【备考日志】草莓酱拌饭小组 BY deeper99——第一次浮出水面

deeper99UID: 2606523

今天上午早早起来去图书馆学习GRE，先是做了先做了《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4-6篇（错了好多，郁闷……），于是逐题分析，并把每篇文章读了3遍，感觉还有点儿效果。之后就仔细看打印出来的草木前辈的基础写作每日一讲（8）-（11）"段落的逻辑顺序问题.doc ","段落内部的句子结构和句子连接.doc","如何有效论证.doc","怎么写Conclusion.doc"(其实之前也看过其中的“段落的逻辑顺序问题”篇，这一次则连贯的来一遍，总结的话可能还要迟一些……)，中午餐前后背了2个list复习了3个list就被同学拉去做团体作业，折腾了一个下午，……，晚上继续努力，写了一篇读笔，然后背单词，孰知香睡到九点……，之后做了点课堂作业后继续读eco，其笔记如下：

——————————————————————————————

The opposition’s opening statement
September 22nd 2009
Thinking about effective responses to climatechange, one needs to consider the possible. It is not whether we"should" or "want" to leave fossil fuels behind, thequestion really is whether we can leave fossil fuels behind.（坚决的论断）

No matter how much I or anyone else would preferthat the reality of our energy situation is something different, the answeris no. We cannot leave fossil fuels behind completely, not this year, notnext year, not in ten or maybe even 20 years. The world used the equivalent of113,900 terawatts hours of fossil energy to fuel economic activity, human mobility andglobal telecommunications, among other modern-day activities, in 2007. Replacingthose terawatts hours with non-fossil energy would be the equivalent ofconstructing an extra 6,020 nuclear plants across the globe or 14 times thenumber of nuclear power plants in the world today.（假设，并使之不可能） Inrenewable energy terms, it is 133 times the amount of solar, wind andgeothermal energy currently in use on the planet.（替换能源本身不经济）


At thesame time we would have to convert all our current fossil energy production toother sources, we would similarly have to trade in the more than 1 billionliquid fuel vehicles on the road in the world at present and replace them withcars, trucks and buses that run on electric energy or some new fuel createdfrom renewable or other non-fossil sources. This
19 Economist Debates: Climate Change
is a daunting task given that very few, if any, large-scaleassembly plants for such vehicles exist right now. （替换消耗能源的工具也是不符合实际的）

Inthe wealthy United States,it takes over a decade to experience a turnover of 75% of the American carfleet. Stationary power plants and other centralised energy infrastructure havea life expectancy of 20 to 30 years. The time and cost of replacing all ofthis infrastructure are monumental.(conclusion)

Forexample, in 2005, the United States Congress passed legislation that wouldfast-track and subsidise the construction of several new nuclear power stationsin the country. By 2009, four years later, only one new nuclear plant was underconstruction in the United  States, despite the aid of new laws.

Itwill take trillions of dollars and decades to convert all existingglobal energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels.（替换的后果） And who will pay that bill? Chinese consumers?Green-spirited Germans? Americais running a USD1.6 trillion deficit. Adam Smith’s invisible hand cannotdeliver a transformation of this magnitude overnight.（再次借美国巨额债款论证了替换的不切实际） It will take incredible global political will.Right now, that political will is nowhere in sight.


Market solutions like cap-and-trade greenhousegas pollution credit systems or energy taxes can speed the facilitiesconversion process up a bit, but it cannot make it quick and it cannot make itcheap.

Decadesof high energy taxes in Europe have dampened demand growth for oil, but fossil fuels stillrepresent 78% of total European Union primary energy demand. Expensive fuel
20 Economist Debates: Climate Change
costshave promoted the use of smaller and more fuel-efficient cars and more publictransportation when compared with America, but very high fuel taxeshave not translated into more Europeans driving electric or hydrogen- fuelledcars. Some progress has been made in certain parts of Europe.Spainis moving increasingly to wind and hydro power. France’s success in nuclear energyis well known, but the continent is far from fossil-fuel free.(先让步，然后又指出其无法与化石燃料相比)


There is some good news. According to industrycalculations, higher energy prices, combined with new emerging technologies,will mean that energy demand to the tune of 180m barrels of oil equivalent aday can be eliminated by 2030 through energy efficiency. That is twice today'sdaily oil use and wonderfully robust. But it is still only a fraction oftotal primary energy demand expected in 20 years.（先提出脱离化石燃料的可能性）
The world will still need large amounts of oil from the Organisation of Petroleum ExportingCountries (OPEC), even with all these efficiency gains, unless a breakthroughtechnology is developed and rapidly proliferated.（然后又回到现实是不可行的这一结论，显示了逻辑的严密）


The fact of the matter is that the wind is notalways available during the hours that people use electricity most. Solarenergy has great potential but not everywhere in the world and certainly not atnight. We still lack the electricity storage technologies that will be neededto allow large-scale proliferation of these clean energy sources.（补充前面提到的替代能源的致命缺陷，进一步论证目前无法脱离化石燃料的结论）

Morethan 1,200 new cars hit the road in Beijingeach day so far this year, according to Chinese government statistics. DanielSperling, a transportation expert and International Panel on Climate Changeauthor, calculates that the world is rapidly accelerating towards its secondbillion vehicles (expected to be on the road by 2020) as the desire for
21 Economist Debates: Climate Change 22
personal vehicles accelerates in South and East Asia. Transportation produces about a quarter of allcarbon dioxide emissions currently pouring into the atmosphere, and at present97% of vehicles in the world burn petroleum-based fuel.（个人不太明白这一段有什么用，似乎用途不大……）

So we can say tackling climate change meansleaving fossil fuel behind "completely", but to do so, we wouldall be walking.（humor）

deeper99UID: 2606523

由于昨天忙于复习今天的期中考试，而今天又忙于明天的另外一科的期中考试，最终也只能勉强抽出时间复习单词，昨天复习了3个list，今天只复习了2个，实在无奈，不过趁着晚饭前读了一篇eco，还算做了点G吧……

以下是阅读笔记：

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Featured guest,Robert Stavins
September 22nd 2009
Global climate change is a serious threat, andimmediate and meaningful policy action is merited(means ‘properlydeserved’). Getting serious about climate change will notbe free and it will not be easy, but it need not—indeed, cannot—result inrapidly abandoning fossil fuels.(这中开头难度低，可以模仿！)

In order to bring about the significant decreasesin carbon dioxide (CO2) andother greenhouse gas emissions necessary to keep average global temperatureincreases below 2 degrees centigrade (about 450 ppm CO2-equivalent atmospheric concentrations), the major emitting nations ofthe world, both in the industrialised and the developing world, will have to putin place serious policies that establish a price on carbon. No otherapproach can do the job, let alone at sensible cost.(马上就提出解决方案，这似乎才是文章的重点！？)

One way this could happen is throughcap-and-trade systems, such as the European Union's Emission Trading Scheme,and the legislation passed earlier this year by the US House of Representativesto cut emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Carbon taxes, where and whenpolitically acceptable, can also do the job.（方案一）

These price signals will lead firms andindividuals to use less carbon-intensive fuels (renewables), will provideincentives for energy efficiency and will stimulateclimate-friendly technological change,such as methods of capturing and storing carbon (CCS). Making changes at theright pace means it will not be necessary to close down still-productive plants. Instead, new investment will to be moved inthe right direction.

So, an optimal fossil-fuelpolicy is (almost) just a policy that places an appropriate price on the carboncontent of all fuels. More about the "almost" caveat in a moment, but first note that there is agreement among the best economicmodels of what the effects would be of such pricing (cap-and-trade or carbontax) policies. For example, in the United States, the cap-and-trade legislationpassed recently by the US House of Representatives (HR 2454) would cut byperhaps 50% the share of electricity generated by conventional fossil fuels(pulverised coal without CCS, petroleum and natural gas) by the year 2050,would provide incentives for high levels of investment in new IGCC plants withCCS starting in 2020, would increase renewables (wind, solar and biomass) from8% in 2015 to 20% by 2030, and would more than double the share of electricitygenerated by nuclear power (unless political resistance, NIMBY problems,renders such expansion of nuclear power infeasible).

The caveat(means ‘formal notice(law)’) I mentioned above regarding theefficacy(good word!) of carbonpricing policies is that such policies are necessary, but not sufficient. Thisis because of the public-good nature of research and development (individualfirms pay all the costs of R&D(research and development), but capture only some of the benefits, because ofinformation spillovers to other firms, even with a perfect system ofintellectual property rights). Therefore, firms underinvest in R&D, evenwith otherwise ideal price signals. In policy terms, this suggests a prominentplace for publicly funded, but private-sector-executed R&D (intocarbon-friendly technologies), possibly funded from cap-and-trade auctionrevenue.

Thus, the move to greener energy need not becompleted immediately. Rather, the best transition path will increase costsgradually, andthereby allow companies to make well-timed moves. Global climatechange is a long-term problem, and effective and sensible policies will takethis into account


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------过了考试周，继续前赶！

deeper99UID: 2606523

终于度过了上个学期的期中考试周啦！
欠下的作业（GRE+学校）如山一般堆积……，再加上上周的眼睛结膜炎，祸不单行啊！
由于医生嘱咐每天要控制上电脑的时间，所以除了写GRE作文，就没再怎么用电脑了，而且issue与argument的提纲也未能完成……
万分恳请组长的原谅！

以下是这周的作业：

119“When research priorities are being setfor science, education, or any other area, the most important question toconsider is: How many people’s lives will be improved if the results aresuccessful?”

文章逻辑：

当要set 某个研究的priority时，首先要考虑的是：如果successful，它能使多少人的生活will be improved.

我的提纲：

主题：以成功为前提下将来的受益者数量来批判一个研究的priority是片面的
1.
仅仅考虑成功是片面的；（若不成功，会有何代价？）（成功的代价？）
2.
‘将来’是难以预测的，而且以现在看待将来的观点未必与到时候的观点谋和（过去认为好，现在则不苟同），这种批判标准不科学、不切实际；
1）
现在以为有用将来却成为灾害；
2）
现在以为无用将来却是关键；(关于电的研究)
3.
以受益者的数量来批判是不公正的（受害者的数量呢？——有的研究有明显的两面性，如核能）
4.
建议，在权衡研究优先时，要……


People might intend to evaluate a researchpriority on the basis of how many people’s lives will be improved if suchresearch is successful. In a first glance, the point of view might be approvedswiftly. Understandable as it might be, however, such assertion is actuallycaught in a quagmire called ‘partiality’.

As can be seen, the whole argument is basedon the success of the research, where such premise itself exposes partiality.So, what if it fails? Who burden the responsibility? Just think of thecontroversial new energy resources. On no doubt, once the research on newenergy resources become successful, trillions of people’lives on Earth will beimproved. Then, why don’t we cast the majority of money, resources and expertsto study it in such a era of energy shortage? The answer is simple: if we do soand if the research fails, then the whole human society will have to pay the ‘bill’for our obstrusion and a vast range of areas would experience a huge disasterof energy depletion; thus no countries would dare to bet future on new energyresourses solely on the basis of the improvement it would bring to humanbeings.

Another question falls on ‘will’. Since thefuture is difficult to predict, it might not be a practical standard of judgingresearch priority by a future result like ‘how many people’s lives will beproved’. In some cases, something people value currently might turn to be adisaster in the future. For instance, when the plastic was invented, a majorityof people at that era consider it as one of the most essential inventions inthe world, from which they failed to foresee that the durable plastic wouldalso be one of the most intractable garbages in the human history. Only whenthe plastic has permeated into our daily life and been piled like a mountaincan we realize the huge mistake we have made, which is already too late. Hence,a current view about a research’s future contribution might not match with thereal future one.

On the other hand, with solely theconsideration of how many people’s lives will be improved, we actually abandona large number of researches that seem not to possess such function but mightserve as a key in human society. Just cite electricity as an example. Nowadays,it takes for grant that electricity serves as one of the most important energyin human society. However, in the 15 or 16 century, how many people would knowsuch nature power could spread in the community? Maybe there were, but few,like Franklin, who was treated as madman to touch lightening through a kite ina storm. Will such research improve people’s life? At least, a majority ofpeople at that time do not think so. If we follow the assertion of the passage,then the electricity research might be pulled to the end and the SecondTechnology Revolution might be postponed for a good many years. True andnecessary as it might be for a consideration of the research’s contribution tothe future, still, with solely the consideration above, it would be a bit rashand partial to set the research priority.

Moreover, solely considering thebeneficiaries would be injustice to those who suffer. Like any others, researchis also a double-edge sword. Can we just focus on the benefit it brings but withoutregard to the huge price we have to pay? Of course not. Just take a look at thenuclear power. With it, human beings can induce a huge quantity of power eventhrough water. And with it, human beings also make weapons with much moredestructive power——the nuclearweapons, to produce more victims in the wars. Consequently, the researchpriority acquires consideration of not only how many people’s lives will beimproved, but how many people now and future will suffer from it.

deeper99UID: 2606523

【备考日志】草莓酱拌饭小组 Issue-88BY deeper99
88"Technologies not only influence but actually determine socialcustoms and ethics."

关键词：technology, influence, determine, social customs, ethics
主题：技术影响但不决定社会的习俗与道德
我的提纲（不含开头结尾）：
1.在相同技术条件下，世界的道德标准并不是一致的，例如二战时，德国纳粹认为身为犹太人就是有罪的，但美国中国的道德标准中没有这种认定；
2.
在不同技术条件下，却存在相同的道德标准，例如近亲不得结婚，又如穆斯林认为吃猪肉不道德（即便从铁器到火器时代，这种习俗始终不变）；
3.
让步：承认技术对道德习俗的影响巨大，但不足以决定它们；道德习俗一定程度上需要社会的自觉维护与改进；


Technologies have broughthuge changes to human society. People, therefore, cannot help but think thatsocial customs and ethics are determined by technologies. However, in spite ofthe enormous influence that technology imposes on the society, it might be abit arbitrary to use the word ‘determine’, which indicates technologies as thesole factor for the customs and ethics.

Just suppose thetechnologies determine social customs and ethics. In that sense, social customsand ethics under similar level of technologies should not differ too much fromeach other. However, As human history presented beforehand, numorous evidencesjust have contradicted with the conclusion before. For instance, during theSecond World War, Germanytook it for granted that being a jew is a sin, which was established as ethicsand laws, while China andthe USAregarded them as the same and fair human beings as themselves and shelteredthem. As a matter of fact, Geman technologies should not be of much differencefrom American, at least. Why were their standards of ethics so different atthat time? On the other hands, although Chinese technologies were much worsethan the USA,they share the same ethics, from the sight of humanity. Hence, even the similartechnologies could create very different ethics.

Similarly, iftechnologies are the determinant of social customs and ethics, then different technologiesshould create distinct customs and ethics. Nevertheless, a large number ofexceptions exist in the long history that can disprove it, such as amongMuslims, eating porks is always regarded as unacceptable things and immoralismand is recorded in the taboo list of ethics despite the sharp change of technologiesin their society. If this is not conceivable enough, then how about the antiententhical taboo that disallows people get married with close relatives? Societiesfrom developed countries to developing countries, even among most existingtribes, all take it as a common sense of enthics. If technologies reallypossess the strength to ‘determine’ social enthics and customs, then whysocieties with distinct level of technologies share the same ethnics? Thus,though a bit stern, it could be naïve to conclude that technologies determinesocial enthics and customs.

Compared with theopposition of the view that technologies determine social customs and enthics,the opinion sounds more acceptable to conclude that technologies influencesocial customs and ethics. An obvious progress in enthics is that society nolonger sees slaughtering animals as a pleasant thing. Maybe in the antienttime, food was scarce and it would be a great pleasure to kill animals to drivetheir hunger away. However, today, slaughtering wild animals is considered asdestructive behaviours toward nature and inhumanities. Not to mentionedcountless altering among social customs, such as clothings, ways to celebratefestival and working.

Despite theimmense influence of technologies towards social customs and ethics, peopleshould not neglect another factor, that is human itself. One of the reasonsthat social customs and ethics progress continually is that human beings, as anintegrity, continue to reflect on their behaviors towards others and persist injudging between justice and injustice. Consequently, in spite of attributes ourimmoralism to technologies, as words like technologies determine social customsand enthics, isn’t it more meaningful to reflect on our own behaviors?

deeper99UID: 2606523

【备考日志】草莓酱拌饭小组
Argument-4 BY deeper99
4The following was posted on anInternet real estate discussion site.

"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and FitchRealty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams'revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home salesthat averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adamssell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it tookmore than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed itwith Adams, and it took only one month. Thus,if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."



以下是正文：

The passage concludes that compared withFitch Realty, Adams Realty serves as a better choice for selling home, on thebasis of several questionable premises.

To begin with, the passage seems topersuade readers that Adam possesses a more solid resources than Fitch, with anexample of the number of real estate agents of each company. Nevertheless, noevidence may verify that the number of customers is in proportion to the
the number of real estate agents. Supposedly,Fitch might possess a larger group of customers that are waiting for themessage of houses for sales than Adams's.Also, the level distance may exist between agents in Adam and in Fitch. Eventhough Adams takes advantages in terms of thenumber of agents, it could be probable that there are more real estate agentelites in Fitch that are able to sell a house in a more satisfied price.Besides, the passage fails to mention the percent of part-time agents of eachestate firms and hence it cannot guarrantee that more percent of part-timeagents work in Adam.


Moreover, a higher revenue and average homesales might reflect a better selling ability of Adam but not decide on it. Inother word, solely with the datas presented by the passage, it is stillinadequate to confirm whose selling ability is better. For instance, the higherrevenue of Adam might result from a higher service price of it, leaving thesales less profitable to the customers who commission their house sales toAdam. Similarly, the outstanding average sales price of Adamsmight also originate from other objective factors rather than its sellingability such as a stronger tendency of Adam agents to sell a more luxury housethan of Fitch agents. In other word, neither of the two datas should beregarded as a standard or reason for choosing Adam agents, considering theirpossibly different tendency in selling house where it might be more reasonableto contact with Fitch agents if one attempts to sell a common house instead ofa luxury one.

Furthermore, although it cannot be deniedthat the arthor's own experiences have a degree of reference value, they cannotturn into decisive factors that influence house sellers' choices on agents.First of all, it is obscure of the demand for the two houses s/he sold. Maybethe house listed with Adam sold faster just for the reason that a rather morepeople were crave for buying it at that time. Thus, it could not prove the Adams's selling ability yet. Even if the same house wasreally sold faster in Adams, the author couldnot warrant it being sold in a better price. Perhaps part of customers hope tosell their houses faster, but it should not exclude other group of customerswho prefer to selling their house in a better price. What's more, the one suitableto author might not be pleasant to others. What if author himself/herself isfairly familiar with selling house that the Adam agents cannot extract too muchprofits from him/her. However, the situation might be different to others whohave little knowledge in this field.

From what has been discussed above, theargument's opinion may have a certain degree of reference value. Before theconclusion that Adam is a better estate firms to be made, however, it isnecessary to search more detailed information about each corporation sincedifferent people possess different need that might better suit for only one ofthem.

deeper99UID: 2606523

今天全天有课，中午利用了半小时做了2篇阅读，即《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7-8篇，晚上是公选课考试，完后拖着疲惫的身体背了2个list，然后补了一点作业，今天似乎没有做成什么，郁闷~~，最后连Q也不上了（太晚C了），今天就先如此吧，明天开始写下一篇作文！

NaperyUID: 2710990

由于布置作业延时，本周一一休一阿狗

1 一休：11 阿狗：110

2 eco，难句，单词blabla...

友情提示：单词难句哪怕一天一点点也要坚持一下。。真的记不住多少，要的是感觉。。背单词尤其。一旦没了感觉，拾起来很困难。

友情提示：写作过程中有问题，善于利用论坛 搜索功能（根据我的经验，只要把你想问的问题的关键字输入题目一般都能查到相关讨论帖），现在AW你们要努力挖掘，有很多很好的东西。

嗯就这样，大家加油！！

deeper99UID: 2606523

今天复习了3个list,试着做了丞相的翻译中文作文的练习语言法，我先翻译一段然后比较原文，总结好词以及把翻译不好的中文记下以便日后回顾，结果才弄了2段就花了我1个小时之久，实在太惭愧了，之后做了篇eco, 但感觉这篇一般，接下来还有阅读，要加油啦！
Featured guest,Daniel Kammen
September 24th 2009
In the run-up to the December 2009 Copenhagen climateconvention, scientific meetings have become almost constant where differentgroups of researchers update the global community on the state of climate change.The news is not good. Climate change is progressing as fast, or faster, thanexpected and changes in sea ice, the timing of seasons and extreme weatherevents are all showing up as clear changes from what we would expect withouthuman greenhouse gas emissions. Whileacknowledging the many areas where the details of theclimate story need more investigation, we clearly need to accelerate theprocess of implementing policy measures and technology transitions to trulylaunch the low-carbon economy.

The lingeringdownturn（持续的低迷时期） inthe global economy makes the challenge of launching significant new programmesall the more politically challenging. Anenergy agenda focused on innovation and sustainability provides the opportunityto usher（to conduct to a place） in anew energy system that combines significant job creation1, stabilised energy costs and globalleadership for an economically andenvironmentally sustainable 21st century.
(提出需要新能源这种创新的方法)

The international scientific consensus is that an80% or more reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions is needed. This is theconclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which Ihave served in the past and do so again today on a major study of renewableenergy systems. The combination of our technological and policy capacity andthe climate imperative means that we need to do the
29 Economist Debates: Climate Change
followingthings. （以作者的亲身经历——所在机构的调查来证明上面的论点）

Weneed to establish and make operational a clear overall vision of anintegrated energy and climate policy framework.（提出解决方案） This is the firstjob. The scope and complexity of the energy sector demand that any effortto make such a profound change reaches across all government agencies, fromnational to state, regional and local, and across all parts of our society.This degree of integration requires a framing vision. The US president,Barack Obama, and a number of other world leaders have already voiced such aninclusive and clear vision. The challenge for the next few years is to make thisexceptional vision operational.（作者呼吁各方要构造一个环境政策架构）


We must developand utilise metrics（度量机制） that permit an evaluation of the climate and energysecurity impacts of our energy and economic choices.|| Today the energy and greenhouse gas implications of many of ourdecisions, from personal, to household, to city, state and federal levels are hidden from us. Without metrics that make the life-cycleimpacts of our choices explicit, it is impossible to ask diverse governmentagencies, private citizens and industries to make low-carbon planning anintegral part of their decision-making process. Life-cycle, or ‘cradle to graveto cradle’, methods also facilitatethe vital expansion of sustainable energy and efforts across the economy, from themanagement of water resources, forests and agricultural practices to ourpurchases of goods and services. Onesuch calculator we developed for the state of California is online as an interactive resource for individuals,families and municipalities2.（构造度量机制是框架中的一步，作者阐述这么做的必要性，并列举了加州的例子）

Weshould invest seriously inenergy research, development and deployment.（开始批判各界在能源方面做的不够） Total investment in all areas of research and development(R&D) in the United  States as a whole, for
30 Economist Debates: Climate Change
example,stands at roughly 3% of the USgross domestic product, but, for energy, it is only about one-tenth of that. Bycontrast, R&D investments in the medical and biotechnology field areroughly 15% of sales, a staggering 40 times more than for energy. With energyvital to our economic, geopolitical and environmental security, the R&Dinvestment needs to be increased dramatically and then sustained. An R&D ordemand push portfolio is vital, but history has shown that（之后开始讲比起其它领域，碳即能源市场更有前景） it will not be effective without a clear marketopportunity, or demand pull. While the price for carbon emissions will ideallyin the long term provide sufficient pull, sectoral targets and specificpolicies such as renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS) or feed-in tariffs(FIT) can be expanded as effective interim policies. Public investments of this sort in the United States have been repaid manytimes over. A well-organised and successful campaign to double the federalmedical/biotechnology R&D budget during the 1990s resulted in an eleven-to twelve-fold increase in private-sector investment and innovation. Therecent run-up in investment in nanotechnology is already paying off at a ratioof almost 20:1. Innovation, simply put, is good business and good forbusiness.
（感觉它总是“we must”，读起来不舒服……）
Wemust implement a price for greenhouse gas emissions.（这边依旧是提出方案，作为“框架”的填充） Without a price on greenhouse gas emissions we fight an uphill and potentiallyimpossible battle. A price signal not only rewards clean energydecisions, but also unleashes diverse powers of innovation. The current debateover the best form of this price—through a cap and trade, cap and dividend(return), direct carbon fee, or some additional mechanism—is a vital debate,but it must be one where everyone approaches the issue knowing that some priceis necessary.（用价钱来警示人们） Without this long-term certainty, the difficult taskof coming to agreement on how to implement this vital policy
31 Economist Debates: Climate Change
runsthe risk of
spiralling into endless and destructive political infighting.


We must encourage, reward and learn from low-carbon innovations at all scales. A global network of cities, provinces and stateshas implemented a range of innovative low-carbon policies. These efforts are vital to making a sustainable energy economy pervasive, and these diverse and distributed efforts serveas the vital test-bed for efforts that can be adapted and implemented at national andinternational levels. An example is the development of innovative financingmechanisms that reward energy efficiency and clean energy investments. A numberof cities are developing municipal(inside city) financing districts, where thea bond is used to provide the upfront costs so that property owners can installefficiency and renewable energy with no upfront payments(预先支付), and pay for this on added property tax assessments3. This is aprogramme we developed in Berkeley, CA, and is one that can savemoney and carbon emissions right away. （鼓励low-carboninnovations，不仅仅科技方面，还有制度方面）

Weneed to invest aggressively in energy efficiency. Energy efficiencyefforts in a number of cities and states and in a range of federal programmeshave proved to be exceptionally good investments, in many cases returning theinvestment at once to a matter of weeks, months, or few years. Even without theaggressive and pervasive energy efficiency efforts, annual savings from thebest lighting, heating, and insulation programmes save the nation severalhundred billion dollars per year. A national commitment to energy efficiency,as laid out for example in the Think Efficiency report of the AmericanPhysical Society4, can save huge amounts of money and carbonemissions. Importantly, a national commitment will send the strongest signal tothe （大到能源投资，小到节约每天的用电，这些都极为必要）
32 Economist Debates: Climate Change
global consumer electronics, appliance, lightingand other industries that want to sell to the United States.

We must focus on sustainabletransportation. A range of low-carbon transportation options exist, and agreatly increased set of technologies and practices is needed. Low-carbon and ecologically sustainable fuels, the significantexpansion of the use of plug-in hybrid and fully-electric vehicles5, greatly increased mass-transit options, allhave potential(n.) to reducethe environmental (and economic) impact of our transportation options. Theslow turnover of vehicle fleets and the high cost of many newtechnologies (e.g. batteries) demand a significant federal role. Federalinsurance programmes against PHEV battery failure, ”feebate” programmes thattax polluting vehicles and reward the purchase of efficient and low-carbonvehicles, and congestion charging are all tools that warrant analysis anddeployment in an integrated effort between federal and state transportationefforts.

We must make sustainable communities a hallmark of overseas developmentassistance and poverty alleviation. The poor worldwide suffer directly and mostimmediately from indoor air pollution from unimproved cooking fires, from highenergy costs and poor service, and from a lack of locally sustainable energyresources for economic development. Sustainable energy can also directlyimprove the social and economic opportunities for disadvantaged minoritygroups, women and children.

评价：感觉本文在语言上一般，但其提议有不少可以让人耳目一新，其角度还是有学习的价值

deeper99UID: 2606523

【备考日志】草莓酱拌饭小组 issue11 BY deeper99

11"All nations should help support the development of a globaluniversity designed to engage students in the process of solving the world'smost persistent social problems."

关键词：
Should, all , global university, most persistent

作者动机：认为建造一个由所有国家支持的全球性大学可以比较有助于解决持久性难题；

发散思维：
1.
方法的出发点是：加强各个文化交流从而获得更多创新的方法解决社会问题；集中各个国家的资源力量通过全球大学从而解决社会问题；学生是社会未来发展的希望，把学生培养好了，社会才有未来，那些持久的问题才能逐渐得到解决；
2.
（对这些出发点各个击破）由文化交流演变的文化侵略；
3.
力量真的集中起来了吗？（各个国家不齐心：优秀的老师，先进的设备不会让出）做成大事了吗？（前面的老师设备姑且不论，真的能培养出解决这类持久性问题的人才吗？而且比地方性学校培养的人才更优秀？这一点实际上很难保证。）
4.
学生的确是社会的未来，但学生真的有足够的能力及经验来处理这类问题吗？非得从学生开始培养吗？不能对专家进行培训从而有更快的效果？
5.
解决全球性问题就应该靠全球性大学吗
6.
本质上是集众家之所长解决共同的问题
7.
社会持久性问题往往是连国家都无法短时间内解决的问题
8.
如果各个国家的参与积极性不高，那么这一计划就难以实施了，而作者也没有提出什么亮点以吸引各国的参与

提纲：
1.
让步
2.
文化创新-》 文化侵略
3.
人力物力的合作-》 效果不如其它方法好。（即使有助于问题的解决，但在同等消耗下有比之更好的方法何尝不用呢）
4.
由一所全球性大学的学生来帮助解决连大国家都没法解决长期难题的是不现实的，再加上学生本身缺乏经验，各地的问题又不尽相同。

Is it worthwhile for all nations to helpsupport the development of a global university designed to engage students inthe process of solving the world’s most persistent social problems? Apparently,it does sound attractive. With further rumination, however, a large number ofproblems could arise, making the suggestion a bit naïve.

Admittedly, such method possesses its ownmerits: a global unversity could assemble some of the most prominent teachers andstudents to work together, seemly making the best experts to the world’s mostpersistent problems. It also serves as a way to melt various cultures andcustoms and wisdoms together to produce creative ideas for those persistentproblems. What’s more, a global university seems more likely to makepreparation for the persistent problems from a more basic way, that is tocultivate the students, who will govern the future of human beings.

Still, every coin has two sides. Althoughthe method might contribute for the communication of different cultures, itcould also bring about a potential crisis – the invade of strong culturestoward weak ones. For example, the university might regard English as itsstandard language in daily classes, which could actually be unfair to otherkind of language, especially to those minorities, whose cultures areconfronting a disasters of being invaded by other stronger ones. Also, it isalmost imposible to absorb every countries’ educating cultures into one globaluniversity, thereby creating an atmosphere of dominant cultures overriding weakones even in the field of education. Finally, the arrangement of the university’sstaff cause another problems: if all, or the majority of nations in the worldengage in this programme, undoubtedly there would be some countries without theopportunity to send their teachers to the university for the enrollinglimitation. In other word, while some countries possess their opportunity tospread their customs and cultures, others might have no such chance. And cananyone imagine a global university without presence of the USA, the EU and Russia? Of course not. Directlyspeaking, the developing countries would possess fewer quoto than the developedone. Such culture unfairness is just the world’s one of the most persistentproblems. And the building plan of the global university might just ignite suchconflict between dominant cultures and weak ones rather than solving it.

Moreover, it is true that when earning mostnations’ support, such plan would be fairly economical since it attracts theworld’s contributions including excellent teachers, intelligent students andutilities with high-quality. Just put aside how possible would nations allaround the world be willing to contribute to this plan by sending theirremarkable human resources and material resources. Could such universitysucceed in cultivating the qualified students in solving world’s mostpersistent problems. As is known to all, with best teachers , talented studentsand best utilities, it does not equally mean the school could train the beststudents to the society. History has verified that the best education is farmore complicate than just the best teachers plusing the best students and bestutilities, with the heavy price of a large number of failures in specializedschools for genius, most of which concentrated the best resources of the wholecountries but fail to cultivate the best students. Consequently, before makingthe plan, it is necessory to make an evaluation of the potential educationquality of such global university.

People may oppose the argument above,insisting that such plan could help solve the world’s most persistent socialproblems, which, indeed, could be undeniable. Nevertheless, under the sameinvestment, if there exists better plan than this, people, by no means, shoulddevote their time and money into this scheme rather than that one. To beginwith, the author bases his/her conclusion on the explanation that students fromglobal university would act better in solving the world’s most persistentsocial problems than the ones from local university, which, yet, could benonsense. A large portion of the world’s most persistent problems arecharacterized by local attributes, with which, students from local universitycould be far more familiar than those from global university. In other words,students from a local university could possess more competence in solving thosepersistent problems than students from a global one. Opponent might emphasizethat global university students possess the advantage of the communication ofvarious culture. But they might not have thought of that the communication ofvarious culture can be simply realized by a global academic communication or aninternation students exchange program. More essentially, rather than aspecialized cultivation of students, maybe an investment of training programfor current experts in the field of those persistent problems would be a muchmore efficient method since a large number of those problems require expertwith affluent experience.

From what has been discussed above,although the plan might seem to be attractive, it could hardly be an practicalscheme to suggest all nations to enage in it. Nor it would be an fairlyefficient one in solving the world’s most persistent social problems.