只用一本书提高英语听力能力!重温经典名著双语阅读小编推荐:跟着纪录片学英语不背单词和语法,轻松学英语
返回列表 回复 发帖

[BBC] 【整理】BBC Podcast 2008-10-07

提高英语听力能力 找对方法很重要!

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.

 

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 ]
立即获取| 免费注册领取外教体验课一节

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!

实现无障碍英语沟通

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。

 

返回列表