相对于第一篇文章，第二篇文章难度骤然而升，该文章出自于2009年2月13日《基督教箴言报》的一篇关于“碳税，减缓全球变暖”的报道，所以环保类绿色话题也是新东方课堂上重点提及的话题之一。
值得庆幸的是该篇文章中第9题的词义理解题“shore up”恰恰是今年模考的一道题目，当时模考的答案是prop up支持，这里应该选择（c）to give support to。相信参加过模考的同学在看到这道题目的时候应该会会心一笑了！下面我想请考生注意这篇文章的写作手法，这篇文章是在对比carbon tax 和 cap and trade program。考生要在第一遍读文章的时候分清楚正反观点，作者是支持碳税，反对所谓的cap and trade措施的。请考生们尤其要关注于段首的一些表示起承转合的连接词，这对于理清文章思路是很有帮助的，这些词我已经用横线重点划出。大家请祥看全文。
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California announced this month she intends to move ahead with legislation designed to lower the emission of greenhouse gases that are linked by many scientists to climate change. But the approach she’s taking is flawed, and the current financial crisis can help us understand why.
The centerpiece of this approach is the creation of a market for trading carbon emission credits. These credits would be either distributed free of charge or auctioned to major emitters of greenhouse gases. The firms could then buy and sell permits under federally mandated emissions caps. If a company is able to cut emissions, it can sell excess credits for a profit. If it needs to emit more, it can buy permits on the market from other firms.
"Cap and trade," as it is called（“Cap and trade”一词的意思其实也就是上面一段的具体解释：就是如果一家公司能够减少排放量，它可以通过销售配额来获利。如果需要更多的排放量，它也可以从市场上购买其他公司配额。）, is advocated by several policymakers, industry leaders, and activists who want to fight global warming. But it’s based on the trade of highly volatile financial instruments: risky at best.
The better approach to climate change? A direct tax placed on emissions of greenhouse gases. The tax would create a market price for carbon emissions and lead to emissions reductions or new technologies that cut greenhouse gases. This is an approach favored by many economists as the financially sensible way to go. And it is getting a closer look by some industry professionals and lawmakers.
该段的自问自答句子“有更好的办法来阻止全球变暖吗？直接在温室气体排放上征税吧。”直接引出了解决全球变暖的手法就是征收碳税。
At first blush, it might seem crazy to advocate a tax increase during a major recession. But there are several virtues of a tax on carbon emissions relative to a cap-and-trade program.
“在大萧条的时候增税看起来有些疯狂。但相对于限额和贸易，对碳排放征税有以下若干优点。”该段还是以“欲擒故纵”的手法说明了对碳排放的支持。
For starters （首先）, the country already has a mechanism in place to deal with taxes（国家有完整的机制来处理税收）. Tax collection is something the government has abundant experience with. A carbon trading scheme, on the other hand, requires the creation of elaborate new markets, institutions, and regulations to oversee and enforce it.
Another relative advantage of the tax（另一相对优势是税收的灵活性） is its flexibility. It is easier to adjust the tax to adapt to changing economic, scientific, or other circumstances. If the tax is too low to be effective, it can be raised easily. If it is too burdensome it can be relaxed temporarily.
In contrast （作者在此对比了“限额和贸易”项目的弊端，反衬了碳税的重要性和可行性）, a cap-and-trade program creates emissions permits that provide substantial economic value to firms and industries. These assets limit the program’s flexibility once under way, since market actors then have an interest in maintaining the status quo to preserve the value of the assets.
What’s more（进一步指出该项目的弊端）, they can be a recipe for trouble. As my American Enterprise Institute colleagues Ken Green, Steve Hayward, and Kevin Hassett pointed out two years ago, "sudden changes in economic conditions could lead to significant price volatility in a cap-and-trade program that would be less likely under a carbon-tax regime."
Recent experience bears this out （举例子开始了，我们也稍微放松一下神经了）. Europe has in place a cap-and-trade program that today looks a little like the American mortgage-backed securities market--it’s a total mess. The price of carbon recently fell--plummeting from over $30 to around $12 per ton--as European firms unloaded their permits on the market in an effort to shore up deteriorating balance sheets during the credit crunch.
It is this shaky experience with cap-and-trade that might explain an unlikely advocate of a carbon tax. Earlier this year, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson pointed in a speech to the problems with Europe’s cap-and-trade program--such as the program’s volatility and lack of transparency--as reasons he prefers a carbon tax.
That said, new taxes are a tough sell in Washington, which helps explain the current preference for a cap-and-trade scheme.
Despite this, there are ways to make a carbon tax more politically appealing. （碳税政策吸引人的地方） The first is to insist that it be "revenue neutral." This means that any revenues collected from the tax are used to reduce taxes elsewhere, such as payroll taxes.
The advantage of this approach（碳税政策的好处）is that it places a burden on something that is believed by many to be undesirable (greenhouse-gas emissions) while relieving a burden on something that is desirable (work).
Another selling point is （碳税的另一个卖点可以替代繁琐的规章制度） that the tax can justify the removal of an assortment of burdensome and costly regulations such as CAFE standards for cars. These regulations become largely redundant in an era of carbon taxes.
But it may be that a carbon tax doesn’t need an elaborate sales pitch today when the alternative is trading carbon permits. The nation’s recent experience with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage-backed securities market should prompt Congress to think twice when a member proposes the creation of a highly politicized market for innovative financial instruments, no matter how well intentioned the program may be.
值得庆幸的是该篇文章中第9题的词义理解题“shore up”恰恰是今年模考的一道题目，当时模考的答案是prop up支持，这里应该选择（c）to give support to。相信参加过模考的同学在看到这道题目的时候应该会会心一笑了！下面我想请考生注意这篇文章的写作手法，这篇文章是在对比carbon tax 和 cap and trade program。考生要在第一遍读文章的时候分清楚正反观点，作者是支持碳税，反对所谓的cap and trade措施的。请考生们尤其要关注于段首的一些表示起承转合的连接词，这对于理清文章思路是很有帮助的，这些词我已经用横线重点划出。大家请祥看全文。
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California announced this month she intends to move ahead with legislation designed to lower the emission of greenhouse gases that are linked by many scientists to climate change. But the approach she’s taking is flawed, and the current financial crisis can help us understand why.
The centerpiece of this approach is the creation of a market for trading carbon emission credits. These credits would be either distributed free of charge or auctioned to major emitters of greenhouse gases. The firms could then buy and sell permits under federally mandated emissions caps. If a company is able to cut emissions, it can sell excess credits for a profit. If it needs to emit more, it can buy permits on the market from other firms.
"Cap and trade," as it is called（“Cap and trade”一词的意思其实也就是上面一段的具体解释：就是如果一家公司能够减少排放量，它可以通过销售配额来获利。如果需要更多的排放量，它也可以从市场上购买其他公司配额。）, is advocated by several policymakers, industry leaders, and activists who want to fight global warming. But it’s based on the trade of highly volatile financial instruments: risky at best.
The better approach to climate change? A direct tax placed on emissions of greenhouse gases. The tax would create a market price for carbon emissions and lead to emissions reductions or new technologies that cut greenhouse gases. This is an approach favored by many economists as the financially sensible way to go. And it is getting a closer look by some industry professionals and lawmakers.
该段的自问自答句子“有更好的办法来阻止全球变暖吗？直接在温室气体排放上征税吧。”直接引出了解决全球变暖的手法就是征收碳税。
At first blush, it might seem crazy to advocate a tax increase during a major recession. But there are several virtues of a tax on carbon emissions relative to a cap-and-trade program.
“在大萧条的时候增税看起来有些疯狂。但相对于限额和贸易，对碳排放征税有以下若干优点。”该段还是以“欲擒故纵”的手法说明了对碳排放的支持。
For starters （首先）, the country already has a mechanism in place to deal with taxes（国家有完整的机制来处理税收）. Tax collection is something the government has abundant experience with. A carbon trading scheme, on the other hand, requires the creation of elaborate new markets, institutions, and regulations to oversee and enforce it.
Another relative advantage of the tax（另一相对优势是税收的灵活性） is its flexibility. It is easier to adjust the tax to adapt to changing economic, scientific, or other circumstances. If the tax is too low to be effective, it can be raised easily. If it is too burdensome it can be relaxed temporarily.
In contrast （作者在此对比了“限额和贸易”项目的弊端，反衬了碳税的重要性和可行性）, a cap-and-trade program creates emissions permits that provide substantial economic value to firms and industries. These assets limit the program’s flexibility once under way, since market actors then have an interest in maintaining the status quo to preserve the value of the assets.
What’s more（进一步指出该项目的弊端）, they can be a recipe for trouble. As my American Enterprise Institute colleagues Ken Green, Steve Hayward, and Kevin Hassett pointed out two years ago, "sudden changes in economic conditions could lead to significant price volatility in a cap-and-trade program that would be less likely under a carbon-tax regime."
Recent experience bears this out （举例子开始了，我们也稍微放松一下神经了）. Europe has in place a cap-and-trade program that today looks a little like the American mortgage-backed securities market--it’s a total mess. The price of carbon recently fell--plummeting from over $30 to around $12 per ton--as European firms unloaded their permits on the market in an effort to shore up deteriorating balance sheets during the credit crunch.
It is this shaky experience with cap-and-trade that might explain an unlikely advocate of a carbon tax. Earlier this year, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson pointed in a speech to the problems with Europe’s cap-and-trade program--such as the program’s volatility and lack of transparency--as reasons he prefers a carbon tax.
That said, new taxes are a tough sell in Washington, which helps explain the current preference for a cap-and-trade scheme.
Despite this, there are ways to make a carbon tax more politically appealing. （碳税政策吸引人的地方） The first is to insist that it be "revenue neutral." This means that any revenues collected from the tax are used to reduce taxes elsewhere, such as payroll taxes.
The advantage of this approach（碳税政策的好处）is that it places a burden on something that is believed by many to be undesirable (greenhouse-gas emissions) while relieving a burden on something that is desirable (work).
Another selling point is （碳税的另一个卖点可以替代繁琐的规章制度） that the tax can justify the removal of an assortment of burdensome and costly regulations such as CAFE standards for cars. These regulations become largely redundant in an era of carbon taxes.
But it may be that a carbon tax doesn’t need an elaborate sales pitch today when the alternative is trading carbon permits. The nation’s recent experience with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage-backed securities market should prompt Congress to think twice when a member proposes the creation of a highly politicized market for innovative financial instruments, no matter how well intentioned the program may be.
