中國(guó)有“書讀百遍，其義自見”的古諺，一直在強(qiáng)調(diào)重復(fù)練習(xí)的重要性?？荚嚾找媾R近，多看書，勤做題是大有裨益的。 為您提供了“2019年翻譯資格考試一級(jí)筆譯提升練習(xí)題2”，歡迎閱讀參考！更多相關(guān)訊息請(qǐng)關(guān)注！
“Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over,” Mark Twain once said. At the start of the 21st century, his gloomy view on the water side of the equation has been getting endorsements from an impressive — if unlikely — cast of characters. The Central Intelligence Agency, the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and, most recently, Britain’s Ministry of Defense have all raised the specter of future “water wars.” With water availability shrinking across the Middle East, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, so the argument runs, violent conflict between states is increasingly likely.
The specter is also on the agenda for the experts from 140 countries gathered this week at the annual World Water Week forum in Stockholm. Meetings of water experts are not obvious forums for debating issues of global peace and security. But the ghost of Mark Twain is in Stockholm this week as we reflect on the links between water scarcity and violent conflict between states. So, here’s the question. Are we heading for an era of “hydrological warfare” in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over? Or can water act as a force for peace and cooperation?
Water conflicts are invariably shaped by local factors. But the sheer scale of these conflicts makes it impossible to dismiss them as isolated events. What we are dealing with is a global crisis generated by decades of gross mismanagement of water resources. The facts behind the crisis tell their own story. By 2025, more than two billion people are expected to live in countries that find it difficult or impossible to mobilize the water resources needed to meet the needs of agriculture, industry and households. Population growth, urbanization and the rapid development of manufacturing industries are relentlessly increasing demand for finite water resources. The threats posed by competition for water are real enough — but for every threat there is an opportunity. Cooperation tends to attract less news than violent conflict. Perhaps that is why “water wars” get such exaggerated coverage. Yet cooperation over water is far more widespread than conflict.
How can the world move toward a future of cooperation rather than conflict on water? We believe that there are three broad rules. First, governments have to stop treating water as an infinitely available resource to be exploited without reference to ecological sustainability. Yes, water is scarce in many countries. But the scarcity is the product of poor economic policies. Improving the efficiency of water use and encouraging conservation through pricing and more efficient technologies in agriculture and industry would help reduce scarcity. Second, countries must avoid unilateralism. Any major upstream alteration to a river system, or increase in use of shared groundwater, should be negotiated, not imposed. Governments should look beyond national borders to basin-wide cooperation. Building strong river-basin institutions could provide a framework for identifying and exploiting opportunities for cooperation. Third, political leaders need to get involved. Too often, dialogue on transboundary water management is dominated by technical experts. Whatever their level of expertise, dedication and professionalism, the absence of political leadership tends to limit the scope for far-reaching cooperation.
The most obvious reason for greater political and financial investment in transboundary water cooperation is spelled out in an unlikely source. “By means of water,” says the Koran, “we give life to everything.” As a single human community sharing a single planet, we need to look beyond our national borders to work out ways of sustaining the ecological systems on which human progress depends. By means of water, perhaps we can display a capacity for resolving problems and sustaining through cooperation.
馬克·吐溫說過，“威士忌是供飲用的，水是用來搶奪的?！彼麑?duì)水所持的悲觀看法，到了 21 世紀(jì)初，卻受到一批如不可能卻引人注目的人物的贊同。美國(guó)中央情報(bào)局、普華永道會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所，以及最近英國(guó)國(guó)防部，都談到將來“為水而戰(zhàn)”的可怕景象。根據(jù)他們的說法，由于中東、亞洲以及非洲小撒哈拉地區(qū)可用水量日漸減少，國(guó)家間發(fā)生暴力沖突的可能性日益增大。
本周有 140 個(gè)國(guó)家的專家云集斯德哥爾摩，舉行世界水周論壇年會(huì)。上述可怕景象也反映在年會(huì)的議程上。水專家的會(huì)議顯然不是討論世界和平與安全問題的論壇。然而，馬克·吐溫的幽靈本周來到了斯德哥爾摩，因?yàn)槲覀円从乘暮蛧?guó)家間的暴力沖突的關(guān)系。這樣問題就來了。難道說我們正走向“為水而戰(zhàn)”的時(shí)代，河流、湖泊和地下蓄水層都成為需要爭(zhēng)奪的國(guó)家安全資產(chǎn)?還是說水可以成為一支和平與合作的力量?
關(guān)于水的沖突總是由局部地區(qū)的多種因素引發(fā)的。但看一看這些沖突的純粹規(guī)模，讓人不能把它們看作是孤立的事件，而不予重視。我們當(dāng)前面對(duì)的是一場(chǎng)全球性危機(jī)，這種危機(jī)是幾十年來對(duì)水資源管理不當(dāng)而造成的。危機(jī)背后的事實(shí)最能說明問題。預(yù)計(jì)到 2025 年，在兩億多人生活的那些國(guó)家將無法或難以開發(fā)足夠的水資源，以滿足農(nóng)業(yè)、工業(yè)和生活用水的需求。人口增長(zhǎng)、城市化、制造業(yè)的迅猛發(fā)展都對(duì)有限的水資源毫不留情地提出越來越大的需求。爭(zhēng)水的威脅確實(shí)存在，但每個(gè)威脅都會(huì)帶來一個(gè)機(jī)遇。合作往往比暴力沖突吸引更少的新聞報(bào)導(dǎo)。也許正是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)原因，“為水而戰(zhàn)”才受到那樣言過其實(shí)的報(bào)道。然而，在水的問題上進(jìn)行的合作要比它引起的沖突更為廣泛。
世界怎樣才能在將來為水而合作，而不是走向沖突呢?我們認(rèn)為，總的說來有三項(xiàng)規(guī)則。第一、各國(guó)政府不可繼續(xù)把水看作是一種可供無限使用的資源，而不考慮生態(tài)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。的確，許多國(guó)家都在鬧水荒。但水荒是貧窮的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策產(chǎn)品。提高水的利用率，通過調(diào)整價(jià)格和改進(jìn)工農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)鼓勵(lì)節(jié)水，都有助于緩解水荒。第二、各國(guó)必須避免單邊主義。某一水系的上游的任何重大變化，或者共用的地下水開采量的增加，應(yīng)經(jīng)過談判，而不能強(qiáng)加于人。各國(guó)政府應(yīng)放眼跨國(guó)界全流域的合作。建立強(qiáng)有力的涵蓋全流域的機(jī)構(gòu)將會(huì)提供一個(gè)框架，以利于尋求和利用合作機(jī)會(huì)。第三、政治需要參與?？邕吔缢芾淼膶?duì)話，往往由技術(shù)專家把持。不論他們的技術(shù)水平有多高，不論他們多么敬業(yè)與在行，如果缺少政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，都會(huì)限制具有深遠(yuǎn)意義的合作。
為水而進(jìn)行跨邊界合作，需要增加政治的和財(cái)政的投入，其最明顯的一條理由，竟來自一個(gè)意想不到的出處?！豆盘m經(jīng)》云：“借助于水，我們賦萬物以生命?！蔽覀兺瑢僖粋€(gè)人類社會(huì)，共享一個(gè)星球，我們的眼光需要超越自己的國(guó)度，去尋求維護(hù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的途徑。也許我們能借助于水來展示一種能力——通過合作解決問題并實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的能力。
“Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over,” Mark Twain once said. At the start of the 21st century, his gloomy view on the water side of the equation has been getting endorsements from an impressive — if unlikely — cast of characters. The Central Intelligence Agency, the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and, most recently, Britain’s Ministry of Defense have all raised the specter of future “water wars.” With water availability shrinking across the Middle East, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, so the argument runs, violent conflict between states is increasingly likely.
The specter is also on the agenda for the experts from 140 countries gathered this week at the annual World Water Week forum in Stockholm. Meetings of water experts are not obvious forums for debating issues of global peace and security. But the ghost of Mark Twain is in Stockholm this week as we reflect on the links between water scarcity and violent conflict between states. So, here’s the question. Are we heading for an era of “hydrological warfare” in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over? Or can water act as a force for peace and cooperation?
Water conflicts are invariably shaped by local factors. But the sheer scale of these conflicts makes it impossible to dismiss them as isolated events. What we are dealing with is a global crisis generated by decades of gross mismanagement of water resources. The facts behind the crisis tell their own story. By 2025, more than two billion people are expected to live in countries that find it difficult or impossible to mobilize the water resources needed to meet the needs of agriculture, industry and households. Population growth, urbanization and the rapid development of manufacturing industries are relentlessly increasing demand for finite water resources. The threats posed by competition for water are real enough — but for every threat there is an opportunity. Cooperation tends to attract less news than violent conflict. Perhaps that is why “water wars” get such exaggerated coverage. Yet cooperation over water is far more widespread than conflict.
How can the world move toward a future of cooperation rather than conflict on water? We believe that there are three broad rules. First, governments have to stop treating water as an infinitely available resource to be exploited without reference to ecological sustainability. Yes, water is scarce in many countries. But the scarcity is the product of poor economic policies. Improving the efficiency of water use and encouraging conservation through pricing and more efficient technologies in agriculture and industry would help reduce scarcity. Second, countries must avoid unilateralism. Any major upstream alteration to a river system, or increase in use of shared groundwater, should be negotiated, not imposed. Governments should look beyond national borders to basin-wide cooperation. Building strong river-basin institutions could provide a framework for identifying and exploiting opportunities for cooperation. Third, political leaders need to get involved. Too often, dialogue on transboundary water management is dominated by technical experts. Whatever their level of expertise, dedication and professionalism, the absence of political leadership tends to limit the scope for far-reaching cooperation.
The most obvious reason for greater political and financial investment in transboundary water cooperation is spelled out in an unlikely source. “By means of water,” says the Koran, “we give life to everything.” As a single human community sharing a single planet, we need to look beyond our national borders to work out ways of sustaining the ecological systems on which human progress depends. By means of water, perhaps we can display a capacity for resolving problems and sustaining through cooperation.
馬克·吐溫說過，“威士忌是供飲用的，水是用來搶奪的?！彼麑?duì)水所持的悲觀看法，到了 21 世紀(jì)初，卻受到一批如不可能卻引人注目的人物的贊同。美國(guó)中央情報(bào)局、普華永道會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所，以及最近英國(guó)國(guó)防部，都談到將來“為水而戰(zhàn)”的可怕景象。根據(jù)他們的說法，由于中東、亞洲以及非洲小撒哈拉地區(qū)可用水量日漸減少，國(guó)家間發(fā)生暴力沖突的可能性日益增大。
本周有 140 個(gè)國(guó)家的專家云集斯德哥爾摩，舉行世界水周論壇年會(huì)。上述可怕景象也反映在年會(huì)的議程上。水專家的會(huì)議顯然不是討論世界和平與安全問題的論壇。然而，馬克·吐溫的幽靈本周來到了斯德哥爾摩，因?yàn)槲覀円从乘暮蛧?guó)家間的暴力沖突的關(guān)系。這樣問題就來了。難道說我們正走向“為水而戰(zhàn)”的時(shí)代，河流、湖泊和地下蓄水層都成為需要爭(zhēng)奪的國(guó)家安全資產(chǎn)?還是說水可以成為一支和平與合作的力量?
關(guān)于水的沖突總是由局部地區(qū)的多種因素引發(fā)的。但看一看這些沖突的純粹規(guī)模，讓人不能把它們看作是孤立的事件，而不予重視。我們當(dāng)前面對(duì)的是一場(chǎng)全球性危機(jī)，這種危機(jī)是幾十年來對(duì)水資源管理不當(dāng)而造成的。危機(jī)背后的事實(shí)最能說明問題。預(yù)計(jì)到 2025 年，在兩億多人生活的那些國(guó)家將無法或難以開發(fā)足夠的水資源，以滿足農(nóng)業(yè)、工業(yè)和生活用水的需求。人口增長(zhǎng)、城市化、制造業(yè)的迅猛發(fā)展都對(duì)有限的水資源毫不留情地提出越來越大的需求。爭(zhēng)水的威脅確實(shí)存在，但每個(gè)威脅都會(huì)帶來一個(gè)機(jī)遇。合作往往比暴力沖突吸引更少的新聞報(bào)導(dǎo)。也許正是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)原因，“為水而戰(zhàn)”才受到那樣言過其實(shí)的報(bào)道。然而，在水的問題上進(jìn)行的合作要比它引起的沖突更為廣泛。
世界怎樣才能在將來為水而合作，而不是走向沖突呢?我們認(rèn)為，總的說來有三項(xiàng)規(guī)則。第一、各國(guó)政府不可繼續(xù)把水看作是一種可供無限使用的資源，而不考慮生態(tài)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。的確，許多國(guó)家都在鬧水荒。但水荒是貧窮的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策產(chǎn)品。提高水的利用率，通過調(diào)整價(jià)格和改進(jìn)工農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)鼓勵(lì)節(jié)水，都有助于緩解水荒。第二、各國(guó)必須避免單邊主義。某一水系的上游的任何重大變化，或者共用的地下水開采量的增加，應(yīng)經(jīng)過談判，而不能強(qiáng)加于人。各國(guó)政府應(yīng)放眼跨國(guó)界全流域的合作。建立強(qiáng)有力的涵蓋全流域的機(jī)構(gòu)將會(huì)提供一個(gè)框架，以利于尋求和利用合作機(jī)會(huì)。第三、政治需要參與?？邕吔缢芾淼膶?duì)話，往往由技術(shù)專家把持。不論他們的技術(shù)水平有多高，不論他們多么敬業(yè)與在行，如果缺少政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，都會(huì)限制具有深遠(yuǎn)意義的合作。
為水而進(jìn)行跨邊界合作，需要增加政治的和財(cái)政的投入，其最明顯的一條理由，竟來自一個(gè)意想不到的出處?！豆盘m經(jīng)》云：“借助于水，我們賦萬物以生命?！蔽覀兺瑢僖粋€(gè)人類社會(huì)，共享一個(gè)星球，我們的眼光需要超越自己的國(guó)度，去尋求維護(hù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的途徑。也許我們能借助于水來展示一種能力——通過合作解決問題并實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的能力。