Ecoefficiency (measures to minimize environmental impact through the reduction or elimination of waste from (5) production processes) has become a goal for companies worldwide, with many realizing significant cost savings from such innovations. Peter Senge (10) and Goran Carstedt see this development as laudable but suggest that simply adopting ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental (15) stresses in the future. Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from (20) their use and discard; indeed, most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth. Moreover, there is (25) no guarantee that increased economic growth from ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways, since in today’s global markets, (30) greater profits may be turned into investment capital that could easily be reinvested in old-style eco-inefficient industries. Even a vastly (35) more ecoefficient industrial system could, were it to grow much larger, generate more total waste and destroy more habitat and species than would (40) a smaller, less ecoefficient
economy. Senge and Carstedt argue that to preserve the global environment and sustain economic growth, businesses (45) must develop a new systemic approach that reduces total material use and total accumulated waste. Focusing exclusively on ecoefficiency, (50) which offers a compelling business case according to established thinking, may distract companies from pursuing radically different (55) products and business models.
The passage implies that which of the following is a possible consequence of a company’s adoption of innovations that increase its ecoefficiency?
A. Company profits resulting from such innovations may be reinvested in that company with no guarantee that the company will continue to make further improvements in ecoefficiency.
B. Company growth fostered by cost savings from such innovations may allow that company to manufacture a greater number of products that will be used and discarded, thus worsening environmental stress.
C. A company that fails to realize significant cost savings from such innovations may have little incentive to continue to minimize the environmental impact of its production processes.
D. A company that comes to depend on such innovations to increase its profits and growth may be vulnerable in the global market to competition from old-style ecoinefficient industries.
E. A company that meets its ecoefficiency goals is unlikely to invest its increased profits in the development of new and innovative ecoefficiency measures.
整篇文章的核心在下面这两句话里：
Moreover, there is (25) no guarantee that increased economic growth from ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways, since in today’s global markets, (30) greater profits may be turned into investment capital that could easily be reinvested in old-style eco-inefficient industries.
挣的钱可能会投入到其他落后的工业中（也隐含着自身企业还是会持续的进行ecoefficiency创新从而获取更多的利润）
Even a vastly (35) more ecoefficient industrial system could, were it to grow much larger, generate more total waste and destroy more habitat and species than would (40) a smaller, less ecoefficient economy.
随着规模的增加而导致总体浪费增加。符合B选项的意思。
B我已经看懂了，但是对A我还有疑问。我对原文那句话是这么理解的：
Moreover, there is (25) no guarantee that increased economic growth from ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways, since in today’s global markets, (30) greater profits may be turned into investment capital that could easily be reinvested in old-style eco-inefficient industries.但是，并不能保证来自ecoefficiency的经济增长将来自同样ecoefficienct的方式，因为在今天的全球市场中，更多的利润也许会被转变成投资资本轻易地被投入到旧模式的ecoefficiency行业中。
我把这句话压缩一下，意思就是这样“因为利润被投到旧模式ecoefficiency行业中，所以经济增长将来自于旧模式的ecoefficiency行业。”
那么看A选项，A选项说的是利润可能会被投到那些不保证继续提高ecoefficiency的公司里。这种公司不就是旧模式的ecoefficiency公司吗？这么看原文与A也挺符合的，你能帮我解释一下吗？作者: xiaoaojiang 时间: 2010-6-17 06:40
恩。。。我都有了些强词夺理的感觉，毕竟这个差别比较细微。嘿嘿！
A. Company profits resulting from such innovations may be reinvested in that company with no guarantee that the company will continue to make further improvements in ecoefficiency.
请看A选项中我标成红色的部分，它是特指从innovation中赚到钱的公司。reinvested in that company表示了是这个公司挣到的钱用到自己身上，而不是投资到其他eco-inefficient的公司。而文章中没有信息来表示这些已经拥抱了innovation的公司自己是否还会做eco-inefficient的项目。
如果原句的reinvested in that company改成invested in a company，那么我感觉这个选项就比较难排除了。作者: anchoretes 时间: 2010-6-18 06:49
