第1段:质疑商业化方案
作者用亚马逊配送和餐车进入国家公园的场景反问,表明特朗普政府以商业化填补资金缺口的设想看似荒唐。
2023 · 英语(二)· Text 2
美国国家公园长期缺少维护资金;扩大露营地私有化和商业化既解决不了主要的基础设施欠账,还会损害游客远离商业喧嚣、亲近自然的体验,因此真正需要的是与国家公园公共价值和游客增长相匹配的资金投入。
作者用亚马逊配送和餐车进入国家公园的场景反问,表明特朗普政府以商业化填补资金缺口的设想看似荒唐。
作者转而承认政府对问题本身的判断是正确的:国家公园存在巨额维护欠账,大量基础设施正在恶化。
露营地只占维修欠账的一小部分,特许经营收入上缴比例也很低;进一步商业化还会破坏游客亲近自然、摆脱商业环境的核心体验。
调查显示,美国人无论是否亲自到访,都高度重视国家公园,并愿意额外缴税保护它们;国家公园同时具有自然、教育、气候、文化、旅游和历史保护价值。
国家公园承担的任务很多,但年度拨款长期持平;与此同时,游客数量大幅增长,进一步说明现有资金投入不足。
文章按照“否定荒唐方案—承认真实危机—反驳私有化解法—证明国家公园价值—用拨款与游客数据收束”的路线推进。作者并不是否认国家公园存在危机,而是否认用露营地商业化解决危机。
第2段开头的 `But` 完成第一次关键转折:从批评政府方案转向承认政府指出的问题。第3段的 `But` 再把“存在危机”与“私有化是正确答案”分开。第4段的 `Moreover` 进一步说明商业化不只是作用有限,还会损害国家公园最重要的体验价值。结尾的 `Meanwhile` 则把长期持平的拨款与持续增长的游客数量并置,推出增加资金投入的结论。
逐句精读
加粗词是本句重点词。每句话默认只展开核心主干,完整分析由你决定什么时候看。
It's easy to dismiss as absurd the Trump administration's ideas for plugging the chronic funding gap of our national parks. Can anyone really think it's a good idea to allow Amazon deliveries to your tent in Yosemite or food trucks to line up under the redwood trees at Sequoia National Park?
But the administration is right about one thing: U.S. national parks are in crisis. Collectively, they have a maintenance backlog of more than $12 billion. Roads, trails, restrooms, visitor centers and other infrastructure are crumbling.
But privatizing and commercializing the campgrounds would not be the panacea that the Interior Department's Outdoor Advisory Committee would have us believe. Campgrounds are a tiny portion of the overall infrastructure backlog, and concessionaires in the parks hand over, on average, only about 5% of their revenues to the National Park Service.
Moreover, increased privatization would certainly undercut one of the major reasons why 300 million visitors come to the parks each year: to enjoy nature and get a respite from the commercial drumbeat that overwhelms daily life.
The real problem is that the parks have been chronically starved of funding. We conducted a comprehensive survey examining how U.S. residents view their national parks, and we found that Americans place a very high value on them - whether or not they actually visit them. The peer-reviewed economic survey of 700 U.S. taxpayers, conducted by mail and internet, also found that people would be willing to pay a significant amount of money to make sure the parks and their programs are kept intact. Some 81% of respondents said they would be willing to pay additional taxes for the next 10 years to avoid any cuts to the national parks.
The national parks provide great value to U.S. residents both as places to escape and as symbols of nature. On top of this, they produce value from their extensive educational programs, their positive impact on the climate through carbon sequestration, their contribution to our cultural and artistic life, and of course through tourism. The parks also help keep America's past alive, working with thousands of local jurisdictions around the country to protect historical sites - including Ellis Island and Gettysburg - and to bring the stories of these places to life.
The parks do all this on a shoestring. Congress allocates only $3 billion a year to the national park system - an amount that has been flat since 2001 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) with the exception of a onetime boost in 2009 as part of the Obama stimulus package. Meanwhile, the number of annual visitors has increased by more than 50% since 1980, and now stands at 330 million visitors per year.
读完再做
每道题选择后立即核对答案,再结合解析回到原文深度理解。