William Nordhaus, a Yale economist, puts his "best guess" at 2.5 percent of yearly global GDP. And according to Dutch economist Richard Tol, the economic impact of a century's worth of climate change is "relatively small" and "comparable to the impact of one or two years of ewth." These estimates aren't just different--they're different by an order of magnitude. And while some might dismiss the cost estimates as mere intellectual exercises, they're intellectual exercises with real impact. The Copenhagen meeting may be a bust, but countries from the United States to China are individually considering cap-and-trade schemes, carbon taxes, and other policies aimed at curtailing greenhouse gases. To be effective, a tax or cap-and-trade charge would have to force today's emitters to pay the true "social n"-in other words. the amount of damage a ton of carbon will cause in the coming centuries. Figuring out what that cost is, however, is no simple task. That's largely because most of the bill won't come due for many decades. A ton of carbon dioxide emitted today will linger in the air for anywhere from one to five centuries. Virtually every cost study shows that, even if ewth continues apace (快速的) and there's no effort to slash emissions, the damage from climate change will be negligible until at least 2075. It could "take 100 years before we see noticeably negative effects, and even more before we need to launch massive construction projects to mitigate (减轻) the damage. 1 What can we learn from the first paragraph? A Those stolen e-mails should have been made a fuss of. B It is time to discuss the damage caused by climate change. C The science of climate should have been established. D Climate change is an essential part to human beings. 2 What do economists think about the damage brought by climate change? A It reaches 2.5 % of annual per capita income. B It is about 20 % of the yearly global GDP. C They have overestimated the damage. D They haven't reached a consensus. 3 What should be done to reduce carbon emissions? A Gas emitters should pay for the damage. B Policies should aim at reducing carbon emissions. C Social n should be shown to the public. D The damage should not be neglected. 4 Why is it hard to figure out the social n? A Too many factors need to be taken into account. B There is no effort aiming at carbon reduction. C Its damage cannot be seen until years later. D The damage will last for several years. 5 What can we learn about the present climate change? A Its damage is exaggerated to some extent. B Actions should be taken the moment people realize it. C Measures should be taken immediately to deal with it. D The negative effect will not be significant in this century.

Despite the brouhaha (骚动) over stolen e-mails from the University of East Anglia, the science of climate change is well enough established by now that we can move on to the essential question: what's the damage going to be?
The total bill, if emissions are left unchecked, could reach 20 percent of annual per capita income, says Nicholas Stern, the British economist who led an influential Whitehall-sponsored study. William Nordhaus, a Yale economist, puts his "best guess" at 2.5 percent of yearly global GDP. And according to Dutch economist Richard Tol, the economic impact of a century's worth of climate change is "relatively small" and "comparable to the impact of one or two years of ewth."
These estimates aren't just different--they're different by an order of magnitude. And while some might dismiss the cost estimates as mere intellectual exercises, they're intellectual exercises with real impact. The Copenhagen meeting may be a bust, but countries from the United States to China are individually considering cap-and-trade schemes, carbon taxes, and other policies aimed at curtailing greenhouse gases. To be effective, a tax or cap-and-trade charge would have to force today's emitters to pay the true "social n"-in other words. the amount of damage a ton of carbon will cause in the coming centuries.
Figuring out what that cost is, however, is no simple task. That's largely because most of the bill won't come due for many decades. A ton of carbon dioxide emitted today will linger in the air for anywhere from one to five centuries. Virtually every cost study shows that, even if ewth continues apace (快速的) and there's no effort to slash emissions, the damage from climate change will be negligible until at least 2075. It could "take 100 years before we see noticeably negative effects, and even more before we need to launch massive construction projects to mitigate (减轻) the damage.
1 What can we learn from the first paragraph?
A Those stolen e-mails should have been made a fuss of.
B It is time to discuss the damage caused by climate change.
C The science of climate should have been established.
D Climate change is an essential part to human beings.
2 What do economists think about the damage brought by climate change?
A It reaches 2.5 % of annual per capita income.
B It is about 20 % of the yearly global GDP.
C They have overestimated the damage.
D They haven't reached a consensus.
3 What should be done to reduce carbon emissions?
A Gas emitters should pay for the damage.
B Policies should aim at reducing carbon emissions.
C Social n should be shown to the public.
D The damage should not be neglected.
4 Why is it hard to figure out the social n?
A Too many factors need to be taken into account.
B There is no effort aiming at carbon reduction.
C Its damage cannot be seen until years later.
D The damage will last for several years.
5 What can we learn about the present climate change?
A Its damage is exaggerated to some extent.
B Actions should be taken the moment people realize it.
C Measures should be taken immediately to deal with it.
D The negative effect will not be significant in this century.