WritingDirections: For this part, you are to write a summary of either of two articles that are presented to you in the following. Your summary should be 150-200 words. Remember to write neatly.Science and HumanityThe twentieth century saw more momentous change than any previous century: change for better, change for worse; change that brought enormous benefits to human beings, change that threatens the very existence of the human species. Many factors contributed to this change but—in my opinion—the most important factor was the progress in science.Academic research in the physical and biological sciences has vastly broadened our horizons; it has given us a deep insight into the structure of matter and of the universe; it has brought better understanding of the nature of life and of its continuous evolution. Technology—the application of science—has made fantastic advances that have affected us beneficially in nearly every aspect of life: better health, more wealth, less drudgery (单调沉闷的工作), greater access to information.Sadly, however, there is another side to the picture. The creativity of science has been employed to the detriment(损害) of mankind. The application of science and technology to the development and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction has created a real threat to the continued existence of the human race on this planet. We have seen this happen in the case of nuclear weapons. Although their actual use in combat has so far occurred only in 1945—when two Japanese cities were destroyed—during the four decades of the Cold War, obscenely huge arsenals(武器库) of nuclear weapons were accumulated and made ready for use. The arsenals were so large that if the weapons had actually been detonated (爆炸) the result could have been the complete extinction of the human species, as well as of many animal species.William Shakespeare said: "The web of our life is of a mingled (混合的) yarn, good and ill together. " The above brief review of the application of only one strand of human activities—science—seems to bear out this adage (格言). But does it have to be so? Must ill always accompany good deeds? Are we biologically programmed for aggression and war?I am not an authority in genetics, but from my readings and life-long observation I do not see any evidence that we are genetically condemned to commit evil. On the contrary, on very general grounds I would say that genetically we are destined to do things that are of benefit to the human species, and that the negative aspects are mistakes, transient errors in the process of evolution. In other words, I believe in the inherent goodness of Man.We are thus faced with a daunting (威吓，使胆怯) dilemma. As a process of natural evolution, science should be allowed to develop freely, without restrictions. But can we afford the luxury of uninhibited research in the natural sciences, with its awesome (可怕的) potential of total destruction, in a world in which war is still a recognized social institution?The preservation of the human species and its continuing enhancement demand that we learn to live with one another in peace and harmony. But this learning process has been slow and arduous (费力的), and is not yet complete. Due to the harsh conditions under which primitive man lived, he often had to fight with other human beings for survival. Individual killing and, later, collective killing—war—thus began to be seen as a natural phenomenon.We are still not organized for a war-free world. But in the meantime, the human species may be brought to an end by the use of the tools of destruction, themselves the product of science and technology.In my opinion, the problem has to a large extent arisen from the uneven rate of advance in thedifferent areas of human activities, in particular, between the progress in the natural sciences—which include the physical and biological disciplines, and the various social sciences—economics, sociology, politics (with psychology perhaps at the interface between the two major groups). Undoubtedly, there has been much faster progress in the natural sciences than in the social ones.Why have the natural sciences, especially the physical sciences, advanced so much faster than the social sciences? It is not because physicists are wiser or cleverer than, say, economists. The explanation is simply that physics is easier to master than economics. Although the material world is a highly complex system, for practical purposes it can be described by a few general laws. The laws of physics are immutable (不可改变的). They apply everywhere, on this planet as well as everywhere else in the universe, and are not affected by human reactions and emotions, as the social sciences are.How can we tackle this unevenness in the rate of progress of different.areas of science? Two ways come to mind:one, by accelerating the rate of progress in the social sciences; two, by slowing down the rate of advancement of the natural sciences in some areas, for example, by the imposition of ethical codes of conduct.Clearly, the former is by far the preferable way. What we would like to see is faster progress in the social sciences, leading to the establishment of a social system which would make war not only unnecessary but unthinkable; a system in which the existence of old, or the invention of new, weapons of mass destruction, would not matter, because nobody would dream of using them; a system in which people will be able to say: “nuclear weapons: who cares?”Responsibility for one's actions is, of course, a basic requirement of every citizen, not just of scientists. Each of us must be accountable for our deeds. But the need for such responsibility is particularly imperative for scientists, if only because scientists understand the technical problems better than the average citizen or politician. And knowledge brings responsibility.In any case, scientists do not have a completely free hand. The general public, through elected governments, have the means to control science, either by withholding (抑制) the purse, or by imposing restrictive regulations harmful to science. Clearly it is far better that any control should be exercised by the scientists themselves, through a self-imposed code of conduct. The establishment of an ethical code of conduct for scientists is an idea whose time has come.Summary：Science and HumanityThe twentieth century has made greater change to the world, which was brought by the progress in science, than any previous century. Unfortunately, not all these changes did good to the human society. Some of them have done serious damage to mankind and have been even predicted to destroy the whole world someday if out of control. In fact, mankind is not biologically programmed for violent behaviors like war. People are faced with a dilemma in which we would like to see science develop freely, but cannot afford the result of that. It is a basic instinct that man tends to protect oneself by fighting with others. The progress in the nautral sciences is much faster than that in social sciences because laws in natural sciences are immutable and apply everywhere and are not affected by human reactions and emotions. For even developmemt and for a better future of mankind, imposition of ethical codes is necessary. Everyone should be responsible for his behavior, especially the scientists. (166 words)China Sees Opportunities in Climate ChangeUNLIKE America’s leaders, China’s bosses are not much troubled by recalcitrant（顽强的）legislatures. The government has therefore had no difficulty in executing a smart volte face（完全改变）on climate change. Around three years ago its fierce resistance to the notion of any limit on its greenhouse-gas emissions started to soften. It now seems to be making serious efforts to control them.One reason for this change is the country’s growing awareness of its vulnerability to a warming world. The monsoon（季风）seems to be weakening, travelling less far inland and dumping its rainfall on the coasts. As a result China is seeing floods in the south-east and droughts in the north-west. At the same time the country’s leaders are deeply concerned about the melting of the glaciers on the Tibetan plateau, which feed not just the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra and the Mekong but also the Yangzi and Yellow rivers .A second reason is China’s growing sense of global responsibility. The country is not only the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases; it now regards itself, and is regarded, as one of the w orld’s leading powers, and therefore expects to work with the other big powers to tackle global problems such as the economic crisis, nuclear proliferation（核扩散）and climate change.A third reason is energy security. Although China has large coal reserves, it is also a big importer. Concerns about excessive dependence on foreign fossil fuels sharpened when China’s oil imports rocketed and, in 2005, the attempt by CNOOC（China National Offshore Oil Corporation), China’s largest offshore oil and gas company, to buy America’s Unocal was rebuffed. China’s push into nuclear and renewable energy has been driven by its need to diversify its energy sources.The fourth reason is economic. The Kyoto protocol has given China an incentive to clean up its act. China has received $2 billion through the CDM（Clean Development Mechanism) for cleaning up its industrial processes and building clean-energy capacity—half the money that has flowed through the CDM. That is expected to rise to $8 billion by 2012.But a longer-term economic motive springs from a shift in the way China thinks about growth. In the past, its all-out drive for growth has led it to rebuff pressure to cut emissions. Attempts to control pollution foundered on the performance-assessment system for officials at all levels of government, which prioritises growth. But that has been adjusted to encourage energy efficiency, and at the same time the leadership has started to argue that growth and greenery are compatible.Since Wen Jiabao took over as prime minister, the leadership has tried to define economic growth as something broader and longer-term than GDP figures imply: the emphasis has been on a “harmonious society” and “scientific development”. Nobody was sure what the latter meant, but Mr Wen has recently been talking about a more “resource-efficient environmentally friendly society” and Hu Jintao, the president, has referred several times to a “low-carbon economy” and a “green economy”.Local pollution may help to explain the shift. Residents are infuriated by filthy air and water that kills people and damages unborn children. Policies to cut carbon-dioxide emissions—through reducing the energy used to produce goods—can help clean up China’s cities at the same time.More interesting is the idea that clean energy might be a source of growth rather than a constraint on it. China, so the argument goes, missed out on the computer revolution. It makes hardware, but American firms own most of the valuable stuff—the intellectual property for the software. “You can’t get rich making socks and toys,” explains Lin Jiang, director of the China Sustainable Energy Programme at the Energy Foundation in San Francisco. “They’re looking for the next growth industry. Clean energy clearly has huge potential. And no country dominates the industry yet. It’s a wide-open field.” Hu Angang, an economist at Tsinghua University, calls this “a huge opportunity for China. The country will become the largest renewable-energy market, bio-energy market, clean-coal market, nuclear-power market, carbon-exchange market, environmental-technology market, low-carbon economy, exporter of low-carbon products and low-carbon-technology innovator.”The government is giving the economy a shove in that direction. In 2006 the five-year plan set a target for a 20% cut in the energy intensity of GDP by the end of 2010. The start was slow, but by the end of last year it had managed 10% and it now looks on track for its target. According to Mr Lin, that would mean a reduction in carbon emissions of 1.5 billion tonnes per year by 2010, more than the Waxman-Markey bill’s caps for domestic industry would take out of America’s economy by 2020. China has relatively tight vehicle fuel-efficiency standards . Electric vehicles are being generously subsidised ($8,800 for a car and $73,500 for a bus) and the government plans to build the capacity to produce half a million a year by 2012.The most visible changes have come in renewable energy. In 2005 the National People’s Congress passed legislation to offer subsidies for renewable energy—around twice the amount for coal. For wind energy, the target was set at 20GW of capacity by 2020. The subsidy generated so much building that China now expects to hit that target by the end of this year and is aiming for 150GW by 2020. “It’s like a gold rush right now,” says Mr Lin. The target for solar energy, similarly, has been raised from 1.8GW to 20GW by 2020.To put this in context, wind currently generates only 0.4% of Chinese electricity. Coal generates 80%. And, although China’s government does not have to jump the legislative hurdles faced by America’s president, it sometimes struggles to get policy implemented on the ground. Yet if China’s many layers of government can be persuaded that green means growth, they will cleave （坚持）to this policy; and the leadership seems keen to make that happen.China, thus, is after the same “green jobs” that Americans have been promised as part of their road to economic recovery. America has huge advantages in terms of technology and capital, but China has a couple of things going for it too: cheaper labour and a leadership unconstrained by the need to get re-elected every four years. China can play a long game, which helps when dealing with climate change.SummaryChina Sees Opportunities in Climate ChangeIn order to help deal with climate change, Chinese government made a smart change and will make serious efforts to control its greenhouse gas emissions. As a big importer of energy resources, with the raising awareness of its vulnerability to a warming world and the growing sense of global responsibility, with the incentive given by the Kyoto Protocol and $2 billion provided by the CDM for cleaning up its industry processes and building clean-energy capacity, this change is justified for China. Since China's leadership realized that growth and greenery are compatible and advocated to have a "low-carbon" and "green" economy, the government set a target of a reduction in carbon emissions of 1.5 billion tons per year by 2010 by tightening vehicle-efficiency standards and diversifying its energy sources, such as wind energy. Actually, the practice of "green jobs" is a great opportunity for China to clean up its cities and build clean-energy capacity. In the long run, China will become the largest renewable energy market in the world. With cheaper labours and a stronger leadership, China can play a long game in dealing with climate change. (187 words)。
