For many environmentalists, the world seems to be getting worse. 对于很多环保主义者而言，世界似乎变得越来越糟糕了。 They have developed a hit-list of our main fears: that natural resources are running out; that the population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat; that species are becoming extinct in vast numbers, and that the planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted. 他们提出了一连串我们最大的担忧：自然资源消耗殆尽、人口不断增长、食物越来越少、物种大规模灭绝、地球的空气和水受到了前所未有的污染。

But a quick look at the facts shows a different picture. 但是我们浏览一下事实，就会发现并非如此。 First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so, since the book The Limits to Growth was published in 1972 by a group of scientists. 首先，自从一群科学家在 1972 年发表《发展的极限》一书以来，能源和其他自然资源越来越丰富了，而不是越来越稀少。 Second, more food is now produced per head of the world’s population than at any time in history. 其次，世界人均食品产出高于史上任何时期。 Fewer people are starving. 饿死的人变少了。 Third, although species are indeed becoming extinct only about 0.7% of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not 25-50%, as has so often been predicted. 再次，尽管物种确实有灭绝的情况，但是目前预计其中只有0.7%会在未来的50年内灭绝，并非之前很多预测中提到的 25%～50%。 And finally, most forms of environmental pollution either appear to have been exaggerated, or are transient - associated with the early phases of industrialisation and therefore best cured not by restricting economic growth, but by accelerating it. 最后，大部分形式的环境污染似乎都被夸大了，或者都是临时性的。联系到工业化的最初阶段（的污染状况），（我们发现治理污染的）最好手段是加速经济发展，而不是减缓。 One form of pollution - the release of greenhouse gases that causes global warming - does appear to be a phenomenon that is going to extend well into our future, but its total impact is unlikely to pose a devastating problem. 一种污染——例如造成全球暖化的温室气体——看起来确实会在未来继续蔓延，但是它的总体影响不太可能造成灾难性问题。 A bigger problem may well turn out to be an inappropriate response to it. 对该问题的不当反应才有可能成为更大的问题。

Yet opinion polls suggest that many people nurture the belief that environmental standards are declining and four factors seem to cause this disjunction between perception and reality. 然而，民意测验表明，很多人产生了这样的想法：环境标准在下降，有四个因素造成了这种感觉与现实之间的脱节。

One is the lopsidedness built into scientific research. 首先是科学研究结构的不均衡性。 Scientific funding goes mainly to areas with many problems. 科研资金主要流向了存在很多问题的领域。 That may be wise policy, but it will also create an impression that many more potential problems exist than is the case. 这也许是一个明智的政策，但这也会让人误以为存在的潜在问题要多过实际情况。

Secondly, environmental groups need to be noticed by the mass media. 其次，环保组织需要得到大众媒体的注意。 They also need to keep the money rolling in. 他们还需要保证不断有资金流入。 Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes overstate their arguments. 不难理解的是，他们有时也许会过度陈述他们的论调。 In 1997, for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a press release entitled:'Two thirds of the world’s forests lost forever'. 例如 1997 年，“世界自然基金”出版了一份媒体报道，题为“世界三分之二的森林永远消失了”。 The truth turns out to be nearer 20%. 而事实是只有20%左右。

Though these groups are run overwhelmingly by selfless folk, they nevertheless share many of the characteristics of other lobby groups. 尽管这些组织大都由无私的个人在运作，但他们拥有很多其他游说团体的共性。 That would matter less if people applied the same degree of scepticism to environmental lobbying as they do to lobby groups in other fields. 如果人们对环保领域游说行为的怀疑程度与对其他团体的此类行为一样高，问题就小多了。 A trade organisation arguing for, say, weaker pollution controls is instantly seen as self-interested. 比如说，一个贸易组织倘若要求降低环保监控，一定会被立刻认定为是利益的驱使。 Yet a green organisation opposing such a weakening is seen as altruistic, even if an impartial view of the controls in question might suggest they are doing more harm than good. 然而，反对这种要求的绿色环保组织则会被认为是为他人着想，可是公平地看待该问题时不难发现，这些环保组织的做法弊大于利。

A third source of confusion is the attitude of the media. 第三个造成混淆的原因是媒体的态度。 People are clearly more curious about bad news than good. 人们对坏消息的兴趣明显高于好消息。 Newspapers and broadcasters are there to provide what the public wants. 报纸和广播电视的存在就是为了提供大众需要的东西。 That, however, can lead to significant distortions of perception. 然而，这样做可能会导致理解上的重大扭曲。 An example was America^ encounter with El Nino in 1997 and 1998. 美国_在 1997 和1998 年_遭遇厄尔尼诺现象就是很好的例子。 This climatic phenomenon was accused of wrecking tourism, causing allergies, melting the ski-slopes and causing 22 deaths. 人们控诉说这种气候现象摧毁了旅游业，带来了过敏反应，导致滑雪场的雪融化，并且造成了 _22_ 人死亡。 However, according to an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the damage it did was estimated at US$4 billion but the benefits amounted to some US$19 billion. 然而，根据“美国气象学会公告”的一篇文章来看，它带来的损失据估计是 _40_ 亿美元，而带来的益处的总额则达到 _190_ 亿美元。 These came from higher winter temperatures (which saved an estimated 850 lives, reduced heating costs and diminished spring floods caused by meltwaters). 这是因为冬季温度升高，挽救了约 _850 _人，降低了取暖费用，并且减少了融冰导致的春季洪水。

The fourth factor is poor individual perception. 第四个因素是糟糕的个人观念。 People worry that the endless rise in the amount of stuff everyone throws away will cause the world to run out of places to dispose of waste. 人们担忧，大家丢弃的垃圾数量不断上升，将导致世界上没有地方可以用来丢垃圾。 Yet, even if America's trash output continues to rise as it has done in the past, and even if the American population doubles by 2100, all the rubbish America produces through the entire 21st century will still take up only one-12,000th of the area of the entire United States. 然而，即使美国的垃圾量以过去的速度持续上升，即使美国人口在 _2100_ 年翻一番，美国人在整个 _21 _世纪产生的垃圾总量也只会占据国土面积的一万两千分之一。

So what of global warming? 那么全球暖化问题呢？ As we know, carbon dioxide emissions are causing the planet to warm. 正如我们所知，二氧化碳的排放造成了全球暖化。 The best estimates are that the temperatures will rise by 2-3°C in this century, causing considerable problems, at a total cost of US$5,000 billion. 最高的估计是本世纪内温度将升高 _2～3_℃，从而造成诸多问题，损失总计将达 _50 000 _亿美元。

Despite the intuition that something drastic needs to be done about such a costly problem, economic analyses clearly show it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. 尽管直觉告诉我们需要对代价如此高昂的问题采取各种措施，但是经济分析却明确表明，降低二氧化碳排放的成本要远远高于适应高温的成本。 A model by one of the main authors of the United Nations Climate Change Panel shows how an expected temperature increase of 2.1 degrees in 2100 would only be diminished to an increase of 1.9 degrees. “联合国气候变化小组”的主要成员做出过的一个模型表明，_2100 _年预计气温会升高 _2.1_℃，而无论我们怎么做，这个幅度也还是高达 _1.9_℃。 Or to put it another way, the temperature increase that the planet would have experienced in 2094 would be postponed to 2100. 换句话说，我们只是将 _2094 _年的温度推迟到了 _2100 _年到来。

So this does not prevent global warming, but merely buys the world six years. 所以这样做不会防止全球暖化，而只是用钱换来六年的时间罢了。 Yet the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, for the United States alone, will be higher than the cost of solving the worlds single, most pressing health problem: providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation. 但是，降低二氧化碳排放的成本，仅仅对于美国一个国家而言，都将高于解决世界上唯一严峻的卫生问题（在各地提供干净的饮水和卫生设施）的成本。 Such measures would avoid 2 million deaths every year, and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill. 而后者将可以在每年避免 _200 _万人死亡，防止 _5 000 _万人染上严重疾病。

It is crucial that we look at the facts if we want to make the best possible decisions for the future. 如果我们想要为未来找到最好、最可行的解决方案，注重事实是关键所在。 It may be costly to be overly optimistic - but more costly still to be too pessimistic. 如果过于乐观，也许成本很高，但过于悲观成本将会更高。