剑桥雅思阅读5原文参考译文(test1)

         剑桥雅思系列真题是剑桥大学考试委员会外语考试部出版各类考试真题的唯一官方出版社出版的权威教材，书中包含最新的雅思全真试题资料，是各类雅思考生备考过程中必不可少的参考书。非常适合学生自学的习题解答和听力录音文本。

　　TEST 1 PASSAGE 1参考译文：

　　Johnson’s Dictionary

　　约翰逊博士的字典

　　For the century before Johnson’s Dictionary was published in 1775, there had been concern about the state of the English language. There was no standard way of speaking or writing and no agreement as to the best way of bringing some order to the chaos of English spelling. Dr Johnson provided the solution.

　　约翰逊博士的《字典》于1775年出版，在此之前的一个世纪，人们一直对英语的发展状况担忧。口语和书面语没有统一的标准，对于如何整顿英语拼写混乱的局面也没有统一的看法。正是约翰逊博士为这一问题提供了解决方案。

　　There had, of course, been dictionaries in the past, the first of these being a little book of some 120 pages, compiled by a certain Robert Cawdray, published in 1604 under the title A Table Alphabeticall ‘of hard usuall English wordes’. Like the various dictionaries that came after it during the seventeenth century, Cawdray’s tended to concentrate on ‘scholarly’ words; one function of the dictionary was to enable its student to convey an impression of fine learning.

　　当然，在此之前也有过一些字典《其中最早的是一本约120页的小册子，由一个叫Robert Cawdray的人编辑，于1604年出版，名为《按字母排序的罕见英语词汇表》。正如后来17世纪出版的许多字典一样，Cawdray倾向于着重收录学术词汇。这本字典的功能之一就是使字典的使用者能体现出良好的学术修养。

　　Beyond the practical need to make order out of chaos, the rise of dictionaries is associated with the rise of the English middle class, who were anxious to define and circumscribe the various worlds to conquer — lexical as well as social and commercial. it is highly appropriate that Dr Samuel Johnson, the very model of an eighteenth-century literary man, as famous in his own time as in ours, should have published his Dictionary at the very beginning of the heyday of the middle class.

　　除了规范英语混乱状态的实际需要外，英语字典的兴盛也与英国中产阶级的兴起有关。这些中产阶级渴望对各种要征服的环境进行定义和约束，包括词汇环境、社会环境和商业环境。塞缪尔?约翰逊博士作为18世纪文学家的典型代表，在当时和现在都享有盛誉，他在中产阶级正如日中天之时出版他的《字典》真是再合“时”不过了。

　　Johnson was a poet and critic who raised common sense to the heights of genius. His approach to the problems that had worried writers throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries was intensely practical. Up until his time, the task of producing a dictionary on such a large scale had seemed impossible without the establishment of an academy to make decisions about right and wrong usage. Johnson decided he did not need an academy to settle arguments about language; he would write a dictionary himself and he would do it single-handed. Johnson signed the contract for the Dictionary with the bookseller Robert Dosley at a breakfast held at the Golden Anchor Inn near Holbom Bar on 18 June 1764.He was to be paid ￡1.575 in instalments, and from this he took money to rent Gough Square, in which he set up his ‘dictionary workshop’.

　　约翰逊是诗人、批评家，他将常识提髙到了天赋的髙度。对于那些从17世纪晚期到18世纪早期一直困扰着作家的问题，约翰逊的解决方法是非常实用的。在约翰逊之前，如果没有专门的学术机构判别正确与错误的用法，要出版这样一部大型字典几乎是不可能的。约翰逊则认为不需要学术机构来解决语言上的争端，他要自己编一本字典，而且要自己亲手去编。1764年6月18日，约翰逊与书商Robert Dosley在Holbom酒店附近的Golden Anchor旅店吃早餐时，签订了关于这本《字典》的合同。约翰逊因此获得了总价值1575英镑的分期付款，他从这些钱中拿出一些租下了17Gough广场，在这里建起了自己的“字典作坊”。

　　James Boswell, his biographer, described the garret where Johnson worked as ‘fitted up like a counting house’ with a long desk running down the middle at which the copying clerks would work standing up. Johnson himself was stationed on a rickety chair at an ‘old crazy deal table’ surrounded by a chaos of borrowed books. He was also helped by six assistants, two of whom died whilst the Dictionary was still in preparation.

　　James Boswell曾为约翰逊作传，他描述说约翰逊工作的阁楼就像“一个账房”，中间有一张长长的的桌子，负责抄写的工作人员站着工作。约翰逊坐在一把快要散架的椅子上，面前是一张老式的摇摇晃晃的文案桌，周围乱七八糟堆放着一堆借来的书。同时旁边有六个助手帮助，其中两个在《字典》编纂的筹备阶段就去世了。

　　The work was immense; filling about eighty large notebooks (and without a library to hand), Johnson wrote the definitions of over 40,000 words, and illustrated their many meanings with some 114,000 quotations drawn from English writing on every subject, from the Elizabethans to his own time. He did not expect to achieve complete originality. Working to a deadline, he had to draw on the best of all previous dictionaries, and to make his work one of heroic synthesis. In fact, it was very much more. Unlike his predecessors, Johnson treated English very practically, as a living language, with many different shades of meaning. He adopted his definitions on the principle of English common law — according to precedent. After its publication, his Dictionary was not seriously rivalled for over a century.

　　工作量是巨大的。当时，约翰逊在身边还没有图书馆可参阅的条件下，将80大本笔记进行了分类整理，撰写了4万多条词的定义，并将这些词的多个义项用约11.4万条从各个学科的英语书面材料中摘出的引例加以佐证上些引例来源极广，从伊丽莎白时代到当时作家的作品都被涵盖在内。约翰逊并没有想进行完全的自我创作。由于有最后期限，他不得不吸收先前所有字典的精华之处，这就使他的工作成了一项规模宏大的整合工作。事实上，约翰逊所做的工作绝不仅限于此。和以前的字典编基者不同的是，约翰逊对待英语的态度十分务实。他将英语看成是活的语言，意思上有许多细微的差别。他对词的定义采取英语普通法则：遵照先例。因此，约翰逊的《字典》出版后，在长达一个多世纪的时间里，都没有出现一本真正能与其相媲美的字典。

　　After many vicissitudes the Dictionary was finally published on 15 April 1775. It was instantly recognised as a landmark throughout Europe. ‘This very noble work,’ wrote the leading Italian lexicographer, ‘will be a perpetual monument of Fame to the Author, an Honour to his own Country in particular, and a general Benefit to the republic of Letters throughout Europe" The fact that Johnson had taken on the Academies of Europe and matched them (everyone knew that forty French academics had taken forty years to produce the first French national dictionary) was cause for much English celebration.

　　几经周折后，约翰逊的这本《字典》终于在1775年4月15日出版了。一经出版，这本字典就在整个欧洲获得了一致认可，被誉为里程碑式的著作?一位意大利著名的辞书编築者写道:“这项崇高的作品将成为其著者永恒的荣誉丰碑，也是其祖国的一项特别荣耀，这部作品惠及了整个欧洲大陆文学界。”众所周知，40个法国学者花了40年的时间才出版了第一部法语字典。而约翰逊一个人就承担了一项欧洲学术界所做的工作并毫不逊色地把它完成，这一切都让英国人引以为傲。

　　Johnson had worked for nine years, ‘with little assistance of the learned, and without any patronage of the great; not in the soft obscurities of retirement, or under the shelter of academic bowers, but amidst inconvenience and distraction, in sickness and in sorrow’. For all its faults and eccentricities his two-volume work is a masterpiece and a landmark, in his own words, ‘setting the orthography, displaying the analogy, regulating the structures, and ascertaining the significations of English words’. It is the cornerstone of Standard English an achievement which, in James Boswell’s words ‘conferred stability on the language of his country.’

　　约翰逊几乎没有得到学者的帮助或伟人的赞助，也没有退休后的舒适条件，更不是在凉爽的书房中完成工作。他是在种种不便与干扰中、在疾病折磨和忧伤中一直工作了九年。尽管存在瑕疵和怪异之处，他的这部两卷本的著作仍然称得上是一部杰作，一座里程碑。用他自己的话说，这本字典“规范了拼写，进行了词汇比较，规范了结构，明确了英文字词的含义”。这部字典为后来的标准英语奠定了基础，这一成就，用James Boswell的话说，就是“为英语的稳定做出了贡献”。

　　The Dictionary, together with his other writing, made Johnson famous and so well esteemed that his friends were able to prevail upon King George Ⅲ to offer him a pension. From then on, he was to become the Johnson of folklore.

　　约翰逊因为这部《字典》和其他一些作品而闻名于世并备受尊重，这使得他的朋友能够说服国王乔治三世赏赐给他养老金。从那时起，他就成了家喻户晓的约翰逊。

　　TEST 1 PASSAGE 2 参考译文：

　　Nature or Nurture?

　　是先天本性还是后天控制?

　　A A few years ago, in one of the most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioural psychology, Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects from all walks of life for their willingness to obey instructions given by a ‘leader’ in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal distaste for the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically Milgram told each volunteer ‘teacher-subject’ that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils’ ability to learn.

　　A 几年前，耶鲁大学的Stanley Milgram进行了一项行为心理学试验，这项试验十分有趣但又令试验对象深感不安。40名试验对象分别来自社会各界。试验要测试在对某领导命令做的事情可能产生反感的情况下，这些试验对象是否愿意执行命令。Milgram向每位在试验中扮演教师角色的志愿者明确地解释，试验是为了崇高的教育事业而进行的，是要测试体罚犯错误的学生是否会对学生的学习能力产生积极的影响。

　　B Milgram’s experimental set-up involved placing the teacher-subject before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from ‘15 volts of electricity (slight shock)’ to ‘450 volts (danger — severe shock)’ in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in severity with each successive wrong answer. The supposed ‘pupil’ was in reality an actor hired by Milgram to simulate receiving the shocks by emitting a spectrum of groans, screams and writings together with an assortment of statements and expletives denouncing both the experiment and the experimenter. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for, as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment.

　　B Milgram的试验方案是让这些扮演教师角色的试验对象到一个有30个切换开关的控电板前，开关上面分别贴着电压标签，从15伏(轻度电击)开始，每个开关依次增大15伏，一直增大到450伏(危险的严重电击)。然后告诉这些试验对象，学生每回答错一个问题，就施加一次电击, 从最低电压开始，随着错误题数的增加，电击强度也依次增加。试验中的学生实际上是Mifgram雇佣的演员，他发出各种呻吟、叫喊声并痛苦地扭动身体甚至用污言移语谩骂试验者和试验本身，来模拟出学生遭受电击后的反应Milgram让这些扮演教师角色的试验对象不要理会学生的反应，按照控制试验条件的规则，不管电压多髙都要直接施加。

　　C As the experiment unfolded, the pupil would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions posed by the teacher, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects balked at administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram with questioning looks and/or complaints about continuing the experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil’s cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment. If the subject was still reluctant to proceed, Milgram said that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end. His final argument was ‘you have no other choice. You must go on’. What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong personal and moral revulsion against the rules and conditions of the experiment.

　　C 随着试验的展开，这个学生要故意答错老师提出的问题，从而受到各种级别电击的惩罚，甚至是高达300伏的危险电压或更高电压的电击惩罚。许多扮演教师的试验对象在实施高电压惩罚时犹豫不决，面带疑惑地看着Milgram或者对继续试验颇有微词。一旦遇到这种情况，Milgram就会冷静地向扮演教师的试验对象解释说，不要理会学生请求怜悯的呼喊，继续试验。如果试验对象仍不肯继续试验，Milgram就告诉他们，为了完成试验将试验步骤进行到底是很重要的。如果这样仍不奏效的话, Milgram就会说：“你别无选择，必须继续试验。”Milgram想要找出的是，面对人性和道德对试验规则和条件强烈的反感，有多少扮演教师的试验对象会愿意施加最高电压的电击惩罚。

　　D Prior to carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists felt that ‘most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts’ and they further anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1,000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts.

　　D 在进行试验之前， Milgram向39名精神科医生解释了他的想法，让他们预测一下普通人群中平均会有多大比例的人愿意施加最高达450伏的电击。这些医生几乎一致认为差不多所有扮演教师的试验对象都会拒绝遵从试验人的命令。这些精神科医生感到大多数扮演教师的试验对象不会施加超过150伏电压的电击，并进一步预测说，只有4%的人会施力P300伏以上电压的电击。而且，他们认为只有约千分之一的像疯子一样的人才会施加450伏的电压。

　　E What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit in repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country. How can we possibly account for this vast discrepancy between what calm, rational, knowledgeable people predict in the comfort of their study and what pressured, flustered, but cooperative ‘teachers’ actually do in the laboratory of real life?

　　E 实际结果如何呢? 60%以上的扮演教师的试验对象一直遵从Milgram的命令，直到施加最高电压450伏的电击。在其他国家进行的重复试验中，愿意遵从命令的试验对象的比例更髙, 在某个国家：甚至髙达85%。那些冷静、理性、有学识的人们依靠他们的研究所得出的轻松的结论，与这些面临压力、紧张不安却遵守命令的扮演教师的试验对象在模拟真实生活的实验室中的所作所为竟然存在这么大的差异，我们怎样才能解释这种差异呢?

　　F One’s first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct that was activated by the experiment, and that Milgram’s teache-subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. A modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait, having been of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways.

　　F人们第一反应可能会说，一定是试验激发了人内在的某种侵略性动物本能。Milgram试验中那些扮演教师的试验对象正是本能地靠施加电击来向学生发泄他们这种受到压抑的原始冲动。典型的现代社会生物学家甚至会称这种侵略性的本能是作为一种优势特征进化而来的，当我们的祖先在岩洞中和平原上与艰苦的生活作斗争时，这种本能对他们的生存起到了重要的作用。因此，这种本能最终作为远古时人类动物行为的遗留产物融人到我们的基因当中。

　　G An alternative to this notion of genetic programming is to see the teacher-subjects’ actions as a result of the social environment under which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out, ‘Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society — the pursuit of scientific truth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting.’

　　G 与这种基因说不同的观点是将那些扮演教师的试验对象的行为看作是进行试验的社会环境所造成的。正如Milgram自己所说：“大多数试验对象从大的背景出发，认为自己的行为是仁慈的，对社会有益的，是在追求科学真理。心理实验室又大力强调此举的合法性，因此使试验参与人员对其产生了信任和信心。像对受害人施加电击这件事，单独看来似乎是恶行，但在这种情况下却有了完全不同的意义。”

　　H Thus, in this explanation the subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority.

　　H因此，按这种解释，扮演教师的试验对象是将自己的个性、个人准则和道德准则与更广泛的体制结构结合了起来，使个人的一些特性，如忠诚、自我牺牲和遵守规定，为恶毒的权威体制服务。

　　I Here we have two radically different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible. This, in essence, is the problem of modern sociobiology — to discover the degree to which hard-wired genetic programming dictates, or at least strongly biases, the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour.

　　I对于众多扮演教师的试验对象为了一个机构权威人物而愿意放弃他们个人责任感的这种行为，我们有两种完全不同的解释。生物学家、心理学家和人类学家所要解决的问题就是找出这两种截然对立的解释哪种更合理。从本质讲，这是一个当代社会生物学的问题一探索人自身相关基因组成能在多大程度上掌控，或至少说是强烈影响动物和人与环境的交互活动，即他们的行为。换句话说，社会生物学关注的是如何去阐释所有行为的生物学基础。

　　TEST 1 PASSAGE 3 参考译文：

　　The Truth about the Environment

　　环境问题真相

　　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.

　　在许多环境论者看来，我们的世界似乎变得越来越糟。他们列出了一系列我们担忧的问题：自然资源正在枯竭，人口不断增长，粮食越来越少，物种大批灭绝，地球的空气污染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.

　　但我们只要简单分析一下事实就会发现另外一种情况。首先，自1972年一组科学家出版了《增长的极限》这本书以来，能源和其他自然资源是变得越来越丰富了，而不是越来越少。其次，人均粮食产量比以往任何时候都要高，挨饿的人越来越少。第三，尽管物种的确在灭绝，但未来50年只会有0.7%的物种灭绝，而不是像人们通常所预计的25～50%。最后，大多数环境污染问题或者被夸大其词或者只是暂时的，只是与工业化的早期阶段相联系的，因此解决这些污染问题的最佳方法不是限制经济的发展, 而是加速经济的发展。有一种污染，即由于排放温室气体所引起的全球变暖问题，似乎会在未来长期存在，但其总效应却不大可能会带来特别严重的问题。更大的问题反而可能出在应对措施不得力上。

　　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.

　　但是民意调査显示，许多人所持的观念认为环境质量标准在下降，造成这种事实与人们观念间的差异的原因大致有四个：

　　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.

　　一是科学研究上的偏颇。科学基金主要投人到存在问题的领域。这似乎是一项明智的决策，但是这同样也给人们造成了一种印象，似乎存在许多潜在的问题，而事实并非如此。

　　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，环保组织需要得到媒体的注意，也需要支持资金源源不断地流入。因此对于这些团体有时会有夸大其词的情况就不难理解了。比如说，1997年世界自然基金就发布一篇名为《世界森林2/3已不复存在》的新闻稿。而事实上世界森林只减少了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.

　　尽管这些组织绝大多数都是由无私的人们管理运营的，但他们和其他游说团体有许多共同之处。除非人们对待环境问题的游说活动也像对待其他问题的游说活动一样，持同等的怀疑态度, 这种共同之处才不会发挥那么大的作用。比如说，一个贸易组织如果要求降低污染控制标准，这个组织马上就会被认为是在谋私利。而即使对这一污染控制标准的客观审视可能会证明环保组织反对这种污染控制的低标准是弊大于利，这个环保组织仍会被认为是无私的。

　　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).

　　另一个使人们印象错位的因素就是媒体的态度。显然，人们对坏消息比对好消息更好奇。新闻和广播就是要提供大众所需要的东西。而这一点可能会导致人们认识上的巨大偏差J997年和1998年美国受到了厄尔尼诺现象的影响就是一个例子。人们责难这一气候现象使旅游业陷于瘫痪，引起人们的过敏症状, 使一个滑雪坡融化造成22人死亡。尽管如此，美国气象协会公告上的一篇文章却认为, 尽管厄尔尼诺造成的损失估计有40亿美元，但它带来的收益却髙达约190亿美元。这主要得益于冬季气温的升髙，这种升温拯救了大约850人的生命，降低了取暖费用，缓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.

　　第四个因素是个人见识的狭隘。人们担心人均垃圾产生量的日益增多将使世界无处存放垃圾。但是，即使美国的垃圾产生量像以前那样继续增加，即使到2100年美国的人口加倍，全美国在整个21世纪产生的垃圾仍然仅会占到美国领土总面积的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.

　　那么全球变暖这一问题怎么样呢?众所周知，二氧化碳的排放导致地球变暖。据估计本世纪气温最髙会上升2～3℃，这将带来严重的问题，造成5万亿美元的损失。

　　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.

　　尽管人们直觉上认为应当采取一些激进的措施，解决这一可能需要付出髙昂代价的问题，但是经济方面的分析表明，采取激进措施削减二氧化碳的排放量，将比采取措施适应温度的上升付出更大的代价。联合国气候变化专家小组的一位主要成员所设计的一项模型表明, 如何将2100年时2.1度的气温上升减少到只上升1.9度。换句话说，2094年地球会出现的升温推迟到2100年出现。

　　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.

　　所以这并不会防止全球变暖，而只是给了世界6年的宽限期。但仅对美国而言，与解决人人都能获得清洁的饮用水和卫生设施这一世界上最紧迫的健康问题相比，减少二氧化碳排放量要付出更髙的代价。而解决了这一健康问题，毎年将可以避免200万人死亡，防止5亿人患上严重疾病。

　　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.

　　要做出有关未来的最佳决定就应当审视一下事实，这一点很关键。过度乐观可能要付出代价，但过度悲观则要付出更大的代价。