雅思练习总结（八）-优快云博客

雅思练习总结（八）

本文章是雅思练习总结（八），总结了文章《The Truth about the Environment》，内容包括原文精翻，文章脉络总结，单词扩展学习3个部分

1 文章原文及翻译

The Truth about the Environment

翻译：关于环境的若干真相

For many environmentalists, the world seems to be getting worse. They have developed a hit-list of our main fears: that natural resources are running out; that the population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat; that species are becoming extinct in vast numbers, and that the planet’s air and water are becoming ever more polluted.

翻译：对于许多环保主义者来说，世界似乎越来越糟糕。他们列出了我们最担心的问题：自然资源正在枯竭；人口不断增长，食物越来越少；物种大量灭绝，地球的空气和水污染越来越严重。

But a quick look at the facts shows a different picture. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so, since the book ‘The Limits to Growth’ was published in 1972 by a group of scientists. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world’s population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving. Third, although species are indeed becoming extinct, only about 0.7% of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not 25-50%, as has so often been predicted. And finally, most forms of environmental pollution either appear to have been exaggerated, or are transient - associated with the early phases of industrialisation and therefore best cured not by restricting economic growth, but by accelerating it. One form of pollution - the release of greenhouse gases that causes global warming - does appear to be a phenomenon that is going to extend well into our future, but its total impact is unlikely to pose a devastating problem. A bigger problem may well turn out to be an inappropriate response to it.

翻译：但事实并非如此。首先，由一群科学家在 1972 年出版的《增长的极限》一书中，能源以及其他自然资源其实并没有减少，而是变得更加丰富了。其次，目前世界人均粮食产量正处于历史峰值。也就是说，挨饿的人也是更少的。第三，虽然物种确实正在灭绝，但预计在未来 50 年内，只有约 0.7% 的物种会消失，而不是甚嚣尘上的 25-50%。最后，绝大多数环境污染问题其实是夸大了，或者说是与工业化的早期阶段有关的暂时性问题。因此最好的解决办法不是要限制经济增长，而是要加速经济增长。而有这么一种污染形式确实可能会对未来影响深远，也就是温室气体排放，就不太可能造成毁灭性问题。其实，对污染问题的回应方式，可能会造成的问题，比污染问题本身的问题更大。

Yet opinion polls suggest that many people nurture the belief that environmental standards are declining and four factors seem to cause this disjunction between perception and reality.

翻译：但民调显示，许多人认为环境标准正在下降，本文列举了4个可能会导致这种认知与现实之间脱节情况的因素。

One is the lopsidedness built into scientific research. Scientific funding goes mainly to areas with many problems. That may be wise policy, but it will also create an impression that many more potential problems exist than is the case.

翻译：一是科研本身的偏好结构。科研经费会流向问题争议更多的区域。这个举措本身是很明智，但就是会给人以目前的研究只是污染问题冰山一角的印象。

Secondly, environmental groups need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes overstate their arguments. In 1997, for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a press release entitled: ‘Two thirds of the world’s forests lost forever’. The truth turns out to be nearer 20%.

翻译：二是环保组织需要媒体给予他们流量，资助者们给予他们资金。所以他们会夸大污染问题的严重性也是可以理解的。例如，1997 年，世界自然基金会发布了一份题为“世界三分之二的森林永远消失了”的新闻稿。但其实消失率连 20% 都没有。

Though these groups are run overwhelmingly by selfless folk, they nevertheless share many of the characteristics of other lobby groups. That would matter less if people applied the same degree of scepticism to environmental lobbying as they do to lobby groups in other fields. A trade organisation arguing for, say, weaker pollution controls is instantly seen as self-interested. Yet a green organisation opposing such a weakening is seen as altruistic, even if an impartial view of the controls in question might suggest they are doing more harm than good.

翻译：尽管这些组织的管理层都是些无欲无求的人，但它们与其他游说团体的特征高度吻合。不过如果人们对“环境游说”抱有他们对其他领域的游说团体同等程度的怀疑态度，那么这一点就没什么大问题。举个例子，在上述情况下，一个主张削弱污染控制的贸易组织会立即被视为自私自利，但一个反对削弱污染控制的环保组织却被视为大公无私。即使客观来说，松弛的控制措施可能会弊大于利。

A third source of confusion is the attitude of the media. People are clearly more curious about bad news than good. Newspapers and broadcasters are there to provide what the public wants. That, however, can lead to significant distortions of perception. An example was America’s encounter with El Niño in 1997 and 1998. This climatic phenomenon was accused of wrecking tourism, causing allergies, melting the ski-slopes and causing 22 deaths. However, according to an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the damage it did was estimated at US $4 billion but the benefits amounted to some US $19 billion. These came from higher winter temperatures (which saved an estimated 850 lives, reduced heating costs and diminished spring floods caused by meltwaters).

翻译：三是混淆视听的媒体喉舌们。人们总是喜欢听到坏的消息，而报纸和广播公司正好投其所好。但这种态度会导致人们世界观的严重扭曲。一个例子是美国在 1997 年和 1998 年遭遇的厄尔尼诺现象。人们指责这一气候现象破坏了旅游业，引发过敏，融化了滑雪场并导致 22 人死亡。然而，根据《美国气象学会公报》的一篇文章，它造成的损失估计为 40 亿美元，但收益却高达 190 亿美元。这些收益来自冬季气温升高（这挽救了约 850 人的生命，降低了取暖成本并减少了融水造成的春季洪水）。

The fourth factor is poor individual perception. People worry that the endless rise in the amount of stuff everyone throws away will cause the world to run out of places to dispose of waste. Yet, even if America’s trash output continues to rise as it has done in the past, and even if the American population doubles by 2100, all the rubbish America produces through the entire 21st century will still take up only one-12,000th of the area of the entire United States.

翻译：四是个人认知的匮乏。人们总是担心，每个人制造的垃圾会无限增长到垃圾遍布世界的状况。然而，即使美国的年垃圾增长量同去年相同，那么这种增速一直维持到 2100 年美国人口翻一番的时候，美国在整个 21 世纪产生的所有垃圾总面积也只占整个美国面积的 1/12,000。

So what of global warming? As we know, carbon dioxide emissions are causing the planet to warm. The best estimates are that the temperatures will rise by 2-3℃ in this century, causing considerable problems, at a total cost of US $5,000 billion.

翻译：那么全球变暖又当如何呢？众所周知，二氧化碳排放导致地球变暖。最乐观的估计是，本世纪气温将上升 2-3℃，造成了相当大的问题，总成本会达到 5 万亿美元。

Despite the intuition that something drastic needs to be done about such a costly problem, economic analyses clearly show it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. A model by one of the main authors of the United Nations Climate Change Panel shows how an expected temperature increase of 2.1 degrees in 2100 would only be diminished to an increase of 1.9 degrees. Or to put it another way, the temperature increase that the planet would have experienced in 2094 would be postponed to 2100.

翻译：尽管直觉上认为必须采取一些激进措施来解决如此代价高昂的问题，但经济分析清楚地表明，大幅削减二氧化碳排放量的成本将远远高于适应气温升高的成本。联合国气候变化小组一位主要作者建立的模型显示，2100 年预期气温升高 2.1 度将仅减少至 1.9 度。或者换句话说，地球在 2094 年将经历的气温升高将推迟到 2100 年。

So this does not prevent global warming, but merely buys the world six years. Yet the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, for the United States alone, will be higher than the cost of solving the world’s single, most pressing health problem: providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Such measures would avoid 2 million deaths every year, and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill.

翻译：虽然这仅仅是将不可推迟的全球变暖推迟了6年，但需要注意的是，仅就美国而言，减少二氧化碳排放的成本将高于解决世界上最紧迫的健康问题的成本：即提供普遍的清洁饮用水和卫生设施。这些措施每年可避免 200 万人死亡，并防止 5 亿人患上重病。

It is crucial that we look at the facts if we want to make the best possible decisions for the future. It may be costly to be overly optimistic - but more costly still to be too pessimistic.

翻译：如果我们想为未来做出最佳决策，认清现实情况是至关重要的。过度乐观可能是代价高昂，但过于悲观代价只会更大。

2 文章结构分析

这篇文章的脉络总结如下

第一段开篇就说了4个环境保护者们津津乐道的当今世界存在 4 大环境问题：日益减少的资源、无限增加的污染、越来越少的食物、大规模动物灭绝、水和空气的污染。
第二段有理有据，拉数据讲证据，一一驳斥上述观点，并给出核心论点，这些问题确实被夸大了但也是存在的，因此如何回应这些问题，会造成的问题更大。
第三段表达了承上启下：民调显示，人们的认知和真实情况存在很大偏差，都很相信环保者们鼓吹的观点，那么原因是什么呢？
第四段是第一个原因：科研领域因为科研经费会流向问题多的热点问题，因此关于环境问题的研究就多，人们也会自然而然相信环境问题就是更大
第五段和第六段是第二个原因：环保组织也要恰钱拉投资的，所以也会夸大环境污染的说法。虽然管理层都大公无私，但是它和那种游说组织也没什么不同，所以保持清醒头脑，消除对环保组织的滤镜
第七段是第三个原因：人们对八卦的喜好决定了，媒体需要报道环境问题这种“坏消息”，以获取流量。这里举了个例子，是媒体只报道厄尔尼诺效应导致旅游业衰退、过敏并导致 40 亿美元的损失，但是收益确高达 190 亿美元，媒体说一般真话也不能说它胡说，但是隐去另一半就是纯恰流量了
第八段对应第四个原因：个人认知的匮乏。人们总是偏向于相信自己的主观判断，而不是客观去探究，自我认知的狭隘导致了人们容易相信媒体、环保组织的鼓吹
第九段到到第十一段都是气候变暖的问题，作者这里举了例子说明了，承认了气候变暖确实是个问题，也无法避免，只能推迟，但是由于解决这个问题需要付出的代价比解决水污染的问题还要高，所以应该任由其发展
第十二段进行了总结，对待环境问题过度乐观固然不好，但是过度悲观造成的损失更大