英语演讲稿,主题环保。
发布网友
发布时间：2022-04-27 09:23
共4个回答
热心网友
时间：2022-06-09 04:36
翻译：
大家好！
今天，关于保护环境是多么的重要，我想，从许多领导人的讲话到广大群众的呼吁，从在座诸位紧锁的双眉再到我们这次演讲的主题——保护环境、爱我黄石。已经为这样一个问题作了最好的说明。在这里，我所思、所想的是：我们该如何保护我们的心灵环境。因为这是人与自然和谐相处的基础， 同时也决定着，我们这个城市会有怎样的今天和怎样的一个未来？
提到这个问题时，我最先想到的是孩子。
一年前的这个时候，我带着外地朋友的孩子，到公园散步。孩子长得很漂亮，有一双很美的眼睛。可惜的是他的眼睛看不见了，他是个盲人。一路上，他紧紧拉着我的手，不停的问我：“阿姨，黄石是什么样子的？黄石美吗”我告诉他：黄石很美，黄石的湖水清清的，草地绿绿的，天是蓝蓝的。他认真的聆听着，脸上闪耀着阳光般的微笑。可我却笑不起来，我忘了告诉他：黄石的湖水是很清，可湖面上有零碎的令人恶心的垃圾；草很绿，可草地上有刺眼的白塑料袋；天很蓝，可天的那一边有吞云吐雾的烟囱！这些也许算不得什么，但我只能是告诉他，黄石很美，湖水清清的，草地绿绿的。
后来，这孩子给我打电话说，黄石很美，虽然他闻到的空气不够清新，但黄石在他心里已如童话。我知道，那孩子是个盲人，虽然看不见，但他用洁白如纸的心灵，接纳了黄石并捍卫了这座城市的美丽。对于这样一个孩子，我怎能不吃惊，他有着又该是怎样的一颗心灵啊！
也许，一个孩子的话，并不代表什么。可当我回头看看我们的孩子时，我们不难发现，我们的孩子何尝不是用心灵来看这个世界，用心来接纳他生活的这个城市。而面对他们所拥有的“黄石很美，湖水清清的，草地绿绿的，天是蓝蓝的……心灵渴望时，我们是该给予他们保护，把一切变成现实，令他们欣喜、欢乐、幸福、阳光、微笑。还是让现实伸出巨大的手掌来，把他们彻底撕裂、撕碎、摧毁？什么希望都不留给他们？
不，决不！因为，我们爱孩子，因为他们是我们的未来。我们给新衣、做美食、让他们上最好的大学，走最宽的马路，住最大的最漂亮的住房！但这些就是我们在给他们未来？这就是保护？不，他们真需要的未来不在这。他们需要的未来，在他们的心里！这就是为什么面对碧水蓝天，感到最欣喜的人里头有我们的孩子；为什么一次重大环境污染事故之后，最心疼的人里头有我们的孩子；为什么对烟囱丛林，最痛恨的人里头有的又是我们的孩子；如果，他们没有一颗纯净洁白的心灵环境，他们那里装得下对碧水蓝天的渴望；如果，他们没有一颗深爱着这个城市和这片环境的心灵，他们又那里生得出那么多的爱和狠呢？
今天，如果我以不太苛刻的眼光来审视我们生存的这个城市，是的，今天黄石是美的，这是许多人努力的结果，但更美的难道不是我们这些孩子的心灵，和他们对这个城市这片环境深沉的爱吗？而这不正是人与环境和谐相处的关键所在吗？
由孩子的问题，我想起了我们的这些*。其实，在我们每一个人心灵深处，也都装有一片青山绿水。只是，我们常常习惯于意识到了心灵深处的渴望，却很少让自己的行动服从于心灵。这就是为什么我们一再聆听，保护环境是多么重要的今天，我们看到这个城市绿色之后，却不愿去深想，绿色背后所显现的种种危机。这就是为什么，在经济利益面前，要一而再，再而三的令环保让路！这就是为什么，在动筷子时，情愿担惊受怕的把一颗可能受过污染的蔬菜放进嘴里，最后表示无可奈何的原因！面对我们的孩子及我们自己，难道我们只能感到无奈？我们为什么，就不能把心灵的渴望变成我们行动的动力！我们为什么不能象我们的孩子那样，把自己内心已经积累的力量释放出来，用实际的行动把绿色背后的种种危机消除，把心灵深处的那片青山绿水复制到我们现实的生活当中来，向自己的心灵深处回归！
是的，我们深爱黄石，我们也爱孩子，我们深爱环境，我们应该更爱自己的心灵，作为黄石的一名普通的市民，我们在美好中畅想黄石的未来——青铜的古都，钢铁的摇篮，水泥的故乡，服装的新城。然而，我们是否应该在这些美好的设想前再加上一条——山水的新城呢？让我们行动起来，从心灵出发，让我们与自然环境和谐相处！给黄石一个绿色的未来！
原文：Hello everyone!
Today, about how to protect the environment are important, I think, from the leader's speech to the lot of the appeal to the masses, from here you locking the Diophrys Speech to the our theme - protection of the environment, my love Yellowstone. Such a problem has been the best description. Here, I think, the thought is: how do we protect our environment for the soul. This is because people live in harmony with the natural foundation, but also decide, and what our city today and what kind of a future?
Mentioned this problem, I first think of the children are.
A year ago this time, my friends from overseas with children, to the park to take a walk. Children looked beautiful, there is a pair of beautiful eyes. It is a pity that the eyes can not see him, he is blind. Along the way, he pulled my hand tightly, keep ask me: "Auntie, what are the Yellowstone? Yellowstone United States吗" I told him: Yellowstone beautiful, clean lake Yellowstone and绿绿grassland, and days are blue. He listened carefully, his face radiates with sun-like smile.笑不起来can I do, I forgot to tell him: Yellowstone lake is very clear on the lake may have fragmented nauseating trash; grass is green, the grass may have glare on the white plastic bag; days are blue may day side of the chimney there is desperate for a smoke! These may be nothing, but I can only tell him yes, Yellowstone beautiful, clean lake, and the绿绿lawn.
Later, the child give me a call that beautiful Yellowstone, even though he smelled the fresh air enough, but his heart has been at Yellowstone such as fairy tale. I know that the child is blind, although can not see, but he used white paper such as soul, and accepted the Yellowstone and to defend the city's beauty. For such a child, how can I not surprised that he should have what kind of a soul ah!
May be a child, then do not mean anything. When I look back to our children, we can easily find, our kids did not mind looking at this world, and intentions to accept his life in this city. In the face of their own "Yellowstone beautiful, clean lake, and grass绿绿, and the sky is blue ... ... soul desire, we are giving them the protection, put everything into reality, make them happy, joy , happiness, sunshine, smiling. or let reality enormous palm stretched out to put them completely torn, shredded and destroyed? what hope do not leave them?
No, never! Because we love children, because they are our future. Give us new clothes, make food, let them on the best universities, taking most of the wide road, housing the biggest and most beautiful houses! However, these is what we give them in the future? This is the protection? No, they really are not necessary the future. They need the future, in their hearts! That is why the face of clear water and blue sky, feel the most happy people there are our children; why after a major environmental pollution accident, the most distressed of the people there are our children; why chimney jungle, the most hated and some people inside they are our children; if they do not have a pure white soul environment, where they pretend to be under the clear water and blue sky of the desire; if they do not have a love of this city and this spiritual environment, they Health, where so many come to love and so hard?
Today, if I am not too harsh to the eyes to look at the survival of our city, yes, today is the United States and Yellowstone, which is the result of the efforts of many people, but more beautiful is it not our hearts and minds of these children, and their The environment of this city deep love吗? And, is this person and the environment is the key to harmony吗?
By the child's question, I think of the U.S. these alts. In fact, everyone in our heart of hearts, but also are equipped with a green mountains and blue waters. Only, usually used to realize our heart of hearts desire, but rarely let their actions subject to the soul. That is why we have to listen to, how important it is to protect the environment, today we can see the city after the green, it was unwilling to want to go deep, green behind the emerging crises. That is why, in the face of economic interests, it is necessary to again and again to make way for the environmental protection! That is why, at动筷子, the reluctance of fear may have put a contaminated vegetables into his mouth, and finally have no choice but to express the reasons! The face of our children and ourselves, it is nothing they can do us? Why do we not put our hearts into action the desire of power! Why should not our children as we did, put their own inner strength have accumulated released, practical action put the green behind the elimination of various crises, the soul of the mountains那片copied to the reality of our life, the to return to the depths of their souls!
Yes, we love Yellowstone, we love children, we love the environment, we should also love their own souls, as Yellowstone's an ordinary members of the public at our beautiful Yellowstone in the Imagination of the future - the ancient capital of bronze, iron and steel the cradle, the hometown of cement, apparel Metro. However, we should be better in those pre-coupled with the idea of a - landscape of Metro do? Let us take action, starting from the soul, let us live in harmony with the natural environment! Yellowstone give a green future!
热心网友
时间：2022-06-09 05:54
The 2008 Olympic Game has been the most discussed and anticipated event through out Beijing ever since Beijing bid for it years ago. Yet the focus has shifted from making a promise to making good a promise after Beijing’s successful bid. In my opinion, to bridge the gap between a promise and reality, Beijing still has a long way to go. Here are some of my ideas on how to fill that gap.
首先，在所有亟待解决的问题中，跨越英语口语这一难关至关重要。学会一门语言的关键在于坚持不懈。我们到能不能做到让大多数国人在2008年到来之前都学会说英语？这一问题需要我们不断努力和尝试。
First, the speaking of English is far most important than all other difficulties. Learning a language takes a long time and a lot of heart ship, it’s not easy. So can we get most of Chinese to speak English before 2008? It needs us to try and practice very hard.
其次，交通拥挤一直是困扰北京的老大难问题。一辆接一辆车连在一起构成的汽车长龙加之它们不断排放到空气中的黑烟这种情景早就给我们留下了深刻的印象。我相信没有一个国人愿意把北京的这一面暴露给来自世界各地的参赛队员和新闻记者，因为它会严重损坏北京的形象和声誉。所以，我们必须致力于建设绿色奥运这一目标。
Second, traffic jams have been an age-old headache in Beijing, the scenes of long queues of vehicles worming their way inch by inch while discharging dark fumes into the air had given all of us a really bad impression, and I know that none of us wish to show off that side of Beijing to athletes and journalists over the world, it would blemish the city’s image and leave a bad reputation. So we have to work real hard on Green Olympics.
还有，为了各项工作的顺利实施，一个*远瞩的整体城市规划必不可少。如果时间允许，重新设计和调整北京的建筑风格会为构建北京的城市特色创造环境。把东方的精致和西方的宏伟结合在一起一定会在众多建筑风格中独树一帜。要做到以上几点，北京应该听取得来自一流建筑师的建议并作出整体规划。
Thirdly, to add enchantment to convenience, an over-all city planning is indispensable. If time permits, a redesign of city layout and adjustment of architectural style would provide a better environment for fostering the characteristics, blending oriental elegance with international grandeur, will tower a lot among surrounding architectures. To achieve such effects, Beijing shall solicit opinions from first-rate architects and make an overall plan.
尽管如此，要实现全世界对北京的期盼，北京还有许许多多工作要做。但我们有信心在2008年到来之前把北京建设成为一个全新的城市。巨大的变化每天都在这个城市发生，相信在不远的将来，北京将会成为全世界关注的焦点。世界相信北京，这也是北京申奥成功的原因。我们一定会抓住这次机遇并为之全力以赴。今天，我们还没有做好准备，但在2008年到来之前我们一定会准备好！
Even though, Beijing still has a lot to do to reach the level that the world expects, but we have the confidence to make Beijing a brand new city by the year 2008. Huge changes are taking places, and not far in the future, Beijing will be the focus of all worlds’ attention. The world trusts Beijing and that’s why Beijing won the bid. We will grasp this opportunity and do our best. We are not yet ready but we will be by the year 2008.
让我们一起祝福北京祝福2008年北京奥运会吧！谢谢！
Let’s all wish the best for the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. Thanks for your listening
热心网友
时间：2022-06-09 07:28
Environment-important issues: acid rain, climate, endangered species, global warming, oil-slick, pollution, nuclear waste
Environment-natural disasTopic four : Energy & Environment
Word bank:
Environment-important issues: acid rain, climate, endangered species, global warming, oil-slick, pollution, nuclear waste
Environment-natural disasters: drought, famine, forest fire, flood, typhoon, volcanic eruption
Environment-verbs: cut down, destroy, protect, pollute, recycle, save, throw away, use up
Environment-instries: heavy instry, light instry, agriculture, fishery instry, tourist instry, manufacturing, medical instry, service instry, entertainment instry
Environment-pollution: water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, oil pollution, rubbish pollution
2. Hints: 会问到的问题
Your questions will be about the energy issues, the environmental pollutions, and protections in our daily life.
Energy Crisis
Good evening, and welcome again to the “Michael Parkhurst Talkabout”.
Nobody knows exactly how much fuel is left, but pessimistic forecasts say that there is only enough coal for 450 years, enough natural gas for 50 years and that oil might run out in 30 years.
I’d like to welcome our first guest, Professor Marvin Burnham of the New England Institute of Technology.
Fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) are rapidly running out.
The tragedy is that fossil fuels are far too valuable to waste on the proction of electricity.
If we don’t start conserving these things now, it will be too late.
And nuclear power is the only real alternative.
We are getting some electricity from nuclear power-stations already.
If we invest in further research now, we’ll be ready to face the future.
There’s been a lot of protest lately against nuclear power—some people will protest at anything—but nuclear power-stations are not as dangerous as some people say.
It’s far more dangerous to work down a coal-mine or on a North Sea oil-rig.
Safety regulations in power-stations are very strict.
If we spent money on research now, we could develop stations which create their own fuel and burn their own waste.
Surely we don’t want to go back to the Stone Age.
Our next guest is a member of CANE, the Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, Jennifer Hughes.
I must disagree totally with Professor Burnham.
And an accident must be inevitable—sooner or later.
Huge areas would be evacuated, and they could remain contaminated with radioactivity for years.
If it happened in your area, you wouldn’t get a penny in compensation. No insurance company covers nuclear risks.
If the nuclear instry didn’t keep them quiet, there would be a public outcry.
There is no technology for absolutely safe disposal.
Some of this waste will remain active for thousands of years.
Is that what you want to leave to your children? And their children’s children?
By the year 2000 we’ll have “retired” 26 reactors in the UK.
Terrorists could hold the nation to ransom if they captured a reactor.
In the USA the Savannah River plant, and Professor Burnham knows this very well, lost (yes, “lost”) enough plutonium between 1955 and 1978 to make 18 (18!) atom bombs.
Instead of burning fossil fuels we should be concentrating on more economic uses of electricity, because electricity can be proced from any source of energy.
If we didn’t waste so much energy, our resources would last longer.
You can save more energy by conservation than you can proce for the same money.
Unless we do research on solar energy, wind power, wave power, tidal power, hydroelectric schemes etc., our fossil fuels will run out, and we’ll all freeze or starve to death.
Other countries are spending much more than us on research, and don’t forget that energy from the sun, the waves and the wind lasts forever.
We really won’t survive unless we start working on cleaner, safer sources of energy.
Our final speaker, before we open the discussion to the studio audience, is Charles Wicks, MP, the Minister for Energy.
I’ve been listening to the other speakers with great interest.
By the way, I don’t agree with some of the estimates of world energy reserves.
More oil and gas is being discovered all the time.
If we listen to the pessimists (and there are a lot of them about) none of us would sleep at night.
Our policy must be flexible.
After all, the Government wouldn’t have a Department of Energy unless they thought it was important.
The big question is where to spend the money—on conservation of present resources or on research into new forms of power.
But I’m fairly optimistic. I wouldn’t be in this job unless I were an optimistters: drought, famine, forest fire, flood, typhoon, volcanic eruption
Environment-verbs: cut down, destroy, protect, pollute, recycle, save, throw away, use up
Environment-instries: heavy instry, light instry, agriculture, fishery instry, tourist instry, manufacturing, medical instry, service instry, entertainment instry
Environment-pollution: water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, oil pollution, rubbish pollution
2. Hints: 会问到的问题
Your questions will be about the energy issues, the environmental pollutions, and protections in our daily life.
Energy Crisis
Good evening, and welcome again to the “Michael Parkhurst Talkabout”.
Nobody knows exactly how much fuel is left, but pessimistic forecasts say that there is only enough coal for 450 years, enough natural gas for 50 years and that oil might run out in 30 years.
I’d like to welcome our first guest, Professor Marvin Burnham of the New England Institute of Technology.
Fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) are rapidly running out.
The tragedy is that fossil fuels are far too valuable to waste on the proction of electricity.
If we don’t start conserving these things now, it will be too late.
And nuclear power is the only real alternative.
We are getting some electricity from nuclear power-stations already.
If we invest in further research now, we’ll be ready to face the future.
There’s been a lot of protest lately against nuclear power—some people will protest at anything—but nuclear power-stations are not as dangerous as some people say.
It’s far more dangerous to work down a coal-mine or on a North Sea oil-rig.
Safety regulations in power-stations are very strict.
If we spent money on research now, we could develop stations which create their own fuel and burn their own waste.
Surely we don’t want to go back to the Stone Age.
Our next guest is a member of CANE, the Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, Jennifer Hughes.
I must disagree totally with Professor Burnham.
And an accident must be inevitable—sooner or later.
Huge areas would be evacuated, and they could remain contaminated with radioactivity for years.
If it happened in your area, you wouldn’t get a penny in compensation. No insurance company covers nuclear risks.
If the nuclear instry didn’t keep them quiet, there would be a public outcry.
There is no technology for absolutely safe disposal.
Some of this waste will remain active for thousands of years.
Is that what you want to leave to your children? And their children’s children?
By the year 2000 we’ll have “retired” 26 reactors in the UK.
Terrorists could hold the nation to ransom if they captured a reactor.
In the USA the Savannah River plant, and Professor Burnham knows this very well, lost (yes, “lost”) enough plutonium between 1955 and 1978 to make 18 (18!) atom bombs.
Instead of burning fossil fuels we should be concentrating on more economic uses of electricity, because electricity can be proced from any source of energy.
If we didn’t waste so much energy, our resources would last longer.
You can save more energy by conservation than you can proce for the same money.
Unless we do research on solar energy, wind power, wave power, tidal power, hydroelectric schemes etc., our fossil fuels will run out, and we’ll all freeze or starve to death.
Other countries are spending much more than us on research, and don’t forget that energy from the sun, the waves and the wind lasts forever.
We really won’t survive unless we start working on cleaner, safer sources of energy.
Our final speaker, before we open the discussion to the studio audience, is Charles Wicks, MP, the Minister for Energy.
I’ve been listening to the other speakers with great interest.
By the way, I don’t agree with some of the estimates of world energy reserves.
More oil and gas is being discovered all the time.
If we listen to the pessimists (and there are a lot of them about) none of us would sleep at night.
Our policy must be flexible.
After all, the Government wouldn’t have a Department of Energy unless they thought it was important.
The big question is where to spend the money—on conservation of present resources or on research into new forms of power.
But I’m fairly optimistic. I wouldn’t be in this job unless I were an optimist
热心网友
时间：2022-06-09 09:20
1. Word bank:
Environment-important issues: acid rain, climate, endangered species, global warming, oil-slick, pollution, nuclear waste
Environment-natural disasters: drought, famine, forest fire, flood, typhoon, volcanic eruption
Environment-verbs: cut down, destroy, protect, pollute, recycle, save, throw away, use up
Environment-instries: heavy instry, light instry, agriculture, fishery instry, tourist instry, manufacturing, medical instry, service instry, entertainment instry
Environment-pollution: water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, oil pollution, rubbish pollution
2. Hints: 会问到的问题
Your questions will be about the energy issues, the environmental pollutions, and protections in our daily life.
Energy Crisis
Good evening, and welcome again to the “Michael Parkhurst Talkabout”.
Nobody knows exactly how much fuel is left, but pessimistic forecasts say that there is only enough coal for 450 years, enough natural gas for 50 years and that oil might run out in 30 years.
I’d like to welcome our first guest, Professor Marvin Burnham of the New England Institute of Technology.
Fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) are rapidly running out.
The tragedy is that fossil fuels are far too valuable to waste on the proction of electricity.
If we don’t start conserving these things now, it will be too late.
And nuclear power is the only real alternative.
We are getting some electricity from nuclear power-stations already.
If we invest in further research now, we’ll be ready to face the future.
There’s been a lot of protest lately against nuclear power—some people will protest at anything—but nuclear power-stations are not as dangerous as some people say.
It’s far more dangerous to work down a coal-mine or on a North Sea oil-rig.
Safety regulations in power-stations are very strict.
If we spent money on research now, we could develop stations which create their own fuel and burn their own waste.
Surely we don’t want to go back to the Stone Age.
Our next guest is a member of CANE, the Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, Jennifer Hughes.
I must disagree totally with Professor Burnham.
And an accident must be inevitable—sooner or later.
Huge areas would be evacuated, and they could remain contaminated with radioactivity for years.
If it happened in your area, you wouldn’t get a penny in compensation. No insurance company covers nuclear risks.
If the nuclear instry didn’t keep them quiet, there would be a public outcry.
There is no technology for absolutely safe disposal.
Some of this waste will remain active for thousands of years.
Is that what you want to leave to your children? And their children’s children?
By the year 2000 we’ll have “retired” 26 reactors in the UK.
Terrorists could hold the nation to ransom if they captured a reactor.
In the USA the Savannah River plant, and Professor Burnham knows this very well, lost (yes, “lost”) enough plutonium between 1955 and 1978 to make 18 (18!) atom bombs.
Instead of burning fossil fuels we should be concentrating on more economic uses of electricity, because electricity can be proced from any source of energy.
If we didn’t waste so much energy, our resources would last longer.
You can save more energy by conservation than you can proce for the same money.
Unless we do research on solar energy, wind power, wave power, tidal power, hydroelectric schemes etc., our fossil fuels will run out, and we’ll all freeze or starve to death.
Other countries are spending much more than us on research, and don’t forget that energy from the sun, the waves and the wind lasts forever.
We really won’t survive unless we start working on cleaner, safer sources of energy.
Our final speaker, before we open the discussion to the studio audience, is Charles Wicks, MP, the Minister for Energy.
I’ve been listening to the other speakers with great interest.
By the way, I don’t agree with some of the estimates of world energy reserves.
More oil and gas is being discovered all the time.
If we listen to the pessimists (and there are a lot of them about) none of us would sleep at night.
Our policy must be flexible.
After all, the Government wouldn’t have a Department of Energy unless they thought it was important.
The big question is where to spend the money—on conservation of present resources or on research into new forms of power.
But I’m fairly optimistic. I wouldn’t be in this job unless I were an optimist!
