-
Unit Five
The End Is
Not at Hand
The environmental rhetoric
overblown.
The planet will survive
Robert J. Samuelson
并
非
末
日
来
临
环境问题言过其实，地球生命仍将继续。
罗伯特·
J
·塞缪尔森
[
1 ]
Whoever
coined
the phrase
the
planet
is a
public
relation
genius.
It
conveys
the
sense of impending* catastrophe* and
high purpose that has wrapped environmentalism in
an
aura*
of
moral
urgency.
It
also
typifies
environmentalism's
rhetorical
excesses,
which,
in
any
other context, would be seen as wild
exaggeration* or simple dishonesty.
[1]
无论是谁杜撰了
“拯救地球”
这一说法，
他都是一位公共关系方面的天才。这一说法
既表达了对即将来临的灭顶之灾
的意识，
也满怀着使环境保护论带有道义紧迫感这一大的目
标。
同时这种说法也表明环境保护论言过其实，
这种夸大在其他任何
场合都会被视为是在危
言耸听或愚蠢的欺骗。
[
2
]
Up
to
a
point,
our
environmental
awareness
has
checked
a
mindless
enthusiasm
for
unrestrained economic
have sensibly curbed* some of growth's harmful
side effects.
But environmentalism
increasingly resembles a holy crusade* addicted to
hype* and ignorant of
history. Every
environmental ill is depicted* as an onrushing
calamity* that
—
if not
stopped will
end life as we know it.
[2]
就某种程度而言，
我们的环境
意识遏制了对自由经济增长所表现出的盲目热情。
我们已
明智地
抑制了增长中所出现的一些有害的副作用，
但是环境保护论却越来越像一场沉湎于狂
热的宣传与对历史一无所知的圣战。
每一由环境问题引发的不幸都被
描绘成一场势不可挡的
灾难。这场灾难如不加以制止，正像我们所知晓的那样，就会摧毁
生命。
[
3
]
Take
the
latest
scare:
the
greenhouse
effect
①
.
We'
re
presented
with
the
horrifying
specter*
of
a
world
that
incinerates*
now,
or
sizzle*
later.
Food
supplies
will
wither.
Glaciers*
will
melt.
Coastal
areas
will
flood.
In
fact,
the
probable
losses
from
any
greenhouse
warming
are
modest*:
1
to
2
percent
of
our
economy's
output
by
the
year
2050,
estimates
economist William
Cline
①
.The loss seems even
smaller compared with the expected growth of
the economy (a doubling) over the same
period.
[3]
以最近出现的恐慌——温室
效应——为例。
展现在我们面前的是一个自我焚毁、
可怕的
幽灵般的世界。即刻行动，否则世界将咝咝烧焦。食品供应即将枯竭。冰川即将溶化。沿海<
/p>
地区即将淹没。
事实上，
任何温室热效应
可能造成的损失都是有限的：
经济学家威廉·
克莱
恩估计，
到
2050
年只占我们经济产出的
1%
到
2%
。
与
预想的同期经济增长
(
翻一番
)
相比，
这一损失更显得微不足道。
[ 4 ]
No
environmental problem threatens the
oil
spill
ever
caused
suffering
on
a
par with*
today's
civil
war
in
Yugoslavia,
which
is
a
minor episode* in human misery. World
War
Ⅱ
left more
than 35 million dead. Cambodia's civil
war resulted in 1 million to 3 million
great scourges* of humanity remain what they
have always been: war, natural
disaster, oppressive government, crushing poverty
and hate. On
any scale of tragedy, environmental
distress is a featherweight*.
[4]
没有任何环境问题威胁这颗
“星球”
，任何环境问题都无法用核战争所带来的危害来
衡量。
任何石油
溢出造成的危害也无法同今日南斯拉夫内战——它不过是人类苦难中的一段
小插曲——相
比拟。第二次世界大战导致
3 500
多万人死亡。柬埔寨内战导致
100
万至
300
万人死亡。
人类的巨大祸患一如既往：
战争、
自然灾害、
暴虐政府、
极度的贫困与仇恨。
在悲剧的任何尺度上，环境问题造成的痛苦都轻如鸿毛。
[ 5 ]
This is
not an argument for indifference or inaction. It
is an argument for perspective and
balance. You can believe (as I do) that
the possibility of greenhouse warming enhances an
already
strong case for an energy tax.A
tax would curb ordinary air pollution, limit oil
imports, cut the
budget deficit* and
promote energy efficient investments that make
economic sense.
[5]
这并非在为漠不关心或无动于衷进行辩解，这是在为前途和平衡而进行
辩论。你可以相信
(
像我那样
)
，温室热效应的可能性强化了已具说服力的征缴
能源税的理由。税收会抑制通常的空气污染，限制石油进口，减少预算赤字并提<
/p>
高具有经济意义的能效投入。
[ 6 ]
But it
does not follow that anyone who disagrees with me
is evil or even the
greenhouse effect,
for instance, there
‘
s ample*
scientific doubt over whether warming will occur
and, if so, how much. Moreover, the
warming would occur over decades. People and
businesses
could adjust. To take one
example: farmers could shift to more heat-
resistant seeds.
[6]
但这并非意味着
同我观点相悖的人就是居心叵测，
或甚至是错误的。
例如，
就温室效应
而言，热效应是否会发生，如果发生，其程度如何，对这
类问题还存在大量的科学疑问。此
外，热效应的发生需几十年的时间。
< br>人与行业可以进行调整。
举一例：
农民可改用更为耐热<
/p>
的种子。
[ 7 ]
Unfortunately, the impulse
of many environmentalists is to vilify* and
simplify. Critics of
environmental
restrictions are portrayed* as selfish and
ignorant creeps*. Doomsday scenarios*
are developed to prove the seriousness
of environmental dangers.
Cline
‘
s recent greenhouse
study projected warming 250 years into
the future. Guess what, it increases sharply. This
is an
absurd exercise akin to*
predicting life in 1992 at the time of the French
and Indian War (1754
～
1763).
[7]
遗憾的是，
许多环境保护论者
感情用事，
搞中伤和将事情简单化。
环境限制法的批评者
被描绘为自私自利、
愚昧无知的小人。
有关世
界末日的电影剧本被创作出来以证实环境危险
的严重性。
克莱恩
最近对温室效应的研究展现了热效应在今后
250
年间的变化
。
猜猜吧，
结
果是什么
?
它在急剧增长。这就类似于一种在法印战争（
17
54
—
1763
）时期预言
1992
的生
活的无稽之谈。
[ 8 ]
The
rhetorical overkill is not just innocent excess.
It clouds our understanding. For starters,
it minimizes the great progress that
has been made, especially in industrialized
countries. In the
United States, air
and water pollution have dropped dramatically*.
Since 1960, particulate* emissions
(soot, cinders*) are down by 65 percent. Lead
emissions have
fallen by 97 percent
since 1970. Smog has declined in most cities.
[8]
大谈特谈过多的伤亡并非过分的无知，它混淆人们的视
听。对工业刚起步的国家来说，
它低估了特别是工业化国家已取得的巨大成就。
在美国，
空气与水污染已得到显著缓解。
自
1960
年以来，微颗粒物排放量（煤灰、煤渣）已下降
65%
。自
1970
年以来，铅排放量已降
低
97%
。在大
多数城市中，烟雾已减少。
[ 9 ]
What's also lost is the
awkward necessity for choices. Your environmental
benefit may be
my
job.
Not
every
benefit
is
worth
having
at
any
ists
estimate
that
environmental
regulations
depress
the
economy's
output
by
2.6
to
5
percent,
or
about
$$150
billion
to
$$290
billion. (Note: this is larger than the
estimated impact of global warming.) For that
cost, we've
lowered health risks and
improved our surroundings. But some gains are
small compared with
the costs. And some
costs are needlessly high because regulations are
rigid.
[9]
同时我们也受到损失。
这就是必须进行棘手的选择。
你在环保方面所得到的好处也许就
是我应尽的义务。
并非每种利益都值得不惜任何代价而求之。
< br>经济学家估计，
环境法规使经
济产出下降
2.6%
至
5%
，或
1
500
亿至
2 900
亿美元（注
：这一数字大于全球热效应的估计
影响）。我们用这一代价的确减轻了给身体所带来的危
害，并且改善了我们的环境。但是，
有些却得不偿失，而且由于法规的刻板僵化而使得一
些代价毫无必要地上升。
[ 10 ]
Balance: The worst sin of
environmental excess is its bias* against economic
growth. The
cure for
the
immense
problems
of
poor
countries
usually
lies with
economic
growth.
A
recent
report
from the World Bank estimates that more than 1
billion people lack healthy water supplies
and sanitary* result is hundreds of
millions of cases of diarrhea* annually and the
deaths
of
3
million
children
(2
million
of
which
the
World
Bank
judges
avoidable).
Only
by
becoming wealthier can
countries correct these conditions.
[10]
平衡：过分夸大环境作用的最大罪过是对经济增长所
执的偏见。解决贫困国家所存在
的大量问题通常与经济增长息息相关。世界银行最近的一
份报告估计，
10
亿多人缺少健康
用
水和卫生设施。
其结果是每年成千百万人患痢疾，
并导致
300
万儿童死亡
（世界银行认为，
其中
200
万人可以免于死亡）。国家只有
变得富裕起来才能改变这些状况。
[ 11 ]
Similarly, wealthier
societies have both the desire and the income to
clean their air and
water. Advanced
nations have urban-air-pollution levels only a
sixth that of the poorest countries.
Finally, economic growth tends to
reduce high birthrates, as children survive longer
and women
escape traditional roles.
[11]
与此同理，较富庶的国家既具有愿望也具有财政收入
来净化空气和用水。发达国家的
城市空气污染仅为贫穷国家的六分之一。
最终，
经济增长将降低高的出生率，
因为儿童寿命
延长了，妇女也摆脱了传统的角色。
[
12 ]
Yes, we have
environmental problems. Reactors* in the former
Soviet Union pose safety
risks.
Economic growth and the environment can be at
odds*. Growth generates carbon dioxide
emissions and causes more waste. But
these problems are not - as environmental rhetoric
implies
- the main obstacles to
sustained development. The biggest hurdle is inept
* government.
Inept
government
fostered*
unsafe
reactors.
Inept
government
hampers*
food
production
in
poor countries by, say, preventing
farmers from earning adequate returns on their
crops.
[12]
的确，我们存在环境问题。苏联的反
应堆给安全造成威胁。经济增长与环境会发生矛
盾。
增长产生二
氧化碳排放物，
并且造成更多的废弃物。
但是这些问题并不像环
境保护论者
夸夸其谈的那样，
是持续发展的主要障碍。
最大的障碍是无能的政府。
无能的政府培育出无
安全保障的反应堆。
在贫穷的国家，
无能的政府，
比如说，通过限止农民从其作物中获得适
当的利润，阻碍食品生产。
[
13
]
By
now,
everyone
is
an
environmentalist.
But
the
label
is
increasingly
meaningless,
because not all environmental problems
are equally serious and even the serious ones need
to be
balanced
against
other
concerns.
Environmentalism
should
hold
the
hype.
It
should
inform
us
more and frighten us
less.
[13]
到现在为止，人人都是环境保护论者，
但是这种说法越来越没有意义，因为并非一切
环境问题都同样严重，
甚至即使那些严重的环境问题也需要同其他利害关系来均衡考虑。
环
境保护论应当终止那种刺激性宣传。它应当给予我们更多一些信息，更少一些恐吓。
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇：Narrative 叙事英语作文
下一篇：常见句型表达