2016年北外高翻英汉互译（同传）

比格TC · 发表于 2015-12-30 13:55

将第3-5段翻译成中文。25分。
Corporate boards and the critical oversight function they play have come to the fore over the last year. You don\'t need to look any further than the scandal roiling ExxonMobil to understand the high stakes at play.

Exxon is facing a moment of truth with potentially huge financial ripples. Using internal company documents, Inside Climate News and The Los Angeles Times recently reported that Exxon deliberately misled the public about climate change research, even though its own scientists began warning the company about the dangers of warming global temperatures in 1977. Within days, the New York Attorney General confirmed that it has been investigating whether Exxon misled investors in a manner that violated state securities laws.

Exxon presents a perfect case for examining how building sustainability into board governance can help prevent and manage risk. In the case of Exxon, climate risk is a sustainability issue that has been raised by investors through shareholder resolutions for well over a decade. So it\'s logical to ask how much did Exxon\'s board know about the company\'s research on climate change, and did any of the board members have the expertise necessary to question it? Did the company\'s research factor into board conversations on performance, risk and opportunity? And, importantly, did the board engage with stakeholders to inform its views?

Investors are increasingly focused on the decisions made by corporate boards on corporate strategy and the extent to which it incorporates sustainability risks and opportunities. In 2013, a group of over 75 institutional investors collectively managing more than $3.5 trillion in assets sent letters to 45 of the world\'s largest fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, urging them to address the risks posed by climate change, including carbon asset risk.

(Carbon asset risk is the potential of fossil fuel reserves being unusable - \'stranded,\' in Wall Street parlance - as the global economy transitions to low-carbon energy sources. Those risks are especially severe for fossil fuel companies if carbon-reducing efforts are successful in preventing Earth\'s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.)

Board oversight and intervention have had a major impact on how companies respond. For example, only three of the fossil fuel companies initially targeted have endorsed the use of a 2 degree scenario analysis in their business planning: BHP Billiton, Statoil and ConocoPhillips. In each of these cases, the decision to move forward with the analysis was initiated from the board rather than from management. But this type of proactive approach remains the exception rather than the rule.

Corporate boards need to move from being reactive on sustainability issues, to proactively and systematically thinking about how environmental and social challenges factor into corporate strategies and performance. Ceres recently published a report, \"View from the Top: How Corporate Boards can Engage on Sustainability Performance\", outlining specific recommendations for proactive board engagement. Based on interviews with dozens of board members, senior corporate leaders and governance experts, the report underscores that informed oversight is critical to good governance. Among the report\'s key recommendations:

(1) Where a sustainability issue is material to the company, the board should include directors with expertise on key issues in question. Investors are especially focused on having companies recruit \"climate competent\" and \"sustainability competent\" directors. Companies like Prudential Financial, for example, identify \"expertise in corporate responsibility/sustainability\" as a board qualification. Directors and management should assess the qualifications and expertise of current directors and map this against the company\'s sustainability priorities. Now is an ideal time for Exxon to re-consider shareholder calls for board members with climate expertise.

(2) Boards run substantial risks when they operate as isolated entities. Engaging with external stakeholders, including investors, on sustainability priorities can mitigate those risks by giving directors a clearer view of the landscape of risks facing the company -- a view that is sometimes obscured when board directors rely solely on the perspective of company executives. The boards of three European oil and gas majors, Shell, BP and Statoil, embraced this approach and actually endorsed shareholder resolutions on climate change in 2015. Board engagement with shareholders led to a mutual understanding that better assessing climate risk would create long-term value. Nonetheless, companies like Exxon and Chevron continue to fight tooth and nail against any shareholder engagements that raise climate concerns, and requests to meet with board members are often rebuffed by management.

The research indicates that Exxon\'s board would be better served by hearing directly from the shareholders that have been warning about climate and carbon asset risks. The reality is that sustainability is good business. Research, including from Harvard Business School, Morgan Stanley, and others consistently show that companies that embrace sustainability outperform their peers on a variety of crucial financial metrics. It\'s time for boards to embrace this reality.

将第5-10段翻译成中文。50分。

So you\'re standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You\'ll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal -- threatening to push him off the cliff -- would doom you both?

Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don\'t have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win. You have done it by using probability to divide a seemingly indivisible threat. And a smaller threat can be more effective than a bigger one. A threat to drag both of you off the cliff is not credible. A threat to take a 60 percent chance of that same thing might be credible.

This puzzler is dredged up (more or less intact, I hope) from memories of my favorite lecture course in college: \"Games and Strategy,\" taught by Thomas Schelling, who was awarded a Nobel Prize for Economics yesterday. The Nobel honors his role as one of the godfathers of game theory. Schelling\'s particular gift has been applying the theory to real life. I took the course because it sounded festive, which it wasn\'t. But under Schelling\'s spell, the world suddenly looked completely different.

Schelling was never a charismatic figure. Short, gaunt and tweedy, with wire-frame glasses, he talked in a slow, slow monotone, stripping away irrelevant detail and exposing situations ranging from the nuclear standoff of the Cold War to a family\'s decision about what to have for dinner as stark dramas of warring self-interest. This was game theory.

Classical economic analysis generally assumes that we each take the world as we find it. We can \"maximize\" our own \"utility\" (as economists romantically describe the pursuit of happiness) in any circumstances, but the circumstances are a given. Game theory was born to deal with interdependence: situations where what I do depends on what you do, and what you do depends on what I do. That, of course, would cover almost all situations.

For example, what is the best way for two kids to divvy up a candy bar? The answer is easy: I cut and you choose, or vice versa. Why is this the best? Because, like free-market economics generally, it channels self-interest to serve the general interest. The cutter will split the bar as close to evenly as possible, because the chooser will get the benefit of any obvious disparity. You can apply this kind of thinking to a dozen people dividing a large pie, or 300 million people trying to govern themselves.

Economics is the social science that is closest to being a real science. It starts out with a few plausible assumptions about human motives and behavior (basically, that people act rationally in their own self-interest) and derives from them an impressive array of \"laws\" about the future. Game theory can also be seen as the application of econo-think to non-monetary aspects of life. There\'s nothing economists like better than to show how someone who seems to be behaving irrationally, or at least is marching to drummers unconnected to rationality one way or another, is actually maximizing utility like, well, mad.

Madness can be wickedly rational. If one of those two folks on the cliff can convince the other that he is just a bit nuts, that makes his threat to drag them both off the cliff much more plausible. Some defenders of Richard Nixon used to claim that the evidence of insanity that bothered a few Americans was actually a purposeful strategy to enhance the deterrent power of our nuclear arsenal.

Another favorite game theory anomaly: Weakness is strength. If you cannot do something, you cannot be forced to do it. A bus driver who cannot open the change box, even at gunpoint, is safer than a bus driver who can.

During the Cold War nuclear standoff, the challenge for both sides was to make a fundamentally irrational threat seem believable. Why would you start a nuclear war when the almost-certain result would be your own national destruction? Why would you even reply to a first strike by the other side with a strike of your own? The classic game theory insight was that your own safety depended on not being too strong. The other side had to be confident that it could survive and retaliate if you went first. Otherwise, in a crisis, it would be sorely tempted to go first.

People associate game theory with nuclear strategy, in part because of the movie \"Dr. Strangelove.\" But game theory\'s real gift is to make all of life seem like a game. Which it is, isn\'t it?

将下文翻译成英文。25分

蔡国庆谈收藏：我选的是中国传统文化的富
当被问及收藏资金来源时，蔡国庆表示，全部来自自己的积蓄。“我要感谢我的工作，带给我名和利，我没有乱花，没有过所谓奢侈的生活，我花在了最值得花的地方。我用积蓄一件件去买皇家顶级瓷器，在我心中，它们是无价的，虽说在拍卖市场是有价的。我很庆幸把有限的积蓄挥霍在了中国传统艺术品上。”

　　……

　　“老派的收藏讲究秘不示人，自娱自乐，最多请三五知己，半请教半炫耀地展示一番，今天的收藏却是另一番风景，热闹非凡，大张旗鼓，把滩涂拾贝的悠闲搞成了拉网式捕鱼，丰收倒是丰收，只是缺了乐趣少了优雅”，收藏家马未都评价蔡国庆是“收藏大潮中的气定神闲者，由浅入深，由近及远，慢慢选择一个古老题材作为收藏主题，便是龙”。

将第2-3段翻译成英文。50分。

　　土耳其是古代东西方文明交汇之地。今天二十国集团领导人在这里齐聚一堂，共商世界经济发展合作大计，很有意义。二十国集团的任务是促进世界经济增长。当前形势下，亟需我们回答两个问题。一是“怎么看”，要精准把脉世界经济形势。二是“怎么办”，要为促进全球经济增长和就业开出良方。

　　一个基本判断是，国际金融危机深层次影响还在继续，世界经济仍然处在深度调整期。回顾上世纪几次大的全球性经济危机，各国应对手段的失误通常使经济难以复苏。这次国际金融危机发生以来，各国分别采取一些财政货币措施，一定程度上起到了稳定市场和扭转颓势的作用。现在看来，这次国际金融危机复杂程度远超以往，解决起来需要综合施策，绝非一日之功。这就是为什么国际金融危机发生已经7年，世界经济恢复仍然缓慢、增长仍然脆弱的原因。

　　中国古代先贤说：“善治病者，必医其受病之处；善救弊者，必塞其起弊之原。”究其根本，世界经济发展到今天，上一轮科技和产业革命所提供的动能已经接近尾声，传统经济体制和发展模式的潜能趋于消退。同时，发展不平衡问题远未解决，现有经济治理机制和架构的缺陷逐渐显现。这些因素导致世界经济整体动力不足，有效需求不振。其表象是增长乏力、失业率上升、债务高企、贸易和投资低迷、实体经济失速、金融杠杆率居高不下、国际金融和大宗商品市场波动等一系列问题。这就像一个人生了病，看起来是感冒发烧，但根子在身体机理出了问题。

　　找准了病灶，就要对症下药。作为国际经济合作主要论坛，二十国集团要确定目标、指明方向、发挥领导力。我们既要治标以求眼下稳增长，又要治本以谋长远添动力；既要落实好以往成果，又要凝聚新的共识；既要采取国内措施、做好自己的事，又要精诚合作、共同应对挑战。
来源: [url=forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=6739434]2016年北外高翻英汉互译（同传）[/url]

来自Android客户端