很多雅思考生為了提高雅思閱讀分?jǐn)?shù)，做了很多題目，但成效不大，這時(shí)可以想想是不是備考書籍選擇不當(dāng)造成，建議考生們多多看劍橋雅思真題。上海新航道雅思小編第一時(shí)間給大家?guī)砹藙?Test1雅思閱讀Passage3譯文-The Truth about the Environment。希望可以幫助廣大雅思考生輕松備考雅思。

  劍5Test1雅思閱讀Pessage3譯文-The Truth about the Environment

  環(huán)境問題真相

  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.

  在許多環(huán)境論者看來，我們的世界似乎變得越來越糟。他們列出了一系列我們擔(dān)憂的問題：自然資源正在枯竭，人口不斷增長(zhǎng)，糧食越來越少，物種大批滅絕，地球的空氣污染和水污染越來越嚴(yán)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.

  但我們只要簡(jiǎn)單分析一下事實(shí)就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)另外一種情況。首先，自1972年一組科學(xué)家出版了《增長(zhǎng)的極限》這本書以來，能源和其他自然資源是變得越來越豐富了，而不是越來越少。其次，人均糧食產(chǎn)量比以往任何時(shí)候都要高，挨餓的人越來越少。第三，盡管物種的確在滅絕，但未來50年只會(huì)有0.7%的物種滅絕，而不是像人們通常所預(yù)計(jì)的25～50%。最后，大多數(shù)環(huán)境污染問題或者被夸大其詞或者只是暫時(shí)的，只是與工業(yè)化的早期階段相聯(lián)系的，因此解決這些污染問題的最佳方法不是限制經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展, 而是加速經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。有一種污染，即由于排放溫室氣體所引起的全球變暖問題，似乎會(huì)在未來長(zhǎng)期存在，但其總效應(yīng)卻不大可能會(huì)帶來特別嚴(yán)重的問題。更大的問題反而可能出在應(yīng)對(duì)措施不得力上。

  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.

  但是民意調(diào)査顯示，許多人所持的觀念認(rèn)為環(huán)境質(zhì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在下降，造成這種事實(shí)與人們觀念間的差異的原因大致有四個(gè)：

  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.

  一是科學(xué)研究上的偏頗。科學(xué)基金主要投人到存在問題的領(lǐng)域。這似乎是一項(xiàng)明智的決策，但是這同樣也給人們?cè)斐闪艘环N印象，似乎存在許多潛在的問題，而事實(shí)并非如此。

  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%.

  第二，環(huán)保組織需要得到媒體的注意，也需要支持資金源源不斷地流入。因此對(duì)于這些團(tuán)體有時(shí)會(huì)有夸大其詞的情況就不難理解了。比如說，1997年世界自然基金就發(fā)布一篇名為《世界森林2/3已不復(fù)存在》的新聞稿。而事實(shí)上世界森林只減少了20%左右。

  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.

  盡管這些組織絕大多數(shù)都是由無私的人們管理運(yùn)營(yíng)的，但他們和其他游說團(tuán)體有許多共同之處。除非人們對(duì)待環(huán)境問題的游說活動(dòng)也像對(duì)待其他問題的游說活動(dòng)一樣，持同等的懷疑態(tài)度, 這種共同之處才不會(huì)發(fā)揮那么大的作用。比如說，一個(gè)貿(mào)易組織如果要求降低污染控制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這個(gè)組織馬上就會(huì)被認(rèn)為是在謀私利。而即使對(duì)這一污染控制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的客觀審視可能會(huì)證明環(huán)保組織反對(duì)這種污染控制的低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是弊大于利，這個(gè)環(huán)保組織仍會(huì)被認(rèn)為是無私的。

  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 Nino 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).

  另一個(gè)使人們印象錯(cuò)位的因素就是媒體的態(tài)度。顯然，人們對(duì)壞消息比對(duì)好消息更好奇。新聞和廣播就是要提供大眾所需要的東西。而這一點(diǎn)可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致人們認(rèn)識(shí)上的巨大偏差J997年和1998年美國(guó)受到了厄爾尼諾現(xiàn)象的影響就是一個(gè)例子。人們責(zé)難這一氣候現(xiàn)象使旅游業(yè)陷于癱瘓，引起人們的過敏癥狀, 使一個(gè)滑雪坡融化造成22人死亡。盡管如此，美國(guó)氣象協(xié)會(huì)公告上的一篇文章卻認(rèn)為, 盡管厄爾尼諾造成的損失估計(jì)有40億美元，但它帶來的收益卻髙達(dá)約190億美元。這主要得益于冬季氣溫的升髙，這種升溫拯救了大約850人的生命，降低了取暖費(fèi)用，緩解了由于冰峰河流春季融化造成的春洪。

  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.

  第四個(gè)因素是個(gè)人見識(shí)的狹隘。人們擔(dān)心人均垃圾產(chǎn)生量的日益增多將使世界無處存放垃圾。但是，即使美國(guó)的垃圾產(chǎn)生量像以前那樣繼續(xù)增加，即使到2100年美國(guó)的人口加倍，全美國(guó)在整個(gè)21世紀(jì)產(chǎn)生的垃圾仍然僅會(huì)占到美國(guó)領(lǐng)土總面積的1/12,000。

  So what of global warmingAs 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.

  那么全球變暖這一問題怎么樣呢?眾所周知，二氧化碳的排放導(dǎo)致地球變暖。據(jù)估計(jì)本世紀(jì)氣溫最髙會(huì)上升2～3℃，這將帶來嚴(yán)重的問題，造成5萬億美元的損失。

  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.

  盡管人們直覺上認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)采取一些激進(jìn)的措施，解決這一可能需要付出髙昂代價(jià)的問題，但是經(jīng)濟(jì)方面的分析表明，采取激進(jìn)措施削減二氧化碳的排放量，將比采取措施適應(yīng)溫度的上升付出更大的代價(jià)。聯(lián)合國(guó)氣候變化專家小組的一位主要成員所設(shè)計(jì)的一項(xiàng)模型表明, 如何將2100年時(shí)2.1度的氣溫上升減少到只上升1.9度。換句話說，2094年地球會(huì)出現(xiàn)的升溫推遲到2100年出現(xiàn)。

  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.

  所以這并不會(huì)防止全球變暖，而只是給了世界6年的寬限期。但僅對(duì)美國(guó)而言，與解決人人都能獲得清潔的飲用水和衛(wèi)生設(shè)施這一世界上最緊迫的健康問題相比，減少二氧化碳排放量要付出更髙的代價(jià)。而解決了這一健康問題，毎年將可以避免200萬人死亡，防止5億人患上嚴(yán)重疾病。

  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.

  要做出有關(guān)未來的最佳決定就應(yīng)當(dāng)審視一下事實(shí)，這一點(diǎn)很關(guān)鍵。過度樂觀可能要付出代價(jià)，但過度悲觀則要付出更大的代價(jià)。

  以上就是小編為大家?guī)黻P(guān)于《劍橋雅思5真題》閱讀部分供大家閱讀參考，新航道雅思資料頻道將第一時(shí)間為考生發(fā)布最全、最新、最專業(yè)的雅思資訊及雅思考試資料及機(jī)經(jīng).