Board logo

标题: [BBC] 【整理】BBC Podcast 2008-10-07 [打印本页]

作者: brightu    时间: 2008-10-7 11:28     标题: 【整理】BBC Podcast 2008-10-07



Best of Today

BBC Radio 4

Insight, analysis and expert debate as key policy makers are challenged on the latest news stories. Developing countries, including China, should not have to commit to any emissions reductions until 2020, a review suggests. Author of the Stern Review, Lord Nicholas Stern, discusses "a global deal for climate change".Duration: 5mins | File Size: 3MB







【电信用户1】在线播放和下载

Download mp3


Standard版听写规则(新手必读)

版主提示:
一、若是自己的听写稿, 请发帖时标注'Homework'.
二、若是改稿, 请发帖时标注'on 某某人'并在修改处标红.
三、为了达到最快的下载速度,推荐使用迅雷高速下载本站音频/视频材料.

 

【整理】BBC Podcast 2008-10-07     【整理人】brightu  fujunzhao 北星束 jjmm

 

 

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, it will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that it’s those industrialized countries which caused the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the Economics of Climate Change is speaking at the LSE today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

The west should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason that the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look at where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look at where, say, Europe is now, Europe is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, is a cut by 80%, is what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

The trouble is though that whoever’s responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China is already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America, soon.

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge coz China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capita, because the world needs to average two tons per capita. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account of the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries, to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

We have a problem, though, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change, and many people would think it is right – sort out the economy first and then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

We’ve got to find a low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now, is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we'd thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

But we have a situation where Europe who, considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems as a result of the economic downturn, and they want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue, has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend very heavily on coal. Then, they are not keen to expose themselves to the uncertainties of dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means, um, a carbon capture and storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon the commitment, they’ll lead us into very serious problems, um, before too long.

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal-fired power stations that are planned? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitments? How should, how should that work?

 

I think they should be planned to involve carbon capture and storage from the, from the beginning. 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think it, I would rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.

 

 




 

[ 本帖最后由 jjmm 于 2008-10-12 21:24 编辑 ]
作者: sainfoinwy    时间: 2008-10-7 13:03     标题: hw

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that if it hasn’t already, will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that it’s those industrialized countries which cause the problem which should be responsible for 95% cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produces the government review of the economics climate change is speaking at the essay today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

The West should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now because they followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capital of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equilibrium. If you look well say Europe’s now, Europe’s is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, it’s a cut by 80%. It’s what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

The trouble is though that who’s ever responsible for the mess in terms of clean at all, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America soon.

 

It has probably already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capital at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got major challenge because China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capital, because the world needs the average two tons per capital. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They got to take account the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to for rich countries to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credibly interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

We have a problem, don’t we that countries now are rustling with prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change and many people think it is right to solve the economies first then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

We’ve got to find low carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from the story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of few actions. This, I mean crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we’d thought carefully of the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat the climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

But we have a situation where Europe who’s considering that plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not at least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems with the result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down the climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend very heavily on coal that are not keen to expose themselves uncertainties, depends on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means carbon caption and storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward not to abandon a commitment though leads into very serious problems before too long.

 

And when you talk about clean coal, would you think about the coal-fire power station, the tower plan. Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitment? How should that work?

 

I think they should be planed to involve carbon caption and storage from the beginning.

 

And if not, they don’t get to go ahead.

I think that’s right. But I think I’d rather look at this much more positively and see them as a part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.                    

 

[ 本帖最后由 sainfoinwy 于 2008-10-7 13:16 编辑 ]
作者: myconsent    时间: 2008-10-7 13:22

on sainfoinwy

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, will soon take the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that those industrialized countries which cause the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the economics climate change is speaking at the essay today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

 

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

 

 

The West should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look at where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look well say Europe’s now, Europe’s is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, it’s a cut by 80%. It’s what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

 The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America’s.

 

 

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge because China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capital, because the world needs the average two tons per capital. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account into the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

 

 

We have a problem, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change and many people think it is right – sort out the economies first then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

 

 

We’ve got to find low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat the climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

 

 

But we have a situation where Europe who’s considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not at least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems with the result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend heavily on coal. They are not keen to expose themselves to uncertainties, dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means carbon captioned storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon a commitment that will lead us into very serious problems before too long.

 

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal fire power stations of the power plant? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitment? How should that work?

 

 

 

I think they should be planed to involve carbon captiond storage from the beginning.

 

 

 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think I’d rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

 

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.                   

 


作者: ACMICPC    时间: 2008-10-7 13:42     标题: On myconsent

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, will soon take the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that those industrialized countries which cause the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the economic (economics) climate change is speaking at the essay today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

 

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

 

 

The West should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and the in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look at where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look well say Europe’s now, Europe’s is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, it’s a cut by 80%. It’s what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

 The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America’s.

 

 

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge because China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capital, because the world needs the average two tons per capital. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account into the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

 

 

We have a problem, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change and many people think it is right – sort out the economies first then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

 

 

We’ve got to find low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This I am crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat the climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

 

 

But we have a situation where Europe who’s considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not at least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems with the result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend heavily on coal. They are not keen to expose themselves to uncertainties, dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means some carbon captioned storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon a commitment that will lead us into very serious problems before too long.

 

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal fire power stations of the top plant? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitment? How should that work?

 

 

 

I think they should be planed to involve carbon captioned storage from the beginning.

 

 

 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think I’d rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

 

 

Lord Stern, many thanks. 
作者: cross3561    时间: 2008-10-7 13:47

on acmicpc

 

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that in those industrialized countries which cause the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the economics climate change is speaking at the essay today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

 

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

 

 

The West should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look at where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look well say Europe’s now, Europe’s is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, it’s a cut by 80%. It’s what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

 The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America soon.

 

 

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge because China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capital, because the world needs the average two tons per capital. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account into the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

 

 

We have a problem though, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change and many people think it is right – sort out the economies first then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

 

 

We’ve got to find low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we'd thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat the climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

 

 

But we have a situation where Europe who’s considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not at least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems with the result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend heavily on coal. They are not keen to expose themselves to uncertainties, dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means some carbon captioned storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon a commitment that will lead us into very serious problems before too long.

 

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal fire power stations of the power plant? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitment? How should that work? 

 

I think they should be planed to involve carbon captioned storage from the beginning.  

 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think I’d rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.

[ 本帖最后由 cross3561 于 2008-10-7 13:48 编辑 ]
作者: 蜗牛牧师    时间: 2008-10-7 14:11     标题: on cross

多谢捧场啊! 见到蜗牛兄心里踏实多了~~---jjmm

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that / those industrialized countries which cause the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the Economics  of Climate Change is speaking at the LSE today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

The west should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look at where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look at where ,well, say Europe’s now, Europe’s is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, it’s a cut by 80%. It’s what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America, soon.

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge Coz China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capita, because the world needs to average two tons per capita. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They/ got to take account into the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

We have a problem, though, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change and many people will think it is right – sort out the economies first then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

We’ve got to find a low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we'd thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat the climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

But we have a situation where Europe who’s considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not less from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems as the result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend heavily on coal. They are not keen to expose themselves the uncertainties of dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that , um, means a  carbon captioned storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon the commitment that will lead us into very serious problems and before too long.

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal fire power stations of that, our plant? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitment? How should that work?

 

I think they should be planed to involve carbon captioned storage from the beginning. 

 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think it, I’d rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.

 

[ 本帖最后由 jjmm 于 2008-10-7 18:08 编辑 ]
作者: jjmm    时间: 2008-10-7 19:02     标题: on 蜗牛

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, it will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that it’s those industrialized countries which caused the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the Economics of Climate Change is speaking at the LSE today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

The west should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason that the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look at where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look at where,/ say, Europe’s now, Europe/ is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, it’s a cut by 80%. It’s what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America, soon.

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge coz China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capita, because the world needs to average two tons per capita. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account into the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

We have a problem, though, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change and many people will think it is right – sort out the economies first then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

We’ve got to find a low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we'd thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat the climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

But we have a situation where Europe who, considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems as the result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend heavily on coal. They are not keen to expose themselves to the uncertainties of dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means, um, a  carbon captioned storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon the commitment, they’ll lead us into very serious problems, um, before too long.

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal fire power stations that are planned? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitments? How should that work?

 

I think they should be planned to involve carbon captioned storage from the beginning. 

 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think it, I would rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.

 


作者: brightu    时间: 2008-10-7 20:35

on jjmm

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, it will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that it’s those industrialized countries which caused the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the Economics of Climate Change is speaking at the LSE today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

The west should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason that the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look / where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look / where, say, Europe is now, Europe is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, it’s a cut by 80%. It’s what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America, soon.

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge coz China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capita, because the world needs to average two tons per capita. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account into the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries, to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

We have a problem, though, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change, and many people would think it is right – sort out the economy first and then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

We’ve got to find a low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now, is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we'd thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat the climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

But we have a situation where Europe who, considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems as a result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend [depends] heavily on coal. They are not keen to expose themselves to the uncertainties of dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means, um, a carbon capture and storage (碳的回收和存储) for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon the commitment, they’ll lead us into very serious problems, um, before too long.

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal fire power stations that are planned? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitments? How should, how should that work?

 

I think they should be planned to involve carbon capture and storage from the, from the beginning. 

 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think it, I would rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.

作者: 北星束    时间: 2008-10-7 21:20

on whoever wants to exhaust jjmm and ME

 

 

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, / will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that it’s those industrialized countries which caused the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the Economics of Climate Change is speaking at the LSE today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

The west should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason that the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look / where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look / where, say, Europe is now, Europe is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, it’s a cut by 80%. It’s what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America, soon.

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge coz China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capita, because the world needs to average two tons per capita. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account of the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries, to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

We have a problem, though, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change, and many people would think it is right – sort out the economy first and then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

We’ve got to find a low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now, is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we'd thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat the climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

But we have a situation where Europe who, considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems as a result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend [depends] heavily on coal. They are not keen to expose themselves to the uncertainties of dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means, um, a carbon capture and storage (碳的回收和存储) for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon the commitment, they’ll lead us into very serious problems, um, before too long.

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal-fired power stations that are planned? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitments? How should, how should that work?

 

I think they should be planned to involve carbon capture and storage from the, from the beginning. 

 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think it, I would rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.

 


作者: jjmm    时间: 2008-10-7 23:03     标题: 预整理 on 北星束& brightu

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, it will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that it’s those industrialized countries which caused the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the Economics of Climate Change is speaking at the LSE today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

The west should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason that the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look at where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look at where, say, Europe is now, Europe is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, is a cut by 80%, is what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America, soon.

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge coz China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capita, because the world needs to average two tons per capita. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account of the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries, to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

We have a problem, though, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change, and many people would think it is right – sort out the economy first and then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

We’ve got to find a low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now, is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we'd thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat / climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

But we have a situation where Europe who, considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems as a result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend [depends] heavily on coal. Then, they are not keen to expose themselves to the uncertainties of dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means, um, a carbon capture and storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon the commitment, they’ll lead us into very serious problems, um, before too long.

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal-fired power stations that are planned? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitments? How should, how should that work?

 

I think they should be planned to involve carbon capture and storage from the, from the beginning. 

 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think it, I would rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.

 

[ 本帖最后由 jjmm 于 2008-10-7 23:04 编辑 ]
作者: 一叶轻舟    时间: 2008-10-8 09:16     标题: on jjmm 预整理

暂时就找到一个

This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk/readio4.

 

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, it will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Despite that, it says that it’s those industrialized countries which caused the problem which should be responsible for 95% of cuts by 2050. Lord Stern who produced the government review of the Economics of Climate Change is speaking at the LSE today about what the global deal for climate change should look like.

 

And I asked him, if China was right. 

 

The west should certainly take the lead and cut by at least 80%, and in some cases, more than 90% between 1990 and 2050. And the reason that the West should take the lead is that they are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere now because they’ve followed high carbon growth for so long. If you look at where we need to be by 2050, we need to get to roughly two tons per capita of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. If you look at where, say, Europe is now, Europe is at 10 or 12. So dividing by five, is a cut by 80%, is what’s necessary to get down to that level. But everybody has to be involved in this. It can’t be the rich countries alone.

 

The trouble is though that whoever is responsible for the mess in terms of clearing it up, China’s already the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it’s expected to overtake America, soon.

 

It probably has already overtaken America. China is around 5 tons per capita at the moment. And China, we all hope, will continue its rapid growth. So China’s got a major challenge coz China too has to get down to roughly two tons per capita, because the world needs to average two tons per capita. And it won’t be possible to do that unless the big blocks are around that level.

 

But don’t you therefore need to structure that into any deal when world leaders sit down to replace Kyoto or continue Kyoto. They’ve got to take account of the fact that China has to have something in place to get it to two tons.

 

Yes, it does. And the challenge there will be to, for rich countries, to take on their commitments clearly and strongly now for at least 80% reductions by 2050, and credible interim targets along the way. If that happens, I believe that you would see a strong participation by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, many of the other big developing countries. So if the rich countries take that lead, I think it will be reasonable to look for a deal where China, India and so on commit to commit within five or ten years.

 

We have a problem, though, don’t we? In that countries now are wrestling with the prospect of recession and they are more worried about their economies than climate change, and many people would think it is right – sort out the economy first and then deal with the problem of climate change.

 

We’ve got to find a low-carbon growth. If we stick with our current model, we will choke off growth. One thing we must have learnt from this story of the very serious financial problems facing the world, and the turbulence facing the world in the financial markets now, is you have to look ahead and think about the consequences of your actions. This crisis, was 10, 15, 20 years in the making on the financial markets. If we'd thought carefully over the interim period, we could have avoided this. We have to treat / climate change in the same way. If we leave this for 10, 15, 20 years, we’ll be in very difficult circumstances.

 

But we have a situation where Europe who, considering their plans this week, are considering watering them down because they’ve got pressure not least from eastern European countries, saying, look, they’ve got problems as a result of the economic downturn, and they won’t want to water down their climate change commitments.

 

That would be a serious mistake in my view. And I think we should look for leadership in the UK and Europe as a whole on this issue has Europe, has been a leader in the past. There will be countries such as Poland that depend [depends] very heavily on coal. Then, they are not keen to expose themselves to the uncertainties of dependence on Russian gas. So those countries have to be helped to find a clean coal. And that means, um, a carbon capture and storage for coal has to be established, and has to be established quickly. And Poland and many other countries can do much more on energy efficiency. Those kinds of ways are the right way forward, not to abandon the commitment, they’ll lead us into very serious problems, um, before too long.

 

And when you talk about clean coal, what do you think about the coal-fired power stations that are planned? Should there be, they only be allowed to go ahead with certain commitments? How should, how should that work?

 

I think they should be planned to involve carbon capture and storage from the, from the beginning. 

And if not, they don’t get the go-ahead.

 

I think that’s right. But I think it, I would rather look at this much more positively and see them as part of a big investment in clean coal to make sure that it works well.

 

Lord Stern, many thanks.


作者: 北星束    时间: 2008-10-8 11:29

China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, it will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter.

 

丫头,这里的it偶怎么觉得不用类?

if it hasn’t already, it will soon ,这么短个句子,两个it,太累赘了吧?

读音上说不清楚,但是第一次听的时候感觉是没有it的,其实偶觉得这个句子说if / hasn’t already, it will soon 还比较好~~

 

丫头偶等着你把我驳倒~


作者: jjmm    时间: 2008-10-8 11:44

原帖由 北星束 于 2008-10-8 11:29 发表 China’s carbon dioxide emissions have been growing so fast that, if it hasn’t already, it will soon overtake the United States as the world’s biggest polluter.   丫头,这里的it偶怎么觉得不用 ...

 

从语法角度说,后面的it是省不了的,因为这是主句的主语。如果省了,到底是谁overtake啊?讲不清楚。因为前面的it只能控制if从句里的谓语。你现在提出的这个前面省略,后面有的句子是合乎语法的。就是从句的主语跟主句一致,就省了。

不过,我是横听竖听都有it呀。

这个句子其实也不奇怪,它是省略了从句中的动词,本来应该是if it hasn't already overtaken the United states as the world'd biggest ..., it will soon overtake the United States....

整个句子的中心在后面,前面的谓语就省略了。已经省了很多了,不过核心结构还是应该有的嘛。

 

欢迎反击!


作者: 北星束    时间: 2008-10-8 12:14

原帖由 jjmm 于 2008-10-8 11:44 发表   从语法角度说,后面的it是省不了的,因为这是主句的主语。如果省了,到底是谁overtake啊?讲不清楚。因为前面的it只能控制if从句里的谓语。你现在提出的这个前面省略,后面有的句子是合乎语法的。就是从句 ...

 

 

从来都没有赢过你 ,偶又输了...(垂死挣扎一下,it的音也太弱了~)

 

另外,“反击”?  偶怎么会“击”呢?  保护MM还还不及呢

 

另另外,那个if / hasn’t already, it will soon 可以对吧?


作者: jjmm    时间: 2008-10-8 13:19

原帖由 北星束 于 2008-10-8 12:14 发表     从来都没有赢过你 ,偶又输了...(垂死挣扎一下,it的音也太弱了~)   另外,“反击”?  偶怎么会“击”呢?  保护MM还还不及呢   另另外,那个if / hasn’t alrea ...

 

你是说if hasn't already, it will soon overtake...吗?

上面说过了,我觉得这样可以。只是听到的前面半句中是有it的。

 






欢迎光临 普特英语听力论坛 (http://forum.putclub.com/) Powered by Discuz! 7.0.0