ЯК НАУКА І НАВЧАЛЬНА ДИСЦИПЛІНА

Дата добавления: 2015-09-15; просмотров: 902

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol calls on industrial nations to help slow global warming by cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The US President announced that he was abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, having concluded that the international agreement could hurt the American economy, particularly during a burgeoning energy crisis. Governments around the world condemned the President’s stance as uninformed and even reckless, noting with outrage that the US is home to 4% of the world’s population but produces 25% of its greenhouse gases.

The USA is reluctant to sign up to an international agreement that would require American industries to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment in factories. The Administration insists that it has by no means spoken its last word on global warming and pledges a coherent – if unspecified – policy at some later date.

For all the storm Kyoto has caused, its original provisions seem modest: a 5% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels for most industrialized nations, with the USA – as the world’s worst CO² offender – receiving a tougher 7% cut. Developing countries that signed the treaty would get a pass for a while.

This did not go down well in Washington. In 1997 the Senate, which must ratify treaties, voted 95 to 0 that any global-warming pact must treat developed and developing countries equally. Such a repudiation is one more argument the Administration is using to pull the plug on Kyoto – though the Senate was probably driven by more than mere conscience. One of the 1997 resolution’s sponsors was Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, from the coal-producing state of West Virginia. Other interests – notably the oil and coal industries, both heavy contributors to Bush’s election campaign – also had the President’s ear.

What is causing the most distress is that all this comes at a time when many other pieces of the global-warming solution seem to be falling into place.

In the US, state and local governments have been increasingly active in implementing greenhouse programs of their own, clamping down on emissions within their borders and enforcing conservation laws. Corporations in such sooty industries as oil and autos have been imposing on themselves the very restrictions Washington won’t. Outside the US, green-leaning developed nations like the EU members and emerging pollutants like China and Mexico have seemed to be getting the message, implementing new programs and testing new technologies to control global warming.

An effective program to fight climate change need not involve huge increases in energy prices or draconian rules that choke industries at the smokestacks. The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends a range of new devices, including hybrid gas-electric cars that run half the time on a traditional internal-combustion engine and the rest of the time on batteries, boosting gas mileage considerably. Also promising is the combined cycle-gas turbine that can be used in place of traditional turbines to generate electricity. The new hardware operates at up to 60% efficiency, nearly twice that of any other turbine. Add a device that captures escaping heat and use that to warm buildings, and the efficiency jumps to 90%.

In its report, the IPCC was particularly keen on wind power. The EU produces 70% of the world’s wind-generated energy, with Germany, Spain and Denmark leading. The Netherlands will soon be getting into the game in a big way, building one of the world’s largest wind farms some 8 km offshore, a remote location that can take advantage of brisk sea breezes while keeping the noisy mills out of human earshot.

Germany is investigating the possibilities of wind power, too. Britain announced plans for 18 new offshore wind farms as part of the Labour government’s effort to ensure that 10% of the country’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2010.

There are other ways to meet the Kyoto requirements, such as emissions trading, which would permit countries that exceed their required cuts to sell credits to other countries, and counting CO² absorption by forests as part of targeted reductions.

However, in the short run, there’s not much chance of halting global warming, not even if every nation ratifies the Kyoto Protocol tomorrow. The treaty does not require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions until 2008. By that time, a great deal of damage will have been done. But we can slow things down. If action today can keep the climate from eventually reaching an unstable tripping point or can finally begin to reverse the warming trend a century from now, the effort would hardly be futile.

(From ‘Time’, abridged)

Choose the best answer to the following questions.

1. The USA abandoned the Kyoto Protocol because

A. the country is facing an energy crisis.

B. the USA Administration is uninformed.

C. the country isn’t willing to spend money on anti-pollution equipment.

D. the country has its own policy to stop global warming.

2. According to the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol developing countries

A. are not allowed to join the treaty.

B. won’t have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

C. will pass bills on emission reductions.

D. will begin reducing emissions later than developed countries.

3. The US Senate voted that any global-warming pact must treat developed and developing countries equally because

A. the idea of equality is inherent in American conscience.

B. the decision was lobbied by interested parties.

C. the US President ordered it.

D. it doesn’t wish the Protocol to be effective.

4. The paragraph “In the US, state and local governments have been increasingly active in …” means to say that

A. the US Administration and local governments oppose the decision of the Senate.

B. local governments adopt laws which contradict the overall policy of the country.

C. state and local governments are trying to force the Senate to change its attitude to the Kyoto Protocol.

D. separate states and local governments are trying to protect environment irrespective of the decisions taken by the Senate.

5. “Conservation laws” mentioned in the same paragraph are

A. laws on environment protection.

B. laws dealing with conservation of energy.

C. laws dealing with the rational use of natural resources.

D. laws on closing down plants polluting environment.

6. “Emission trading” means that

A. the countries that don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions will have to pay fines.

B. the countries that don’t reduce emissions will have to pay damages to the neighbouring states.

C. the countries won’t need to reduce emissions if they grow forests to absorb carbon dioxide.

D. if some countries can’t meet the Kyoto requirements they will be able to find alternative ways to reduce the harm done to environment.

Vocabulary. Read the articles again, find the following words and word combinations in the text and learn their meaning. Make it a particular point to use these words in the further discussion of the problem.

1.

To link smth with smth, to cause smth, a trend toward smth, to assert smth, to have an impact on smth, to question smth, scarce, unthinkable, to migrate out of …, to contaminate water supplies, to adjust, devastating, to proclaim smth, circumstantial evidence, coherent, a wide range of …, an environmentalist.

2.

A stance, outrage, to be reluctant to do smth, to pledge smth, (un)specified (to specify smth), a provision (of a treaty), to go down well somewhere, to ratify a treaty, to pull a plug on smth, to implement a program, a conservation law, to impose restrictions on …, to emerge, to get the message, to exceed smth, to slow smth down, futile.