旅游  |  攻略  |  美食  |  自驾  |  团购
您的位置: 青海省旅游网 / 规划 / 新闻动态 / 青海要闻


来源:百科解答    发布时间:2019年08月25日 19:21:27    编辑:admin         

Our ancestors lived in eras we call the Stone Age, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Ours is the “fossil-fuel age”. The energy we have extracted from the earth’s reserves of fossilised sunlight has sp (unequally shared) abundance across humanity. Will this continue? Can we manage its impact on our environment? The answers will shape the future of our complex global civilisation.我们祖先生活的时代,我们称之为石器时代、青铜时代和铁器时代。我们生活的时代是“化石燃料时代”。我们从地球上的化石化太阳能储量中提取的能量已将富足传播给整个人类,尽管这种传播并不均匀。这个时代会延续下去吗?我们能管控化石燃料对人类环境的影响吗?这些问题的将决定我们复杂的全球文明的未来。As always, BP’s Energy Outlook provides a glimpse into a possible future. No doubt, its forecasts will be wrong. But it tells us what well-informed people at the heart of the oil and gas industry consider “the likely path of global energy markets to 2035”. It puts forward five important propositions about a plausible energy future.像以往一样,BP此次发布的《能源展望》(Energy Outlook)为我们提供了一个一睹可能前景的机会。毫无疑问,它的预测将是错误的。但它告诉了我们,身处油气行业核心的消息灵通人士所认为的“全球能源市场至2035年的可能发展路径”是什么。这份报告给出了一个貌似有道理的能源前景,并围绕这一前景提出了五个重要观点。First, global economic output is forecast to rise by 115 per cent by 2035. Asian emerging economies — principally China and India — are expected to generate more than 60 per cent of that increase.首先,全球经济产出预计到2035年时将增长115%。亚洲新兴经济体(主要是中国和印度)对这一增幅的贡献预计将超过60%。The primary driver of the rise in global output is expected to be a 75 per cent jump in global average real output per head, as the prosperity of emerging economies catches up with that of high-income countries. Population growth plays a distinctly subsidiary role. It is not the number of people, but rather their prosperity, that drives demand for commercial energy.全球经济产出增长的主要推动力,预计将来自全球人均实际产出75%的跃升,而新兴经济体的繁荣程度将赶上高收入国家。人口增长起到了明显的辅助作用。但推动商业能源需求的并不是人类的数量,而是人类的繁荣。Second, as a result of rapidly rising energy efficiency, energy consumption is forecast to grow by only 37 per cent. This is far less than the rise in output of real goods and services.其次,由于能效迅速提高,能源消费预计仅将增长37%。这个数字远小于商品和务实际产出的增幅。Third, emissions of carbon dioxide are forecast to grow by 25 per cent, a growth rate of about 1 per cent a year. In terms of the link between output and emissions, this is a huge achievement. But — given the need to cut emissions outright, in order to have a good chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to below 2C — it is wholly inadequate. Thus, in 2035, emissions of CO2 are forecast to be 18bn tonnes above levels suggested by the International Energy Agency’s “450 Scenario”. This seeks to limit atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to the equivalent of about 450 parts per million of CO2. If such targets are to be met, something far more radical needs to occur. (See charts.)第三,二氧化碳排放量预计将增长25%,即年增长1%左右。就经济产出与碳排放之间的关联而言,这是一个巨大的成就。但是,考虑到有必要彻底减排、如此才有机会将全球平均气温升幅控制在2摄氏度以下,这一成就还远远不够。如果真是增长25%,那么2035年的二氧化碳排放量预计将比国际能源署(IEA)“450情景”建议的水平高180亿吨。“450情景”寻求将大气中温室气体的浓度限定在450ppm二氧化碳当量。要实现这样的目标,就必须作出一些激进得多的努力。(见图表)Fourth, improvements in energy efficiency are a far more important driver of the relatively low growth in emissions than shifts in the fuel mix. This is despite a substantial rise in use of renewables. So, between 2013 and 2035, output of renewable energy is forecast to grow by 320 per cent. Even so, its share in primary energy production is forecast to grow only from 2.6 per cent to 6.7 per cent. The combined share of renewables, hydroelectricity and nuclear power grows only from 9 per cent to 19 per cent. This, then, is expected to remain a fossil-fuel age.第四,能效提高是造成碳排放增长相对较低的主要因素,燃料结构变化则是一个重要性低得多的因素,尽管可再生能源的使用量有大幅增长。2013年到2035年,可再生能源的产量预计将增长320%。尽管如此,可再生能源产量在一次能源产量中的占比,预计仅会从2.6%升至6.7%。可再生能源、水电和核电产量的合计占比仅会从9%升至19%。因此,预计到2035年时我们仍将处于化石燃料时代。Fifth, the revolution in the production of shale gas and tight oil is expected to continue, with their share in primary energy production rising to about 10 per cent. An important result is large shifts in patterns of trade. So the US is forecast to shift from being a net importer of 12m barrels a day of oil in 2005 to being a net exporter by 2035. Meanwhile, China is forecast to shift to being a net importer of more than 13m b/d by 2035 (from self-sufficiency in the early 2000s); and India to being a net importer of about 7m b/d. Such shifts have huge geopolitical implications.第五,页岩气和致密油的生产革命预计将持续下去,它们在一次能源产量中的占比将升至约10%。一个重要的结果是贸易格局的大转变。也就是说,预计到2035年时,美国将从石油净进口国(2005年日均净进口石油120万桶)变为净出口国。而中国到2035年时,预计将从2000年代初的石油自给自足变为一个日均净进口石油逾130万桶的国家;印度预计将变成一个日均净进口石油约700万桶的国家。这一转变将产生巨大的地缘政治影响。It would be wrong to describe these forecasts as simply “business as usual”. They actually imply a faster rise in energy efficiency than between 2000 and 2013. But they are not radical. The world would continue to rely overwhelmingly on fossil fuels and it would emit ever greater quantities of greenhouse gases. Could we do better?如果把以上预测描述为就是“一切如常”,那就错了。实际上,它们意味着能效提高的速度将快于2000年至2013年间。但这不会起到根本作用。世界将继续严重依赖化石燃料,全球温室气体的排放量会越来越大。我们能做得更好些吗?I start from the presumption that humanity will aspire to and often manage to achieve the prosperity now taken for granted in rich countries. So we need an accelerated technological revolution. At the Oslo Energy Forum last month, I heard Amory Lovins of theRocky Mountain Institute describe just such a revolution. He argued, for example, that US gross domestic product in 2050 could be 2.5 times what it is today, even if the country stopped using oil, coal and nuclear energy altogether and cut its use of natural gas by one-third. This would mean carbon emissions of just one-fifth of their present level. Moreover, he argued, the revolution could well be driven by market forces alone, given the growing economic superiority of the new technologies. There might, he suggests, be no need to to take direct policy action against rising emissions of carbon dioxide.富国如今存在着一种想当然的推断,即认为人类会渴望繁荣并且通常也能实现繁荣。我就从这点说起。因为渴望繁荣,所以我们需要加速技术革命。在上月召开的奥斯陆能源论坛(Oslo Energy Forum)上,我听到洛基山研究所(Rocky Mountain Institute)的艾默里#8226;洛文斯(Amory Lovins)恰巧描述了这样一场革命。他举例辩称,即便美国彻底停用石油、煤炭以及核能、并将天然气用量削减三分之一,该国2050年的国内生产总值(GDP)也可达到今天的2.5倍。这意味着碳排放量仅为美国今天水平的五分之一。他还辩称,考虑到新技术带来的经济优势日益增加,很可能单靠市场力量便可以有效推进这场革命。他暗示,也许没有必要针对日益增长的二氧化碳排放采取直接政策行动。The sense of the BP report (not surprisingly, perhaps, given that BP is a fossil-fuel producer) is that such a radical and rapid market-driven revolution is unlikely. The purported obstacles are many: costs, technological limits, slow turnover of the capital stock, inability to implement policy globally and natural inertia. In brief, I fear BP is right about the obstacles. But Mr Lovins might be right about the opportunities, though only if policy makers give them a big push.BP报告的言下之意是这样一场彻底、迅速、由市场驱动的革命不太可能发生(考虑到BP是一家化石燃料生产商,它持这样的观点或许并不令人意外)。报告声称这面临很多障碍:成本、技术局限、资本存量周转缓慢、政策无法在全球范围内推行以及自然惯性。简言之,BP对这些障碍的判断恐怕是正确的。但洛文斯对机遇的判断可能也是正确的,尽管前提条件是政策制定者大力推动这些机遇。If governments could agree to implement a tax on carbon, they would give a big impulse towards an energy future that is more efficient and less polluting. Governments should invest strongly in fundamental science and new technologies. Finally, governments can help the sp of new technologies abroad and help finance their uptake at home. With this push, normal market forces should pull the world economy towards a more sustainable future.如果各国政府能答应实施碳税,将是对更更低污染能源前景的有力撑。各国政府应该在基础科学和新技术领域大力投资。最后一点,各国政府可帮助在海外传播新技术,并为新技术在国内的消化吸收提供资金帮助。凭借这种持,正常的市场力量将拉动世界经济走向更可持续的未来。Mass poverty is not an option. But neither is taking ever-bigger gambles with the climate. The right course has to lie in between. To put ourselves on that course, we need to wean ourselves off the excesses of the fossil-fuel age. It is a daunting challenge. But it has to be met, for our children’s sake.大规模的贫困不容接受。但是,在气候方面进行越来越危险的也不是好的选择。正确的道路必须介于两者之间。为了走上正确的道路,我们必须戒除化石燃料时代的各种无节制行为。这是一项严峻的挑战。但是,为了我们的子孙,我们必须直面这一挑战。 /201503/363293。

Readers respond to a Sunday Review article, “Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again.”本文是对《户外运动打破了大自然的宁静》(2015年2月17日)一文的回应。To the Editor:致编辑:“Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again,” by Christopher Solomon (Sunday Review, Feb. 15), is a reminder that we humans affect the natural world even when we think that we don’t. But two caveats.克里斯托弗·所罗门的《户外运动打破了大自然的宁静》提醒我们:人类在自身没有察觉的情况下也仍可能对自然界产生影响。不过有两点需要说明。First, even if a hiker or a skier frightens wildlife more than a passing snow machine, the machine probably still has more effect. Why? Because motor vehicles travel many times farther on an average trip, and thus affect much more habitat compared with those traveling under their own power.首先,即便一位徒步者或滑雪者给野生动物带来的惊吓多过一辆行驶的雪地托车,托车也仍可能产生更多的影响。为什么呢?托车的平均单次活动距离比人多出许多倍。因此,相比于那些仅凭自身力量的人,托车会影响更多的动物栖息地。Second, conservationists have rightly focused on the damage caused by mines and logging in the backcountry not only because such projects directly destroy habitat, but also because they inevitably require new roads. For example, a recently proposed coal mine expansion on national forest in Colorado would require six miles of new road in roadless habitat that is home to black bear, elk and lynx. Such roads not only slice and dice habitat, but they also extend human effects, including recreational travel of all kinds, while also creating vectors for invasive species and more frequent wildfires.其次,环保主义者集中关注边远地区开矿和伐木活动造成的破坏,这是合理的。因为这些项目不仅对动物栖息地造成直接破坏,还无法避免地要求修建新的公路。例如,最近一项在科罗拉多国家森林内增开煤矿的计划,要求在原本无路的区域开辟6英里(约9.66千米)的新路。该区域正是黑熊、麋鹿和山猫的栖息地。这样的新路不仅将动物的生存区域分割成小块,还扩大了人类活动的影响,比如各种休闲旅游活动,同时为入侵物种提供了载体,增加了森林野火的发生机率。TED ZUKOSKI泰德·祖科斯基(TED ZUKOSKI)Boulder, Colo.美国科罗拉多州尔德The writer is an environmental lawyer for Earthjustice, Rocky Mountain office.作者是“地球正义”(Earthjustice)落基山脉分部的环境事务律师。To the Editor:致编辑:Christopher Solomon describes the results of Kimberly Heinemeyer’s survey of different types of “recreation” on the increasing avoidance of humans by wildlife on public land in the ed States in terms of the most benign recreational activities.克里斯托弗·所罗门描述了金伯利·海因梅耶(Kimberly Heinemeyer)关于最温和的休闲活动的研究成果,在美国的公共土地上,各种各样的“休闲活动”导致野生动物对人类的躲避行为持续增加。Working for the National Park Service two years ago as a biological technician, I noted harassment of wildlife in the park, mostly by human noise and mess. But unscrupulous hunters armed with “recreation” permits would wait for wild animals to cross over the National Park border and then blow them away with hunting rifles on National Forest land.两年前,作为一名生物技术人员,我在国家公园(National Park Service)工作。我注意到,公园中野生动物受到的骚扰大多来自人类制造的噪音和混乱。然而,肆无忌惮的猎人携带“休闲”活动的许可,等待野生动物越过国家公园的边界,然后在国家森林的土地上用猎射杀它们。Which type of “recreation” do you think causes more avoidance of human beings?你认为哪一种“休闲活动”引起了生物对人类更多的躲避呢?JUSTIN PHILLIPS贾斯汀·菲尔普斯(JUSTIN PHILLIPS)Olympia, Wash.美国华盛顿州奥林匹亚To the Editor:致编辑:Christopher Solomon may be right in arguing that even something so benign as a mere walk in the woods (no camping, no fires, no trash left behind), something that I occasionally do, can be damaging to wildlife, but he will generate absolutely no support so long as parks and shorelines are open to heli-skiing, Sno-Cat skiing, snowmobiles, mountain bikes, dune buggies and off-road or all-terrain vehicles.克里斯托弗·所罗门或许是正确的,他提出,即便是一些很温和的活动,如林间散步(不露营、不生火、不留下垃圾)这种我本人也偶尔参加的活动,也可能对野生动物造成伤害。但只要公园和沿海地区仍对直升机空降滑雪、雪地履带式滑雪、雪地托车、山地自行车、沙丘车和越野、多地形车开放,所罗门就不会得到任何持。Lumping such a wide range of outdoor activities under the same heading makes no sense. And it will only leave Mr. Solomon alone, a voice crying in the wilderness.把如此多样的户外运动混淆在一起,置于同一标题下,是没有任何意义的,只留下所罗门先生一人在孤独的荒野中大吼。BILL MARSANO比尔·马萨诺(BILL MARSANO)New York美国纽约To the Editor:致编辑:Christopher Solomon’s intriguing, and alarming, article about the adverse effects on wildlife from seemingly benign activities like hiking suggests that we should be prepared to accept restricted access to parks and wildlife areas.克里斯托弗·所罗门的文章引人入胜,引发担忧,它描述了一些看似温和的活动,如徒步等,对野生动物产生的负面影响,这也意味着我们应该准备接受对进入公园和野生保护区的限制了。Unfortunately, we are assaulting our environment in many more ways than wandering forest trails: flooding the oceans with tons of plastic refuse and creating excess greenhouse gases, to name two.不幸的是,我们破坏环境的方式远不止于林间散步,随便举两个例子:向海洋排放上吨的塑料废品和制造超量的温室气体。But Mr. Solomon is correct. Reduced access — particularly when it’s caused by reduced demand — is the answer for the protection of wildlife and the planet.不过所罗门是正确的。限制进入——特别是当需求减少的时候——是保护野生动物和保护地球的良策。Earth resources are fixed but are more than sufficient for a given number of inhabitants. All our environmental concerns can be linked to increasing demands from an expanding population. If there were fewer people, there would be fewer demands for plastic bottles, power plants and, yes, for hiking trails.地球资源是有限的,但对于一定数量的居民来说远远足够。我们所有环境方面的顾虑都可以和人口增长引发的需求增长联系起来。如果人口减少,塑料瓶、发电站,没错,徒步路线的需求也将减少。The arguments against responsible population control are manifold and persuasive. Yet in one generation, many of the environmental fears of the last 50 years could be just memories, and a future of rising sea levels, mega-droughts, and food and water shortages postponed indefinitely.反对人口控制的意见是多种多样、具有说力的。对于一代人而言,过去50年的许多环境担忧恐怕只留存在记忆中,海平面上升、特大旱灾和食物、水资源的短缺也被他们无限地推迟到了遥远的未来。MARK S. BACON马克·S·贝肯(MARK S. BACON)Reno, Nev.美国内华达州里诺To the Editor:致编辑:Footsteps do affect fragile ecosystems. But as custodians of open space eagerly pursue tourism, they pursue development.户外活动确实会影响脆弱的生态系统。户外空间的管理人渴望发展旅游业,其实是在追求经济发展。 In our mid-Hudson town of New Paltz, the Mohonk Preserve, in a longstanding partnership with the for-profit Mohonk Mountain House resort, plans 100-plus car parking, visitor center, boardwalk, bulldozed trails, toilet sheds and outdoor lighting, encouraging visitors from far and near to leap into their fossil-fueled vehicles to swarm in ever greater numbers into the unspoiled.在我们哈德逊河中部城市新帕尔茨,莫康克保护区(Mohonk Preserve)与营利性的莫康克山豪斯酒店(Mohonk Mountain House)有着长期合作关系,他们规划了100多个停车位和游客中心、浮桥、旅游路线、卫生间棚、户外照明,鼓励远近的游客一跃而上跳到他们的化石燃料供能车里,以前所未有的数量涌向未被破坏的土地。Recreation is a profitable and competitive industry, and green access is a resource that can be exploited as ruthlessly as any other, to the detriment of both wild and human habitat. It affects not only the trampled green space but also its buffer, where someone, till now, could stop to help a tortoise cross the highway without setting off half a mile of honking cars.休闲是一个盈利、具有竞争力的产业,而自然是一种可以像任何其他资源一样被残酷掠夺的资源,可以对野生动物和人类的生存空间造成破坏。它不仅影响了被侵入的自然空间,还影响了缓冲区,在那些地方,人们以前还可以停下来让一只龟穿过公路,而不必担心阻断车流,引致半英里的汽车鸣笛。C. A. RODRIGUEZC·A·罗德里格斯(C. A. RODRIGUEZ)New Paltz, N.Y.美国纽约州新帕尔茨To the Editor: 致编辑:Christopher Solomon’s article is sad but not surprising. For animals that live in wilderness, the sound, sight or scent of humans is a threat. The more of us there are, the fewer of them there will be.克里斯托弗·所罗门的文章令人悲伤但并不令人惊讶。对于生活在野外的动物来说,人类的声音、景象和气味都是威胁。我们越多,它们越少。As Mr. Solomon wrote, “A century ago, nature had elbow room.” Perhaps the best solution is to wake up to the fact that a century later, there are simply too many humans for this planet to support.正如所罗门所写:“一个世纪前,大自然还有一些自己的空间。”或许问题最好的解决办法是意识到这样一个事实:一个世纪之后的今天,对于这个星球来说,需要养活的人实在太多了。LAURIE HAMMOND劳瑞·海蒙德(LAURIE HAMMOND)Los Altos, Calif.美国加利福尼亚州洛思阿图斯 /201503/362176。

The culinary colonisation of the globe may now have us all eating the same old margherita pizzas and arrabiata pastas. But there is one last bastion of gastronomic independence: breakfast. The things we can bear to put in our stomachs right after rising are often the most culturally authentic things about us. And nowhere is that truer than in China.烹饪方式在全球的殖民式推广,或许让我们现在全都吃着一样的传统玛格丽特比萨和香辣番茄意大利面。但还有最后一座堡垒在坚守着烹饪方式独立:早餐。我们能忍受一起床就吃下肚的东西,从文化角度而言往往是最真实地反映我们是谁的东西。而中国比其他任何地方都更符合这句论断。Nobody loves things western more than the Chinese, but when the sun comes up on any Chinese city the east dominates the breakfast trade. Like their ancestors before them, even the most westernised Shanghainese queue up before bamboo towers of steamed buns, spitting woks of crispy bottomed dumplings and steaming vats of rice gruel, to eat food that proudly declares its Chineseness.没有哪个民族比中国人更喜爱西方的东西,但在中国任何一座城市,当太阳升起的时候,早点生意绝对是“东风压倒西风”。哪怕是最西化的上海人,也会像他们的祖辈一样,在码得高高的一笼笼包子,一锅锅滋滋作响的锅贴,和一桶桶热气腾腾的米粥前排队等候,以享用这些自豪地宣告自己中国身份的食物作早餐。They’ve got nothing against a good cornflake here or there, just for variety, or even an Egg McMuffin on the run, but a soup-filled bun made with dollops of pork fat — the much-loved Shanghai shengjian mantou — goes straight to the heart of mainlanders like no cornflake ever could. And of course, all that fat, salt and carbohydrate goes straight to the heart muscle too. But reason not the nutrients: at its best, breakfast is not just food, it is more like love.中国人对偶尔吃一顿可口的玉米片早餐也不排斥,但只是为了换换口味,赶时间的时候他们甚至会匆匆忙忙抓一个吉士蛋麦满分当早餐,可是只有饱含汤汁的生煎馒头(上海人的最爱)才能直抵中国人的心房,那是任何玉米片永远到不了的地方。当然啦,那里面饱含的脂肪、盐和碳水化合物也会直抵心肌。但别拿健康说事了,最好的早餐不仅是食物,它更像是一种“爱”。One young millennial queueing at the neighbourhood “baozi” or steamed bun stall in Shanghai’s former French concession, said he was there for a bit of a bun “chaser” to the bowl of Cheerios he had consumed at home. East meets west in this young man, who says he’s just as happy to draw from either for his first meal of the day. But when it comes to taste? China wins hands down.一个“千禧”世代的年轻人,正在上海前法租界居民区的包子铺排队买包子。这位年轻人说自己在家已经吃了一碗脆谷乐(Cheerios),来这儿想再吃点包子,补充点“硬货”。东西两种文化在这个年轻人身上交汇,他说作为一天之中的头一餐,中式和西式早餐都能让他吃得很开心。但论及味道,中餐毫不费力地赢了。Wu Genfa, a baozi shopper old enough to be his grandfather, is having none of this fusion approach. “I don’t like foreign breakfast,” he says unapologetically. “We’ve been eating Chinese food for decades and if we suddenly change to foreign food, our stomach can’t get used to it,” he says.队伍里一位年纪足以当那位年轻人祖父的食客,则完全无法接受中西混搭的吃法。他的名字叫吴根发。“我不喜欢外国的早餐。”他理直气壮地说,“我们已经吃了几十年中国食物,如果突然改吃外国食物,我们的胃习惯不了。”China’s stubborn adherence to its bun-and-rice-gruel antecedents means that even western fast food restaurants such as KFC have to learn to wrap a steamed bun to survive in the mainland breakfast market. In fact, KFC’s rice porridge with pork and hundred-year-old egg is so popular at breakfast time — paired with a deep fried pastry or “youtiao” for a set meal as low as — that it’s often sold out by the time I get there.中国对包子、米粥等传统食物的顽固坚守,意味着即使是肯德基(KFC)这类西方快餐店都得学着做包子,才能在中国的早餐市场上生存。事实上,肯德基早餐时间供应的皮蛋瘦肉粥(原文称皮蛋为“百年老蛋”(hundred-year-old egg)——译者注)配油条套餐(该套餐售价8元人民币,约合1美元)极受欢迎,我去的时候经常已经卖光了。In a city such as Shanghai, which celebrates its futuristic skyscrapers and hides historic neighbourhoods out of embarrassment, eating street food for breakfast may be the closest that most westerners get to traditional Chinese culture. And the best way to get up to speed on where to go — and how to tell a bun from a dumpling — is to take the “Street Eats Breakfast” tour, run by the offbeat guides UnTour.在上海这样一座为那些现代化天大楼而欢庆,而尴尬地把历史悠久的老街区藏起来的城市里,去街头小吃摊点吃早餐可能是大多数西方人与传统中国文化最近距离的接触。而想了解当下吃早餐的好去处,以及分清包子和锅贴,最佳方案就是参加另类旅游社UnTour组织的“街头小吃早餐”之旅。When the FT recently tagged along, Pennsylvanian Mitch Conquer, our guide, taught us everything from how to slurp the soup out of scalding dumplings, to the creation myth of the baozi (which holds that the buns were filled with meat and shaped like human heads to offer as sacrifices when plague hit a Chinese army nearly two millennia ago). Rival that, you cornflake connoisseurs.英国《金融时报》近日也参加了一次。我们的导游米奇#8226;康克尔(Mitch Conquer)来自美国宾夕法尼亚州,他教给了我们很多知识,从如何从滚烫的锅贴里吸出汤汁,到包子诞生的故事(传说将近两千年前,一只中国军队遭遇瘟疫,人们用面皮包上肉馅,捏成人头的形状,当做祭品供奉,这就是包子)。玉米片行家们,你们拿什么跟这个比?But for all that Shanghai loves its buns, street eats of all varieties are under threat in China, says Anna Greenspan, author of Shanghai Future: Modernity Remade. Soon after I moved to China in 2008, for example, the city tore down one of the most famous and best-loved food streets, Wujiang Road, leaving Starbucks, McDonald’s and Subway in its place. “In the developed world, there is a renaissance of street food culture, with the food trucks,” she says. Not so in China, where street food markets are seen as unhygienic, noisy and just plain un-futuristic. In December, yet another famous Shanghai food street was demolished.尽管上海人如此喜爱他们的包子,但《上海未来:重建现代性》(Shanghai Future: Modernity Remade)一书的作者安娜#8226;格林斯潘(Anna Greenspan)说,在中国,各种街头小吃都正面临威胁。举个例子,2008年我刚到中国不久,上海拆掉了最著名、最受欢迎的美食街之一,吴江路小吃街,现在那里只有星巴克(Starbucks)、麦当劳(McDonald#39;s)和赛百味(Subway)了。安娜#8226;格林斯潘说:“在发达国家,一辆辆流动食品车所代表的街头食品文化正在复兴。”在中国则不是这样,街头小吃市场在这里被认为是不卫生的、嘈杂的,而且毫不现代化。去年12月,又一条上海著名的美食街被拆除。To add insult to injury Shanghai’s largest state-owned food group, Bright Food, recently bought the British breakfast icon Weetabix, and is working hard to introduce western shredded wheat and milk culture to China. Good luck with that. Weetabix seems to be tackling the snack market first, recently introducing green tea and dark chocolate Alpen cereal bars, just for the China market. But outside the Jiadeli supermarket, opposite the bun stall where UnTour took us, Yue Yumei, 53, says she’s never even heard of Weetabix. Vive la dumpling, I say: let them eat street food.无异于往传统街头小吃伤口上撒盐的是,上海最大的国营食品集团光明食品(Bright Food)最近收购了英国代表性早餐食品品牌维他麦(Weetabix),而且该集团正努力将西方的牛奶麦片文化引入中国。祝他们好运吧。维他麦似乎想先打入零食市场,近来推出了专门面向中国市场的绿茶和黑巧克力欧倍(Alpen)谷物棒。但在一家“家得利”(Jiadeli)超市外面,就在UnTour带我们去的一家包子铺对面,53岁的岳玉梅说她从没听说过维他麦。锅贴万岁,我要说,他们想吃街头食品就让他们吃吧。 /201501/357195。