【备考日志】草莓酱拌饭小组 BY deeper99——第一次浮出水面

deeper99UID：2606523

【备考日志】草莓酱拌饭小组 BY deeper99——第一次浮出水面
“惭愧，也是由于此地gter高手如云，害怕发的贴在别人眼中过于拙劣，便一直倾听他人意见。
但如今见诸位勇赴GRE战场，而本人也将于2月考GER作文，终于按耐不住啦！”
再次拜读了ETS对作文的规定（awintro.pdf）外加大家的备考日志，我就站在巨人的肩膀上发表一下自己的浅见吧！
issue之我见：
此处我就沿着Greenmay的脚印走下去吧。
相比于6分作文，我更愿意从1分的作文看起，感觉似乎那样更有益于自信以及身心健康~
1分作文：开头表态需要专家 + 中间拿自己作了个假设加以证明 + 最后重申专家的重要性
看似初中生的作文，但却是写一篇作文的中间段的基本架构：“主题 ＋　证明　＋　主题重申”
2分作文：1分作文强化版，不仅在字数上，而且在结构上也有改进：把第二段作为一个转折段，从第一段的阐述专家的重要性到引出第三段通才的必要性比较精彩，其中对“On the other hand”的使用相当经典。
3分作文：比起2分作文，字数上的提升不大，而且此文的三段都对专家持支持态度，并且为了支持观点举了三个例子，虽然思考比较单一，但ETS似乎也没有对持什么观点作要求，而且此文的每个例子相比2分作文的都要详实，估计是它比2分作文高出的地方（虽然它的第三段的例子被评为不合逻辑）。
4分作文：与3分作文差别明显，语言自不用说，结构及思维深度也更胜一筹。文章开头的态度更倾向于专才，第二段用一个很恰当的假设证明了专才比通才更重要，然而更关键的在第三段，文章用一个并列句作了个小让步，强调专才与通才合用能发挥更大的作用，相信如果不是此文的后一个关于“committee”的例证过于简短的话，应该可以更高分。
5分作文：此文仅强调专才的必要性，但它的两个例子的层次性比4分作文要好。基本上分为3个层次：第一层，通才在普适情况下确实能发挥作用；第二层，在特殊情况下通才的知识不再管用，必须依靠专才； 第三层，总结并强调专才的必要性。大概正是这样，它才更胜一筹。此外，它的开头与结尾也相当精彩。
6分作文：相比5分作文较为单一的观点，它提出的观点更为平衡，即专才通才并用，但考虑到考场时间有限，要在较短时间内不两方的观点都进行深度分析确实很不容易，但该为大侠确实漂亮的做到了！开头提出观点：随着社会的发展，需要在专家和通才中寻找一种平衡。接下来的两段强调专才的必要性，这一部分很妙，先举先人的话语，并深入解析，下一段又从另一角度，假设如果没有专才，社会会多么囧。之后三段提出过度专业化的危害，并从三个层面进行了分析（体现了与5分作文深度上的差距），最后打圆场，说明通才专才并用才最好。比较可惜此文未能就通才的重要性进行更深入的分析，感觉那样结构会更完整，但鉴于考场时间较短，这也只能是强人所难吧……
（由于时间不早，暂就此打住啦！）

greenmay26UID：2677632

研读地比我仔细多了.我还是没能沉下心呀...
:handshake

deeper99UID：2606523

不敢当，我只是在楼上的基础下进行了一点点扩展而已……
毕竟人多角度也多嘛！

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID：2705887

惭愧，也是由于此地gter高手如云，害怕发的贴在别人眼中过于拙劣，便一直倾听他人意见。

同感呀！:handshake

ddcmj519UID：176326

这样的纵向对比虽然也是我们所需要的。
但是在最初的最初，也许我们更需要通过前面的叙述了解ETS要我们通过一篇ISSUE表达些什么。

个人觉得，这样的对比略显功利 ：）

anyway
good job, hope it will be better`

deeper99UID：2606523

谢谢组长，谢谢greenmay26，谢谢单眼皮vs肿眼皮！
先前之所以会以这种角度切入分析是有原因的。
说来惭愧，虽然这一段时间自己也写了20来篇argument，但issue却迟迟无法下笔。
后来按照组长的要求重新看了awintro一遍，发觉是自己眼高手低，看着6分作文， 一边心想写不下去一边强迫自己坐在电脑前几个小时，结果也没能写出一篇完整的issue，往往是写到2、3段就写不下去了，比起argument中批判别人文章的逻辑错误，在issue中辩护自己的观点的同时防止被别人抓到逻辑问题要比之难得多啊！
最近一个星期我都在按照iris1987 前辈的帖子https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/thread-687262-1-1.html
练习写句子，并坚持每天从几个新的角度写“通才与专才”的段落，然后完善之。记得以前曾在寄托某位前辈的大作中提及：在写一篇完整的issue前，应该先学会写一个逻辑严密的段落。 我觉得这句话很有份量，虽然现在我仍未能写出一篇完整的issue，但自己不再那么恐惧issue了，在此也向朋友们推荐这一方法。

deeper99UID：2606523

再此拜读awintro之感：

issue与argument是一对互补的整体：issue重在用合理的逻辑来证明观点，而argument则偏重于找出并论证issue的不合理性，用官方原话即：

issue——“asks you to discuss the issue from any perspective(s) you wish, so long as you provide relevant reasons and examples to explain and support your views.”

argument——“it requires you to critique a given argument by discussing how well reasoned you find it. You will need to consider the logical soundness of the argument rather than to agree or disagree with the position it presents.”

GRE在评分方式上与其他作文考试很不一样的一个地方在于它是从总体进行评分，而非根据观点、句式、用词来分点评分，既而第一印象往往对结果有相当大的影响。从这里也可以看出ETS希望的不是华而不实的文章，而必须是论证合理、结构清晰且用词恰当且各个方面符合一个研究生水平的论文。

【关于issue】
首先，issue考验的是辩证思考能力以及能否把思考的结果清晰的表达出来。（p.s.虽然ETS强调所有ISSUE题目与学科无关，但看过一些题目后总觉得不少ISSUE题都和哲学有着千丝万缕的联系。）
每道issue将提供一个对某一个问题的论断，考生需要分析该问题的复杂性、多重性，然后可以从多个角度进行讨论，但必须站在自己对问题的立场上提出“令人信服”的理由。
对于issue的观点，awintro给我们例举了几种应对态度（注：仅仅例举，并不限于）：
• agree absolutely with the claim, disagree completely, or agree with some parts and not others
• question the assumptions the statement seems to be making
• qualify any of its terms, especially if the way you define or apply a term is important to
developing your perspective on the issue
• point out why the claim is valid in some situations but not in others
• evaluate points of view that contrast with your own perspective
• develop your position with reasons that are supported by several relevant examples or by a single
extended example
这在单眼皮VS肿眼皮的大作中已经说明了：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1015024&extra=
此处，我觉得第二点以及第三点比较有探究的价值。

第二点中官文提及了"assumption"这一字眼，即给我们指引了一个方向，即在分析一个issue的题目时可以先从它隐含的假设入手。一般，一个论断是以几个层次的假设为前提的。 如果要支持最终的论断，则要证明所有假设的合理性，而如果只是部分支持，则可以借由指出它的某些假设的合理以及其他假设的不合理来达到目的。

而对于第三点，如果某些论断讲得很抽象，难以展开时，特别是当它出现某些抽象词语的时候，例如159"The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds."中的superior,虽然大家都知道它表示A比B强，但其本身的内涵是模糊的，因此我们并不能确定这里的superior是哪方面强，是指情感的表达呢，还是指计算能力的强弱呢？根据参考标准不一样时，情形就可能会截然不同。这时我们可以把它划分为几个合理的角度进行深入剖析，从而向考官反映我们的思想深度。

再次精读了6分作文一遍，发觉之前只注重功利性的比较，而忽略了ETS推荐文章本身的理由。除了出色的段落结构以及令人信服的理由外，作者的用词也非常形象恰当，并有一些隐喻的味道，例如：
"bogged down in a Sargasso sea of information overload,"
"a pile of useless discoveries,"
"specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts, while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field"
虽然这些词未必达到了GRE的级别，但却形象贴切，更重要的是这些词很少被考生所滥用，因为多数人没有想到那些词语可以这样使用。这也提示我们不应该一味往文章里灌一些文绉绉的复杂的长单词，其实很多学过的单词都可以有巧妙的用法。而在句子结构上也并非越复杂越长就越好，至少这篇关于通才与专才的文章就没有用太多的长句，而是长短结合，短句居多。

【关于argument】
argument考察的是考生对文章的理解力、分析能力、评价能力以及清晰地阐述自己分析结果的能力。
切入点有四个方面：
• what is offered as evidence, support, or proof （批判论证方式）
• what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded    （批判论断）
• what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof    （批判结论的前提假设）
• what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated    （指出文章论证的疏忽的方面）
补充一点：有时我们会发现根据原文的论据是无法得到结论的，这类逻辑谬误我们可能不得不在浏览的全文后才能找到。
要切记的是：个人是否认同文章的观点并不重要，不要讨论自己对文章论点的观点。
不过在这里：“You are not being asked to discuss whether the statements in the argument are true or accurate;”这一句官方原话我不是很明白，在此希望像前辈请教……

至于训练方法，暂时我将阅读所有的argument题目（尽我所能），找出每道题中的假设（按照新东方老师的说法，多数谬误出现在文章的假设处，当然也有例子的数据问题等）。
关于awintro的体会今后还将继续，希望诸位高人多多指点后辈啊 :D

deeper99UID：2606523

草莓酱组

前两个星期，我一直纠结于在校园网发不出验证码的问题（一直都只能等待回家开电脑才得以发出“讯息”），前两天天终于在图书馆上发贴成功了，而且幸好电脑也有多余空位~~，虽然在宿舍，我仍然没法通过验证码，沮丧啊……

感叹一些在职的gter的艰辛，即使是我这样的学生也对平衡学业与gre而倍感头疼。昨天与今天，我一直纠结于那篇关于丑闻的issue，虽然参考了很多别人的作文，也上网找了不少关于丑闻的资料，但最后写出来的作文却不成气候，也尝试过从其他角度重新写，但终未成功。于是转而阅读追星剑，以下是阅读笔记(之前因为验证码问题一直没有更新日志，实在有愧于草莓酱组啊~，希望能得到老大的谅解)：

[追星剑特训]Chapter1.1 Terminology 关键字眼追星剑特训之一 Terminology 关键字眼
先看这样一道题：
issue144. "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

既然讨论的话题在于Lasting value是谁给出的，那么展开之前自然要先明了一下：什么是lasting value？这一问不要紧，不同的人恐怕就给出不同的答案了。以我个人的理解：如果说，以艺术作品的美学价值和其深远影响本身作为lasting value，毫无疑问自然是artist创造的；而如果把这个value着眼于对艺术作品的批判分析从而指导新的艺术风格流派的创造与表达上，critic的位置恐怕当仁不让。当然，不同的人给出不同的答案，想来肯定会有人给出和我的看法完全相左的意见的。--（虽然我个人以为这篇作文就按照这一方向一分为二来写就可以了，但不知是否会显得重点不突出？）
但至少明确一点：如果对lasting value的解释不一样了，这个题目再往下写肯定就迥异的。这也就引出了今天要分析的问题：题目中的关键字。而之所以把Terminology这一专题放在整个特训的最前面，则是因为，每道题都有自己的关键字，对关键字的把握是最universal，也是最需要掌握的。
上面的issue144里面涉及了对lasting value这一关键词的不同解释。再举一个例子：

issue15. "The stability of a society depends on how it responds to the extremes of human behavior."

不妨看看这里的depends。如果说社会稳定依赖于、取决于其对极端行为的反应的话，窃以为这里的动词未免有些夸张。诡辩一点的说，如果在absence of the extremes的情况下，是不是就没法判断the stability of a society了呢？与其说depends，倒不如说reflect比较合适。我破题的思路，也即从depends这个关键词入手，通过分析找到并建立新的关键词予以取代，从而建立自己的论点。这和issue144例有所不同，但核心都在于：抓住关键词。--（虽然觉得前辈有理，但小弟还是不知将如何展开，惭愧……）
实际上，对考查逻辑的分析性写作考试而言，识别题目的关键字至少有两点基本作用：其一，阐明和确立所进行讨论的前提，不仅是为了在文章中明确体现自己的认识，更同时是给自己明确自己的认识——免得因为对关键词的认识从一开始就模糊摇摆然后写到后半背叛前半；其二，明确了关键字，也就抓住题目的核心问题和关系所在，从关键字入手进行思考，自然是打开思路源泉的首选。
再看两个：
issue17. "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

issue176. "The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each."
  
显然，这两个题目就同时涉及到对两个方面的关键词的辨认和分析。Issue17的关键词在于just law和unjust law，obey与disobey；而issue176则更为复杂，science与reassure，art与upset。可以尝试用上面144和15里面提到的基本方法，先识别一下关键字，然后再结合着整个的题目观点，根据自己的认识来重新选择和建立关键字，从而建立自己的论点，再进行写作。--（感觉science与art仅仅是作为引例，关键是后面value的定义，但在下实在未能理解upset的含义； 刚刚查了一下： upset——颠覆,创新  是创造未知的东西，这样一来就好理解了）
今天的任务就是练习识别和分析关键字。不妨从题库随便挑上十几道题，自己去identify一下试试，看看自己能够把题目把握到怎样的层次。而为了充分体现典型性，今天的同主题写作题目就是issue17或者issue176.请各位在文章前面把自己对题目中关键字的辨析也加以说明，更欢迎提出自己对Terminology的看法，并希望这种辨析在文章中得到充分的体现。

deeper99UID：2606523

刚回来，总结一下今天的行程：
除去上下午的课程，之后便是GRE时间，主要做了《GRE阅读测试与解题策略》中“的第三章第三节 推理型”，再此推荐一下，该书是国防工业出版 作者是范红、李艳，虽旧了点，但蛮有练习的价值。
之后，由于之前作文的不顺利，于是又仔细参阅了草木前辈的“段落内部的句子结构和句子连接.doc”，至于背单词，那是每日必行，今天背了3个list~


_________________________________________________________________________________


climate_change_debate（阅读笔记)
Eco阅读笔记——by deeper99
About
Economist Debates adapt the Oxford style of debating to an online forum. The format was made famous by the 186-year-old Oxford Union and has been practised by heads of state, prominent intellectuals and galvanising figures from across the cultural spectrum. It revolves around an assertion that is defended on one side (the “proposition”) and assailed on another (the “opposition”) in a contest hosted and overseen by a moderator. Each side has three chances to persuade readers: opening, rebuttal and closing.

The proposer’s rebuttal(辩驳,举反证) statement
September 25th 2009
The world must quit fossil fuels completely, and as fast as we can, abandoning business as usual for business as unusual. Protesting that we cannot do it overnight or that it will require a great effort is to tell us what we already know. But that is no reason not to start at once.

(a)Are the challenges technical? Technical barriers to the adoption of renewable energy are crumbling. Concentrating solar power plants can store steam at high pressure and use it to drive turbines(涡轮机) overnight, delivering solar power in the dark. The solar farms of Spain may look as if they have sprung from the Matrix, but they are our present and a signpost（路标） to our future.
Shifting to business as unusual means that the future of the power market is not railway loads of dirty coal running on fixed lines to the vast furnaces that burn our sky. It is an energy internet, a flexible, adaptive world of ends, where anyone who wishes can contribute or consume.
High voltage direct current transmission lines, such as the one linking Norway and the Netherlands, herald(or predict) the construction of power grids that will make supply-side power management possible on an at least continental scale. Demand management will come from smart grids that allow
consumers of power to shift their consumption to the periods when it is cheapest.
Systems like this are already starting to emerge.

(b)Are the challenges financial? Far greater sums of capital were mobilised to bail out the banks than are needed to bail out the planet. The world is already planning to invest $11 trillion in energy infrastructure between now and 2050. The additional investment required to deliver an energy revolution is around $3 trillion over 40 years, and that can be earned back through fuel savings.
Is there simply too much to do? Almost none of the power stations in operation today expects to be running in 2050. As they all have to be replaced, why shouldn't we replace them with clean technology? It will leave us all better off.
It was business as usual that led us to channel billions into Alberta's tar sands, turning an area the size of England into a slice of hell, and creating a toxic lake so vast that it requires the world's second-largest dam to hold it back. We had better options available than choosing a technology that requires four barrels of water to create a single barrel of oil, and which returns only three times the energy invested. Our lack of imagination is leading us to destroy our ecosystem.
Can efficiency potentials be realised? We agree with colleagues at Rice University who had this to say about their prototype energy-efficient Zerow house. "[This] is not a 'pie in the sky' idea, these are viable technologies that people can use in their own homes." The solutions are out there.
39 Economist Debates: Climate Change
A 2007 McKinsey report agreed, finding that if we take all the investment opportunities in energy efficiency that return more than 10% a year we could cut the growth in projected power demand by half. They did note that market forces alone would not deliver this, but simple, pragmatic policymaking could.
So, as we have both the means and the opportunity, can we find our motive? I would argue that it is not just the opportunity which compels us to act. It is our conscience.
As the author of a book which shows the reader how "transfers of wealth to and from the Middle East result in a perfect storm of global asset and financial market bubbles, increased unrest, terrorism and geopolitical conflicts, and eventually rising costs for energy", you are of course familiar with the costs imposed on our society by fossil fuel.
Against this already problematic situation has to be weighed last year's paper by Javier Solana, who heads EU foreign policy. He stated: "Climate change is best viewed as a threat multiplier which exacerbates existing trends, tensions and instability. The core challenge is that climate change threatens to overburden states and regions which are already fragile and conflict prone."
A 2007 report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that "The least we should prepare for" is "heightened internal and cross-border tensions caused by large-scale migrations, conflict sparked by resource scarcity, particularly in the weak and failing states of Africa; increased disease proliferation, which will have economic consequences; and some geo-political reordering as nations adjust to shifts in resources and prevalence of disease."
40 Economist Debates: Climate Change 41
Since then the best predictions for sea level rise in this century have been revised from 40-60 cm to 1-2 metres. 10% of the world's population lives less than 1 metre above sea level. Relocating or defending these population centres will require massive investment and cause unprecedented social disruption.
If we can save the island nations that face annihilation, why shouldn't we? If we can save the homes of 100m Indians and Bangladeshis, shouldn't we? The first to suffer will be the least culpable. To the West's legacy of colonialism, slavery and exploitation will be added one of environmental devastation. That is not a future we should sleepwalk our way into.
If 75% of the US car fleet can be replaced in ten years then let's get to it, with more efficient cars, electric cars and expanded public transport systems. As the public reaction to high petrol prices and a proliferation of cash-for-clunkers schemes has shown, governments can effectively reshape the car market when they choose to. Let's embrace home working and the technologies that make it possible. Should our children really spend as long in traffic jams as we do?
To throw up our hands, to say the road is too hard, the challenge too great, to go quietly into the dying of the night would be a poor way to face our generation's greatest challenge. We can and must do better. Economist Debates: Climate Change
The opposition’s rebuttal statement
September 25th 2009
With all due respect to our moderator, Robert Lane Greene, and my illustrious debating opponent, Gerd Leipold, my "pragmatist debating opening" is not something to be lightly pushed aside just because it is an unpleasant reality for those who seek "bold" and immediate action. Indeed, the opposite is true. （强大的让步）It is the views expressed by Mr Leipold that have in fact become universal platitudes spoken on a global basis that divert us from the kind of urgent, more comprehensive planning that is needed. Platitudes about the potential of marginal clean-tech programmes do not offer real solutions of the magnitude and scale needed to tackle the issues that Mr Liepold so eloquently expressed as an emergency for mankind.
Mr Liepold mentions optimistically that China plans to install around one wind turbine an hour this year, double last year's rate, but he fails to tell our readers how many more coal plants will similarly be added in China each year to meet its rising energy use. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be added from China's increased coal use in the coming decades will, in fact, be larger than all of the planned GHG emissions reductions to be removed from the atmosphere by the caps and policies now under way in the West.
Mr Liepold notes that "as climate change continues to take hold, access to the basic things we need to live—food, water and shelter—will become increasingly tenuous for billions of people". And Mr Greene notes that my opening fails to mention climate science. So let's be blunt about the current progress of climate science so that the public knows what still needs to be known. The reality of our decades of work on the science of climate change is that it is still woefully lacking in the much needed detail of the exact where and when drought, flooding, food shortages and other serious impacts will strike. To have an effective and comprehensive global climate policy that will address the kinds of challenges that may affect the world's most vulnerable populations, far more precise projections of climate impacts on individual regions and countries need to be developed. More research dollars must be directed to enable more precise predictions of long-term and short-term impacts and at different geographical scales, from global to continental to national, regional and urban. In order for nations, states and cities to plan, they will need dramatically improved resolution than the current projections.
As John Holdren, the US president Barack Obama's science adviser, has stated publicly, it is already too late to avoid substantial climate change, given the existing rate of accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. Any serious global climate policy needs to include adaptive strategies as well as mitigation strategies. The likely impacts of climatic changes on human civilisation, global ecosystems, global agriculture, water resources, coastlines and coastal infrastructure need to be better understood through increased science and economic research based on the best available scientific knowledge about climate. The United States, for example, is a major producer of food for both its own population and the world market. For my country specifically, more research is needed on the impact of climate change on the productivity of US agricultural lands, fisheries, and the safety and availability of US water resources.
We should be debating a comprehensive approach to climate change. What is needed is not the kind of tinkering at the margins in alternative energy anecdotally listed by Mr Liepold. What is needed is a comprehensive set of policies that encompass a highly proactive, international diplomatic effort, a dramatically more robust global science and technology development R&D programme, a far more concrete set of regulations for CO2 emissions across the globe, and well researched, well planned adaptation strategies for the protection of vital infrastructure and vulnerable communities, especially human coastal populations.
The magnitude of the requirements for cleaner energy production and enhanced efficiency is so large that the kind of small-scale innovation discussed by Mr Leipold and others like him will not be adequate to address the challenges. Instead, policies are needed that will promote a rapid turnover in billions of dollars of infrastructure and development in technologies that can be readily scaled up and dispersed with unprecedented market penetration. Our moderator mentions carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology as a promising future technology for continued fossil fuel use that would meet climate goals. But the reality is that such technology does not exist today at costs that are commercial under current regulatory frameworks and commodity pricing in Europe and the United States (much less the developing world, where fuel pricing is still subsidised by governments). The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) price for tonnes of carbon is currently 14 times lower than the cited costs per tonne of StatoilHydro's planned CCS programme at Mongstad, Norway. Thus, commercial investment in CCS is likely to move incredibly slowly, unless we see dramatic cost breakthroughs or rigorous firmer controls on carbon and more rigorously designed offset markets.
Sadly, at this time, no country in the world is committing sufficient funding for the R&D of new technologies (like CCS or solar) that will be badly needed to mitigate GHG emissions on the scale that would meet the proposition for leaving business-as-usual fossil fuel use quickly behind. Sadly, there is not even a discussion of investment in R&D on the scale that is required. We are all hoping for a technological miracle to happen magically, cost-free to us and not requiring any lifestyle changes for the average Westerner who continues to gobble up carbon-laden energy at voracious rates.
Moreover, other policies in the early benefits category, such as curtailing world deforestation, especially tropical deforestation, are similarly not making sufficient progress in global diplomatic climate discourse. Forest destruction is responsible for 20% of global carbon emissions each year. Higher taxes and royalties on timber harvests, in addition to removal of all subsidies for forest clearing, would contribute materially to reducing GHG emissions. National biofuels policies must also be immediately rethought. Moreover, since non-tropical, industrial countries should be more forthcoming in offers to share the costs of creating and maintaining new forest reserves. We all have a vested interest in maintaining tropical forests intact in places like Brazil and Indonesia.
Other interesting ideas are kicking around the science community, such as using ocean plants such as phytoplankton, enhancing the use of carbon-absorbing soils
45 Economist Debates: Climate Change
(including possibly, if science confirms it, the use of biochar soil), and futuristically, "scrubbing" CO2 from the atmosphere (e.g. carbon towers spraying a sodium hydroxide solution to trap CO2 molecules).
An international agreement against methane and soot flaring is another pressing and necessary step needed to immediately reduce global emissions build-ups. Flaring currently contributes about 400m tonnes of carbon a year, the same scale of emissions from all vehicles in the UK, France and Germany. Flaring poses an immediate health risk to local populations and wastes a valuable resource, natural gas, which is a cleaner fuel than coal and oil and which, if captured, could be used to provide cleaner fuel for power generation and industry, adding diversity to local or exported energy supplies. The leading contributors to global natural gas flaring include Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Algeria, Mexico, Venezuela, Indonesia and the United States.
There is one thing on which Mr Leipold and I firmly agree. The time has come to phase out non-sensible subsidies to high carbon-emitting energy consumption. Given global climate and energy security challenges, such subsidies are creating dangerous distortions in the energy market and thwarting a much needed shift to energy-efficient technologies in the developing world, where much of the future increase in fossil fuel use will be. The government handouts that should be immediately removed include reckless US subsidies for corn-based ethanol, as well as consumer-friendly petrol fuel subsidies in countries throughout the Middle East, parts of Latin America, China, Russia and Mexico.
46 Economist Debates: Climate Change 47
So, I respectfully argue, I might be a pragmatist, but some down-home, market and scientifically based pragmatism is what it is going to take if we are going to address climate change effectively.



_________________________________________________________________________________

首段，介绍、小让步+直接与对手针锋相对。【好句收藏】 Indeed, the opposite is true.（It is the views expressed by Mr Leipold that have in fact become universal platitudes）
第二段，先从对手的论据开始反驳：即便中国今年差不多每一个小时就安装一台风能发电机，增长率比去年多了一倍，但为提及煤矿工厂的增加速度。
第三段，考虑能源带来的气候异常，需要更多资金投入到天灾的应对中。
【好句收藏】(1) So let's be blunt about the current progress of climate science;
(2)it is still woefully lacking in the much needed detail of the exact where and when ;
第四段，援引奥巴马的科学顾问的观点——现在再来阻止气候异常已经太迟了，言下之意：应当投入更多来应对异常气候，继续支持第三段观点；
第五段，正确的作法；
第六段，对手的作法不具可行性（包括反对派及中立派）；
第七段，对第六段补充，说明CCS等更加有前景的保护环境的新科技难以普及；
第八段，更坚定地执行保护森林的计划；
第九段，其他减少CO2的奇思妙想；
第十段，介绍较好的减少CO2方法——agreement against methane and soot flaring；

第十一段，自己与对手的共同信念：是时候更加坚定地减少co2;
第十二段，总结。

只能感慨：地道的辩论果然还是不一样啊@

deeper99UID：2606523

今天的总结
星期二比星期一更忙，上下午甚至晚上（7：00——9：50）都被课程所充斥，直到刚才为止，今天利用课间的闲暇复习了2个list的GRE单词，之后又背多一个list，之后如平时做了《GRE阅读测试与解题策略》中“的第三章第四节 应用型”。
明天计划复习三个list同时背2个list，阅读的训练依旧，eco的“climate_change_debate”看多一章，之后继续训练作文（句型训练+段落训练）。

------------------------------------------------------------------------想明天冲刺！

自从写scandals(issue 185)不成功后就一直在关注如何合理分配文章的内容，于是把草木前辈的“段落的逻辑顺序问题”反复读了几遍，以下附上笔记：
（由于超字数，分两部分发）

段落间的关系

一、一些常见的逻辑顺序：
说明：本人由于不小心在网站上看到了所谓的ascending order或者是climactic order,然后发现它和我们固有的一些思维由所冲突，我就几乎找遍了能搜到的类似的网站，我搜索到以下论据：
关于权重排序的资料：
l
支持论据１：
Climactic Order (Order of Importance)--感觉与有简单表面现象到本质内核的写法很像
A third common principle of organization is climactic order or order of importance. In this pattern, items are arranged from least important to most important. Typical transitions would include more important, most difficult, still harder, by far the most expensive, even more damaging, worse yet, and so on. This is a flexible principle of organization, and may guide the organization of all or part of example, comparison & contrast, cause & effect, and description.
A variation of climactic order is called psychological order. This pattern or organization grows from our learning that readers or listeners usually give most attention to what comes at the beginning and the end, and least attention to what is in the middle. In this pattern, then, you decide what is most important and put it at the beginning or the end; next you choose what is second most important and put it at the end or the beginning (whichever remains); the less important or powerful items are then arranged in the middle. If the order of importance followed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, with 5 being most important, psychological order might follow the order 4, 3, 1, 2, 5. –简单来说即重要的段放头尾，夹住不重要的段，这样写似乎蛮有风险
Still other principles of organization based on emphasis include
general-to-specific order,
specific-to general order,
most-familiar-to-least-familiar,
simplest-to-most-complex,
order of frequency,
order of familiarity, and so on.
对应连接词：
more importantly; best of all; still worse; a more effective approach; even more expensive; even more painful than passing a kidney stone; the least wasteful; occasionally, frequently, regularly

l
支持论据２：
In a historically-oriented paper (e.g. "The Early Conquests of Alexander the Great"), you might simply want to move the paper along chronologically.

In an analysis of issues related to a topic, you can follow an ascending or climactic order, looking at smaller factors or arguments first, then moving up to the more crucial factors.（赞成！） Your last section could begin, "The most serious difficulty with…, however, is…" Ascending or climactic order adds power to a paper by leading the reader into increasing tension, much like an action movie builds to a climax. Resist giving away the most exciting parts of your paper early on – if you use up the good stuff early, you’ll have little left to keep the reader interested in the rest of what you have to say.

（以下讲的是全文对比的写法，似乎与“支持论据２”的写法不是一种类型？不知哪位高人能给在下讲解一下，谢谢！）
If you are comparing or contrasting two or more viewpoints, there are basically two ways to go about it.
If the two views you are discussing are relatively simple to explain and analyze, try a longitudinal method by which you discuss all aspects of view A and then moved on to discuss all aspects of view B. Suppose, for example, you were dealing with two views on the issue of cloning – Go Ahead and Wait A Minute – What Do You Think You’re Doing?
Your outline might look like this:
Introduction
The Go Ahead Position
All Science is Legitimate.
We Can Trust Scientists Not To Put Us At Risk.
The Benefits Outweigh The Risks.
The Wait A Minute Position
Is all Science Legitimate?
Can We Trust Scientists Not To Put Us At Risk?
Do The Benefits Outweigh The Risks?
Conclusion
（紧凑但不够鲜明）

You can see that we are presenting one position, then using the other position to deal with the arguments of the dissenting position. Thus the Go Ahead Position will be described as objectively as possible. The analysis will come with The Wait A Minute Position.
But suppose that the arguments are getting complicated, and you’re afraid your reader will have forgotten what the first position said about the legitimacy of science   before you have time to discuss it in the second position. In a complex situation,   you’ll need a cross-sectional approach, which deals with both sides of each sub-topic in turn:
Introduction
Is All Science Legitimate?
Yes
          Maybe not
Can We Trust The Scientists?
Yes
Not always
Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?
Yes
Maybe not
Conclusion
（反之啦，鲜明，但显得零散）

Now you have the chance to deal with both sides of each issue in turn. By the time you get to your conclusion, your reader should have a cumulative understanding of the issues and of the reasons for your position.
Avoid stringing out a list of 7 or more headings without subheadings, because this tends to damage the unity and coherence of your paper (just like leading someone down a winding path creates more confusion than leading the same person down a short city block with sights to see on all sides).  How do you cover the ground without multiplying your outline headings?  You do it by using fewer main headings and adding subheadings to them.  Thus you group your points, arguments, etc. under 3 or 4 main categories and let subheadings pick up the detail.  This makes a tighter structure that has more of a chance of achieving unity in the paper.  See the outlines above for examples of useful ways to do this.（感觉写一两段还行，整篇都这样写就有难度啦）

l
支持论据３：
After you have formed your dominant impression into a thesis, make a plan to organize the relevant supporting details into three basic parts. Each part will comprise one Roman numeral of your outline and one paragraph of the body of your paper. For the dingy cafe, you might use the walls, the booths, and the counter as the three parts in climactic order, that is, ascending from least to most important. You will not outline your introductory paragraph since the thesis sentence that appears in this first paragraph also appears on the outline page, nor will you outline your concluding paragraph since it summarizes or re-emphasizes the material that you have already discussed.

deeper99UID：2606523

l
支持论据４：
Logical Order: The Key to Coherent Paragraphs and Essays
It is very important to present information to readers in a logical order.
Order your examples in a paragraph, for instance, （1）from least to most important. Be sure to use appropriate transitions (first, then, finally) in order to guide your reader.
Another way to organize is by （2）cause and effect: if A caused B, discuss A first, then B.
Still another way is to （3）organize by problem then solution. State the problem first, then give your proposed solution.
Remember: Out of order paragraphs and essays are hard to read and understand.



l
反例一：
DECREASING ORDER OF IMPORTANCE: when you want to tell your readers that something new has happened and why they should be interested -- then fill them in on the details
INCREASING COMPLEXITY: a sequence that leads your readers gently into a complex subject（感觉这种方法写issue比较稳妥,我目前也只用过这种方法）
STEPS OF A PROCESS: when you want to focus on a process itself, not the end result
A SPATIAL SEQUENCE: when you want your reader to see the way different aspects of your subject are spatially interrelated or lie in contrast
A TEMPORAL SEQUENCE: for emphasizing the time relations among things or events

l
反例２：


l
反例３：
·
Messages are clear, precise, and free of errors
·
Correct, complete sentences are used and are varied, smooth, and polished
·
There are no mechanical, grammatical, or word usage errors
·
A businesslike, courteous, and professional tone is maintained with language that is highly consistent with standard business English
·
The writing style flows smoothly
·
The information is presented in a logical order; for example, the writer may rearrange the information so that the important part comes first
l
反例４：you have for each in a logical order and one that most effectively organizes your argument:
Most important to least important
Least important to most important
Compare and Contrast
Cause and Effect

l
反例5：
A possible outline template for an analytical paper
This is for an essay that happens to have three main answers, again listed in ascending order as in our argumentative paper template. How you order them will entirely depend on which ones you feel, given all the evidence, are the most or least convincing. If we take our research question example from before, perhaps the first answer would be from researchers who believe music has no effect on studying, the second about studies that show how detrimental it is, and the third one pointing out the positive aspects. In your conclusion, you might point out how certain conditions (e.g., absence of lyrics, tempo, volume, type of studying student is engaged in etc.) appear to be incredibly important.
  
Working Title (*optional here. You may want to wait until after your first draft)
Introductory Paragraph
·
What do I need to say to set up my research question? Background?
·
Research Question (stated within a sentence, not as a question. E.g., "In light of à.., it seems worthwhile to consider just what the effects ofà.are onà.")

_________________________
·
(You may want to outline what's to come below briefly)
Transition (you don't have to write these out now but you should know what they'd roughly be)
· Answer #3 = _________________________
·
one possible answer to the question + explication/summary
·
strengths and weaknesses of the position
Transition
Reason #2 = _________________________
·
another possible answer + explication/summary (especially how it addresses weaknesses of the previous paragraph or completely counters it).
Transition
Reason #1 = _________________________
·
best answer so far ˆ what does it say?
·
why is it a better consideration of the research question? Or is it really?
Transition
Concluding Paragraph
·
sum up what different angles have shown re: research question
·
critically evaluate what is still needed in the field, or if you looked at three equally strong cases, analyze why one is still more convincing
·
look at the implications

通过对这些论据的总结，我有以下结论：
１．
并不是所有的文章都是要按照ascending orders的，其实别的顺序都可以接受，包括descending的。主要是按照合理的顺序，说清楚意思就好。
２．
实际的文章写作，没有这么单纯的顺序，Issue题目中，许多复杂的问题远不能拿这些逻辑顺序概括。实际上，我们把这种复杂的顺序叫做the flow of mind，根据论证的思路排序
３．补充一种顺序：IMRaD: Introduction- Materials and Methods -
Results – Discussion
二、如何处理复杂顺序：
１．三“W”法：Answering Questions:
The Parts of an Essay


A typical essay contains many different kinds of information, often located in specialized parts or sections. Even short essays perform several different operations: introducing the argument, analyzing data, raising counter-arguments, concluding. Introductions and conclusions have fixed places, but other parts don't. Counter-argument, for example, may appear within a paragraph, as a free-standing section, as part of the beginning, or before the ending. Background material (historical context or biographical information, a summary of relevant theory or criticism, the definition of a key term) often appears at the beginning of the essay, between the introduction and the first analytical section, but might also appear near the beginning of the specific section to which it's relevant.


It's helpful to think of the different essay sections as answering a series of questions your reader might ask when encountering your thesis. (Readers should have questions. If they don't, your thesis is most likely simply an observation of fact, not an arguable claim.)

"What?"
The first question to anticipate from a reader is "what": What evidence shows that the phenomenon described by your thesis is true?
To answer the question you must examine your evidence, thus demonstrating the truth of your claim. This "what" or "demonstration" section comes early in the essay, often directly after the introduction. Since you're essentially reporting what you've observed, this is the part you might have most to say about when you first start writing. But be forewarned: it shouldn't take up much more than a third (often much less) of your finished essay.
If it does, the essay will lack balance and may read as mere summary or description.

"How?"
A reader will also want to know whether the claims of the thesis are true in all cases. The corresponding question is "how": How does the thesis stand up to the challenge of a counter-argument? How does the introduction of new material—a new way of looking at the evidence, another set of sources—affect the claims you're making? Typically, an essay will include at least one "how" section. (Call it "complication" since you're responding to a reader's complicating questions.) This section usually comes after the "what," but keep in mind that an essay may complicate its argument several times depending on its length, and that counter-argument alone may appear just about anywhere in an essay.

"Why?"
Your reader will also want to know what's at stake in your claim: Why does your interpretation of a phenomenon matter to anyone beside you? This question addresses the larger implications of your thesis. It allows your readers to understand your essay within a larger context. In answering "why", your essay explains its own significance. Alhough you might gesture at this question in your introduction, the fullest answer to it properly belongs at your essay's end. If you leave it out, your readers will experience your essay as unfinished—or, worse, as pointless or insular.
一、
文章地图法：
Mapping an Essay

Structuring your essay according to a reader's logic means examining your thesis and anticipating what a reader needs to know, and in what sequence, in order to grasp and be convinced by your argument as it unfolds. The easiest way to do this is to map the essay's ideas via a written narrative. Such an account will give you a preliminary record of your ideas, and will allow you to remind yourself at every turn of the reader's needs in understanding your idea.

Essay maps ask you to predict where your reader will expect background information, counter-argument, close analysis of a primary source, or a turn to secondary source material. Essay maps are not concerned with paragraphs so much as with sections of an essay. They anticipate the major argumentative moves you expect your essay to make. Try making your map like this:

*
State your thesis in a sentence or two, then write another sentence saying why it's important to make that claim. Indicate, in other words, what a reader might learn by exploring the claim with you. Here you're anticipating your answer to the "why" question that you'll eventually flesh out in your conclusion.

*
Begin your next sentence like this: "To be convinced by my claim, the first thing a reader needs to know is . . ." Then say why that's the first thing a reader needs to know, and name one or two items of evidence you think will make the case. This will start you off on answering the "what" question. (Alternately, you may find that the first thing your reader needs to know is some background information.)

*
Begin each of the following sentences like this: "The next thing my reader needs to know is . . ."
Once again, say why, and name some evidence. Continue until you've mapped out your essay.


Your map should naturally take you through some preliminary answers to the basic questions of what, how, and why. It is not a contract, though—the order in which the ideas appear is not a rigid one. Essay maps are flexible; they evolve with your ideas.

注意不要写成堆积型：A common structural flaw in college essays is the "walk-through" (also labeled "summary" or "description"). Walk-through essays follow the structure of their sources rather than establishing their own. Such essays generally have a descriptive thesis rather than an argumentative one. Be wary of paragraph openers that lead off with "time" words ("first," "next," "after," "then") or "listing" words ("also," "another," "in addition"). Alhough they don't always signal trouble, these paragraph openers often indicate that an essay's thesis and structure need work: they suggest that the essay simply reproduces the chronology of the source text (in the case of time words: first this happens, then that, and afterwards another thing . . . ) or simply lists example after example ("In addition, the use of color indicates another way that the painting differentiates between good and evil").

deeper99UID：2606523

昨天由于饭卡坏了，弄了一整天，上午的课几乎没听，囧……，晚上做了《GRE阅读测试与解题策略》中“的第三章第五节逻辑结构型”的阅读训练篇以及被了1个list复习了3个list（由于大白天都有课，再加上晚上还有上到将尽十点的公选课，唉，不尽人意啊）。

今天好一些，至少晚上能自由安排，就继续做了《GRE阅读测试与解题策略》中“的第三章第六节语气、态度型”，然后背了3个list，复习了3个list，之后又阅读了eco，外加写了一篇aru4。以下是eco的笔记：

The moderator’s opening statement
September 22nd 2009
The bad news is that the planet is gettingwarmer, and most experts think that it is going to keep on doing so. Those whosay that it is not happening, or that current trends are a blip, or that it isnot caused by human activity, are defending an ever smaller and morebeleaguered（饱受批评的; 处于困境的） corner of the scientific world. So this debate will take as a jumpingoff point the notion that something must be done about carbon emissions.

But there is good news. Greener technologies are proliferating. In the past theywere fuelled by thefear that oil might not always be forthcoming from unfriendly countries. Today, they are fuelled by worries aboutclimate change. Decades of research mean that the list of options is long, from well-known and widelydeployed ones like solar, wind nuclear and corn-based ethanol, to more esoteric（机密的; 神秘的; 难解的） oneslike cellulosic ethanol（纤维素乙醇）, algae-born biofuels and hydrogen fuel cells.


Manythink, however, that the solution must not be nuclear (controversial),renewables (still expensive) nor technological breakthroughs (always betweenfive and ten years away), but through better use of the devil you know: fossilfuels. Carbon capture and storage offers the possibility of burning ourdirtiest fossil fuel, coal, but capturing the carbon dioxide and stashing itunderground. It, too, is always just a few more years of research anddevelopment away. Greener cars, likepetrol-electric hybrids, could make a big dent in the world's current oil consumption; allthings being equal, the same number of miles driven would result in a lot lessCO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, natural gas currently powersmany city buses and a few other vehicles. Some proponents(supporters)think it could play a far bigger role still in our energy mix, as it is cleanerthan both oil and coal.

Buttrying to make our known fossil fuels go farther has a risk: locking in thefuels that are doing damage to the present. Cars that use slightly less petrolstill use it. Insisting that carbon capture and storage simply must work sincethere is so much coal is a wish in search of empirical(以观察或实验为依据的) support. Naturalgas, for its part, suffers from a problem that is the opposite of lock-in: thechicken-and-egg problem (to mix metaphors).(比喻证明)
People will not buy gas-powered cars beforethere are gas fuelling stations, and vice versa.

AmyJaffe, our debater against the motion, weighs in with the pragmatist's classic opening gambit: we simply use too much fossil fuel today to walkaway from it quickly, unless we are all literally prepared to walk. She looksat global demand: some may have to refer to old science textbooks to rememberthat "terawatts" refers to trillions of watts in demand for fossilfuels today, which cannot be wished away. Gerd Leipold, for his part, supportsthe motion with economic as well as green arguments: the claim that addressingclimate change now is going to be hugely expensive now, and is only gettingmore so the longer we spend burning fossil fuels. We now need quite a fewounces of prevention if we are not going to be scrambling for many pounds ofcure.

It seems that both our debatersagree that climate change is real and that technological progress and majorefforts to cut carbon are going to be needed. There are many things to be said onthis general topic, so I would like to encourage both to focus on this notionof greener fossil fuels. Why specifically should they be supported or shunned?Which ones offer promise, and which ones are all expensive hype（炒作，大肆宣传）, destined to remain ever just around the corner?Does Mr Leipold think that truly none of the greener fossil fuels are worth atry? Does Ms Jaffe (who does not focus on the climate itself in her firststatement) worry about locking in more coal plants or petrol cars, with the clockticking? What are the risks of going down the wrong road? This is what I hopeto hear more about as the debate goes on.


明天要更加努力！

deeper99UID：2606523

今天又忙碌了一天，白天没有自主权，但晚上还是属于GRE的，依旧，先做了《GRE阅读测试与解题策略》中“的第二部分第一节的人文学科篇”的前3篇，然后总结题目，然后背了3个list，复习了4个list，花了半天时间写了一篇issue，然后对照别人的作品修改自己的；然后继续阅读学习eco:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposer’s opening statement
September 22nd 2009
I would like to start by adding something to thedebate. Not only must we leave fossil fuels behind, but we will be betteroff if we do.

The climate debate is frequently framed as onewhere we must choose between dramatic action and business as usual. In thiscontext, business as usual implies growth, comfort, and things being much asthey are now, while dramatic action suggests austerity and woollen socks forall. This is completely upside down.

Business as usual is leading us into a periodwhere humanitarian disasters of unparalleled scale and scope will unfoldaround the globe. As climate change continues to take hold, access to the basic things we need to live—food, water andshelter—will become increasingly tenuous for billions of people. As Nazmul Chowdhury of the Bangladeshi NGO Practical Action puts it,we can forget about making poverty history: "Climate change will makepoverty permanent."

The best estimate of the cost of continuing withbusiness as usual was made by Nicolas Stern in a report for the Britishgovernment. He placed the cost at 5-20% of future GDP, but has since said hewas too conservative. The real path of increasing austerity is business asusual.
（以上介绍背景）

Butwhat if we choose dramatic action? What if we choose business as unusual?Business as unusual means innovation, investment and prosperity. It means 2mnew jobs, access to clean, reliable energy for the world's poor and an end tothe massive pollution caused by the fossil fuel industry.


It also means leaving fossil fuels behindcompletely and quickly.


Business as usual means accepting predictions that global energy demandwill grow by 50% by 2030. Business as unusual means utilising existingefficiency potentials to keep it stable.

Business asusual means an unstable economy tiedto fluctuating commodity prices. Business asunusual means fuel is free.


Business as usual means spending USD300 billion in taxpayers' moneyevery year to make climate change worse by subsidising the fossil fuelindustry. Business as unusual channels that investment into energy efficiency andwind, solar, tidal and geothermal energy resources.

Business asusual means falling employment as thefossil fuel industry sheds half a million jobs in the next two decades.Business as unusual means adding 2m new jobs to the power sector by 2030. （一段强大的排比假设论证）

Theworld is already 0.8°C degrees warmer than it was in pre-industrial times. Itnow seems likely that a warming of over 1.5°C will cause irreversible damageto our planet, and warming over 2°C would see climate change run away beyondhuman control as the tipping points in our climate system are passed.


That wouldmean the end for island nations like Tuvaluand the Maldives and thedestruction of eco-systems from the Arctic to the Evergladesand the Great Barrier Reef.（短促有力的例证） A quarter of all species would be at risk ofextinction. Our children will grow up in a world characterised by rising seas,mass migration, drought, famine, instability and conflict.


A recent paper in Nature showed that ifwe are to avoid a warming of more than 2 degrees we can afford to use no morethan a quarter of proven, economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves by2050. At our present pace we will have burned through our carbon budget by2030. （逻辑推算，说明问题严重性）

Stayingwithin that budget requires some straightforward policy prescriptions. We must end subsidiesfor fossil fuels and make polluters pay the full cost of their impact onsociety; establish binding targets for the adoption of renewable energy, withsupport from feed in tariffs and priority grid access; and introduce efficiencystandards that apply to our appliances, buildings and vehicles. So can we do it?（引出解决方案的可行性论证） Thegood news is business as unusual is already happening. Let us take a look at someexamples. In 2008 renewable energy met 24% of Spain's electricity demand. InApril this year renewable power met 30% of the demand, and installed capacity iscontinuing to grow. In Bangladesha programme of the Grameen Bank has installed 220,000 domestic solar systemspaid for by a micro-credit programme, and aims to deliver 1m systems by 2015.

Thisyear Chinaplans to install around one wind turbine an hour, double last year's rate. The Indiangovernment has unveiled a plan to make the world's biggest investment in solarpower. Japan'stop-runner efficiency laws are expected to reduce domestic power consumption by10% by 2010. The Desertec Consortium has announced a USD400 billion planto meet 15% of Europe's electricity demand with solar power generated in Africaby 2050.(4个强大的例子) This is what a business as unusual future lookslike（回应之前说的解决方案）: a mix of locally and centrally delivered power inplace of our current, centralised grid system, a proliferation of power sourcesthat guarantees security in diversity. In the developed world business as unusual means lower overall fuelbills. It would mean a secure and reliable energy supply. In the developing world business asunusual means reliable access to clean energy for the billion or so people whocurrently lack it. It means an end to the situation where the external costs ofthe coal industry reduce China'sGDP by 7% even before climate impacts are factored in. For the whole world business as unusual means avoiding theworst consequences of climate change. Business as usual predictions are that wewill invest USD11 trillion into our energy supply by 2050.（从发达国家与发展中国家说起，最后归结到全世界，显示作者思维的严密性） To deliver the energy revolution would cost USD14trillion, but that investment
15 Economist Debates: Climate Change 16
would deliver a saving of USD800 billion a yearbecause sun, wind and waves come free of charge. Free fuel transforms theeconomics of the energy business. In just four years the world wouldearn its money back. Greenpeace has always hoped to stimulate practical,intelligent actions to stem the tide of planetary destruction. Through ourdevelopment of the energy revolution we, along with our partners at theEuropean Renewable Energy Council, the German Aerospace Centre and peerreviewers at universities and institutes around the world have shown the wayout of the energy crisis. We hope that the world will have the courage to takeit and leave behind fossil fuels, quickly and completely.（展望）


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------继续努力！

monicatyaoUID：2683479

加油加油

deeper99UID：2606523

谢谢monicatyao前辈的支持！
小弟今天也干劲满满哦：）