This episode’s vocabulary
Hostile
adj. — unfriendly and not liking something.
Specialist
adj. — having a lot of experience, knowledge, or skill in a particular subject or business area.
Understatement
noun — a statement that describes something in a way that makes it seem less important, serious, bad, etc. than it really is, or the act of making such statements.
Emission
noun — the act of sending out gas, heat, light, etc.
To skirt
verb — to avoid discussing a subject or problem, usually because there are difficulties that you do not want to deal with.
Commitment
noun — a promise or firm decision to do something.
Subsequent
adj. — happening after something else.
Detrimental
adj. — causing harm or damage.
To retard
verb — to make something slower.
Restriction
noun — an official limit on something.
Burden
noun — something difficult or unpleasant that you have to deal with or worry about.
Lay the groundwork
for sth — to do work in preparation for work that will be done later.
Comprehensive
adj. — complete and including everything that is necessary.
Questions and answers
Rory is going to say what the law is how he learned about the law, who benefits from the law on environmental protection, and he's going to explain how he feels about this law. Rory.
I am ready to deal with this hostile environment.
You are on fire today. Fire away.
Hopefully, the world is not on fire. Well, I have to say this is not my specialist subject. In fact, that might be something of an understatement. But the one law I'm aware of is the Paris Climate Agreement where many countries agreed to limit their emissions of certain types of gases. I think their main focus was on CO2, which is carbon dioxide. But I'm sure there were other ones as well. And it was all over the news a few years ago, and it occasionally comes up in certain videos that you see online, especially with regards to some countries trying to skirt on their commitments that they made in the agreement itself. I'm not very well versed on the details, but I'm pretty sure that we're all supposed to get something out of it in terms of lower emissions, leading to reduced climate change, and a subsequent reduction in the detrimental impact that that might have on the planet. And I think as well, that it's worded in such a way that poorer countries don't suffer too much by having their industrial development retarded by the restrictions or just restrictions in general, and richer nations shoulder a greater burden due to their, well, just due to the amount of emissions that they produce, I suppose. And that seems practical. But whether it actually works or not, I suppose remains to be seen, because I think it was only in something like 2015 that we reached this agreement. And of course, America seems to come in and out of the agreement as the wind changes. I doubt it will save the planet. But it's always good to see countries at least trying to cooperate. And it would be nice, and I hope to see much more such cooperation in the future. Perhaps it will lay the groundwork for something a little bit more comprehensive than just looking only at emissions. At least this is based on my understanding of what the actual agreement is.
And what about your friends? Do they support this law?
I have absolutely no idea. We don't really talk about environmental protection too much.
Thank you, Rory, for your answer! -