![](https://xn--d1apfdmgh.xn--p1ai/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Скриншот-12-02-2024-133533-150x150.jpg)
Теория вероятностей (2475)
12 февраля, 2024![](https://xn--d1apfdmgh.xn--p1ai/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Скриншот-12-02-2024-135327-150x150.jpg)
Опись дел как справочник по содержанию и учету документов фонда организации (2873-1)
12 февраля, 2024Английский язык (2798)
300,00 ₽
Контрольная работа, 2014 год
Задание для выполнения контрольной работы по иностранному языку:
1.Перевод статьи.
- Ответить на вопросы после статьи (на английском) 3с, 3d, 3f
For sale: a licence to pollute: Traded pollution permits have curbed sulphur dioxide emissions in the US and could soon be extended more widely, says Leyla Boulton.
Six years after it was approved by the US Congress as part of the Clean Air Act, trading in permits allowing companies to pollute has cut sulphur dioxide emissions in the US faster and more cheaply than ever expected. Now the architects of pollution trading In Chicago have ambitions to extend the business to a wider range of polluting substances. And supporters are advocating an international trading system for permits to release carbon dioxide – the best-known man-made cause of global warming – into the atmosphere. Critics may say it is immoral to
give companies an explicit right to pollute. But Mr Richard Sandor, a former vice-president of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT). who launched sulphur dioxide trading, argues it injects pragmatism into environmental protection, it’s time to take the environment out of the warm, fuzzy area, he says. ‘You can’t just say “I want to save all the dolphins in the world.” You’ve got to work out how to solve problems in the most cost-effective way.’ The way the sulphur dioxide ‘allowance’ system works is simple. The Environmental Protection Agency, a federal agency, issues permits to release the amount of pollution allowed by the Clean Air Act. Most are allocated to power companies but a small number are auctioned once a year by the CBOT to set a
price for them. If plant A gets permits to emit 150,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide but wants to emit 155,000 tonnes it must purchase an extra 5.000 allowances (each worth a tonne of sulphur dioxide)- or pay a fine far exceeding the price of the permits- But if the plant is able to cat its emissions further than required, it has surplus allowances. It can either sell the surplus to another plant or save it for future years.
Trading has two main advantages over traditional I environmental regulation. It gives companies a financial incentive to reduce emissions for less than it would cost to buy permits. And, by leaving it to f companies to decide how and when to reduce emissions, it reduces пол just the cost of compliance but the bureaucracy required to enforce environ-i mental legislation. The EPA reckons emission reduction through trading has so far cost VS industry just S2.5bn 3 half as much as it would have cost under the EPA’s traditional regulatory system»
The scheme has certainly worked: the US”s 110 most polluting power plants spewed put only 5.3m tonnes of sulphur dioxide last year, well below a government ceiling of 8.7m tonnes – prompting some environmentalists to say the targets were too lax. The ultimate aim of the programme, by progressively reducing the number of permits distributed to industry, is to cut sulphur dioxide emissions to half their 19S0 level by 2010.
Its success has inspired the EPA to consider extending trading to oxides of nitrogen, toxic substances such as mercury, and possibly even the particulate dust emitted by bug-distance haulage trucks. […]
In practice, sulphur dioxide emissions need to be supplemented by local controls to avoid concentrated pockets of pollution. But trading would be perfect for carbon dioxide emissions, which occur everywhere and have no local side-effects. The International Panel on Climate Change, the body charged by governments with investigating global warning, recently described I trading as the most ‘promising’ of I the ways к had considered for I tackling climate change. […]
Western nations am committed J to agreeing national targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But they are divided over how to do it: me European Union has toyed with the idea of a carbon tax. The US, however, -rejects the idea of new taxation. International trading of carbon dioxide permits, distributed to countries and companies, would achieve reductions as cheaply and as flexibly as possible. […]
Trading is already US industry’s favourite option because of its flexibility. Mr Mike Shields of Detroit Edison, the US electricity producer, says sulphur dioxide trading has shown industry it can ‘get reductions faster and at lower cost than expected.” And the concept is catching on elsewhere. Mr David Porter, chief executive of the UK’s Association of Electricity Producers, is trying to interest his members in the idea for controlling carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. […] Finally, trading could prove the best mechanism for drawing developing countries into the fight against global warming without asking them to sacrifice their right to economic development. […]
(From the Financial Times)
Economic and ecology
3c Comprehension
- Why is it considered necessary to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
- What does Richard Sandor mean by ‘cost effective’ in relation to environmental regulation?
- What are the main advantages of trading over traditional environmental regulation?
- What are the criticisms of SO2 trading made by some environmentalists?
- Why must the SO2 trading programme sometimes be supplemented by local controls?
- Which alternative method of reducing CO2 pollution do the Americans reject?
3d Vocabulary
Find words or expressions in the text that mean the following.
1 designers (of a plan)
2 recommending
3 realism
4 sold to the highest bidder (whoever will pay the most)
5 a financial penalty
6 accepting or obeying a law, ect.
7 excessive administrative work
8 plan
9 upper limit
10 not strict or severe enough
11 dealing with a difficult problem
12 vaguely considered
3f Discussion
What do you think of the idea of controlling pollution by allocating a decreasing number of permits, rather that by taxation or other regulation?
If you do not like this method, which methods would you prefer, and why?
Поможем с контрольными работами по английскому языку
#контрольная работа по английскому #контрольная по теории вероятностей #практикум по юриспруденции #отчет по производственной практике #контрольная работа по бюджету #научная работа #курсовая по основам менеджмента #курсовая работа по планированию #контрольная работа по теплотехнике #курсовая работа по методика преподавания #доклад по истории #контрольная работа по компьютерной графике