有关绿色建筑的英文新闻翻译.doc

绿色建筑的某些报道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决世界环境问题的行动表明公司应考虑所有最佳名单:What if there was a building that was so green that it was awarded the well-regarded Silver LEED rating?如果有一个建筑是如此的“绿色”,它正被授予银LEED评级呢?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? 如果那幢楼住,一个公司,在其他事情上,对气候科学传播造谣削弱了公众支持美国环保署气候变化管理条例和吗?A fairly basic question would come to mind: is that building really green?个相当基本的问题会来感受:那幢楼是真的绿色?Actually, such a building exists实际上,这样一个建筑的存在。. 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. 这是纽约新闻集团的总部,在运行一个帝国,鲁珀特默多克是“建立否认,否认,否认“最紧迫的环境问题的时间气候变化- - -根据漂泊不定的人。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.该杂志报道,新闻集团去年冬天的华尔街期刊照例否认气候变化是“一个天启恐慌”,福克斯新闻帮助一个假的杜松子酒hyping争论毫不留情的climategate”丑闻”即使多个独立的研究指出,任何科学家的电子邮件重挫了他们关于全球变暖的结论。Including advocacy in criteria will make rankings more accurate, but will also steer consumers and investors in a positive direction.包括宣传标准将使排名更准确,而且还会引导消费者和投资者的正面发展。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.滚石默多克# 1在命名中最为重要的政治家和高层对全球变暖的阻断进步注意“没有人对危险的关于全球变暖的蔓延,指责比默多克。”Ouch.Despite all this, 哎唷。尽管如此,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.新闻集团的问题是是否值得其突出的绿色建筑评级可以轻易地解雇了。LEED率的建筑,没有提倡使用者。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。但是随着这条线的思想,也不是企业排名系统的工作(像本周发表在新闻周刊)来衡量任何事,除了经营绿色公司处理固体废物、能源效率最大化,避免烟囱污染对他们的网站,在某些情况下在他们的供应链。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.新闻集团名列234今年的500家美国公司在新闻周刊的排名。其排名不表明这业务只能带来更多责任几乎比其他任何在预防政策解决气候危机的知识。 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.而在今年早些时候,新闻集团。气候变化的表现给予AAA评级最高得分,让学生们育所提供的全球苏格拉底摩根士丹利资本国际(MSCI)研究的另一个重要的评价方案。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. 世界面临着巨大的环境问题,而气候变化是字幕。政府间气候变化专门委员会呼吁CO2减征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. 目标,积极提供只是一个50/50的几率防止全球平均温度上升2摄氏度,超过此数以百万计的人将在危险的干旱、饥饿、和洪灾。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.我所需要的东西来解决气候变化是一个激进的娱乐,如我们所知,是社会,从我们如何使用和产生能量对我们如何税务污染和鼓励效率。 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. 这道题这么大,因此包容,它不能解决,由特设自愿行动。即使每单位或者个人进行的内容全面的菜单所以斜气候固定,我们还是无法解决问题,因为一切如常许多数量级的将是全球级别的标准。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变就能搞定。因此,一个专属集中经营绿化,自愿企业或评级机构风险分散更需要从遥远的大补丁。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,绿色政治行动就像运动的资金,或游说国会或舆论的口诛笔伐,能极大的较大的影响,可以说是代表环保影响最大的一个公司可能会碰到环境因素的影响。 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实际上,生存的气候科学问题的在美国的政策而缺乏行动,是归因于公司支持大规模的“否定行业,”详述和艾瑞克考恩威博士拿俄米内的书的商家的怀疑。美国商会,例如,花了1.32亿元买游说在2010年,超过其他任何实体,反对所有气候法案。 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.企业影响政府的政策只会增加,在去年的公民美国最高法院的案例,其中允许公司花无限偏选举。The primacy of policy in solving the worlds environmental problems suggests that corporate activism should be considered in all corporate environmental rankings.首位的政策来解决世界环境问题的行动表明公司应考虑所有企业环境的排名。 Ignoring advocacy is like rating colleges based on their buildings and infrastructure while ignoring the quality of educational content.就像评级院校忽视提倡基于他们的建筑和基础设施的质量而忽略了教育内容。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?这当然是可行的:一些度量已存在。例如,评级公司能以奖励领导地位,比如当太平洋天然气和电力(太平洋)离开美国商会、引用“极端气候变化的位置上。“企业责任的100最佳企业公民已学分公司美国气候行动的成员合作,一组呼吁美国政府“快速制定强烈的国家立法规定明显减少温室气体排放,虽然这只是一个324年的考虑因素。评级公司也可以惩罚破坏属于组织气候变化调节。新闻周刊将IBM的# 1还是排名美国公司如果排名权衡事实,IBM不仅是一个肢体,乃是一位董事会成员,美国商会吗? 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