阅读理解

　　We already know the fastest, least expensive way to slow climate change：Use less energy．With a little effort, and not much money, most of us could reduce our energy diets by 25 percent or more－doing the Earth a favor while also helping our wallets．

　　Not long ago．My wife, PJ, and I tried a new diet－not to lose a little weight but to answer an annoying question about climate change．Scientists have reported recently that the world is heating up even faster than predicted only a few years ago, and that the consequences could be severe if we don’t keep reducing emissions(排放)of carbon dioxide(CO₂)and other greenhouse gases that are trapping heat in our atmosphere．

　　We decided to try an experiment．For one month we recorded our personal emissions of CO₂．We wanted to see how much we could cut back, so we went on a strict diet．The average US household produces about 150 pounds of CO₂ a day by doing common-place things like turning on air-conditioning or driving cars．That’s more than twice the European average and almost five times the global average, mostly because Americans drive more and have bigger houses．But how much should we try to reduce?

　　For an answer, I checked with Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers：How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth．In his book, he had challenged readers to make deep cuts in personal emissions to keep the world from reaching extremely important tipping points, such as the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland or West Antarctica．“To stay below that point, we need to reduce CO₂ emissions by 80 percent,”he said．

　　Good advice, I thought．I’d opened our bedroom windows to let in the wind．We’d gotten so used to keeping our air-conditioning going around the clock．I’d almost forgotten the windows even opened．We should not let this happen again．It’s time for us to change our habits if necessary．

阅读理解

　　For decades, Morocco, the only North African nation without large quantities of oil, combed the surrounding desert in search of fossil fuels．But roughly a year and a half ago, the country turned to a resource that exists in abundance across the region：the sun．

　　Now Europe－long dependent on Middle Eastern oil Russian natural gas－has begun to look toward the heat of the Sahara for some of its long-term energy needs．By 2050, roughly 15 percent of European energy could be produced by wind and solar-thermal(太阳能热)power in North Africa and parts of the Middle East, according to Dii, widely known as Desertec, a group of mostly Europen companies such as Siemens that are developing clean-energy technology in the region．Although the effort－expected to cost ＄510 billion－is still in the early stage of development, analysts say Morocco has far more aggressive investment plans than its regional rivels(竞争对手)and is well positioned to become North Africa's leading provider of renewable energy, especially solar-thermal．

　　In 2008, when global oil prices hit record highs, Morocco－which imports most of its power－saw energy costs nearly double, to roughly ＄9 billion annually．Soon after, King Mohamed VI issued a royal command making the development of alternative energy a top priority．He also put a legal framework in place to encourager European investment and has managed to limit instability in a region known for political confusion．

　　Another advantage for Morocco：geography．The sun over the Sahara is far stronger than it is in Europe．But what distinguishes the country from its neighbors is that it is close to Spain．The two countries are separated by less than 16 km at some points, and they’re connected by an energy transmission line．Currently the line sends energy from Spain to Morocco, but it could work both ways, and analysts say the line’s existence gives Morocco an advantage over its neighbors for access to the European market．

　　Getting a position in that market may take some time, however, due to a shortage of funding．By 2020, Morocco hopes to invest several billion dollars in solar-thermal power and use to technology to greatly increase its energy production．But unlike, say, wind power, which is economically competitive with fossil fuels, solar-thermal often is not, despite financial support from various international institutions．Analysts say the costs of solar-thermal will come down, eventually．