有關(guān)綠色建筑的英文新聞翻譯.doc

綠色建筑的某些報道The huge role of policy in solving the worlds environmental problems suggests that corporate activism should be considered in all best-of lists:巨大的作用的政策解決世界環(huán)境問題的行動表明公司應(yīng)考慮所有最佳名單:What if there was a building that was so green that it was awarded the well-regarded Silver LEED rating?如果有一個建筑是如此的“綠色”,它正被授予銀LEED評級呢?And what if that building housed a company that, among other things, was spreading disinformation about climate science that was undermining public support for climate-change regulations and the U.S. EPA? 如果那幢樓住,一個公司,在其他事情上,對氣候科學(xué)傳播造謠削弱了公眾支持美國環(huán)保署氣候變化管理條例和嗎?A fairly basic question would come to mind: is that building really green?個相當(dāng)基本的問題會來感受:那幢樓是真的綠色?Actually, such a building exists實際上,這樣一個建筑的存在。. Its the New York City headquarters of News Corp, where Rupert Murdoch runs an empire that is set up to deny, deny, deny the most pressing environmental issue of our time - climate change - according to Rolling Stone. 這是紐約新聞集團(tuán)的總部,在運(yùn)行一個帝國,魯珀特默多克是“建立否認(rèn),否認(rèn),否認(rèn)“最緊迫的環(huán)境問題的時間氣候變化- - -根據(jù)漂泊不定的人。The magazine reported last winter that News Corps Wall Street Journal routinely dismisses climate change as an apocalyptic scare, and Fox News helped gin up a fake controversy by relentlessly hyping the climategate scandal - even though multiple independent investigations showed that nothing in the scientists emails undermined their conclusions about global warming.該雜志報道,新聞集團(tuán)去年冬天的華爾街期刊照例否認(rèn)氣候變化是“一個天啟恐慌”,?？怂剐侣剮椭粋€假的杜松子酒hyping爭論毫不留情的climategate”丑聞”即使多個獨立的研究指出,任何科學(xué)家的電子郵件重挫了他們關(guān)于全球變暖的結(jié)論。Including advocacy in criteria will make rankings more accurate, but will also steer consumers and investors in a positive direction.包括宣傳標(biāo)準(zhǔn)將使排名更準(zhǔn)確,而且還會引導(dǎo)消費者和投資者的正面發(fā)展。Rolling Stone named Murdoch #1 in its list of Politicians and Execs Blocking Progress on Global Warming, noting no one does more to spread dangerous disinformation about global warming than Murdoch.滾石默多克# 1在命名中最為重要的政治家和高層對全球變暖的阻斷進(jìn)步注意“沒有人對危險的關(guān)于全球變暖的蔓延,指責(zé)比默多克?！監(jiān)uch.Despite all this, 哎唷。盡管如此,the question of whether News Corps building deserves its prominent green rating could be easily dismissed. LEED rates buildings, not the advocacy of its occupants.新聞集團(tuán)的問題是是否值得其突出的綠色建筑評級可以輕易地解雇了。LEED率的建筑,沒有提倡使用者。Well, fair enough. But following that line of thinking, neither is it the job of corporate ranking systems (like the one released in Newsweek this week) to measure anything but operational greenness - how a corporation deals with solid waste, maximizes energy efficiency, and avoids smokestack pollution on their sites, and in some cases in their supply chains.嗯,很公平。但是隨著這條線的思想,也不是企業(yè)排名系統(tǒng)的工作(像本周發(fā)表在新聞周刊)來衡量任何事,除了經(jīng)營綠色公司處理固體廢物、能源效率最大化,避免煙囪污染對他們的網(wǎng)站,在某些情況下在他們的供應(yīng)鏈。So, for example, News Corp. came in at number 234 this year among the 500 U.S. companies Newsweek ranked. Its ranking hardly suggests that this business carries more responsibility than almost any other in preventing policy solutions to the climate crisis.新聞集團(tuán)名列234今年的500家美國公司在新聞周刊的排名。其排名不表明這業(yè)務(wù)只能帶來更多責(zé)任幾乎比其他任何在預(yù)防政策解決氣候危機(jī)的知識。 And earlier this year, News Corp.s climate change performance was given a AAA rating, the highest possible score provided by MSCI ESG Researchs Global Socrates, another major rating scheme.而在今年早些時候,新聞集團(tuán)。氣候變化的表現(xiàn)給予AAA評級最高得分,讓學(xué)生們育所提供的全球蘇格拉底摩根士丹利資本國際(MSCI)研究的另一個重要的評價方案。The world is facing huge environmental problems, and climate change is the marquee. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls for CO2 reductions of 80-95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 世界面臨著巨大的環(huán)境問題,而氣候變化是字幕。政府間氣候變化專門委員會呼吁CO2減征80 - 95在1990年的水平以下。That aggressive target offers just a 50/50 chance of preventing a global average temperature rise of 2 degrees C, beyond which millions are put at risk of drought, hunger, and flooding. 目標(biāo),積極提供只是一個50/50的幾率防止全球平均溫度上升2攝氏度,超過此數(shù)以百萬計的人將在危險的干旱、饑餓、和洪災(zāi)。Whats necessary to fix climate change is a radical recreation of society as we know it, from how we use and generate energy to how we tax pollution and encourage efficiency.我所需要的東西來解決氣候變化是一個激進(jìn)的娛樂,如我們所知,是社會,從我們?nèi)绾问褂煤彤a(chǎn)生能量對我們?nèi)绾味悇?wù)污染和鼓勵效率。 The problem is so big, and so inclusive, that it cant be solved by ad hoc voluntary actions. Even if every corporation or individual so inclined undertook the full menu of climate fixes, wed still fail to solve the problem by many orders of magnitude because business-as-usual would remain the norm on a global level. 這道題這么大,因此包容,它不能解決,由特設(shè)自愿行動。即使每單位或者個人進(jìn)行的內(nèi)容全面的菜單所以斜氣候固定,我們還是無法解決問題,因為一切如常許多數(shù)量級的將是全球級別的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。Only large-scale policy change can fix that. Therefore, an exclusive focus on voluntary operational greening - by businesses or by rating agencies - risks distracting from the far greater need for the big fix.只有大尺度的政策改變就能搞定。因此,一個專屬集中經(jīng)營綠化,自愿企業(yè)或評級機(jī)構(gòu)風(fēng)險分散更需要從遙遠(yuǎn)的大補(bǔ)丁。Compared to companies efforts to green their own operations, political actions - like campaign funding, or lobbying Congress or the court of public opinion - can have a vastly greater influence on environmental protection, and arguably represent the biggest impact a company can have on the environment.公司的努力比自己的操作,綠色政治行動就像運(yùn)動的資金,或游說國會或輿論的口誅筆伐,能極大的較大的影響,可以說是代表環(huán)保影響最大的一個公司可能會碰到環(huán)境因素的影響。 In fact, the very existence of a debate on climate science in the United States, and consequent lack of policy action, has been attributed to massive corporate support for the denial industry, as detailed in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conways book Merchants of Doubt. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, spent $132 million on lobbying in 2010, more than any other entity, and opposed all climate legislation.n實際上,生存的氣候科學(xué)問題的在美國的政策而缺乏行動,是歸因于公司支持大規(guī)模的“否定行業(yè),”詳述和艾瑞克考恩威博士拿俄米內(nèi)的書的商家的懷疑。美國商會,例如,花了1.32億元買游說在2010年,超過其他任何實體,反對所有氣候法案。 Corporate influence on government policy will only increase after last years Citizens United Supreme Court case, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts on elections.企業(yè)影響政府的政策只會增加,在去年的公民美國最高法院的案例,其中允許公司花無限偏選舉。The primacy of policy in solving the worlds environmental problems suggests that corporate activism should be considered in all corporate environmental rankings.首位的政策來解決世界環(huán)境問題的行動表明公司應(yīng)考慮所有企業(yè)環(huán)境的排名。 Ignoring advocacy is like rating colleges based on their buildings and infrastructure while ignoring the quality of educational content.就像評級院校忽視提倡基于他們的建筑和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的質(zhì)量而忽略了教育內(nèi)容。Its certainly feasible: some metrics already exist. For example, ratings could reward companies that take leadership positions, such as when Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing its extreme position on climate change. Corporate Responsibilitys 100 Best Corporate Citizens already credits companies that are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group calling for the U.S. government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, though this is just one of the 324 factors considered. Ratings could also penalize companies for belonging to organizations that undermine climate change regulation. Would IBM still be Newsweeks #1 ranked U.S. company if the rankings weighed the fact that IBM is not only a member, but a board member, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?這當(dāng)然是可行的:一些度量已存在。例如,評級公司能以獎勵領(lǐng)導(dǎo)地位,比如當(dāng)太平洋天然氣和電力(太平洋)離開美國商會、引用“極端氣候變化的位置上。“企業(yè)責(zé)任的100最佳企業(yè)公民已學(xué)分公司美國氣候行動的成員合作,一組呼吁美國政府“快速制定強(qiáng)烈的國家立法規(guī)定明顯減少溫室氣體排放,雖然這只是一個324年的考慮因素。評級公司也可以懲罰破壞屬于組織氣候變化調(diào)節(jié)。新聞周刊將IBM的# 1還是排名美國公司如果排名權(quán)衡事實,IBM不僅是一個肢體,乃是一位董事會成員,美國商會嗎? Rankings could also account for corporate campaign contributions to politicians who deny that climate change is a problem, as the Climate Action Network Europe did last year based on data publicly available from the Center for Responsive Politics. In the end, any sort of environmental ranking - from LEED to ISO 14001, the worlds most respected certification of e