2016年06月六级第1套长篇阅读匹配原文翻译及答案

A) If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world's people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends." That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.

如果我们的经济要繁荣，如果全球贫困要消除，并且如果世界人民的福祉要提高——不仅是在这一代，而且在子孙后代——我们必须确保照顾好我们的经济活动所依赖的自然环境和资源。” 这句话并非如你所想，来自一个刻板的、拥抱树木、拯救世界的环保主义者，而是来自戈登·布朗，一位以严谨、彻底和谨慎著称的政治家。

B) A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world's most powerful economies to say? Perhaps, though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.

对于掌管世界最强大经济体之一的人来说，说出这样的话令人惊讶吗？或许吧，尽管在千年目标五年审查的筹备阶段，他并非孤例。他于3月在二十国集团环境与能源部长圆桌会议上的演讲，其根源可以追溯到1972年的联合国人类环境会议在斯德哥尔摩举行。

C) "The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the wellbeing of peoples and economic development throughout the world," read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.

“保护和改善人类环境是一个重大问题，影响着全世界人民的福祉和经济发展，”这次会议的最终宣言这样写道，这是系列会议中的第一次，后来导致了1992年的里约热内卢地球峰会和三年前的约翰内斯堡世界发展峰会。

D) Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups -- many for conferences such as this year's Millennium Goals review -- and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.

查阅联合国机构和开发团体准备的报告——许多是为了像今年千年目标审查这样的会议——你会发现环境保护与经济进步之间的联系是一个共同的主题。

E) Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.

根据千年生态系统评估，可持续地管理生态系统比开发它们更有利可图。但找到确凿证据来支持这一论点并不容易。人们首先会想到某种全球统计数据，某种能在经济和环境两方面衡量国家财富并显示两者关系的指标。

F) If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word "environment" has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth -- such as the oil deposits -- that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.

如果这样的指标存在，它隐藏得很好。反思一下，这并不奇怪；“环境”这个词有如此多的维度，还有如此多影响财富的其他因素——比如石油储量——以至于梳理出一个简单的经济与环境关系几乎是不可能的。

G) The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystem sustainably working with nature rather than against it might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.

千年生态系统评估是一项庞大的四年全球研究，于今年早些时候报告了初步结论，它找到了理由相信，可持续地管理生态系统——顺应自然而非对抗——可能在短期内利润较低，但肯定带来长期回报。

H) And the World Resource Institute (WRI) in its World Resource 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.

世界资源研究所在其8月底发布的《2005年世界资源》报告中，提供了来自非洲和亚洲的几个这样的例子；它还表明，环境退化对穷人的影响大于富人，因为穷人的收入中有更高比例直接来自周围的自然资源。

I) But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-burn farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term — which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (绣鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself; let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.

但也有许多通过破坏环境来增长财富的例子，无论在世界富国还是穷国，无论是通过无管制的矿物开采、农业的大规模用水、刀耕火种，还是大量消耗化石燃料的交通。当然，这种增长可能不会持久——这正是布朗先生和斯德哥尔摩宣言都试图指出的。也许繁荣增长与萧条衰落的最佳例子是大浅滩渔业。近五个世纪以来，大量的鳕鱼供应为一个产业提供了丰富的原材料，该产业在鼎盛时期雇佣了约4万人，支撑着纽芬兰的整个社区。然后，鳕鱼种群突然崩溃。海里不再有足够的鱼来维持种群，更不用说一个产业了。十多年后，没有迹象表明生态系统正在自我重建。它显然已被捕捞殆尽；曾经强大的纽芬兰船队现在疯狂地在海底摸索寻找螃蟹。

J) There is a view that modern humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet's environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this "ecological overshoot of the human economy", and found that we are using 1.2 Earth's worth of environmental goods and services -- the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services -- the things which the planet does for us for free -- will grind to a halt.

有一种观点认为，现代人类正在不可避免地播下全球大浅滩式灾难的种子。这个想法是，我们从地球的环境银行余额中提取的超过了它所能维持的；我们正在超出我们的生态能力生活。最近的一项研究试图计算这种“人类经济的生态超支”的程度，发现我们正在使用相当于1.2个地球的环境产品和服务——这意味着在某个时候，债务将被催收，所有这些服务——地球免费为我们做的事情——将停滞不前。

K) Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision -- which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.

这是否正确，以及如果是，生态斧头将在何处何时落下，很难精确确定——这就是为什么政府和金融机构才刚开始将这种风险纳入他们的经济计算。这也是为什么发展机构在环境问题上观点不一致的原因；一些机构，如世界资源研究所，坚持认为环境进步需要与经济发展携手并进，而另一些则认为优先事项是建立繁荣的经济，然后用创造的财富来应对环境退化。

L) This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. In the developing countries," it says, "most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development. So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; In the industrialized countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialization and technological development," it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It's simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.

这种观点假设富裕社会将投资于环境保护。但这正确吗？随着我们变得更富裕，事情是变好还是变坏？斯德哥尔摩宣言在这里是模糊的。它说：“在发展中国家，大多数环境问题是由欠发达造成的。”那么它是在说经济发展应该带来更清洁的世界吗？不一定；它继续说：“在工业化国家，环境问题通常与工业化和技术发展相关。”换句话说，穷人和富人都过度开发自然界，但原因不同。经济增长肯定会使我们的世界更清洁，这根本不是事实。

M) Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities. Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers, clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.

显然，富裕社会能够提供贫穷社区远无法企及的环境改善。富裕国家的公民要求国家公园、清洁的河流、清洁的空气和无毒食品。然而，他们也使用更多的自然资源——燃料、水（所有那些浴缸和高尔夫球场）和建筑材料。

N) A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country's wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.

有理由认为，富国出口环境问题，最明显的例子是气候变化。随着一个国家财富的增长，其温室气体排放也会增加。可用的数据不会完全准确。测量排放不是一门精确科学，特别是涉及土地使用问题时；不是所有国家都发布了最新数据，而且无论如何，一些部门如航空的排放不包括在国家统计数据中。但数据足够精确，使得一个清晰的趋势容易辨别。随着国家变得更富裕，它们产生更多温室气体；而这些气体的影响将主要落在世界贫困地区。

O) Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better or than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.

当然，财富不是唯一的因素。挪威人的平均生活水平高于美国公民，但对气候变化的贡献大约只有一半。但挪威能否在保持生活水平的同时将排放削减到摩洛哥甚至埃塞俄比亚的水平？这个问题，在十几个环境问题和我们多样化的地球上反复出现，将最终决定人类在追求经济复兴时是否正在超出其生态能力生活。