(46) A favourite prediction of environmentalism has bitten the dust—too many natural resources, rather than too few, are the cause of an increasing number of wars in the 21st century. (47) Many greens had predicted that the new century would see a rash of wars in countries where natural resources such as timber, water, minerals and fertile mils am running out. But far from it, says the 2002 State of the World report from the prestigious Washington-based think-tank, the Worldwatch Institute. In fact, says the report"s co-author Michael Rennet, there are "numerous places in the developing world where abundant natural resources help fuel conflicts". More than a quarter of current conflicts are either being fought over, or are funded by, some lucrative natural resource. Examples cited by the Worldwatch Institute include: .Diamond mines in Sierra Lame and Angola malting the two African nations ripe for plunder by warlords .Profits from sapphires, rubies and timber arming the Khmer Rouge in their interminable jungle war in Cambodia .Guerillas using the threat of sabotage to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from oil companies prospecting in Colombia .Opium funding 20 years of war in Afghanistan .The Congo"s continuing civil war subsisting on the proceeds of elephant tusks and coltan, a vital mineral in the manufacture of mobile phones With the end of the cold war, superpowers no longer fund civil wars for their own geopolitical ends, says Rennet. Their place has been taken by the market—in the form of the plunder and sale of natural resources. (48) "Nature"s bounty attracts groups that may claim they are driven by grievance, but which initiate violence not to overthrow a government but to gain and maintain control of lucrative resources", says Rennet. Such resource wars are being fought because of "greed rather than need". (49) According to David Keen at the London School of Economics: "We tend to regard conflict as pimply a breakdown in a particular system, rather than as the emergence of another, alternative system of profit and power, i.e. a "conflict economy" with the looting of natural resources at its heart". Rennet warns that warlords in such conflicts have no interest in winning the war, because its continuance is more profitable. (50) And he says too many Western governments are happy to turn a blind eye as their own corporations reap the benefits in cheap no-questions-asked raw materials. Rennet argues the issue of resource conflicts should be added to the agenda of the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg in August 2002.
【正确答案】正确答案:环境保护主义的美好预言已经失灵—自然资源过多,而不是过少,是21世纪战争频发的起因。
【答案解析】解析:此句是复合句,破折号连接两个分句组成。句架是A…prediction of…has bitten the dust—too many natural resources…are the cause of…wars…。破折号后面的分句用来解释前一分句的原因。句中bite the dust做"阵亡或以失败告终"讲。又如:All hopes that we would succeed bit the dust.(我们成功的希望全部落空了)。
【正确答案】正确答案:许多(保护自然生态环境的)绿色人士预料,在新世纪,在木材、水、矿产和肥沃土壤等自然资源即将耗尽的国家将爆发一系列战争。
【答案解析】解析:这是一个主从复合句。句架是Many greens had predicted that the new century would see a rash of wars in countries where natural resources…are running out。句中that引导的分句,是predict的宾语从句;宾语从句中,where是关系副词,引导定语从句,修饰countries;a rash of作"短时期内爆发的一系列(未曾料到的坏事)"讲。
【正确答案】正确答案:伦纳说:"大自然的慷慨吸引了这样一些集团,它们可能声称自己是受愤愤不平的心情驱使,但是由此引起的暴力不是为了推翻一个政府,而是为了获得和保有对可赚钱的资源的控制权"。
【答案解析】解析:这是一个主从复合句。句架是Renner says:"…bounty attracts groups that may claim (that) they are driven by grievance,but which initiate violence not to…but to…"。引号中的所有内容都是says的宾语。在宾语从句中,主句是bounty attracts groups,从that开始是关系代词that所引导的定语从句,用来修饰groups;在该定语从句中,they are driven by grievance是claim的宾语从句,连词that被省略,而which指代they are driven by grievance的句意,引起带有转折意义的非限定性定语从句。句中bounty意为"慷慨,大方"。lucrative意为"赚钱的"。
【正确答案】正确答案:据伦敦经济学院的戴维.基恩说:"我们倾向于认为冲突只不过是某种制度的崩溃,而不是另一种可供选择的利润和权力制度的出现,即以掠夺自然资源为核心的"经济冲突"的出现"。
【答案解析】解析:这是一个主从复合句,句架是According to David Keen…:"We tend to regard conflict as…a breakdown…,rather than as the emergence of…,i.e. a "conflict economy" with the…"。此句中According to David Keen实际意思是David Keen says,因此我们可以将直接引语中的内容视为says的宾语从句。在句中,主要搞清tend to regard conflict as…,rather than as…的意思。i.e.=that is,是用来进一步说明conflict的。句中"conflict economy"作"经济冲突"讲。looting作"掠夺"讲。
【正确答案】正确答案:他说,很多西方政府乐于在本国的公司从价格低廉且无人提出疑议的原料中获利时熟视无睹。
【答案解析】解析:这是一个主从复合句。句架是…he says (that)…governments are happy to turn a blind eye as their own corporations reap the benefits in…。句中says后面是省略了连词that的宾语从句,在宾语从句中as引导时间状语从句。turn a blind eye(to)假装看不见,不去注意。例如:To our surprise,the headmaster turned a blind eye to the bad behavior of his pupils.(使我们惊讶的是校长对他们学校学生们的不良行为居然熟视无睹)。no-questions-asked意为"无人提出疑议的"。reap是"获得"的意思。