痛...ˋˊ 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 1 0 年前

氟氯碳化物英翻中((各位大大拜託了))

英翻中

The US Government's attitude began to change again in 1983, when William Ruckelshaus replaced Anne M. Burford as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Under Ruckelshaus and his successor, Lee Thomas, the EPA pushed for an international approach to halocarbon regulations. In 1985 20 nations, including most of the major CFC producers, signed the Vienna Convention which established a framework for negotiating international regulations on ozone-depleting substances. That same year, the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole was announced, causing a revival in public attention to the issue. In 1987, representatives from 43 nations signed the Montreal Protocol. Meanwhile, the halocarbon industry shifted its position and started supporting a protocol to limit CFC production. The reasons for this were in part explained by "Dr. Mostafa Tolba, former head of the UN Environment Programme, who was quoted in the June 30, 1990 edition of The New Scientist, '...the chemical industry supported the Montreal Protocol in 1987 because it set up a worldwide schedule for phasing out CFCs, which [were] no longer protected by patents. This provided companies with an equal opportunity to market new, more profitable compounds.'"[22]

1 個解答

評分
  • 1 0 年前
    最佳解答

    哈囉!!

    翻譯如下:

    當William Ruckelshaus取代Anne M. Burford 成為美國環境保護署署長時,美國對於這件事(即Ozone Depletion)又有不同的看法,也採取不同的姿態對待這件事。在Ruckelshaus和他的接任者,Lee Thomas的推動之下,美國環境保護署向世界各國建議鹵碳化物的限制使用。在1985年,有二十個國家(包括一些氟氯碳化物排放大國)簽署了維也納公約;公約裡限制了簽署國家的氟氯碳化物使用量,以減緩臭氧破洞。同一年,南極臭氧層破洞被公諸於世,也讓此事再度被國際間所重視。1987年,43個國家簽署了蒙特婁議定書。

    同一時間,許多鹵碳化物製造工廠改變了主意並公開支持議定書及其內容。原因如下:"Dr. Mostafa Tolba,前聯合國環境規畫署署長曾經在一九九零年六月三十號出版的The New Scientist雜誌說過:’鹵碳化物製造工廠支持蒙特婁議定書,因為議定書內排定了氟氯碳化物的剷除時間(即氟氯碳化物將不能再生產),且氟氯碳化物相關產品將不再受專利法保護。這讓那些公司擁有平等的機會去創造更賺錢的新產品,’"

    希望你會喜歡~

    2007-12-30 16:54:43 補充:

    如有不順的地方我會再補齊...

    參考資料: 住在美國的我
還有問題?馬上發問,尋求解答。