RC Practice Test - 3
Description: RC PRACTICE TEST– 3 | |
Number of Questions: 12 | |
Created by: Arav Srivastava | |
Tags: RC PRACTICE TEST– 3 Specific Details about the Passage Specific Detail Reading Comprehension Main Idea Purpose Vocabulary-based Questions Contextual Vocabulary Vocabulary in Context |
Directions: Which of the following is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in capitals as used in the passage?
BLANKET
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Directions: Which of the following is most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word given in capitals as used in the passage?
FRAUGHT
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
In the passage, which challenge according to the author is not being taken seriously in the phrase "we are not taking this challenge seriously”?
A. Cutting the carbon emissions to a scale of 2.5 times in the next decade. B. The challenge of locating new fossil fuel reserves since the existing ones are depleting at a fast rate. C. To carry out technological innovations for developing non-carbon based energy resources.
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Directions: Which of the following is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in capitals as used in the passage?
COUNTS
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Directions: Which of the following is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in capitals as used in the passage?
MASSIVE
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Directions: Which of the following is the most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word given in capitals as used in the passage?
REASONABLE
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
According to the author, why are the international negotiations barely a solution to the problem of global warming?
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Directions: Which of the following is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in capitals as used in the passage?
CUTTING
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Which of the following is true in the context of the passage?
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Which of the following is/are suggested in the passage by which global warming can be reduced?
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Which of the following is intended in the given passage?
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.
Which of the following is not true in the context of the given passage?
A. Non carbon fuels are too expensive so they should not be used. B. Political ignorance is one of the main reasons behind the inappropriate approach to combat global warming. C. The generation of energy from non-carbon sources has to be increased for significant reduction in global warming.
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.