[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.18]

霁月难逢UID: 2718354

关于REBORN FROM THE ASHES组COMMENTS活动的说明&汇总
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1042733-1-2.html


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

A special report on climate change and the carbon economy

Getting warmer

Dec 3rd 2009 From The Economist print edition

So far the effort to tackle global warming has achieved little. Copenhagen offers the chance to do better, says Emma Duncan (interviewed here)
Illustration by M. Morgenstern

THE mountain bark beetle is a familiar pest in the forests of British Columbia. Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps of pinewood as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes. But Scott Green, who studies forest ecology at the University of Northern British Columbia, says the current outbreak is “unprecedented in recorded history: a natural background-noise disturbance has become a major outbreak. We’re looking at the loss of 80% of our pine forest cover.”* Other parts of North America have also been affected, but the damage in British Columbia is particularly severe, and particularly troubling in a province whose economy is dominated by timber.

Three main explanations for this disastrous outbreak suggest themselves. It could be chance. Populations do fluctuate dramatically and unexpectedly. It could be the result of management practices. British Columbia’s woodland is less varied than it used to be, which helps a beetle that prefers pine. Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas, allowing beetles to breed more often in summer and survive in greater numbers through the winter.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the United Nations adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is now 17 years old. Its aim was “to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The Kyoto protocol, which set about realising those aims, was signed in 1997 and came into force in 2005. Its first commitment period runs out in 2012, and implementing a new one is expected to take at least three years, which is why the 15th conference of the parties to the UNFCCC that starts in Copenhagen on December 7th is such a big deal. Without a new global agreement, there is not much chance of averting serious climate change.

Since the UNFCCC was signed, much has changed, though more in the biosphere than the human sphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body set up to establish a scientific consensus on what is happening, heat waves, droughts, floods and serious hurricanes have increased in frequency over the past few decades; it reckons those trends are all likely or very likely to have been caused by human activity and will probably continue. Temperatures by the end of the century might be up by anything from 1.1ºC to 6.4ºC.

In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming. In British Columbia and farther north the effects of climate change are clearer. Air temperatures in the Arctic are rising about twice as fast as in the rest of the world. The summer sea ice is thinning and shrinking. The past three years have seen the biggest losses since proper record-keeping started in 1979. Ten years ago scientists reckoned that summer sea-ice would be gone by the end of this century. Now they expect it to disappear within a decade or so.

Since sea-ice is already in the water, its melting has little effect on sea levels. Those are determined by temperature (warmer water takes up more room) and the size of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The glaciers in south-eastern Greenland have picked up speed. Jakobshavn Isbrae, the largest of them, which drains 6% of Greenland’s ice, is now moving at 12km a year—twice as fast as it was when the UNFCCC was signed—and its “calving front”, where it breaks down into icebergs, has retreated by 20km in six years. That is part of the reason why the sea level is now rising at 3-3.5mm a year, twice the average annual rate in the 20th century.

As with the mountain bark beetle, it is not entirely clear why this is happening. The glaciers could be retreating because of one of the countless natural oscillations in the climate that scientists do not properly understand. If so, the glacial retreat could well stop, as it did in the middle of the 20th century after a 100-year retreat. But the usual causes of natural variability do not seem to explain the current trend, so scientists incline to the view that it is man-made. It is therefore likely to persist unless mankind starts to behave differently—and there is not much sign of that happening.

Carbon-dioxide emissions are now 30% higher than they were when the UNFCCC was signed 17 years ago. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million last year, compared with 280ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ºC. To put that in context, the current average global temperature is only 5ºC warmer than the last ice age. Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration. But nobody really knows, and nobody wants to know.

Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct. Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty. But the broad scientific consensus is that serious climate change is a danger, and this newspaper believes that, as an insurance policy against a catastrophe that may never happen, the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat.

The problem is not a technological one. The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Industrial and agricultural processes can be changed. Electricity can be produced by wind, sunlight, biomass or nuclear reactors, and cars can be powered by biofuels and electricity. Biofuel engines for aircraft still need some work before they are suitable for long-haul flights, but should be available soon.

Nor is it a question of economics. Economists argue over the sums (see article), but broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions can be curbed without flattening the world economy.
A hard sell

It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. At issue is the difficulty of allocating the cost of collective action and trusting other parties to bear their share of the burden. At a city, state and national level, institutions that can resolve such problems have been built up over the centuries. But climate change has been a worldwide worry for only a couple of decades. Mankind has no framework for it. The UN is a useful talking shop, but it does not get much done.

The closest parallel is the world trading system. This has many achievements to its name, but it is not an encouraging model. Not only is the latest round of negotiations mired in difficulty, but the World Trade Organisation’s task is child’s play compared with climate change. The benefits of concluding trade deals are certain and accrue in the short term. The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent.

The problem will be solved only if the world economy moves from carbon-intensive to low-carbon—and, in the long term, to zero-carbon—products and processes. That requires businesses to change their investment patterns. And they will do so only if governments give them clear, consistent signals. This special report will argue that so far this has not happened. The policies adopted to avoid dangerous climate change have been partly misconceived and largely inadequate. They have sent too many wrong signals and not enough of the right ones.

That is partly because of the way the Kyoto protocol was designed. By trying to include all the greenhouse gases in a single agreement, it has been less successful than the less ambitious Montreal protocol, which cut ozone-depleting gases fast and cheaply. By including too many countries in detailed negotiations, it has reduced the chances of agreement. And by dividing the world into developed and developing countries, it has deepened a rift that is proving hard to close. Ultimately, though, the international agreement has fallen victim to domestic politics. Voters do not want to bear the cost of their elected leaders’ aspirations, and those leaders have not been brave enough to push them.

Copenhagen represents a second chance to make a difference. The aspirations are high, but so are the hurdles. The gap between the parties on the two crucial questions—emissions levels and money—remains large. America’s failure so far to pass climate-change legislation means that a legally binding agreement will not be reached at the conference. The talk is of one in Bonn, in six months’ time, or in Mexico City in a year.

To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate the efforts of the many people who have dedicated two decades to this problem. For mankind to get even to the threshold of a global agreement is a marvel. But any global climate deal will work only if the domestic policies through which it is implemented are both efficient and effective. If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14994872

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

先占个楼慢慢看~哇咔咔~偶最喜欢看关于climate change的文章了~

tequilawineUID: 2702008

文章中的好句：
1  Its aim was “to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.
2 But the usual causes of natural variability do not seem to explain the current trend, so scientists incline to the view that it is man-made.是不是连词过多呀
3 It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. 这句话没看懂
4 Not only is the latest round of negotiations mired in difficulty, but the World Trade Organisation’s task is child’s play compared with climate change.
5 The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent.
6 But any global climate deal will work only if the domestic policies through which it is implemented are both efficient and effective.

we both know that if we really wanna have some results or agreements, the countries must to compromise and take their own duties. Not only do the developping countries stop asking for more aid, but also developed countries dedicate more to it. After hearing from the announcement of the conference, it seems like chaos between ruffians bargaining their own benefit, no clue to indicate us that the big gun really care about the weather crisis that is already staring us in the face.
As the author said "to mankind to get even to the threshold of a golbal agreement is a marvel." so what is really left behind for the party of the world.

plukaUID: 2721764

先是修一下楼上同学的comments~
we both know that if we really wanna have some results or agreements, the countries must (to) compromise and take their own duties. Not only do the developping(developing) countries stop asking for more aid, but also developed countries dedicate more to it. After hearing from the announcement of the conference, it（what?) seems like chaos between ruffians bargaining their own benefit, (leaving) no clue to indicate us that the big gun really care about the weather crisis that is already staring us in the face.

As the author said "to mankind to get even to the threshold of a golbal agreement is a marvel." so what is really left behind for the party of the world(?).
================================

好句：
In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming. 

But nobody really knows, and nobody wants to know.喜欢这个语气

Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct.Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty.这一段都写得好啊~

It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. 

The closest parallel is the world trading system. 

To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate the efforts of the many people who have dedicated two decades to this problem. 

comments：
Anything involving negotiation between countries turns out difficult. The more detailed the contents and the larger compromises it suggests, the deeper the gap created by various politic and economic stances. It is quite natural that open conflict and insidious conspiracy pervade. Political leaders, who must in the first place be responsible to their own government, own people, and own sponsors, have no reason to lavish budget on projects meaningful yet unprofitable--at least in short term. UN or any other organizations will help little as far as the true authority is still governed solely by powerful yet selfess nations. Balance is never something easy to achieve, especially when power and money is involved. Personally I'm not optimistic about such negotiations. Yes, agreement may be reached, but surely there will be long and exhaustive journey before.

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

Well, as a student of environmental science, I feel happy to come across these " special report" here in GTER. This report show us a picture of disaster because of global warming. The athour argues that the difficulty of reach a consus in carbon emmision is not about technology or economics, but about politics. The author argues that governments should give businesses a clear and consistent signal and the domestic policies through global climate deal should be both efficient and effective, which has not happened till now.

As climate change is such a complex problem, I would like to explain my idea about this issue from three aspects: technology, economics and politics, according to the author's statement.

It is true that technology is not problem to create a low carbon society. As the author puts here:Electricity can be produced by clean energy such as wind, sunlight and biomass. Cars can be powered by biofuel and electricity. The technology we own today can already change the industrial and agriculture processess.

But the economics is a problem to create a low-carbon society, especially for the developing countries. To change the industrial structure is not an easy task, which might seriously affected the economy of the developing countries. Take China for example. The industrial structure in China is basically relied on the resourse of coals, which emmit a large scale of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If Chinese government wants to develop the low carbon economy, the entire industrial structure has to be changed into a "clean energy based" one, which need great financial and technological support. Although it is believed that using clean energy will do a great help to improve not only the air quality but also the economy in the long run, the risk is too heavy for a developing country to burdon.  

Politics is a big problem for achieving the deal about climate change, but it is not necessarily the most important one. Each country, either the developing countries or the developed countries, have to focus its own interest despite that we agree on the statement of "one world, one dream". It is not because the domestic policies are not efficient or effective, but because the problem of climate change is too complicated for a certain government, even the whole world, to dealt with by some certain policies.

To reach a deal in carbon emmision is more complicated than that in ozone protection. It is a  comprehensive problem related with science, technology, society, government, economy and so on. It is not possible for any certain domestic policy to solve. It is a matter of the whole world and we are still on the starting line.

About this issue I really have a lot to talk about. But time is limited and I have to stop here. In fact I just list my ideas above and have not yet prove these ideas in good reasoning. Welcome any debate on this issue.~

123runfordreamUID: 2697608

Getting warmer

Dec 3rd 2009 From The Economist print edition

So far the effort to tackle global warming has achieved little. Copenhagen offers the chance to do better, says Emma Duncan (interviewed here)
Illustration by M. Morgenstern

1.THE mountain bark beetle is a familiar pest in the forests of British Columbia. Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps of pinewood as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes. But Scott Green, who studies forest ecology at the University of Northern British Columbia, says the current outbreak is “unprecedented in recorded history: a natural background-noise disturbance has become a major outbreak. We’re looking at the loss of 80% of our pine forest cover.”* Other parts of North America have also been affected, but the damage in British Columbia is particularly severe, and particularly troubling in a province whose economy is dominated by timber.

2. Three main explanations for this disastrous outbreak suggest themselves. It could be chance. Populations do fluctuate dramatically and unexpectedly. It could be the result of management practices. British Columbia’s woodland is less varied than it used to be, which helps a beetle that prefers pine. Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas, allowing beetles to breed more often in summer and survive in greater numbers through the winter.

3. The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the United Nations adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is now 17 years old. Its aim was “to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The Kyoto protocol, which set about realising those aims, was signed in 1997 and came into force in 2005. Its first commitment period runs out in 2012, and implementing a new one is expected to take at least three years, which is why the 15th conference of the parties to the UNFCCC that starts in Copenhagen on December 7th is such a big deal. Without a new global agreement, there is not much chance of averting serious climate change.

4. Since the UNFCCC was signed, much has changed, though more in the biosphere than the human sphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body set up to establish a scientific consensus on what is happening, heat waves, droughts, floods and serious hurricanes have increased in frequency over the past few decades; it reckons those trends are all likely or very likely to have been caused by human activity and will probably continue. Temperatures by the end of the century might be up by anything from 1.1ºC to 6.4ºC.

5. In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming. In British Columbia and farther north the effects of climate change are clearer. Air temperatures in the Arctic are rising about twice as fast as in the rest of the world. The summer sea ice is thinning and shrinking. The past three years have seen the biggest losses since proper record-keeping started in 1979. Ten years ago scientists reckoned that summer sea-ice would be gone by the end of this century. Now they expect it to disappear within a decade or so.

6. Since sea-ice is already in the water, its melting has little effect on sea levels. Those are determined by temperature (warmer water takes up more room) and the size of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The glaciers in south-eastern Greenland have picked up speed. Jakobshavn Isbrae, the largest of them, which drains 6% of Greenland’s ice, is now moving at 12km a year—twice as fast as it was when the UNFCCC was signed—and its “calving front”, where it breaks down into icebergs, has retreated by 20km in six years. That is part of the reason why the sea level is now rising at 3-3.5mm a year, twice the average annual rate in the 20th century.

7. As with the mountain bark beetle, it is not entirely clear why this is happening. The glaciers could be retreating because of one of the countless natural oscillations in the climate that scientists do not properly understand. If so, the glacial retreat could well stop, as it did in the middle of the 20th century after a 100-year retreat. But the usual causes of natural variability do not seem to explain the current trend, so scientists incline to the view that it is man-made. It is therefore likely to persist unless mankind starts to behave differently—and there is not much sign of that happening.

8. Carbon-dioxide emissions are now 30% higher than they were when the UNFCCC was signed 17 years ago. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million last year, compared with 280ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ºC. To put that in context, the current average global temperature is only 5ºC warmer than the last ice age. Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration. But nobody really knows, and nobody wants to know.

9. Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct. Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty. But the broad scientific consensus is that serious climate change is a danger, and this newspaper believes that, as an insurance policy against a catastrophe that may never happen, the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat.

10. The problem is not a technological one. The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Industrial and agricultural processes can be changed. Electricity can be produced by wind, sunlight, biomass or nuclear reactors, and cars can be powered by biofuels and electricity. Biofuel engines for aircraft still need some work before they are suitable for long-haul flights, but should be available soon.

11. Nor is it a question of economics. Economists argue over the sums (see article), but broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions can be curbed without flattening the world economy.


A hard sell

12. It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. At issue is the difficulty of allocating the cost of collective action and trusting other parties to bear their share of the burden. At a city, state and national level, institutions that can resolve such problems have been built up over the centuries. But climate change has been a worldwide worry for only a couple of decades. Mankind has no framework for it. The UN is a useful talking shop, but it does not get much done.

13. The closest parallel is the world trading system. This has many achievements to its name, but it is not an encouraging model. Not only is the latest round of negotiations mired in difficulty, but the World Trade Organisation’s task is child’s play compared with climate change. The benefits of concluding trade deals are certain and accrue in the short term. The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent.

14. The problem will be solved only if the world economy moves from carbon-intensive to low-carbon—and, in the long term, to zero-carbon—products and processes. That requires businesses to change their investment patterns. And they will do so only if governments give them clear, consistent signals. This special report will argue that so far this has not happened. The policies adopted to avoid dangerous climate change have been partly misconceived and largely inadequate. They have sent too many wrong signals and not enough of the right ones.

15. That is partly because of the way the Kyoto protocol was designed. By trying to include all the greenhouse gases in a single agreement, it has been less successful than the less ambitious Montreal protocol, which cut ozone-depleting gases fast and cheaply. By including too many countries in detailed negotiations, it has reduced the chances of agreement. And by dividing the world into developed and developing countries, it has deepened a rift that is proving hard to close. Ultimately, though, the international agreement has fallen victim to domestic politics. Voters do not want to bear the cost of their elected leaders’ aspirations, and those leaders have not been brave enough to push them.

16. Copenhagen represents a second chance to make a difference. The aspirations are high, but so are the hurdles. The gap between the parties on the two crucial questions—emissions levels and money—remains large. America’s failure so far to pass climate-change legislation means that a legally binding agreement will not be reached at the conference. The talk is of one in Bonn, in six months’ time, or in Mexico City in a year.

17. To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate the efforts of the many people who have dedicated two decades to this problem. For mankind to get even to the threshold of a global agreement is a marvel. But any global climate deal will work only if the domestic policies through which it is implemented are both efficient and effective. If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them.



Words new for me: ——red
Fluctuate：to shift back and forth uncertainly
anthropogenic :of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature
pin on:to blame someone for something, often unfairly
Don't try to pin the blame on me!
They're trying to pin the murder on the boyfriend.
oscillations
：a flow of electricity changing periodically from a maximum to a minimum
Irreversible：irreversible damage, change etc is so serious or so great that you cannot change something back to how it was before

scep·tic：BrE skeptic AmE /ˈskeptɪk/ n [C] a person who disagrees with particular claims and statements, especially those that are generally thought to be true

at issue：formal the problem or subject at issue is the most important part of what you are discussing or considering

At issue here is the extent to which exam results reflect a student's ability.

——Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Words , phrases and sentences good for my writing：——pink

Complicated sentences: ——grey

Comments——
I have to say it’s quite a long article for me to finish it patiently without any clues on my mind. Sometimes being inpatient is just because of the length instead of the context. Actually it has few troubles understanding the separated sentences or whole article. It’s the structure and the main point that confused me. To make it clear, I tried to conclude each paragraph with key words or phrases as followed:
1, bark beetle outbreak
2, why——climate change
3,global agreement: old one & new one——we need a new one.
4, why we need a new agreement→5，air temperature change; 6, ice melting
7, caused by man-made
8, how——carbon emissions
9，scientists’ opinion——the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat.
10，11，12——finding the problems—— climate change is about politics.
13, compared to the world trading system
14,how to solve the problem——the old politic is not enough for situation now
15, why not
16, Copenhagen talks is a second chance to change
17, analysis the result ——hope it can work out.(that’s my understanding.)

And finally, I could simply conclude that this article is trying to explain the meaning of Copenhagen talks and show the expectation for making some difference.

ps：it looks like an analysis instead of a comment.  I will try another way...as possible as I could.

hugeseaUID: 190158

Comments

So far, it has been the most interesting scene in the 21st century that the climate change issue has actually turned into pretext for tumultuous stakeholders of the world to carve up the world’s benefits which are expected to crystallize in the next a few decades. No matter how it looks like a question of economics or technologies, climate change issue is all about politics. When it comes to the threat of climate change, every country becomes the spokesperson of justice; however, when it comes to the means of prevent global warming, every country stands by, shamefaced, and downat-heel. A conference which is supposed to save our planet has become bargaining.

It might not be able to achieve a consensual agreement during the Copenhagen summit. But, I still hope that Copenhagen can bring us more hope for humanity, for the future, for everyone. Let’s turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen.



昨天发帖子的时候没有一起贴上，我以为是好句子的句子，现在补上：

1.Three main explanations for this disastrous outbreak suggest themselves. It could be chance. Populations do fluctuate dramatically and unexpectedly. It could be the result of management practices. British Columbia’s woodland is less varied than it used to be, which helps a beetle that prefers pine. Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas, allowing beetles to breed more often in summer and survive in greater numbers through the winter.
多妙的展开论述啊，什么叫具体，什么叫exhaustive，看看这里，我们的argument若是能写成这个样子，字数根本不用担心。这个段落就是在写argument时，如何具体而详尽用他因法攻击的很好的例子，写成这样，论述才生动具体，而不是干巴巴的几个可能性。

2.Without a new global agreement, there is not much chance of averting serious climate change.

3. it reckons those trends are all likely or very likely to have been caused by human activity and will probably continue.
    Ten years ago scientists reckoned that summer sea-ice would be gone by the end of this century.
    reckon这个词是不是比我们用的assume，conjecture等等要好些？

4. The benefits of concluding trade deals are certain and accrue in the short term. The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent.

5. To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate the efforts of the many people who have dedicated two decades to this problem. For mankind to get even to the threshold of a global agreement is a marvel.

6. If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them. 多妙的排比啊，argument中运用排比也是详尽论述，具体展开的一种办法

敛寒影UID: 2613052

The article begins with an example of a pest called mountain bark beetle destroyed pinewood, then the author analyze the causes for this disastrous outbreak. This example elicit the topic about warming climate change. The author explain the conception of Framework Convention on Climate Change, and indicate that anthropogenic activities influence the climate system, with the description of the phenomenon of the rising temperature in Arctic and melting sea-ice causing the rising of sea level. Following, the author turns to the example of mountain bark beetle in order to emphasize the human beings should start to behave in a different way. The author directly points out that the increasing carbon-dioxide emissions would means a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5℃. Furthermore, the author claimed  that we should adjust behavior to avert that threat. In the second part of this article the author analyze the reason of climate change, which  is neither a technological nor a economics problems but a policy problems. At last he give some suggestion on solving this problems such as strengthen international co-operation, come to international agreement, change economical mode.

Climate warming is a global problem, we all should pay close intention on the Copenhagen climate talks. We should raising our awareness on this topic and behave in a different way from now on like doing little things around us. It is a complex problem involving economy, political and technological aspects, and it is not enough only relying the policy of governments. In my opinion the non-government organization and the authority should work together fighting for protecting our unique earth, especially everyone play an important role in solving this crisis phase.

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

Nowadays, one phenomenon is calling for people’s attention, i.e., the changing of climate, which is caused by superfluous Carbon-dioxide emissions. You needn’t have to go too far to see the effects of climate change, at the mean time, the solution of the problem needs the cooperation and communication of every country in the world, since the climate change has been a worldwide worry.

The speaker asserts that only through economy moving, which requires businesses to change their investment patterns through signals given by governments, from carbon-intensive to low-carbon—and, in the long term, to zero-carbon—products and processes could we solve the problem. Nonetheless, its performance is so difficult for various reasons.

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

先看看楼上写的~~
So far, it has been the most interesting scene in the 21st century that the climate change issue has actually turned into pretext for tumultuous stakeholders of the world to carve up the world’s benefits which are expected to crystallize in the next a few decades. No matter how it looks like a question of economics or technologies, climate change issue is all about politics. When it comes to the threat of climate change, every country becomes the spokesperson of justice; however, when it comes to the means of prevent global warming, every country stands by, shamefaced, and down at-heel. A conference which is supposed to save our planet has become bargaining.
It might not be able to achieve a consensual agreement during the Copenhagen summit. But, I still hope that Copenhagen can bring us more hope for humanity, for the future, for everyone. Let’s turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen.

呵呵，写的挺好，挺有激情的。




This article is about the author’s concerning of the climate change. By citing the environment problem caused by a certain insect-mountain called bark beetle, the author arouses the interests of the reader. three possible explanations for the insects over propagation have been illustrated，and Then, the author shift our attention to the environment issue through a series of statistics like the average temperature increase of the globe and warning of the melting ice that will lead to increasing sea level. It was revealed in the last few paragraphs that the technology is not the exactly obstacle to impede the implementation of the protocols such as the Tokyo Protocol, but the politic is the point----the governments fear to injure the economic because of protecting the environment, people will turn against the government once they have known green policies are packed with pork, protocols include too many countries that make it less likely to reach a consensus and the divide of the developing and developed country deepened the rift that proving hard to closed. Further, the author point out that any global climate deal will work only if the domestic policies through which it is implemented
As to this topic, I have may own opinion that there will be economic difficulty for those countries that will change their industrial structure.
In fact, any change of the industrial structure will be a big project. new facilities need to be built and unemployment caused by the alteration should be tackled with. For instance. countries that want to replace the energy factory fueled with coal need to built other clean energy factory that generate electricity through wind, unclear power, and water, the miners will lose their job and need support form the government. once this structure change take place. All these will be a burden to the financial budget of the government.

Sentence that difficult to be understood is follows, I hope some can help
1. Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps（大块的）of pinewood as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes.(为什么which前面没有逗号啊)
2． 第三段和第四段好像之间没有过渡的段或者句子
3. 第八段突然bark beetle 又出来了显得有点突兀
Several words and expressions need to be learnt was marked with bold and underscore.

海王泪UID: 2673613

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.18]
My Sum-Up
First I will try to paraphrase the main ideas of each paragraph; then I will write my comments. I think the sum-up might help me learn writing topic sentences and understand how the logic flows in this article.

Introduction to Global Warming（Forest）

1. Copenhagen tries to do better in tackling global warming.
2. It is unprecedented that the outbreak of bark beetle and thus severe damage in forest which then regenerate as the bug recedes.
3. Three main explanations are suggested for the outbreak: Haphazard, less varied woodland or prevailing higher temperatures.

Mechanism and Outcome(Gases and Sea)

4. The purpose, history and current problem of UNFCCC.
5. Achievement of UNFCCC: A scientific consensus on disasters which are very possible caused by human activity.
6. Climate changes: Rising Temperatures and melting sea-ice.
7. Sea-level is now rising faster than before because of warmer water and more sea-ice from glaciers.
8. Abnormal climate changes are man-made because natural variability may not explain why they are happening.
9. Carbon-dioxide emissions are higher now and thus probably lead to countless disasters.
10. Serious climate change is a danger and the world needs to fight against it.

Why we cannot solve it? (Part1: Global agreement)

11. The problem is not of technology when human are able to make progress in tech.
12. Nor is it a question of economics when curbing greenhouse-gas is available without holding back economic growth.
13. The problem is all about politics when cooperation among countries is difficult to achieve.
14. Cooperation in tackling global warming is much more difficult and urgent than that in world trade.

Why we cannot solve it? (Part2: Domestic implement)

15. The problem will be solved if lower emission of carbon dioxide made by changes in local business patterns; however, governments policies were always carried out wrong or inadequately.
16. Unsuitable policies in most of the countries were due to the inappropriate agreement signed by member states.
17. Copenhagen represents a second chance to make a difference though there are still many obstacles.
18. Only if domestic policies are both efficient and effective does the global climate deal make sense.

My comment:
The frame of this special report is shown above. It first introduces the problem of climate changes and something about UNFCCC, and then tell us what serve as the most important obstacle to solve global warming: It is neither techonological nor economic one, but politics.
About politics, one is the frustration in global achievement; another is the hardship in domestic implement.

As far as I concern, the article is not only a report but also a critique.
The last four paragraphs are more important and interesting than any other parts in the article because they offer a new perspective for us: Too much emphasis has been placed on the global agreement in Copenhagen. In fact, the ability for local governments to carry out appropriate policies should be concerned more.

Only the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is not enough. If my memory serves, European nations are not effective in controlling carbon emissions though they carry out the plan called European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). One of the reasons is that they provide too many allowances (or credits) for their companies. The governments are “merciful”.  Another reason is that the local industries complaint strongly about the EU ETS for their heavy economic burden. They may not strictly obey the law of scheme and sluggishly attend the trading system.

So what is the solution to ineffective domestic implement?
Maybe a strong supervisory mechanism is needed. And it should be a supra-national power which is able to force each government to strictly implement their policies. Well, I do not know. Time is up, and the problem remains. Luckly, we recognize it "immediately". In other words, we may make efforts to flatten the domestic obstacle ealier, as soon as possible after Copenhagen, and hope it is not too late.

P.S. I would like to say, Environmental Economics is my dream major.
Considering I cannot get good education domestically in this field, I really want to have further study aboard for my dream.
As far as I concern, it is the theory and system of economics which can explain and effectively regulate human's behavior.
To be an environment protectionist, I won't do work as what volunteers do. They have beautiful mind. But it seldom works.
Forgive my strong emotion and writing so many words. I just cannot help doing that.


My Excerpt and Imitation
(1)Sentence and Phrases
“So far the effort to tackle global warming has achieved little.”
So far the effort to + (achieve a purpose/solve a problem) + has achieved little.
So far the effort to tackle economic crisis has achieved little.
So far the effort to save endangered languages/species has achieved little.

“In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming.”
Something+ be barely perceptible
The deprivation of wealth in general population is barely perceptible.
The disaster/catastrophe was barely perceptible until it breaks out.

“The world needs to adjust its behavior to try to avert that threat”
(Prevent and avoid)Avert=deflect=turn away

“Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas”
Prevail=predominate
“It is hard for logic to prevail over emotion.—from Oxford”
The phrase “cup” prevailing on Internet sounds very like “Tragedy” in Chinese.
Han culture prevails in China..

“Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming.”
(Sth)+ on an irreversible journey to+ (tragedy)
People think that the group is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous Everest.
Our nation is already on an irreversible journey to economic crisis.

“And by dividing the world into developed and developing countries, it has deepened a rift that is proving hard to close.”

For mankind to get even to the threshold of a global agreement is a marvel.
For (members) to get even to the threshold of (agreement) is a marvel.
For my girl friend and me to get even to the threshold of an agreement is a marvel.
For China and America to get the threshold of a trade agreement is a marvel.
For Muslin and America to get the threshold of a truce is a marvel

“But broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions can be curbed without flattening the world economy.”

(2)Unfamiliar words
Sceptic
chiefly British variant of SKEPTIC SKEPTICAL SKEPTICISM
denigrate
to attack the reputation of : DEFAME <denigrate one's opponents>
threshold
a : GATE, DOOR
b : (1) : END, BOUNDARY;specifically: the end of a runway
(2) : the place or point of entering or beginning: OUTSET <on the threshold of a new age>

zhengchangdianUID: 2563082

Attentioned Sentence：
1.Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps of pinewood as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes.
2.To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate the efforts of the many people who have dedicated two decades to this problem.
Comments：
Contrasting with the World Trade Organization, the author makes the explanation concerning the climate change conference. As known to all, it is not a scientific or economic issue, but a political one. No one in the world has a savage abhorrence of the free-rider problem unless he is just the one to pay for others. In other words, it is the globalization that causes the worldwide challenge. No wonder the developed countries are reluctant to reach in common understandings with the developing countries under the heavy pressure from their tax payers. At the same time, the government would crash into collapse if the climate rescue plan failed in the end. This complex interaction relationship determines that the whole world has to make a comprehensive preparation in consideration of ecology, economy, politics and legislation before mankind could reach an agreement at more mundane level.

rodgoodUID: 2619326

My comments
As is mentioned in the report, the reason why there is no agreement in these protocols or conferences concerning the global warming is largely from neither techniques nor economics, but politics. However, as far as I’m concerned, the question could not be interpreted so easily.

This is an integrative problem combined with so many fields that each one has the responsibility and ability to affect the process of program. On the surface, the main difference among the nations is from politics, which refers to the emissions levels and money. But what determines the political standpoint of each nation? First of all, science and technology are supposed to research the efficient but inexpensive way to reduce the greenhouse-gas emission. Only when the cost of change is low enough could people accept it and the stress of the government be alleviated. Secondly, during the process of action, the economy of the world would not be flattened and the life of people would not be affected seriously. Last but importantly, medium and the consciousness of ordinary people are the most effective factors to influence the political view of the government.

The key to solve the tough problem is in our hands actually. It is the whole society that controls the development and the result of the conferences.

Useful words and phrases:

Clump，anthropogenic, pinewood，to date，barely perceptible，pin on，glacier，incline to the view that, curb，framework，mire，accrue，mitigate, rift, has fallen victim to, denigrate, marvel, legally binding agreement

Useful sentences:

1.In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming.

2.The glaciers in south-eastern Greenland have picked up speed.

3.Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty.

4.The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

5.It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one.

6.Ultimately, though, the international agreement has fallen victim to domestic politics.

7.  If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them.


另外赞hugesea的精华哈~~

1. Three main explanations for this disastrous outbreak suggest themselves. It could be chance. Populations do fluctuate dramatically and unexpectedly. It could be the result of management practices. British Columbia’s woodland is less varied than it used to be, which helps a beetle that prefers pine. Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas, allowing beetles to breed more often in summer and survive in greater numbers through the winter.
多妙的展开论述啊，什么叫具体，什么叫exhaustive，看看这里，我们的argument若是能写成这个样子，字数根本不用担心。这个段落就是在写argument时，如何具体而详尽用他因法攻击的很好的例子，写成这样，论述才生动具体，而不是干巴巴的几个可能性。

6. If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them. 多妙的排比啊，argument中运用排比也是详尽论述，具体展开的一种办法

嗯~~要学习你看文章的方式，看的同时还联想到自己写argument，把好的方面借鉴下来，不错不错哈！

sunflower_irisUID: 2720580

Even though we recognize the threat of global warming and know we should act to avert it, there is still a problem as how to solve it. The core of different opinions is realistic and strategic profits of their own countries. Emission reduction base on the cost of development speed, especially for the developing countries. So we need to find a way both efficient and effective. But personally, I don’t believe some politics can make the best of both worlds. To achieve the goal of stabilization we must pay the economic price then make a better place for the future generations.

海王泪UID: 2673613

Sentence that difficult to be understood is follows, I hope some can help
1. Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps（大块的）of pinewood as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes.(为什么which前面没有逗号啊)
2． 第三段和第四段好像之间没有过渡的段或者句子
3. 第八段突然bark beetle 又出来了显得有点突兀
Several words and expressions need to be learnt was marked with bold and underscore.
dingyi0311 发表于 2009-12-18 23:19

1.为什么要逗号？ destroying本来就是population的后置定语，强行在其中加个逗号感觉原句的完整性和清晰性会被破坏。要知道，定语从句修饰的是Pinewood，是树林被破坏了.然后复原。。（hugesea解释地很好。。限定与非限定性定语从句的区别，树林复原是重要信息不可省略固不宜用非限定。。GRAMMAR 6）

2.第三第四段的确不是同一个意群。。哈哈。。不过没关系啦··那样强跳出来反而告诉你文章开始进入正题了，不讲哄人的故事了，正文就选定Beetle中的温度做文章

3.bark beetle 不突兀啊。。。那里只是想呼应一下前文，说明Glaciers和这个Beetle一样，都是因为一些科学家们不太明白的天气作用产生的自然现象而已，然后一个BUT引出了科学家们的质疑：啊～～摆明是Man-made的啦～～
one of the countless natural oscillations in the climate that scientists do not properly understand