【CASK EFFECT】1006G阅读全方位锻炼--越障【Economist】 2-9

lghscuUID: 2552043

【CASK EFFECT】1006G阅读全方位锻炼--越障【Economist】 2-9  

继草木也知愁【SCI】系列特推出【Economist】，旨在培养阅读的习惯。
阅读不是实力的较量，是习惯的比拼
“规则：0 u, r. g$ C/ d+ [4 f5 C* B, J" n/ v5 W* u. f
% K  N9 u8 C/ `6 A0 b
我每天贴出1000字左右的一篇文字
没有别的要求，只要大家坚持读完就可以如果你能坚持一个月，你会发现自己的阅读进化了 [注]
1
直接在电脑屏幕面前做，虽然GRE阅读是在纸上考，但是这个过程会遏制你做笔记，同时给你的阅读造成视觉障碍，也就是把难度训练和抗干扰训练同步结合，增加效率（初期会很累，但是既然大家想要成为高手，那么就别对自己太温柔）
2
所采用文章部分来自寄托天下版油发贴，在此谢谢所有的版油”


Climate change
Planet BDec 30th 2009
From The Economist print edition
How the underwhelming Copenhagen accord could yet turn into a useful document

FACED with the undoubted grandeur of climate change, a grand response seems in order. But, to the immediate disappointment to most of those participating and watching, the much anticipated UN climate conference held in Copenhagen in December led to no such thing.
Initial ambitions for a legally binding agreement with numerical targets for big emitters had already been abandoned in favour of a “politically binding” deal in which developed and developing countries would commit themselves to numerical targets to cut emissions. In the event a few countries produced a short “accord” that sets down no specific limits for future emissions beyond those that its signatories volunteer (see article)—and the commitments they have made so far do not look tough enough to limit the rise in temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the widely accepted boundary beyond which scientists do not recommend going.

Hardly a grand response. Yet the Copenhagen accord is not the disaster that it at first appears. On two issues in particular the Copenhagen conference may yet mark the beginning of a new way forward.
First, the UN’s climate process has for more than a decade been bedevilled by a binary split between developed and developing countries. Under the Kyoto protocol, only developed countries committed themselves to cutting emissions; developing countries made no such promises. That was the main reason why Kyoto failed, because America would not accept a treaty that required nothing of countries such as China, and China insisted that the rich world should bear most of the necessary costs of constraining emissions. At Copenhagen developed countries were determined to move beyond this structure; many developing countries to hang on to it. That was the obstacle on which the conference foundered.
Yet the Copenhagen accord makes some progress towards closing this split. Developing, as well as developed, countries signed up to it, and have agreed to an international role in monitoring any cuts they commit themselves to. That is a crucial concession.
More than they can chewThe second reason for hope is that Copenhagen’s failure may have encouraged the development of political structures better suited to the challenge. Climate change is not just an unusually grand problem. It is also an unusually complex one, which crosses and confounds the boundaries that normally define our world; from farming to forestry, shipping to sovereignty, all sorts of interests are brought together in new ways that demand new actions. Trying to deal with all the sources of the many gases involved in a single set of negotiations, in a forum of 193 countries, was always a tall order.
The Copenhagen accord edges towards allowing negotiations to take place in new forums. Some of its provisions, notably on mechanisms for funding mitigation efforts in developing countries, can take effect outside the UN process. That could mark a new pluralism in climate politics, allowing coalitions of the willing to form for specific purposes—such as slowing deforestation, or stemming emissions from shipping.
There are risks to slicing up the problem into smaller pieces. Bundling everything together, so that all parties need to offer some give in order to get their take, is a time-honoured format for negotiations; and stepping back from doing everything in one forum may mean doing less overall. But the world has twice, at Kyoto and at Copenhagen, tried to deal with the problem in one go, and failed. Smaller groups such as the G20 or the Major Economies Forum offer a better prospect for haggling over difficult issues. The UN process still has a role, in ensuring a workable and trusted system of accounting for carbon, and in debating and approving or rejecting agreements whose details will largely be worked out elsewhere.
Many problems lie ahead—and not just as a result of Copenhagen’s failures. The main danger lies in the American Senate, which at some point over the next few months will decide whether to approve or reject legislation to set up a cap-and-trade system to put a price on carbon. That will have more impact than any international conference, including Copenhagen, on the future levels of greenhouse-gas emissions. But global negotiations will need to continue—and the participants need to learn one useful lesson from Copenhagen. Climate change is too big a problem to be swallowed in a single bite. Smaller groups, dealing with more manageable-sized chunks, have a better chance.

lghscuUID: 2552043

解决！

river1112UID: 2666300

1)Underwhelm未留下深刻印象
  How the underwhelming Copenhagen accord could yet turn into a useful document
2)Signatory n. 签署者，签约国
3)Bedevil vt. 使痛苦，使苦恼，虐待，迷惑
4)Binary二元的
  First, the UN’s climate process has for more than a decade been bedevilled by a binary split between developed and developing countries.
5)Bear承担，忍受
  China insisted that the rich world should bear most of the necessary costs of constraining emissions.
6）Hang on to紧紧抓住，坚持下去
7）Founder v. 摔倒，失败，沉没，弄跛
  That was the obstacle on which the conference foundered.
8）Chew仔细思考/chew over the issue斟酌
More than they can chewThe second reason for hope is that Copenhagen’s failure may have encouraged the development of political structures better suited to the challenge.
9)Confound  vt. 使困惑，混淆，挫败，诅咒
  Climate change is not just an unusually grand problem. It is also an unusually complex one, which crosses and confounds the boundaries that normally define our world; from farming to forestry, shipping to sovereignty, all sorts of interests are brought together in new ways that demand new actions.
10)Tall oder 难以完成的任务，苛求
11)Edge 徐徐前进
  The Copenhagen accord edges towards allowing negotiations to take place in new forums.
12) Pluralism n. 多元论，兼职（尤指神职）
13)Slice up切片
  There are risks to slicing up the problem into smaller pieces.
14)Time-honoured 由来已久的