英語の和訳を教えてくださいm(_ _)m
和訳お願いしますm(_ _)m
レポートのためにこの記事を和訳しないといけないのですが、どうしてもぎこちない訳になって要旨をとれないので、よろしくお願いします。
Thousands of experts and politicians are gathering in Copenhagen to search for ways to sharply reduce the amount of carbon we release into the atmosphere. Whatever limit they agree to ― whether it is 350 or 400 parts per million ― will require, first and foremost, curtailing global emissions. It will also require ways to absorb carbon, or carbon sinks.
Multibillion-dollar technological approaches to storing carbon, from pumping it into depleted oil wells to building massive carbon absorption systems, are grabbing people’s imagination. At the same time ― and inexplicably ― a more convenient and less expensive method is being overlooked.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation and other forms of land use change. Live vegetation absorbs CO2 and releases oxygen. This function is eliminated when forests are cut.
More importantly, forests can hold 20 to 100 times more carbon dioxide than agricultural systems could on the same amount of land.
When coastal marshes are drained, soils ploughed or peat lands burned, the carbon stored there is exposed to oxygen with which it forms CO2 and finds its way into the atmosphere. There it persists for a long time, trapping heat as a greenhouse gas.
Adding insult to injury, these land-use conversions also destroy natural carbon sinks. For example, most carbon accumulated in coastal marshlands does not find its way into the atmosphere. A recent calculation shows that had the Bay of Fundy marshlands in Canada not been converted to farmland, they would be absorbing the equivalent to 4 to 6 per cent of Canada’s CO2 reduction target.
Put simply, if we stop converting intact ecosystems, we would not only arrest 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, but we’d continue to have natural carbon sinks ― all without investing in technological fixes.
