剑桥雅思5阅读Test1Passage3原文翻译

这篇文章主要讨论了环保主义者担忧的问题和事实之间的落差。虽然环保主义者列举了一系列问题，如自然资源枯竭、人口增长、物种灭绝和环境污染，但实际事实显示，能源和自然资源变得更加丰富，人均粮食产量也高于历史上的任何时期。而物种灭绝的预计比预测的要低，环境污染大多是暂时的。为了解释为何人们感知环境质量下降，文章提到科学研究的不平衡、环境组织的呼吁需求、媒体的不平衡报道和个人感知的局限性等因素。最后，文章指出，要做出最佳决策，理性看待事实是非常重要的，过度乐观或过于悲观都可能有代价。

第1段

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.

对于许多环保主义者来说，世界似乎正在变得更糟。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，留给我们吃的越来越少；许多物种正在大量灭绝；地球的空气和水污染越来越严重。

第2段

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.

但是，快速查看事实可以展示一个不同的图景。首先，自1972年科学家们出版了《增长的极限》一书以来，能源和其他自然资源变得更加丰富，而不是更少。其次，目前每个世界人口的人均粮食产量比历史上任何时期都要高。饥饿的人越来越少。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，而不是经常被预测的25-50%。最后，大多数形式的环境污染要么被夸大了，要么是暂时的——与工业化的早期阶段相关，因此最好的解决方法并非限制经济增长，而是加快经济增长。其中一种污染形式是导致全球变暖的温室气体释放，它似乎将持续存在于我们的未来，但其总体影响不太可能造成灾难性问题。一个更大的问题很可能是对此问题的不恰当回应。

第3段

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.

然而，民意调查显示，许多人认为环境标准正在下降，而四个因素似乎导致了这种感知与现实之间的分离。

第4段

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.

首先，科学研究中存在不平衡。科学资金主要流向存在许多问题的领域。这可能是明智的政策，但也会给人们留下许多潜在问题存在的印象。

第5段

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%.

其次，环境组织需要引起大众的注意。他们还需要保持资金的持续流入。或许可以理解，他们有时会夸大自己的论点。例如，在1997年，世界自然基金会发布了一份名为“全球三分之二的森林已永久丧失”的新闻稿。事实证明，这个说法更接近20%。

第6段

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.

虽然这些组织主要由无私的人们经营，但它们仍然具有其他游说团体的许多特点。如果人们对环境游说抱有相同程度的怀疑态度，那就没那么重要了。争取减弱污染控制力度的行业组织立即被视为自私的。然而，一个反对减弱这种控制力度的环保组织被视为无私的，即使对于所讨论的控制措施的客观看法可能表明它们可能带来更多伤害而不是好处。

第7段

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 Ni?o 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).

第三个混淆源是媒体的态度。人们显然对坏消息比好消息更感兴趣。报纸和广播媒体提供公众想要的内容。然而，这可能导致感知上的重大失真。例如，美国在1997年和1998年遭遇厄尔尼诺现象。这个气候现象被指责破坏旅游业，引发过敏，融化滑雪道，并造成了22人死亡。然而，根据《美国气象协会通讯》的一篇文章，它造成的损失估计为400亿美元，但从温暖的冬季带来的好处约为1900亿美元。这些好处来自较高的冬季温度（节省了估计的850人的生命，降低了供暖费用，并减少了融水引起的春季洪水）。

第8段

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.

第四个因素是个体感知的不足。人们担心每个人所产生的垃圾数量不断增加，导致世界没有足够的处置场所。然而，即使美国过去的垃圾产量继续上升，即使到2100年美国人口翻倍，美国在整个21世纪产生的所有垃圾仍然只占美国总面积的1/12,000。

第9段

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.

那么全球变暖怎么样呢？我们知道，二氧化碳排放正在导致地球变暖。最好的估计是，这个世纪的温度将上升2-3摄氏度，造成相当大的问题，总成本为5万亿美元。

第10段

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.

尽管直觉告诉我们要采取一些关于这个代价高昂问题的重大行动，经济分析清楚地显示，与大幅削减二氧化碳排放的成本相比，支付适应增加温度的成本要更加昂贵。联合国气候变化委员会的主要作者之一提出的一个模型显示，预计到2100年温度将升高2.1摄氏度，仅会减少到1.9摄氏度。或者换句话说，在2094年本来会经历的温度上升将被推迟到2100年。

第11段

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.

这并没有阻止全球变暖，而只是为世界争取了六年时间。然而，单单为了减少美国的二氧化碳排放成本就高于解决全球最紧迫的健康问题的成本：提供普遍饮用水和卫生设施。这样的措施每年可以避免200万人死亡，并防止5亿人严重患病。

第12段

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.