2023考研英語閱讀環境保護遭遇攻擊

　　Environmentalism under fire

　　環境保護遭遇攻擊

　　Soaring emissions

　　不斷增加的廢氣污染

　　The rhetoric about environmental controls killingjobs is getting louder and louder

　　聲稱環境保護會導致就業機會減少的言論愈演愈烈

　　ISNT it odd, asks Henry Waxman, a Democratic congressman from California, how the sameRepublicans who make such a fuss about abortion do not seem to care if the unborn arepoisoned by toxic chemicals such as mercury? Isnt it strange, Republicans retort, that peoplelike Mr Waxman, who profess to care about working Americans, cheer on bureaucratsdetermined to smother business and destroy jobs? It may be hard to discern amid themelodramatic rhetoric, but the two sides are talking about the Environmental ProtectionAgency, and the various new rules it has in the works to curb pollution. Besides the endlesstoing and froing about government spending, it has become the most fiercely debated topic inCongress.

　　來自加州的民主黨議員Henry Waxman稱，反對墮胎并對此大作文章的共和黨人似乎并不擔憂未出生的胎兒是否會受到例如水銀這樣的有毒物質的毒害;共和黨則聲稱，像Mr Waxman這樣宣稱關心美國人就業問題卻為誓要抑制美國企業成長減少就業的官僚們吶喊助威。我們似乎很難從這些夸張的言論中辨別事非，不過，民主黨和共和黨爭論的對像都是美國環保局以及環保局正在起草的各類污染管制法規。繼關于政府開支沒完沒了的爭論之后，環境污染管制成了國會又一激烈爭論的對象。

　　As soon as they took control of the House of Representatives in January, Republicans begansummoning Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, and several of her underlings to answerquestions about their job-killing ways. Fred Upton, the head of the committee responsible forenergy and environmental regulation, joked that she would be on Capitol Hill so often shewould need her own parking space.

　　1月，共和黨剛接管眾議院就隨即召集了環保局主管Lisa Jackson以及她的幾位下屬，詢問關于環保局制定的扼殺就業的各種環保措施。能源和環境管制委員會主席Fred Upton說，Lisa Jackson去國會的次數頻繁到幾乎要單獨給她安排一個車位。

　　The Republicans chief concern is the EPAsauthority, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in2007, to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases.But more broadly they worry that the EPA isconstantly tightening restrictions on pollution, atever higher cost to business but with diminishingreturns in terms of public health. They point to aslew of new rules about industrial boilers, coolingwater at power plants, the disposal of coal ash, andemissions of mercury, ozone and other chemicalsfrom smokestacks, which cumulatively, they say, willhave a crippling effect on power generation and other industries. Even God, says Joe Barton,a Republican congressman, couldnt meet some of the ozone standards.

　　共和黨人最為關注的是環保局的權限，最高法院于2007年授權環保局管制溫室氣體排放。廣泛地說，他們擔心環保局不斷制定越來越嚴格污染管制措施，使得企業需要付出更高的成本，而對改善公共健康而言，收益卻在遞減。共和黨指出，針對工業鍋爐、發電廠水冷卻、煤灰處理、汞排放、煙囪臭氧及其他化學物質排放等制定的眾多法規，共同重創了電廠和其他工業。共和黨議員Joe Barton說，即使上帝也無法滿足其中的一些空氣標準。

　　Mr Barton is among the many Republicans in Congress who question whether global warming iscaused by human activity, let alone whether the EPA should be trying to mitigate it by limitingemissions of greenhouse gases. The House has passed a measure that would rescind theEPAs authority to do so, although it was blocked in the Senate, which the Democrats stillcontrol. The Republican leadership in the House has accused the administration of plotting toraise the price of energy through onerous regulation, in an effort to promote otherwiseuncompetitive green technologies. It wants the EPA to give more weight to the impact on theeconomy and jobs when drawing up future rules.

　　許多共和黨人仍然對人類活動是否是造成全球變暖的原因表示質疑，更別提環保局是否應該通過限制溫室氣體排放以緩和全球變暖。Mr Barton就是其中之一。眾議院通過了一項旨在廢除環保局溫室氣體管制權限的草案，但被共和黨人控制的參議院駁回。眾議院共和黨領導人指責政府意圖通過繁重的管制措施來提高能源價格進而促進本不具備競爭力綠色科技的發展。他們希望環保局在制定未來的管制措施時能夠重視措施對經濟的沖擊和對就業的影響。

　　Republicans outside Congress are warming to the theme. In late May Chris Christie, the much-feted governor of New Jersey, withdrew his state from a regional pact to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. Several prominent Republican candidates for president haverecanted past support for curbs on greenhouse gases. One of them, Newt Gingrich, a formerspeaker of the House, says the EPA should be abolished altogether and an environmentalsolutions agency more sympathetic to business set up in its stead.

　　國會之外的共和黨人也在積極參與這次爭論，5月下旬，備受稱贊的新澤西州州長Chris Christie 宣布新澤西退出旨在降低發電廠溫室氣體排放的一份區域協定。幾位卓越的共和黨總統候選人也已宣布不再支持對溫室氣體排放進行管制，前眾議院發言人Newt Gingrich就是其中之一。他認為，應該撤銷環保局，建立一個企業友好型的 環境保護方案機構來取代。

　　EPA officials appear baffled by this barrage ofhostility. All the regulations they are promulgating,they point out, are based on laws passed byCongress, usually on a bipartisan basis. The CleanAir Act, for example, which is the basis of the EPAsproposed regulation of greenhouse gases, wassigned by Richard Nixon, and strengthened with thesupport of George Bush senior, both Republicans.The agency, they say, already conducts cost-benefitanalyses of all important regulations, in addition tosubmitting them for expert review and publiccomment. Every dollar spent on pollution controls mandated by the Clean Air Act, includingthe ozone restrictions that Mr Barton is complaining about, will bring $30 in benefits to publichealth, the EPA reckons.

　　針對如此密集的反對聲，環保局官員顯得很不理解。他們指出，所有頒布的規定都是以國會批準通過法律為基礎的。例如，環保局起草的溫室氣體管制方案是以潔凈空氣法案為基礎的，而潔凈空氣法案是共和黨人Richard Nixon簽署并得到共和黨人老布什總統的進一步支持。另外，環保局所有重要的法規不僅咨詢了專家意見及公共建議，同時還進行了成本效益分析。環保局估計，用于潔凈空氣法案規定的污染控制的每一美元都將給公共健康帶來30美元的回報。

　　Under Mrs Jackson many of the most significant new rules are also being subjected to aseparate review of the impact on jobs; though since onerous environmental restrictions canbe labour-intensive, that is not always a good measure of the overall economic benefit.Moreover, the EPA is producing so many regulations at once in part because it is legally boundto. One of the rules the Republicans are complaining about, regarding mercury, arsenic andother toxic chemicals released by power plants, has been in the works for over 20 years. TheEPAs original regulations on the subject were thrown out by the courts as too lax. Anyway,so a combative official told her Republican interrogators earlier this year, complaints about thetoll on business of pollution controls are almost always wildly exaggerated.

　　在Mrs Jackson領導下，許多重要的新法規都需要單獨評估其對就業市場的影響，盡管繁重的環境管制措施可能會對勞動密集型產業產生影響，但是，這樣的片面的評估并不總能體現出它對整體經濟利益的影響。此外，環保局同時出臺如此眾多的管制措施，部分原因是由于其法律上的義務。共和黨人控拆的其中一項規定是針對發電廠排放汞、砷及其它有毒物質的規定，這項規定用了20年才最終出臺。法院曾以管制措施過于松散為由駁回了環保局最初的草案。無論如何，一名官員在面對共和黨人質詢時曾說，人們在報怨環境保護措施給企業帶來不利影響時總是極盡夸張之能。

　　Yet the EPA is clearly stung by the criticism. The White House recently announced that theagency had scrapped a rule requiring leaks of dairy products to be treated as oil spills, as partof a government-wide review of red tape that may be impeding economic growth. It is nowconsidering revisions to a further 31 regulations. It has also delayed the implementation of thenew regulations concerning industrial boilers, after loud complaints from the businessesaffected. And it seems in no hurry to use its authority over greenhouse gases, settlinginstead for a lengthy rule-drafting period that could forestall the imposition of any restrictionsuntil after next years elections.

　　但是批評顯然讓環保局備受煎熬。白宮近日宣布，在進行的一項政府范圍內對可能阻礙經濟發展的紅頭文件的復審中，環保局取消了一項要求將乳制品泄漏與石油泄漏同等處理的規定。同時環保局正考慮對另31項法規進行修訂。另外，由于被影響企業的極力報怨，環保局推遲了有關工業鍋爐管制的新法規的執行。看來，環保局并不急于使用他們的溫室氣體排放管制權利，而是滿足于冗長的法規起草過程，從而阻止了任何管制條例在明年的選舉之前的實施。

　　Environmentalism under fire

　　環境保護遭遇攻擊

　　Soaring emissions

　　不斷增加的廢氣污染

　　The rhetoric about environmental controls killingjobs is getting louder and louder

　　聲稱環境保護會導致就業機會減少的言論愈演愈烈

　　ISNT it odd, asks Henry Waxman, a Democratic congressman from California, how the sameRepublicans who make such a fuss about abortion do not seem to care if the unborn arepoisoned by toxic chemicals such as mercury? Isnt it strange, Republicans retort, that peoplelike Mr Waxman, who profess to care about working Americans, cheer on bureaucratsdetermined to smother business and destroy jobs? It may be hard to discern amid themelodramatic rhetoric, but the two sides are talking about the Environmental ProtectionAgency, and the various new rules it has in the works to curb pollution. Besides the endlesstoing and froing about government spending, it has become the most fiercely debated topic inCongress.

　　來自加州的民主黨議員Henry Waxman稱，反對墮胎并對此大作文章的共和黨人似乎并不擔憂未出生的胎兒是否會受到例如水銀這樣的有毒物質的毒害;共和黨則聲稱，像Mr Waxman這樣宣稱關心美國人就業問題卻為誓要抑制美國企業成長減少就業的官僚們吶喊助威。我們似乎很難從這些夸張的言論中辨別事非，不過，民主黨和共和黨爭論的對像都是美國環保局以及環保局正在起草的各類污染管制法規。繼關于政府開支沒完沒了的爭論之后，環境污染管制成了國會又一激烈爭論的對象。

　　As soon as they took control of the House of Representatives in January, Republicans begansummoning Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, and several of her underlings to answerquestions about their job-killing ways. Fred Upton, the head of the committee responsible forenergy and environmental regulation, joked that she would be on Capitol Hill so often shewould need her own parking space.

　　1月，共和黨剛接管眾議院就隨即召集了環保局主管Lisa Jackson以及她的幾位下屬，詢問關于環保局制定的扼殺就業的各種環保措施。能源和環境管制委員會主席Fred Upton說，Lisa Jackson去國會的次數頻繁到幾乎要單獨給她安排一個車位。

　　The Republicans chief concern is the EPAsauthority, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in2007, to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases.But more broadly they worry that the EPA isconstantly tightening restrictions on pollution, atever higher cost to business but with diminishingreturns in terms of public health. They point to aslew of new rules about industrial boilers, coolingwater at power plants, the disposal of coal ash, andemissions of mercury, ozone and other chemicalsfrom smokestacks, which cumulatively, they say, willhave a crippling effect on power generation and other industries. Even God, says Joe Barton,a Republican congressman, couldnt meet some of the ozone standards.

　　共和黨人最為關注的是環保局的權限，最高法院于2007年授權環保局管制溫室氣體排放。廣泛地說，他們擔心環保局不斷制定越來越嚴格污染管制措施，使得企業需要付出更高的成本，而對改善公共健康而言，收益卻在遞減。共和黨指出，針對工業鍋爐、發電廠水冷卻、煤灰處理、汞排放、煙囪臭氧及其他化學物質排放等制定的眾多法規，共同重創了電廠和其他工業。共和黨議員Joe Barton說，即使上帝也無法滿足其中的一些空氣標準。

　　Mr Barton is among the many Republicans in Congress who question whether global warming iscaused by human activity, let alone whether the EPA should be trying to mitigate it by limitingemissions of greenhouse gases. The House has passed a measure that would rescind theEPAs authority to do so, although it was blocked in the Senate, which the Democrats stillcontrol. The Republican leadership in the House has accused the administration of plotting toraise the price of energy through onerous regulation, in an effort to promote otherwiseuncompetitive green technologies. It wants the EPA to give more weight to the impact on theeconomy and jobs when drawing up future rules.

　　許多共和黨人仍然對人類活動是否是造成全球變暖的原因表示質疑，更別提環保局是否應該通過限制溫室氣體排放以緩和全球變暖。Mr Barton就是其中之一。眾議院通過了一項旨在廢除環保局溫室氣體管制權限的草案，但被共和黨人控制的參議院駁回。眾議院共和黨領導人指責政府意圖通過繁重的管制措施來提高能源價格進而促進本不具備競爭力綠色科技的發展。他們希望環保局在制定未來的管制措施時能夠重視措施對經濟的沖擊和對就業的影響。

　　Republicans outside Congress are warming to the theme. In late May Chris Christie, the much-feted governor of New Jersey, withdrew his state from a regional pact to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. Several prominent Republican candidates for president haverecanted past support for curbs on greenhouse gases. One of them, Newt Gingrich, a formerspeaker of the House, says the EPA should be abolished altogether and an environmentalsolutions agency more sympathetic to business set up in its stead.

　　國會之外的共和黨人也在積極參與這次爭論，5月下旬，備受稱贊的新澤西州州長Chris Christie 宣布新澤西退出旨在降低發電廠溫室氣體排放的一份區域協定。幾位卓越的共和黨總統候選人也已宣布不再支持對溫室氣體排放進行管制，前眾議院發言人Newt Gingrich就是其中之一。他認為，應該撤銷環保局，建立一個企業友好型的 環境保護方案機構來取代。

　　EPA officials appear baffled by this barrage ofhostility. All the regulations they are promulgating,they point out, are based on laws passed byCongress, usually on a bipartisan basis. The CleanAir Act, for example, which is the basis of the EPAsproposed regulation of greenhouse gases, wassigned by Richard Nixon, and strengthened with thesupport of George Bush senior, both Republicans.The agency, they say, already conducts cost-benefitanalyses of all important regulations, in addition tosubmitting them for expert review and publiccomment. Every dollar spent on pollution controls mandated by the Clean Air Act, includingthe ozone restrictions that Mr Barton is complaining about, will bring $30 in benefits to publichealth, the EPA reckons.

　　針對如此密集的反對聲，環保局官員顯得很不理解。他們指出，所有頒布的規定都是以國會批準通過法律為基礎的。例如，環保局起草的溫室氣體管制方案是以潔凈空氣法案為基礎的，而潔凈空氣法案是共和黨人Richard Nixon簽署并得到共和黨人老布什總統的進一步支持。另外，環保局所有重要的法規不僅咨詢了專家意見及公共建議，同時還進行了成本效益分析。環保局估計，用于潔凈空氣法案規定的污染控制的每一美元都將給公共健康帶來30美元的回報。

　　Under Mrs Jackson many of the most significant new rules are also being subjected to aseparate review of the impact on jobs; though since onerous environmental restrictions canbe labour-intensive, that is not always a good measure of the overall economic benefit.Moreover, the EPA is producing so many regulations at once in part because it is legally boundto. One of the rules the Republicans are complaining about, regarding mercury, arsenic andother toxic chemicals released by power plants, has been in the works for over 20 years. TheEPAs original regulations on the subject were thrown out by the courts as too lax. Anyway,so a combative official told her Republican interrogators earlier this year, complaints about thetoll on business of pollution controls are almost always wildly exaggerated.

　　在Mrs Jackson領導下，許多重要的新法規都需要單獨評估其對就業市場的影響，盡管繁重的環境管制措施可能會對勞動密集型產業產生影響，但是，這樣的片面的評估并不總能體現出它對整體經濟利益的影響。此外，環保局同時出臺如此眾多的管制措施，部分原因是由于其法律上的義務。共和黨人控拆的其中一項規定是針對發電廠排放汞、砷及其它有毒物質的規定，這項規定用了20年才最終出臺。法院曾以管制措施過于松散為由駁回了環保局最初的草案。無論如何，一名官員在面對共和黨人質詢時曾說，人們在報怨環境保護措施給企業帶來不利影響時總是極盡夸張之能。

　　Yet the EPA is clearly stung by the criticism. The White House recently announced that theagency had scrapped a rule requiring leaks of dairy products to be treated as oil spills, as partof a government-wide review of red tape that may be impeding economic growth. It is nowconsidering revisions to a further 31 regulations. It has also delayed the implementation of thenew regulations concerning industrial boilers, after loud complaints from the businessesaffected. And it seems in no hurry to use its authority over greenhouse gases, settlinginstead for a lengthy rule-drafting period that could forestall the imposition of any restrictionsuntil after next years elections.

　　但是批評顯然讓環保局備受煎熬。白宮近日宣布，在進行的一項政府范圍內對可能阻礙經濟發展的紅頭文件的復審中，環保局取消了一項要求將乳制品泄漏與石油泄漏同等處理的規定。同時環保局正考慮對另31項法規進行修訂。另外，由于被影響企業的極力報怨，環保局推遲了有關工業鍋爐管制的新法規的執行。看來，環保局并不急于使用他們的溫室氣體排放管制權利，而是滿足于冗長的法規起草過程，從而阻止了任何管制條例在明年的選舉之前的實施。