午啪啪夜福利无码亚洲,亚洲欧美suv精品,欧洲尺码日本尺码专线美国,老狼影院成年女人大片

1、綠色建筑的某些報道The huge role of policy in solving the worlds environmental problems suggests that corporate activism should be considered in all best-of lists:巨大的作用的政策解決世界環境問題的行動表明公司應考慮所有最佳名單:What if there was a building that was so green that it was awarded the well-regarded Silver LEED rating?如果有一個建筑是如此2、的“綠色”,它正被授予銀LEED評級呢?And what if that building housed a company that, among other things, was spreading disinformation about climate science that was undermining public support for climate-change regulations and the U.S. EPA? 如果那幢樓住,一個公司,在其他事情上,對氣候科學傳播造謠削弱了公眾支持美國環保署氣候變化管理條例和嗎?A fairly basic question 3、would come to mind: is that building really green?個相當基本的問題會來感受:那幢樓是真的綠色?Actually, such a building exists實際上,這樣一個建筑的存在。. Its the New York City headquarters of News Corp, where Rupert Murdoch runs an empire that is set up to deny, deny, deny the most pressing environmental issue of our time - climate 4、change - according to Rolling Stone. 這是紐約新聞集團的總部,在運行一個帝國,魯珀特默多克是“建立否認,否認,否認“最緊迫的環境問題的時間氣候變化- - -根據漂泊不定的人。The magazine reported last winter that News Corps Wall Street Journal routinely dismisses climate change as an apocalyptic scare, and Fox News helped gin up a fake controversy by relentlessly hyp5、ing the climategate scandal - even though multiple independent investigations showed that nothing in the scientists emails undermined their conclusions about global warming.該雜志報道,新聞集團去年冬天的華爾街期刊照例否認氣候變化是“一個天啟恐慌”,福克斯新聞幫助一個假的杜松子酒hyping爭論毫不留情的climategate”丑聞”即使多個獨立的研究指出,任何科學家的電子郵件重挫了他們關于全球變暖的結論。Including6、 advocacy in criteria will make rankings more accurate, but will also steer consumers and investors in a positive direction.包括宣傳標準將使排名更準確,而且還會引導消費者和投資者的正面發展。Rolling Stone named Murdoch #1 in its list of Politicians and Execs Blocking Progress on Global Warming, noting no one does more to spread dang7、erous disinformation about global warming than Murdoch.滾石默多克# 1在命名中最為重要的政治家和高層對全球變暖的阻斷進步注意“沒有人對危險的關于全球變暖的蔓延,指責比默多克。”Ouch.Despite all this, 哎唷。盡管如此,the question of whether News Corps building deserves its prominent green rating could be easily dismissed. LEED rates buildings, not the advocacy of its 8、occupants.新聞集團的問題是是否值得其突出的綠色建筑評級可以輕易地解雇了。LEED率的建筑,沒有提倡使用者。Well, fair enough. But following that line of thinking, neither is it the job of corporate ranking systems (like the one released in Newsweek this week) to measure anything but operational greenness - how a corporation deals with solid waste,9、 maximizes energy efficiency, and avoids smokestack pollution on their sites, and in some cases in their supply chains.嗯,很公平。但是隨著這條線的思想,也不是企業排名系統的工作(像本周發表在新聞周刊)來衡量任何事,除了經營綠色公司處理固體廢物、能源效率最大化,避免煙囪污染對他們的網站,在某些情況下在他們的供應鏈。So, for example, News Corp. came in at number 234 this year among the 500 U.S. comp10、anies Newsweek ranked. Its ranking hardly suggests that this business carries more responsibility than almost any other in preventing policy solutions to the climate crisis.新聞集團名列234今年的500家美國公司在新聞周刊的排名。其排名不表明這業務只能帶來更多責任幾乎比其他任何在預防政策解決氣候危機的知識。 And earlier this year, News Corp.s climate change performa11、nce was given a AAA rating, the highest possible score provided by MSCI ESG Researchs Global Socrates, another major rating scheme.而在今年早些時候,新聞集團。氣候變化的表現給予AAA評級最高得分,讓學生們育所提供的全球蘇格拉底摩根士丹利資本國際(MSCI)研究的另一個重要的評價方案。The world is facing huge environmental problems, and climate change is the marquee. The Inte12、rgovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls for CO2 reductions of 80-95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 世界面臨著巨大的環境問題,而氣候變化是字幕。政府間氣候變化專門委員會呼吁CO2減征80 - 95在1990年的水平以下。That aggressive target offers just a 50/50 chance of preventing a global average temperature rise of 2 degrees C, beyond which millio13、ns are put at risk of drought, hunger, and flooding. 目標,積極提供只是一個50/50的幾率防止全球平均溫度上升2攝氏度,超過此數以百萬計的人將在危險的干旱、饑餓、和洪災。Whats necessary to fix climate change is a radical recreation of society as we know it, from how we use and generate energy to how we tax pollution and encourage efficiency.我所需要的東西來解決氣候變化是14、一個激進的娛樂,如我們所知,是社會,從我們如何使用和產生能量對我們如何稅務污染和鼓勵效率。 The problem is so big, and so inclusive, that it cant be solved by ad hoc voluntary actions. Even if every corporation or individual so inclined undertook the full menu of climate fixes, wed still fail to solve the problem by many orders of magnitude bec15、ause business-as-usual would remain the norm on a global level. 這道題這么大,因此包容,它不能解決,由特設自愿行動。即使每單位或者個人進行的內容全面的菜單所以斜氣候固定,我們還是無法解決問題,因為一切如常許多數量級的將是全球級別的標準。Only large-scale policy change can fix that. Therefore, an exclusive focus on voluntary operational greening - by businesses or by rating agencies - r16、isks distracting from the far greater need for the big fix.只有大尺度的政策改變就能搞定。因此,一個專屬集中經營綠化,自愿企業或評級機構風險分散更需要從遙遠的大補丁。Compared to companies efforts to green their own operations, political actions - like campaign funding, or lobbying Congress or the court of public opinion - can have a vastly greater infl17、uence on environmental protection, and arguably represent the biggest impact a company can have on the environment.公司的努力比自己的操作,綠色政治行動就像運動的資金,或游說國會或輿論的口誅筆伐,能極大的較大的影響,可以說是代表環保影響最大的一個公司可能會碰到環境因素的影響。 In fact, the very existence of a debate on climate science in the United States, and consequent lack of 18、policy action, has been attributed to massive corporate support for the denial industry, as detailed in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conways book Merchants of Doubt. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, spent $132 million on lobbying in 2010, more than any other entity, and opposed all climate legis19、lation.n實際上,生存的氣候科學問題的在美國的政策而缺乏行動,是歸因于公司支持大規模的“否定行業,”詳述和艾瑞克考恩威博士拿俄米內的書的商家的懷疑。美國商會,例如,花了1.32億元買游說在2010年,超過其他任何實體,反對所有氣候法案。 Corporate influence on government policy will only increase after last years Citizens United Supreme Court case, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts on elections20、.企業影響政府的政策只會增加,在去年的公民美國最高法院的案例,其中允許公司花無限偏選舉。The primacy of policy in solving the worlds environmental problems suggests that corporate activism should be considered in all corporate environmental rankings.首位的政策來解決世界環境問題的行動表明公司應考慮所有企業環境的排名。 Ignoring advocacy is like rating colleges based on their bui21、ldings and infrastructure while ignoring the quality of educational content.就像評級院校忽視提倡基于他們的建筑和基礎設施的質量而忽略了教育內容。Its certainly feasible: some metrics already exist. For example, ratings could reward companies that take leadership positions, such as when Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) quit the U.S. Chamb22、er of Commerce, citing its extreme position on climate change. Corporate Responsibilitys 100 Best Corporate Citizens already credits companies that are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group calling for the U.S. government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require sign23、ificant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, though this is just one of the 324 factors considered. Ratings could also penalize companies for belonging to organizations that undermine climate change regulation. Would IBM still be Newsweeks #1 ranked U.S. company if the rankings weighed the fact t24、hat IBM is not only a member, but a board member, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?這當然是可行的:一些度量已存在。例如,評級公司能以獎勵領導地位,比如當太平洋天然氣和電力(太平洋)離開美國商會、引用“極端氣候變化的位置上。“企業責任的100最佳企業公民已學分公司美國氣候行動的成員合作,一組呼吁美國政府“快速制定強烈的國家立法規定明顯減少溫室氣體排放,雖然這只是一個324年的考慮因素。評級公司也可以懲罰破壞屬于組織氣候變化調節。新聞周刊將IBM的# 1還是排名美國公司如果排名權衡事實,IBM不僅是一個肢體,乃是一位25、董事會成員,美國商會嗎? Rankings could also account for corporate campaign contributions to politicians who deny that climate change is a problem, as the Climate Action Network Europe did last year based on data publicly available from the Center for Responsive Politics. In the end, any sort of environmental r26、anking - from LEED to ISO 14001, the worlds most respected certification of environmental management - should include corporate activism and influence in its assessment.排名也可以為公司貢獻帳戶活動政客們否認氣候變化是一個問題,氣候行動網絡歐洲是去年的數據公開的基礎上從政治響應中心。最后,任何形式的環境的排名從LEED iso400 ,世界上最受尊敬的認證的環境管理- - - - -應該包括企業激進主義和影響其評估。Includ27、ing advocacy in their criteria will not only make rankings more accurate, 在他們的標準包括倡導不但能排名更準確,but will also be good for the planet by steering consumers and investors in a positive direction - along with rated companies themselves. Businesses respond to negative ratings.而且還會有利于地球的消費者和投資者通過轉向以一種積極的方向隨28、著額定公司本身。企業應對負面評級。Just one last question comes to mind: 只是最后一個問題就會進入我的腦海:Suppose the corporation in the green building is ranked highly not only on its operational efficiency but also on its advocacy, as it should be. And what if that companys business is mining coal?假定在綠色建筑是公司評為高度不僅在其運行效率的同時對其宣傳,因為它應該的。如果那公司的業務在開采煤炭?