Monday 22 March 2010
BEC Vantage listening exercise
http://www.candidates.cambridgeesol.org/cs/Help_with_exams/Professional_English/BEC_Vantage/Papers?paper=Listening
Tourism
The latest update on Goa:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/28/goa-tensions-threaten-expat-paradise
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/28/goa-tensions-threaten-expat-paradise
Thursday 18 March 2010
Plastic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/general/sixminute/2010/02/100218_6min_plastic_page.shtml
Rubbish, or garbage, or litter
Write about plastic pollution
Notes:
The structure:
Identify the problem
Give examples and facts
Provide solutions
Examples and facts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/oprah-shines-light-on-gre_n_190552.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10patch.html?_r=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLrVCI4N67M
Rubbish, or garbage, or litter
Write about plastic pollution
Notes:
The structure:
Identify the problem
Give examples and facts
Provide solutions
Examples and facts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/oprah-shines-light-on-gre_n_190552.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10patch.html?_r=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLrVCI4N67M
Tuesday 16 March 2010
Monday 15 March 2010
Immigration
Immigration
Is immigration a good thing? Discuss.
Immigration can be defined as the movement of people to new countries and cultures, especially from poorer to richer countries. Immigration is increasing around the world, with an estimated 200 million migrants worldwide according to the International Migration Organisation, and the tendency is increasing.
So is immigration a good thing? The answer depends on a number of factors such as the reason for immigrating. Many people were attracted to Europe and the USA to help the economies which boomed after the sceond world war. Others acame to places like Britain as they had attained British citizenship in the colonies. All of these people brought skills from the their countries of birth, which resulted in a skills shortage in those nations.
In times of recession, foreign workers and even immigrants tend to have to return to their old countries as jobs dry up. They are often at the front line when it comes to job loses and are often targeted by racists who acuse them of stealing their work.
While you can differentiate between legal and illegal migrants, most immigration is due to economic reasons, with asylum seekers making up the minority. Why? There are many reasons for immigration: Jobs, health care, medication. money, wars, persecution and love. For many there is simply no perspective in the home country. Climate change is also becoming an increasing factor and will be of major concern as the planet heats up.
Issues which affect immigrants include integration into society, leanring a new language for example being one of the most important challenges. A lack of integration can lead to isolution from society and is one other cause of racism.
What is the percentage of immigrants in Germany? According to wikipedia, Germany has the third highest percentage of immigrants wolrdwide (CIA State of World Population 2006 report ). The MPI puts this figure at 8.9% of the population. In the UK this percentage is much lower at 5.2%.
The flip side of the coin is emigration, which is often for similar, but also other reasons, such as reitred people moving to warmer climates. Many Germans emigrate to France, the USA, Canada, or Australia for example.
There has been an increasingly strong response to immigration across the globe with countries like the USA increasing controls on many of it's borders. The Mexican border for example is being fenced off and large numbers of patrols and surveillence equipment are being employed. In Europe the internal borders have been removed and the focus placed on creating a Fortress Europe – Frontex being the organistion responsible for patrolling the borders of Europe.
Like it, or not immigration is on the increase. In the past migrant workers have helped build up the economies of the world's industrialised nations. To oppose immigration when times get hard, or worse to seek to blame immigrants is not only hypocritical, it is inhuman.
Fortress Europe – Frontex
Is immigration a good thing? Discuss.
Immigration can be defined as the movement of people to new countries and cultures, especially from poorer to richer countries. Immigration is increasing around the world, with an estimated 200 million migrants worldwide according to the International Migration Organisation, and the tendency is increasing.
So is immigration a good thing? The answer depends on a number of factors such as the reason for immigrating. Many people were attracted to Europe and the USA to help the economies which boomed after the sceond world war. Others acame to places like Britain as they had attained British citizenship in the colonies. All of these people brought skills from the their countries of birth, which resulted in a skills shortage in those nations.
In times of recession, foreign workers and even immigrants tend to have to return to their old countries as jobs dry up. They are often at the front line when it comes to job loses and are often targeted by racists who acuse them of stealing their work.
While you can differentiate between legal and illegal migrants, most immigration is due to economic reasons, with asylum seekers making up the minority. Why? There are many reasons for immigration: Jobs, health care, medication. money, wars, persecution and love. For many there is simply no perspective in the home country. Climate change is also becoming an increasing factor and will be of major concern as the planet heats up.
Issues which affect immigrants include integration into society, leanring a new language for example being one of the most important challenges. A lack of integration can lead to isolution from society and is one other cause of racism.
What is the percentage of immigrants in Germany? According to wikipedia, Germany has the third highest percentage of immigrants wolrdwide (CIA State of World Population 2006 report ). The MPI puts this figure at 8.9% of the population. In the UK this percentage is much lower at 5.2%.
The flip side of the coin is emigration, which is often for similar, but also other reasons, such as reitred people moving to warmer climates. Many Germans emigrate to France, the USA, Canada, or Australia for example.
There has been an increasingly strong response to immigration across the globe with countries like the USA increasing controls on many of it's borders. The Mexican border for example is being fenced off and large numbers of patrols and surveillence equipment are being employed. In Europe the internal borders have been removed and the focus placed on creating a Fortress Europe – Frontex being the organistion responsible for patrolling the borders of Europe.
Like it, or not immigration is on the increase. In the past migrant workers have helped build up the economies of the world's industrialised nations. To oppose immigration when times get hard, or worse to seek to blame immigrants is not only hypocritical, it is inhuman.
Fortress Europe – Frontex
The meaning of life
What is the meaning of life?
This is one of the central questions facing mankind. There are two schools of thought that attempt to address this question: religion and philosophy. The meaning of life addresses such thoughts as why are we here, what is death and what the hell am I doing in this classroom?
In religion the meaning of life is a central question regardless of the religion. Most attempt to answer this question by throwing God into the picture and explaining things in such a way that you have to simply believe the story.
From the philosophical perspective, the meaning of life is addressed using critical, systematic and rational arguments.
A scientific approach would be to consider life itself as starter. Evolution describes the path of life from the beginning to the present day. Intelligence can be described scientifically and ultimately consciousness is the basis for asking the question.
In popular culture, the meaning of life has been considered through drug culture, for example due to the taking of mind altering drugs. Aldous Huxley pioneered the use of mescaline to gaining insights into what he termed the Perenial Philosophy and also wrote the book The Doors of Perception
Thursday 11 March 2010
Google - a brief analysis
Google was founded in California in 1998, and began mainly by providing search engine services with a successful revenue model based on user targeted advertising and search engine result optimization. Since then it has exploded into a major global player, provided an array of products and services that have come to threaten the giants of the internet, although 97% of it's income still comes from advertising. It's revenue in 2009 was 23.6 billion US dollars.
Google also provide a number of software products and services including Google Earth, YouTube, Google Mail, Google Docs and also hardware in the form of the Nexus One mobile phone and server hardware.
Google's latest plans for providing an open source operating system combined with a range of apps is set to revolutionize the use of computers and the internet by utilising cloud computing to provide a holistic range of services, all based on open source software.
Google is one of the world's most powerful brands and one of it's best employers. Google has however been criticized for it's privacy policy and many are concerned about issues of copyright concerning the Google Books service and censorship relating to it's operations in China.
Google's vision statement is “Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful”
The future looks bright for Google. According to rumors, they are planning to introduce a netbook in 2010 using the Google Chrome OS, which is based on the Android OS (ultimately this is Linux).
10 Things Google has found to be true
1.Focus on the user and all else will follow
2.It's best to do one thing really, really well
3.Fast is better than slow
4.Democracy on the web works
5.You don't need to be at your desk to need an answer
6.You can make money without doing evil
7.There's always more information out there
8.The need for information crosses all borders
9.You can be serious without a suit
10.Great just isn't good enough
Tuesday 9 March 2010
Enough is enough - the CRU
JBowers
9 Mar 2010, 8:56PM
George Woodwell, Director Emeritus, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center, says enough is enough.
"The response to the [email] vandals is to bury them with the data and experience of a century of scholarly research and analysis. The information that is important in making the decisions as to how to manage our world is unequivocal and must be advanced, not as questions at the edge of scientific knowledge where scientist like to dwell, but as the facts that they are, facts as immutable as the law of gravity. The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution. This approach is uncompromising, partisan in the sense of selected for the purpose. It is not a lecture to undergraduates; nor is it ecology 101. It is a clear statement of what is required for government to do its job in protecting the public welfare. The scientific community has a firm responsibility in this realm now. This is not the time to wring our hands over the challenges to hyper-scientific objectivity, the purity of scholars, and to tie ourselves in knots with apologies for alleged errors of trifling import.
The fact is that we, humans, have changed the composition of the atmosphere with respect to heat-trapping gases enough to start the progression of global climate, not into a new steady state, but into an open-ended warming that is pulling the environment out from under this civilization. If one wonders where that process leads, one need not look far around the world to find dysfunctional landscapes. Have a quick look at New Orleans, the Gulf Coast, or Haiti before the earthquake. All have fallen far below any point where internal resources can be used to restore a nation with a functional political system, a vital economy, and a functional environment. They have fallen into an abyss, beyond rescue without massive outside aid that will, first, restore a functional landscape to produce, for instance, a water supply, and stable agriculture, and a fishery. Something to build an economy around, and to support a government.
The challenge is complicated, the most complicated international environmental issue the world has ever faced. The scientific community has done brilliantly with the IPCC, by nature a conservative apparatus. It is time now, thirty years after the problem was recognized as threatening this civilization, for the scientific community to come forth with clear instructions, relentlessly repeated and amplified, as to how to restore a functional habitat for humanity. It can be done, but the scientific community has a big responsibility not now widely recognized or accepted."
9 Mar 2010, 8:56PM
George Woodwell, Director Emeritus, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center, says enough is enough.
"The response to the [email] vandals is to bury them with the data and experience of a century of scholarly research and analysis. The information that is important in making the decisions as to how to manage our world is unequivocal and must be advanced, not as questions at the edge of scientific knowledge where scientist like to dwell, but as the facts that they are, facts as immutable as the law of gravity. The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution. This approach is uncompromising, partisan in the sense of selected for the purpose. It is not a lecture to undergraduates; nor is it ecology 101. It is a clear statement of what is required for government to do its job in protecting the public welfare. The scientific community has a firm responsibility in this realm now. This is not the time to wring our hands over the challenges to hyper-scientific objectivity, the purity of scholars, and to tie ourselves in knots with apologies for alleged errors of trifling import.
The fact is that we, humans, have changed the composition of the atmosphere with respect to heat-trapping gases enough to start the progression of global climate, not into a new steady state, but into an open-ended warming that is pulling the environment out from under this civilization. If one wonders where that process leads, one need not look far around the world to find dysfunctional landscapes. Have a quick look at New Orleans, the Gulf Coast, or Haiti before the earthquake. All have fallen far below any point where internal resources can be used to restore a nation with a functional political system, a vital economy, and a functional environment. They have fallen into an abyss, beyond rescue without massive outside aid that will, first, restore a functional landscape to produce, for instance, a water supply, and stable agriculture, and a fishery. Something to build an economy around, and to support a government.
The challenge is complicated, the most complicated international environmental issue the world has ever faced. The scientific community has done brilliantly with the IPCC, by nature a conservative apparatus. It is time now, thirty years after the problem was recognized as threatening this civilization, for the scientific community to come forth with clear instructions, relentlessly repeated and amplified, as to how to restore a functional habitat for humanity. It can be done, but the scientific community has a big responsibility not now widely recognized or accepted."
Al Gore video on TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis.html
The latest from Al Gore on climate change.
A summary:
Environmental problems are similar to military crises, they can be local, regional, or global and all require similar strategies. Climate change is a global crisis and mobilising resources requires the mobilisation of politics on a global scale.
The evidence of climate change is increasing. Increasing Arctic sea ice melt is an example and the CSI project aims to bring the science of climate change into education.But climate change has the lowest priority compared to other issues in the USA and media coverage is extremely poor.
Al Gore then presents increasing oil consumption figures as well as showing urban development in places like Bolivia and the growth in global fisheries. The solution: Put a price on carbon. The EU super grid using HVDC cables and investments in geothermal, efficiency and conservation are vital.
But the USA did not ratify the Kyoto protocol. Even Australia signed up after the Big Dry drought and 780 cities have signed up.
We need another hero generation. Gore: "History has presented us with a choice. We can do this. We have the capacity."
"One final point: I'm optimistic. Rise to the challenge with joy and gratitude."
Presentation ends.
Interview with TED:
Are you excited about political parties plans to tackle climate change?
All three have put forward plans, but the main sponsors are pushing clean coal! WE need more radical solutions. We need to be active citizens on the internet. No new coal fired power stations, but nobody is talking on that scale. The Global Alliance are doing great things though.
And finally a quote from Africa:
If you want to go quickly, go alone.
If you want to go far, go together.
The latest from Al Gore on climate change.
A summary:
Environmental problems are similar to military crises, they can be local, regional, or global and all require similar strategies. Climate change is a global crisis and mobilising resources requires the mobilisation of politics on a global scale.
The evidence of climate change is increasing. Increasing Arctic sea ice melt is an example and the CSI project aims to bring the science of climate change into education.But climate change has the lowest priority compared to other issues in the USA and media coverage is extremely poor.
Al Gore then presents increasing oil consumption figures as well as showing urban development in places like Bolivia and the growth in global fisheries. The solution: Put a price on carbon. The EU super grid using HVDC cables and investments in geothermal, efficiency and conservation are vital.
But the USA did not ratify the Kyoto protocol. Even Australia signed up after the Big Dry drought and 780 cities have signed up.
We need another hero generation. Gore: "History has presented us with a choice. We can do this. We have the capacity."
"One final point: I'm optimistic. Rise to the challenge with joy and gratitude."
Presentation ends.
Interview with TED:
Are you excited about political parties plans to tackle climate change?
All three have put forward plans, but the main sponsors are pushing clean coal! WE need more radical solutions. We need to be active citizens on the internet. No new coal fired power stations, but nobody is talking on that scale. The Global Alliance are doing great things though.
And finally a quote from Africa:
If you want to go quickly, go alone.
If you want to go far, go together.
Monday 8 March 2010
Sunday 7 March 2010
Bill Gates on energy & climate
Energy is mankind's greatest challenge and climate change our greatest threat. We are currently producing 26 billion tons of CO2 per year, and in the USA that's 20 tons per capita. The challenge boils down to the equation:
CO2 = PxSxExC
Where P is population, S are the services, E is energy and C is carbon intensity. One of these has to reduce to zero. The world's population is set to grow from 6.8 billion today to 9 billion by 2050. Improving medicines etc. may reduce the total by 10 – 15%, but that's it.
With services, it may be possible to increase efficiency by up to 50% to 13Mt, but with energy, E we need a miracle. A miracle in a tight time line & gimmicks won't help; we need solutions.
Five technologies are promising. They include clean fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, solar PV and thermal solar. Others not included such as biomass, tidal power may also help.
Problems exist with these five technologies such as CCS, which involves huge volumes of CO2 to be disposed of. Nuclear power entails high costs for regulation, safety issues and waste disposal problems.
Sustainable sources are harvested, meaning a lower density of energy than power plants. They are also intermittent sources. Other issues include cost, transmission and storage issues. Batteries are insufficient to store the energy we need as above a 20 – 30 % share of sustainable energy some form of storage is needed.
So a miracle is required. Bill Gross @ eSolar for example. Some good ideas are around such as
Terrapower.
So what needs to go on the report card? An 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 with zero emissions in rich countries, so a lot of work needed there. By 2020 a 20% reduction must be realized. There are many good books on this subject, such as Al Gore's ''Our choice'', or David McKay's ''Sustainable Energy - Without the hot air''.
What do we have to do? More research funding is needed along with an innovation agenda. Market mechanisms are also needed such as the CO2 trade cap and trade.
The scale of investment in Terrapower is 100's of millions of dollars , as well as needing to identifying the regulator & the location of such a project. The energy density of this technology is an advantage and waste fuel from conventional processes can be used as fuel. The technology is similar to that in fast breeder reactors.
The timescale and likelihood are 20 years to invent & 20 years to deploy. We must remember that, in the words of Bill Gates: “An energy breakthrough is the most important thing”.
What about taking emergency measures if that doesn't work? Geo-engineering (heart surgery for the obese analogy) may be required, but it is a risky measure. This must be seen as an insurance policy if all else fails.
But what would you say to so-called climate skeptics? How are they wrong? They have no scientific argument. A parallel is with AIDS. We must endure the pain now for gain later. Make it economical viable and the CO2 skeptics will accept it. Bjorn Lomborg, a famous sceptic talks about it being an R&D issue. Clearly solutions must be economically viable as although he rich can afford incresed energy costs, the poor cannot. That is why R&D, which is underfunded must be better supported.
Link to the video here
CO2 = PxSxExC
Where P is population, S are the services, E is energy and C is carbon intensity. One of these has to reduce to zero. The world's population is set to grow from 6.8 billion today to 9 billion by 2050. Improving medicines etc. may reduce the total by 10 – 15%, but that's it.
With services, it may be possible to increase efficiency by up to 50% to 13Mt, but with energy, E we need a miracle. A miracle in a tight time line & gimmicks won't help; we need solutions.
Five technologies are promising. They include clean fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, solar PV and thermal solar. Others not included such as biomass, tidal power may also help.
Problems exist with these five technologies such as CCS, which involves huge volumes of CO2 to be disposed of. Nuclear power entails high costs for regulation, safety issues and waste disposal problems.
Sustainable sources are harvested, meaning a lower density of energy than power plants. They are also intermittent sources. Other issues include cost, transmission and storage issues. Batteries are insufficient to store the energy we need as above a 20 – 30 % share of sustainable energy some form of storage is needed.
So a miracle is required. Bill Gross @ eSolar for example. Some good ideas are around such as
Terrapower.
So what needs to go on the report card? An 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 with zero emissions in rich countries, so a lot of work needed there. By 2020 a 20% reduction must be realized. There are many good books on this subject, such as Al Gore's ''Our choice'', or David McKay's ''Sustainable Energy - Without the hot air''.
What do we have to do? More research funding is needed along with an innovation agenda. Market mechanisms are also needed such as the CO2 trade cap and trade.
The scale of investment in Terrapower is 100's of millions of dollars , as well as needing to identifying the regulator & the location of such a project. The energy density of this technology is an advantage and waste fuel from conventional processes can be used as fuel. The technology is similar to that in fast breeder reactors.
The timescale and likelihood are 20 years to invent & 20 years to deploy. We must remember that, in the words of Bill Gates: “An energy breakthrough is the most important thing”.
What about taking emergency measures if that doesn't work? Geo-engineering (heart surgery for the obese analogy) may be required, but it is a risky measure. This must be seen as an insurance policy if all else fails.
But what would you say to so-called climate skeptics? How are they wrong? They have no scientific argument. A parallel is with AIDS. We must endure the pain now for gain later. Make it economical viable and the CO2 skeptics will accept it. Bjorn Lomborg, a famous sceptic talks about it being an R&D issue. Clearly solutions must be economically viable as although he rich can afford incresed energy costs, the poor cannot. That is why R&D, which is underfunded must be better supported.
Link to the video here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)