Page 7 - 4921

to shift the convergence of the energy and ag- стимулювати переплетення ланцюжка
value chains доданої вартості в енергетиці і сільському
господарстві
price volatility нестійка ціна

Exercise 2. Analyse the speech and its transaltion into Ukrainian. Comment on

a) the translation problems of lexical units;
b) the translation problems of grammatical structures;
c) pragmatic divergent and convergent features.

The old story about climate protection is that it's costly, or it would have been done already. So
government needs to make us do something painful to fix it. The new story about climate protection is that it's
not costly, but profitable. This was a simple sign error, because it's cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel, as is
well known to companies that do it all the time -- for example, Dupont, SD micro electronics. Many other firms -
- IBM -- are reducing their energy intensity routinely six percent a year by fixing up their plants, and they get
their money back in two or three years. That's called a profit.
Now, similarly, the old story about oil is that if we wanted to save very much of it, it would be expensive,
or we would have done it already, because markets are essentially perfect. If, of course, that were true, there
would be no innovation, and nobody could make any money. But the new story about oil is the government
doesn't have to force us to do painful things to get off oil -- not just incrementally, but completely -- quite the
contrary. The United States, for example, can completely eliminate its use of oil and rejuvenate the economy
at the same time, led by business for profit, because it's so much cheaper to save and substitute for the oil than to
keep on buying it. This process will also be catalyzed by the military for its own reasons of combat effectiveness
and preventing conflict, particularly over oil.
This thesis is set out in a book called "Winning the Oil Endgame" that four colleagues and I wrote and
have posted for free at Oilendgame.com -- about 170,000 downloads so far. And it was co-sponsored by the
Pentagon -- it's independent, it's peer-reviewed and all of the backup calculations are transparently posted for
your perusal. Now, a bit of economic history, I think, may be helpful here. Around 1850, one of the biggest U.S.
industries was whaling. And whale oil lit practically every building. But in the nine years before Drake struck
oil, in 1859, at least five-sixths of that whale oil-illuminating market disappeared, thanks to fatal competitors,
chiefly oil and gas made from coal, to which the whalers had not been paying attention. So, very unexpectedly,
they ran out of customers before they ran out of whales. The remnant whale populations were saved by
technological innovators and profit-maximizing capitalists. (Laughter)
And it's funny -- it feels a bit like this now for oil. We've been spending the last few decades
accumulating a very powerful backlog of technologies for saving and substituting for oil, and no one had
bothered to add them up before. So when we did, we found some very surprising things. Now, there are two big
reasons to be concerned about oil. Both national competitiveness and national security are at risk. On the
competitiveness front, we all know that Toyota has more market cap than the big three put together. And serious
competition from Europe, from Korea, and next is China, which will soon be a major net exporter of cars. How
long do you think it will take before you can drive home your new wally-badged Shanghai automotive super-
efficient car? Maybe a decade, according to my friends in Detroit. China has an energy policy based on radical
energy efficiency and leap-frog technology. They're not going to export your uncle's Buick.
And after that comes India. The point here is, these cars are going to be made super efficient. The
question is, who will make them? Will we in the United States continue to import efficient cars to replace
foreign oil, or will we make efficient cars and import neither the oil nor the cars? That seems to make more
6