译者按：《经济学人》杂志向来以其独特的视角，透彻的分析和地道的英语而闻名。每年托福和雅思考试中的很多阅读文章都出自这本杂志。最近一篇上了财经头条的文章《我们正在进入“谈资”比“名牌包”更贵的时代！》中指出，阅读《经济学人》是当今国外新兴的精英阶层“非炫耀性文化消费”的一个标志。跟着《经济学人》学习朴素准确且高逼格的英语，将事半功倍。
本期《跟着<经济学人>学英语》选取本周《经济学人》（2017年9月2日）的社论文章，中英双语对照并讲解生词。因为社论篇幅较长，将分为四篇文章以便阅读。本篇是本周系列的第三篇。译者水平不到之处，欢迎大家批评指点。
本周系列各篇的链接如下：
（1）www.jianshu.com/p/fb5ee60ea5a3
（2）www.jianshu.com/p/1b2485318353
（3）www.jianshu.com/p/e6f58a4503c9
（4）www.jianshu.com/p/c73ea2761e39
（接上篇。上篇的链接：www.jianshu.com/p/1b2485318353）
Poor planning bears even more blame. Houston, which has almost no restrictions on land-use, is an extreme example of what can go wrong. Although a light touch has enabled developers to cater to the city’s rapid growth—1.8m extra inhabitants since 2000—it has also led to concrete being laid over vast areas of coastal prairie that used to absorb the rain. According to the Texas Tribune and ProPublica, a charity that finances investigative journalism,since 2010 Harris County has allowed more than 8,600 buildings to be put up inside 100-year floodplains, where floods have a 1% chance of occurring in any year. Developers are supposed to build ponds to hold run-off water that would have soaked into undeveloped land, but the rules are poorly enforced. Because the maps are not kept up to date, properties supposedly outside the 100-year floodplain are being flooded repeatedly.
糟糕的规划应该对灾难负更大的责任。休斯顿作为一个对土地使用几乎完全没有限制的城市，就是一个极端的例子，足以证明糟糕的规划可以引发多少问题。相对宽松的政策使开发商得以满足休斯顿城市的快速增长的需求——自2000年以来休斯顿居住人口新增长了180万——但同时也造成了混凝土被扔在过去可以吸收雨水的海边的大片草地上。据德克萨斯论坛报和支持公众，一个为新闻深度报道提供金融支持的非盈利组织的调查，自2010年以来哈里斯县批准了在百年滩地范围内建造8600座建筑，这些地方每年都有1%的可能性遭遇洪水。开发商本应该建造池塘以便在未开发的土地上积蓄溢出的水流，然而这条规定并未被严格执行。同时因为地图没有及时更新，那些理论上是建造在百年滩地之外的建筑也一再遭遇洪水。
单词：
prairie: 名词，草原。
floodplain: 名词，泛滥平原，滩地，淤滩。这是一个组合词，flood洪水 + plain平原。
词组：
bear more blame: 负更大的责任。
light touch: 低干涉，柔性监管。
cater to: 迎合，服务于，后面跟名词或动名词。这里简单说一下cater to和cater for的区别，这两个词组很多时候可以混用，不过一般来说，cater for更多指提供食物饮料等服务，而cater to更多指迎合某种需求。
Government failure adds to the harm. Developing countries are underinsured against natural disasters. Swiss Re, a reinsurer, says that of the $50bn or so of losses to floods, cyclones and other disasters in Asia in 2014, only 8% were covered. The Bank of International Settlements calculates that the worst natural catastrophes typically permanently lower the afflicted country’s GDP by almost 2%. America has the opposite problem—the federal government subsidises the insurance premiums of vulnerable houses. The National Flood Insurance Programme (NFIP) has been forced to borrow because it fails to charge enough to cover its risk of losses. Underpricing encourages the building of new houses and discourages existing owners from renovating or moving out. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, houses that repeatedly flood account for 1% of NFIP’s properties but 25-30% of its claims. Five states, Texas among them, have more than 10,000 such households and, nationwide, their number has been going up by around 5,000 each year. Insurance is meant to provide a signal about risk; in this case, it stifles it.
政府的失职使问题更是雪上加霜。发展中国家对自然灾害的保险额普遍不足。瑞士再保险公司宣称亚洲地区2014年因洪水、旋风等灾难造成的500亿美元的损失里只有8%能得到保险赔付。国际清算银行预计最严重的自然灾难一般情况下将导致受灾国的国内生产总值永久性下降2%。而美国的问题则恰恰相反——联邦政府对危房的保险费给予补贴。因为没有收取足够的保险费来弥补风险损失，美国国家洪水保险计划不得不向外借款。保险费过低鼓励了新房建设且抑制了现有房屋的主人改建或者搬离。据联邦紧急事务管理署统计，那些一再遭遇洪水的房屋的数量仅占据美国国家洪水保险计划承保的房屋中的1%，而保险赔付额则高达赔付总金额的25%到30%。包括德克萨斯在内的五个州一共有超过10000间这样的住房，且全美范围内此类住房的数量正在以每年5000的速度增长。保险本应该为风险提供一个风向标；然而在这个问题上，保险阻止了风向标的运行。
单词：
afflict: 动词，使痛苦，折磨。
stifle: 动词，阻止，使窒息。
（待续。）
译者注：本文译自《经济学人》杂志2017年9月2日的社论。《经济学人》杂志上的所有文章均不署名。
原文链接：
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21727898-if-global-warming-were-not-enough-threat-poor-planning-and-unwise-subsidies-make-floods
“本译文仅供个人研习、欣赏语言之用，谢绝任何转载及用于任何商业用途。本译文所涉法律后果均由本人承担。本人同意简书平台在接获有关著作权人的通知后，删除文章。”
本周系列各篇的链接如下：
（1）www.jianshu.com/p/fb5ee60ea5a3
（2）www.jianshu.com/p/1b2485318353
