2. 外语
  3. 　　There is no dispute that it is necessary to devise ways to cut down carbon emissions, but we do dispute how to do it. The divi

　　There is no dispute that it is necessary to devise ways to cut down carbon emissions, but we do dispute how to do it. The divi

admin2021-09-18  41
问题 　　There is no dispute that it is necessary to devise ways to cut down carbon emissions, but we do dispute how to do it. The divide generally falls between those that advocate for market-based solutions in general, and those that believe that the government can play a more constructive role than businesses in certain instances. The following are opinions from both sides. Read them carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should:
    1. summarize briefly opinions from both sides;
    2. give your comment.
    Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
    Write your response on ANSWER SHEET FOUR.
Thomas A. Weber from Stanford University
    Market mechanisms are open ended and provide an ongoing profit motive for companies, state agencies, and individuals to reduce emissions, as doing so either creates additional profits or yields up additional tax reductions (carbon tax). Either is better than a regulatory approach, which only requires cuts to a certain level and provides no longer-term incentive for companies to drive down emissions by investing in new technology—meaning companies will take the minimum action necessary to meet the regulatory standard.
Juliet Eilperin from the US Environment Department
    Regulation already exists and has proved effective, so it is unnecessary to try to construct market-based solutions. Pollution and climate change is essentially a result of market failure, and governments need to intervene to resolve this. Regulations are flexible as they can be strengthened and extended over time, building on initially moderate measures. Regulations can also be introduced in such a way that companies are given an incentive to reduce their carbon emissions as much as possible, for example through progressive fines for CAFE vehicle emissions standards in the USA.
Steven Mufson from Climate Change Authority
    Using market mechanisms is likely to have a greater impact on people’s behaviour than regulation alone. Both a carbon tax and a trading system that prices emissions would raise the cost of fuel and electricity for ordinary people, providing an incentive to reduce their personal carbon footprint. This would have an immediate impact, and would affect all kinds of consumers, whereas regulations mandating efficiency standards for vehicles or homes would apply only to new purchases and not to the huge number of existing automobiles and houses, making any overall progress in reducing emissions extremely slow.
Brad Plumer from The Environmental Protection Agency
    Market-based proposals can sound great in theory but economists fail to recognize the way in which people actually live their lives. Because people value the personal freedom their motor vehicle gives them, and feel that they have no choice but to use it to get to work, take the kids to school, etc., they will swallow very high increases in fuel taxes without changing their behaviour. Similarly, making your home energy efficient can involve a lot of initial expense, and even if this investment would pay for itself in lower bills or taxes over a number of years, many people will not feel the investment is worthwhile. Only by regulation requiring people to change their behaviour can this inertia be addressed.
Cindy Long from Peking University
    Regulations to reduce carbon emissions will suffer all the problems of government bureaucracy. While market mechanisms will appeal to companies’ and consumers’ self-interest in a transparent way, regulations are always complex and burdensome. A massive and expensive administrative system will be needed to frame and introduce meaningful regulations, and this will impose unnecessary costs upon our economy (and probably raise taxes). Worse, because government is always so bad at regulation, companies will calculate that they need not obey the rules anyway—because poor monitoring means they are unlikely to get caught, and weak penalties mean that even if they are caught the fines will still be less than the cost of complying with the regulations.
选项
答案 Regulatory-based Measures Are More Suitable in China The severity of climate change has gathered many attentions over the past decades. To tackle the problem, two approaches have been proposed to reduce carbon emission: the market-based and the regulatory-based. Those who support the market-based approach believe that it will provide a continuous incentive for companies to get involved and the effect will be quick, without getting entangled in the slow and complicated bureaucracy. On the other hand, those who advocate the regulatory-based approach argue that the mechanism is already functioning and it is very effective to change people’s behavior. To effectively reduce carbon emission, different contexts require different approaches. In the Chinese context, I think the regulatory-based approach better serves its purposes. The regulatory approach signals official resolution and commitment to reducing carbon emission, which will guide the general public to change their behavior. In fact, we had a successful precedent back in 2008. To curb the rampant white pollution, the Chinese government banned the practice of offering free plastic bags in supermarkets, groceries and stores. This policy has saved an equivalence of about 6 million tons of oil within 5 years. Ever since then, Chinese customers have grown accustomed to bringing recycle bags when shopping. Similarly, if we want to cut down carbon emission, governments, local or national, need to impose regulatory measures, such as charging carbon emission tax, shutting down businesses that produce a large amount of carbon emission, and subsidizing carbon-neutral industries. If implemented, these policies will send a strong message to a large population that the government is serious about reducing carbon emission. Chinese people will accordingly adjust their consumption and production behaviors and mind their carbon footprints. In conclusion, the regulatory approach in China demonstrates the political will to curb carbon emission, the authority of which will convince people to lead a more carbon-minded life.
解析     题目给出了五个段落的观点，在概括时，考生须注意归类。第一、三、五段是支持市场机制减排；第二、四段是支持政策导向减排。根据题目的要求，考生可采取以下的布局：
    第一段：总结市场机制减排的主要观点(持久动力、效果迅速、不落于缓慢繁复的行政作风)和政策导向减排的主要观点(现行机制已上轨道、能有效改变人们的行为习惯)；提出个人见解——中国的国情比较适合政策导向减排。
    第二段：指出政策导向能彰显政府的决心和承担，从而能引导大众改变行为。举2008年禁止免费提供塑料袋的成功例子。类似地，减排也可以通过一些政策措施有效干预，让人们感受到政府减排的决心，从而改变消费与生产行为。
    第三段：总结全文，重申观点。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/gAkMFFFM
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)