Autor	Nachricht
Luethien	Verfasst am: 18. März 2007 20:39    Titel: @Goldenhind: danke für deine schnelle antwort. wie du schon festgestellt hast hab ich da ein paar schwächen in englisch. besonders schwer tu ich mir wenn ich innerhalb einer vorgegebenen zeit einen text schreiben soll. deswegen hab ich mich auch hier angemeldet und muss sagen, dass mir bis jetzt immer sehr geholfen wurde. habe meinen text durch deine hilfe gut verbessern können und hoffe natürlich, dass mir dass üben dieses textes auch am dienstag bei meiner schularbeit hilft. danke nochmal. LG Luethien
Goldenhind	Verfasst am: 18. März 2007 13:55    Titel: Re: Kyoto Protocol; bitte korrigieren Luethien hat Folgendes geschrieben: Do you think that the Kyoto Protocol is useful? I think hat the idea of the Kyoto protocol is very useful. Because of it industrial nations have to reduce their greenhouse gases (besser wohl "greenhouse gas emissions") by 12.5 per cent until 2012. First of all I am going to mention what every single country could do (to achieve this aim). Only every country itself is able to meet this emission target because the polluters of greenhouse gases (der Begriff "polluters of greenhouse agses" gefällt mir nicht, das klingt so, als ob man die treibhausgase verschmutzen würde...) are not the same in every country. It is a fact that reducing emissions costs a lot of money. And Es ist stilistisch sehr unschön Sätze mit "and" zu beginnen such investments are not short-term, they are long-term because there are continuous advises Meinst du Ratschläge? Das wäre "advices" mit c, allerdings würde ich dann den Kausalzusammenhang in deinem Satz nicht sehen..., which help to reduce emissions. The problem is that polluters like industrial companies do not want to make such investments because it is very expensive to adapt old machines or to buy new ones (kann es sein, dass du mit Singular/Plural Probleme hast?). One solution for this financial burden is that the state could support them with money. Another solution is that companies which produce environmentally-friendly and reduce greenhouse gases receive tax relief. These examples would be an incentive for the companies and as a result, this support would help to meet the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol. By the way it would also be cheaper for the state because if the sate is not able to meet the targets (die Formulierung "to meet the targets" benutzt du schon zum dritten mal, vielleicht fällt dir noch eine Alternative ein) it has to pay a fine. One possibility to reduce the height of the fine is, to buy carbon credits. When a state buys such credits (Ein Gerund wäre an dieser Stelle sicherlich eine stilistische Verbesserung, ist aber natürlich nur ein Vorschlag), he supports an environmental project in a developing country. Such projects could be buying areas of the rainforest to safe them, cleaning polluted rivers or forests. On the one hand I think it is very useful and necessary to help developing countries, but on the other hand I think it is not the sense evtl. besser "intention" of the Kyoto Protocol to help such countries only because an industrial country was not able to meet the emission targets (schon wieder diese Formulierung...) itself. As far as developing countries are concerned, I think that it should be a mean was meisnt du mit "mean"? point in the Kyoto Protocol to help them. Another very important issue is that the US is not anymore a part of the Kyoto Protocol Waren sie doch auch niemals wirklich, oder? Schließlich haben sie es von vornerein nicht ratifiziert.. I am of the opinion that one of the mean auch hier ist "mean" wohl nicht die passende Vokabel, was willst du sagen? Falls du "Haupt-" meinst, das heißt "main". producers of greenhouse gases should also agree on reducing greenhouse gases. The percentage of CO2 emission is more than 25 %. The mean mittlerweile bin ich mir fast sicher, dass du "mean" und "main" verwechselst. argument of leaving the Kyoto Protocol was that the economy development of the US must not be hampered by carbon dioxide reduction goals. Another argument is that the US thinks it is not very fair that developing countries do not have to reduce their emissions. Concerning the first statement I do not believe that the development of the US economy would be hampered because there already exists an agreement in the US to reduce greenhouse gases. The point is that the local and state governments already try to help and the development of the economy does not suffer any damage. I believe that the US left the Kyoto Protocol only because they do not want to lose their industrial power. This raises the question whether it is more important to help our climate or to be selfish. It is obvious that it is not really fair that developing countries do not need to reduce greenhouse gases. However, these countries do not have the financial means. In conclusion, I think that countries should try to reduce greenhouse gases themselves (oder "on their own") and they should not use carbon credits as a help to pay less fine. The US should (re-)join the Kyoto Protocol because I think it is like a commitment for them. Still they are they main producer of CO2. Whatever the future may hold, it may be expected that there will be a change in climate.
Luethien	Verfasst am: 18. März 2007 12:32    Titel: Kyoto Protocol; bitte korrigieren hallo. ich bins schon wieder. hab mich so ins englisch lernen vertieft, dass ich gleich einen text als übung geschrieben habe es wäre nett wenn wer die zeit finden würde ihn zu korrigieren. DANKE im voraus. LG Luethien Do you think that the Kyoto Protocol is useful? I think hat the idea of the Kyoto protocol is very useful. Therefore industrial nations have to reduce its greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent until 2012. First of all I am going to mention what the one country could do. Only every country itself is able to meet this emission target because the polluters of greenhouse gases are not in every country the same. It is a fact that reducing emissions costs a lot of money. And such investments are not short-term, they are long-term because there are continuous advises, which help to reduce emissions. The problem is that polluter like industrial companies do not want to make such investment because it is very expensive to adapt old machines or to boy new one. One solution for this financial burden is that the state could support them with money. Another solutions is that companies which produce environmentally-friendly and reduce greenhouse gases receive tax relief. These examples would be an incentive for the companies and as a result, this support would help to meet the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol. By the way it would also be cheaper for the state because when the sate is not able to meet the targets he has to pay a fine. One possibility to reduce the height of the fine is, to buy carbon credits. When a state buys such credits, he supports an environmental project in a developing country. Such projects could be buying areas of the rainforest to safe them, cleaning polluted rivers or forests. On the one hand I think it is very useful and necessary to help developing countries, but on the other hand I think it is not the sense of the Kyoto Protocol to help such countries only because the industrial country was not able to meet the emission targets itself. As far as developing countries are concerned, I think that it should be a mean point in the Kyoto Protocol to help them. Another very important issue is that the US is not anymore a part of the Kyoto Protocol. I am of the opinion that one of the mean producers of greenhouse gases should also agree on reducing greenhouse gases. The percentage of CO2 emission is more than 25 %. The mean argument of leaving the Kyoto Protocol was that the economy development of the US must not be hampered by carbon dioxide reduction goals. Another argument is that the US thinks it is not very fair that development countries do not have to reduce their emissions. Concerning the first statement I do not believe that the development of the US economy would be hampered because there exist already an agreement in the US to reduce greenhouse gases. The point is that the local and state governments already try to help and the development of the economy does not suffer any damage. I believe that the US left the Kyoto Protocol only because they do not want to lose their industrial power. This raises the question whether it is more important to help our climate or to be selfish. It is obvious that it is not really fair that development countries need not to reduce greenhouse gases. However these countries do not have the financial means. In conclusion, I think that countries itself should try to reduce greenhouse gases and they should not use carbon credits as a help to pay less fine. The US should be over again a part of the Kyoto Protocol because I think it is like a commitment for them. Still they are they mean producer of CO2. Whatever the future may hold, it may be expected that there will be a change in climate.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group