【推荐1】Making a transition away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy is the only way to keep our planet safe and habitable for future generations. That transition has thankfully begun, but it has a vast distance to go. And the kinds of changes that are needed cost money. Development of new technology has always required investment.

This applies to the generation of renewable energy, and to the countless lifestyle changes that follow from the shift away from coal, oil and gas. Electric cars and other transport are one example. Packaging to replace plastic is another. Resources are also required to protect societies from the harms caused by the global heating that has already happened, and to help them adjust to altered conditions.

A new report presented at the Cop27 UN climate summit says that about S2tn (£1.75tn) a year will be needed by 2030 if developing countries are to make the necessary changes. One of the authors, Nicholas Stern, pointed to a crucial role for the World Bank as well as western governments in redirecting finance and reducing the cost of capital for investors (banks typically charge higher interest on investments in poor countries, due to predicted risks).

The promise made in 2009 of S100bn worth of climate finance annually from rich countries to poorer ones has been broken. But developing countries have succeeded in getting loss and damage on to the formal Cop agenda (议程) for the first time. So far, five European countries have agreed to contribute to a fund to help weak countries manage global beating’s destructive effects. These commitments are welcome, but insufficient.

Carbon emissions, and the dangerously warming planet they have led to, are the byproduct of the way that the rich world developed. Since industrialisation, we have burned our way to wealth. Thankfully, we now know that there are alternatives to this destructive patter. Renewable energy, along with social change aimed at limiting some forms of consumption, is at the heart of this prospectus (会议章程).

【推荐3】When it comes to the ACT(American College Test) vs. the SAT'(Scholastic Aptitude Test), both exams are widely accepted by U.S. colleges. It often leads students to ask: Which test should I take? The answer to that question lies in understanding the differences between the two tests.

Both college admissions exams are wildly popular. In the class of 2019, a reported 2.2 million test-takers completed the SAT while 1.8 million students took the ACT. It is unclear how many students took both, but experts say it is common practice for a test-taker to deal with both exams. “More and more students in the last 5 to 10 years are taking both, ” says Joe Korfmacher, director of an admissions consulting company. But despite this, the tests vary in structure and timing as well as the content matter and scoring.

Students hoping to find the easier testing option are out of luck. These are high-stakes tests; neither of them is going to be easy. To help students make their decision, experts suggest they begin with a practice test and see which exam is best suited for them. The two exams may have appeal to different types of students. Experts advise that students with a strong English background may choose the ACT, which puts more emphasis on verbal skills. But for students who are strong in math, the SAT may reflect that much better.

The SAT costs $49.50 for the test only and $64.50 if the optional essay-is included. The ACT costs $52 for only the exam and $68 if the optional writing test is included. Additional fees may apply for other options, such as late registration.

Regardless of which test students decide to take, the idea behind both exams is similar: to demonstrate college readiness. To help students be successful, experts offer strategic test-prep tips. Some are simple, such as bringing a snack on the test day and taking breaks when offered. Others require much more time and deliberation on the part of the student, such as identifying and working on weak spots in testing.