for a number of factors (price, charging mixed with parking, lack of used cars on the market and others), is that for a lot of younger people and those on lower incomes, electric cars aren't an option.
你是绝对正确的。问题是，考虑到许多因素（价格、收费、停车、市场上没有二手车等等），对于很多年轻人和低收入人群来说，电动汽车不是一个选择。
Not even lower income, I'm on a pretty decent income, I'm considering buying an electric car.
I need something with high enough range to cover my driving, therefore it's going to be a serious investment for me, even with cheaper "fuel", so much so that I'm not yet at the financial brake even point when I consider the monthly cost of my current car + fuel.
甚至无关更低的收入，我的收入相当不错，我正在考虑买一辆电动汽车。
我需要一辆航程足够大的车来满足我的行驶范围，因此这对我来说将是一项严肃的投资，即使有更便宜的“燃料”，以至于当我考虑我现在的车加上燃料的每月成本时，我还没有达到财务的收支平衡点。
Pity that Tesla and Elon’s massive Bitcoin holding is horrific for the environment.
遗憾的是，特斯拉和马斯克持有的大量比特币对环境来说是可怕的。
Bitcoin is just dumb in general, regardless of the electricity cost.
总的来说，不管电力成本如何，比特币都是愚蠢的。
why?
为什么呢？
They pretend like it's a currency, but do they act like it is? No. They treat it like they're investing in stocks or some other commodity. They spend their time trying to generate more bitcoins, and inflate the value of their stock by convincing other people to buy and "hodl" the damn things. Looking to eventually sell and leave someone else holding the grenade when it finally goes off.
They're an investment in literally fucking nothing.
他们假装它是一种货币，但他们表现得像吗？不。他们把它当作投资股票或其他商品。他们把时间花在试图制造更多比特币上，通过说服其他人购买和“持有”这些该死的东西来抬高他们股票的价值。希望最终能卖掉，并且当手榴弹最终爆炸时，是别人拿着它而不是他们自己。
这玩意就是tmd毫无价值的投资。
I mean the value isn't based on nothing to be fair. There is a limited supply and it takes a lot of money (electricity) to make more (which also goes down slowly).
However I do agree, people do treat it as a stock and compared to actual money it has far less stability. Not to mention it's horrible for the environment
我的意思是，这个价值并没有建立在任何公平的基础上。有一个有限的供应，它需要很多钱（电力）来制造更多（数量也会慢慢下降）。不过我同意，人们确实把它当作股票，与实际货币相比，它的稳定性要差得多。更不用说它对环境的危害了
An investment in shares in a company, you're buying ownership of a portion of the profit dividends. That's a tangible thing the value of the shares are based on. If you're buying stock, it's owning a portion of the business. In almost every case, with investments, you're buying a portion of something tangible. Real.
Bitcoin? You're buying the result of a hashing algorithm... it's not a real, tangible thing that has value.
Plus it's spectacularly bad for the environment on top of all that.
投资一家公司的股票，你是在购买一部分利润红利的所有权。这是一个有形的东西，而股票的价值是基于其中的。如果你买了股票，它就拥有了企业的一部分。在几乎所有的投资案例中，你都是在购买有形资产的一部分。是真实的。
而比特币呢？你买的是一个哈希算法的结果…它不是一个真实的、有形的有价值的东西。
此外，它对环境的危害尤其严重。
So... are they going to drop their car prices as well? Or just make it so only the well off can afford to drive?
所以…他们也会降低汽车价格吗？还是只让富人买得起车？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Tesla's model is to make their cars more and more affordable. They started with the supercar, which funded development of the executive Model S, which in turn funded development of the Model 3, and they'll bring out models in future which are smaller and cheaper. As it is though the Model 3 is no more expensive to buy than an equivalent BMW/Audi and there's plenty of those on the roads so they are already affordable. They're basiaclly pioneering a whole new technology, so give them a chance to bring prices down.
特斯拉的模式是让他们的汽车越来越便宜。他们从超级跑车开始，为高级S型车的开发提供了资金，S型车反过来又为Model 3的开发提供了资金，他们将在未来推出更小更便宜的车型。事实上，Model 3并不比同级的宝马/奥迪贵多少，而且市面上有很多这样的车，所以人们已经买得起了。他们基本上开创了一种全新的技术，所以给他们一个降低价格的机会。
I think at this point the Tesla cars are just a sellable advertisement for Tesla battery systems for grid and home use.
我认为在这一点上，特斯拉汽车只是特斯拉电池系统用于电网和家庭使用的一个销售广告。
The cars sell themselves. I've known 3 people test drive one. Those 3 people have then gone onto buy a Model 3, purely because of how good the car is!
汽车可以自我推销。我知道有三个人试驾过一个。这三个人买了Model 3，纯粹是因为这辆车太好了！
The treasury is really going to have to do something about replacing fuel duty if we switch to electric, they're going to have to get that money from somewhere else. Musk might have to do a lot more lobbying.
财政部真的需要做些事情来代替燃油税，因为如果我们改用了电动汽车，他们就得从其他地方得到这笔钱。马斯克可能需要做更多的游说工作。
Fuel duty revenue is 27 billion. If it went to zero next year because everyone went electric, you'd take that as an absolute win.
燃油税收入为270亿美元。如果明年因为所有人都改用了电动汽车，它就变成了零，你就会认为这是绝对的胜利。
It might even be positive for the exchequer, because the NHS picks up the bill for health issues caused by exhaust smoke, and not to mention the second order effects of lost productivity and hence lost taxes.
这甚至可能对财政部有利，因为现在国家医疗体系要为汽车尾气造成的健康问题买单，更不用说生产力损失和由此而来的税收损失的二级效应了。
I get what you’re saying, and any sane government would agree, but I feel like the actual result would be sweeping cuts across the country to make up for the missing 27 billion.
我明白你的意思，任何理智的政府都会同意，但我觉得实际结果将是在全国范围内大幅削减开支，以弥补缺失的这270亿美元。