2011考研：歷年真題來源報(bào)刊閱讀50篇連載(4）

　　4. Aircraft emissions: The dirty sky

　　(The Economists Jun 8th, 2006)

　　ALL big ideas start life on the fringes of debate. Very often it takes a shocking event to move them into the mainstream. Until last year interest in climate change was espoused mainly by scientists and green lobbyists—and the few politicians they had badgered into paying attention. But since Hurricane Katrina, something seems to have changed, particularly in America.

　　There are plenty of anecdotal signs of change: Britain’s pro-business Tories have turned green; Al Gore is back in fashion in America. Companies are beginning to take action and encouraging governments to do the same. Europe already has an emissions-trading system (ETS) for its five dirtiest industries. In America, although the Bush administration still resists federal legislation, more and more states do not.

　　So far the political about global warming have centred on two polluters, smoggy factories and dirty cars. Next month the European Parliament will vote on whether to extend its emissions-trading system to airlines. If it decides in favour, the whole industry will feel the impact, for it will affect not just European airlines but all those that fly into and out of the EU. Talk about this prospect soured the International Air Transport Association’s annual meeting this week in Paris. But whatever happens in the EU, the airlines look set to face vociferous demands that they should pay for their emissions.

　　In some ways, the airlines are an odd target for greens. They produce only around 3% of the world’s man-made carbon emissions. Surface transport, by contrast, produces 22%. Europe’s merchant ships spew out around a third more carbon than aircraft do, and nobody is going after them. And unlike cars—potent symbols of individualism—airlines are public transport, jamming in as many people as they can into each plane.

　　What’s more, many air travellers cannot easily switch. Car drivers can hop on the train or the bus, but transatlantic travellers can’t row from London to New York. Nor can aircraft fuel be swapped for a green alternative. Car drivers can buy electro-petrol hybrids but aircraft are, for now, stuck with kerosene, because its energy-density makes it the only practical fuel to carry around in the air.

　　Yet in other ways, airlines are a fine target. They pay no tax on fuel for international flights, and therefore escape the “polluter pays” principle even more niftily than other forms of transport. Their emissions are especially damaging, too—partly because the nitrogen oxides from jet-engine exhausts help create ozone, a potent greenhouse gas, and partly because the pretty trails that aircraft leave behind them help make the clouds that can intensify the greenhouse effect.

　　Slowly, businessmen and politicians are coming to agree with scientists. If this generation does not tackle climate change, its descendants will not think much of it. That means raising costs for all sources of pollution. Even those deceptively cheap weekend breaks cannot be exempt.

　　背景常識介紹

　　航空業(yè)加劇溫室效應(yīng) 飛機(jī)排放的污染物更易導(dǎo)致全球氣候變暖

　　航空業(yè)是氣候變暖的另一罪魁禍?zhǔn)住ｏw機(jī)每年排放3億噸溫室氣體。因飛機(jī)在高空飛行,它所排放的污染物比地面排放的污染物對大氣的影響更大,更易導(dǎo)致溫室效應(yīng)的產(chǎn)生和全球氣候的變化。

　　如何控制航空業(yè)的溫室氣體排放：使外部成本向內(nèi)部轉(zhuǎn)化。作為溫室氣體排放的大戶,各大航空公司應(yīng)對其造成的環(huán)境污染支付等額的費(fèi)用作為補(bǔ)償。

　　參考譯文

　　飛機(jī)排放物：骯臟的天空

　　所有的重要觀念都在爭論的邊緣產(chǎn)生,而且通常發(fā)生了令人震驚的事件后這些觀念才會成為主流。直到去年為止,關(guān)心氣候變化的人群主要是科學(xué)家以及環(huán)保主義者——以及少數(shù)一些對此表示關(guān)心的政客。但是自從卡特里娜颶風(fēng)出現(xiàn)以來,有些事情似乎開始改變,特別是在美國。

　　有足夠的跡象表明變化的出現(xiàn)：英國的親商保守黨開始向綠黨陣營轉(zhuǎn)變;Al Gore在美國重新變得受歡迎。各個(gè)公司開始采取行動(dòng),同時(shí)也鼓勵(lì)政府這樣做。歐洲已經(jīng)為它污染比較為嚴(yán)重的5個(gè)工業(yè)制定了排放交易方案。在美國,盡管布什政府仍然抵制進(jìn)行聯(lián)邦立法,越來越多的州卻開始地方立法。

　　到目前為止有關(guān)全球變暖的政治紛爭主要集中在兩種污染者身上：排放廢氣的工廠以及污染的汽車。下個(gè)月歐洲議會將投票決定是否在航空業(yè)適用排放交易方案。如果決定是肯定的,那么整個(gè)民航業(yè)將受到影響,因?yàn)檫@個(gè)方案不僅影響歐洲的航線,同樣也對到達(dá)歐洲和飛離歐洲的航線產(chǎn)生作用。談?wù)撨@種可能性使在巴黎召開的國際航空運(yùn)輸協(xié)會年會的氣氛變得緊張起來。但是不管歐盟如何決定,航空公司看起來必須面對他們應(yīng)當(dāng)為他們排放的廢氣付費(fèi)的強(qiáng)大的呼聲。

　　在某些方面,航空公司對綠色政治組織來說是一個(gè)奇怪的目標(biāo)。它們排放的碳污染僅僅只占世界人為碳污染的3%。相較而言,地面運(yùn)輸占了22%。歐洲商船排放的碳比飛機(jī)排放的要多三分之一左右,但是卻沒有人追究它們。而且不像汽車——利己主義的重要標(biāo)志——飛機(jī)是公共交通,在每架飛機(jī)內(nèi)塞入盡可能多的人。

　　何況許多乘飛機(jī)出行的人無法那么容易地改乘其他交通工具。小汽車司機(jī)可以乘火車或者公車,但是一個(gè)橫穿大西洋的旅行者不可能從倫敦劃船到紐約。同樣的,航空燃料也不能用無污染的替代品來替換。小汽車司機(jī)可以購買電力汽油混合動(dòng)力的汽車,但是飛機(jī)只能用煤油,因?yàn)樗�的能量密度使其成為唯一可以在空中攜帶的燃料。

　　但是從其他方面來說,航空公司又是一個(gè)很好的攻擊目標(biāo)。他們不為國際飛行中的燃料付稅,從而比起其他運(yùn)輸工具來更多地從“污染者付費(fèi)”的原則中逃脫。而且他們的排放物特別具有破壞性,部分原因是噴氣式發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)排放的氮氧化合物促使溫室氣體臭氧的合成,部分原因是飛機(jī)飛過后留下的漂亮尾煙幫助云層形成從而加劇溫室效應(yīng)。

　　慢慢地,生意人和政治家們都開始同意科學(xué)家的看法。如果這一代人不解決氣候變化的問題,那下一代人也不會重視。這意味著將為所有形式的污染付出更高的成本。就算是現(xiàn)在似乎很便宜的周末旅行也不能例外地變得昂貴。