Englisch Text korriegieren
Hallo kann jemand folgenden Text korrigieren? Dankeschön Dear Ben Russell, I read your article “Credit cards to ration individuals' carbon use“, which is published in newspaper The Independent in July19,2006. First of all I want to say that I think it's very good that there are people like you who think about the environment and of course about the problems which are exist. The suggestion is that every body has a credit-card with Carbon Dioxide points and if someone travels, use electricity, gas or petrol with carbon rations they have to pay. There is a special amount of this points and if you need more than your personal cap you have to buy credits on the open market. On the other side if there are people who cut the pollution of the carbon they produce, they could sell their surplus. Mr Miliband also suggests that banning products like light bulbs or electrical appliances which waste power while on standby, have to forbid. Everyone have to make automatic payments of offset pollution. I think this credit cards are not a good idea, because there would be a discrimination, because on the one hand rich people wouldn't cut their consume because they have the money to buy this credits. The most of them wouldn't take care about the environment. On the other hand the poor people have to take care about their carbon use. They haven't got the money to buy new credits. The result would be that the poor people take care and the richer people don't take care. Now you can say that it's maybe not a completely good result but now there are a few people who take care. Better than no one. But what is if the poorer people have to use the car everyday because they have to drive to work. They have to pay that they are working. This wouldn't make work more attractive. The poorer people are disadvantaged. Another cause why this credit cards are not a good idea is that you can't control it. There would be a lot of situations where are disagreements. For example if people drive together to work. Now who have to pay with carbon for that? The driver or the other ones? Another fact is that you can't handle everything with money. Everyone has to pay that the environment become better. But money doesn't help. You can't stop the global warming with money. My idea is that there have to be recompenses for those people who do something against the environment problems. There have to be individual things, which make environment protection very attractive and also necessary. It's very important that everybody knows about the problems and the results if we go on like this. All in all I think it's very good that there are people who think about a solution and things that can be do to stop the global warming. Nevertheless I think the credit-cards and money wouldn't be a good solution
1 Antwort
Dear Ben Russell,
I read your article “Credit cards to ration individuals' carbon use“, which is published in (---) The Independent in July19, 2006.
First of all (Komma) I want to (besser: would like to) say that I think it's very good that there are people like you who think about the environment and of course about the problems which are exist.The suggestion is that every body has a credit-card with Carbon Dioxide points and if someone travels, use electricity, gas or petrol with carbon rations they have to pay. There is a special amount of this points and if you need more than your personal cap (Komma) you have to buy credits on the open market. On the other side (Komma) if there are people who cut (---) pollution of the carbon they produce, they could sell their surplus. Mr Miliband also suggests that banning products like light bulbs or electrical appliances which waste power while on standby, have to forbid. Everyone have to make automatic payments of offset pollution.
I think this credit cards are not a good idea (kein Komma) because there would be a discrimination (kein Komma) because (Wiederholung) on the one hand (Komma) rich people wouldn't cut their consume because they have the money to buy this credits. (---) most of them wouldn't take care about the environment. On the other hand (Komma) (---) poor people have to take care about their carbon use. They haven't got the money to buy new credits. The result would be that (---) poor people take care and (---) richer people don't take care (Wiederholung, Stil).
Now you can say that it's maybe not a completely good result but now there are a few people who take care. Better than no one. (kein vollständiger Satz) But what (---) if (---) poorer people have to use the car everyday because they have to drive to work. They have to pay that they are working. This wouldn't make work more attractive. (---) poorer people are disadvantaged. Another cause why
this credit cards are not a good idea is that you can't control it. There would be a lot of situations where are disagreements. For example (Komma) if people drive together to work. Now who have to pay with carbon for that? The driver or the other ones? (keine vollständige Frage) Another fact is that you can't handle everything with money. Everyone has to pay that the environment become better. But money doesn't help. You can't stop (---) global warming with money. My idea is that there have to be recompenses for those people who do something against (---) environment problems. There have to be individual things, which make environment protection very attractive and also necessary. It's very important that everybody knows about the problems and the results if we go on like this. All in all (Komma) I think it's very good that there are people who think about a solution and things that can be do to stop (---) global warming. Nevertheless (Komma) I think the credit-cards and money wouldn't be a good solution (Punkt)
Soweit ich verstehen konnte, was du ausdrücken wolltest, muss das Fettgedruckte korrigiert bzw. geändert werden. Ich hoffe, ich habe nichts übersehen.
Für das Vokabular und die Rechtschreibung empfehle ich ein gutes (online) Wörterbuch, z.B. pons.com,
für die Grammatik ego4u.de und englisch-hilfen.de.
AstridDerPu
Hallo, schonmal danke dafür. Ich hab mich nun lange damit auseinandergesetzt und viel kontrolliert und korrigiert, dennoch weiß ich bei folgenden Sätzen nicht, was falsch ist:
On the other side (Komma) if there are people who cut pollution of (was muss ich da verwenden?) the carbon they produce, they could sell their surplus. Mr Miliband also suggests that banning products like light bulbs or electrical appliances which waste power while on standby, have to** forbid.** da komm ich gar nicht weiter, wie ich das umschreiben soll. Wenn ich das banning oben streiche und stattdessen dann hinten schreibe "have to ban" geht das dann?
what (---) if (---) poorer people have to use the car everyday because they have to drive to work. Weiß ich auch nicht was falsch ist
Another cause why this credit cards are not a good idea is that you can't control it. Habe jetzt anstat this these geschrieben und snstatt control check geht das dann=
There would be a lot of situations where are disagreements. --> where disagreements will be. Richtig?
For example (Komma) if people drive together to work. Da weiß ich gar nicht was falsch ist
Now who have to pay with carbon for that? The driver or the other ones? (keine vollständige Frage) --> das soll ja extra so sein mit der offenen frage aber was genau ist bei der 1. Frage falsch?
Everyone has to pay that the environment** become better.** Kann man doch so sagen?
My idea is that there have to be recompenses for those people who do something against (---) environment problems. recompense= Belohn ung/entschädigung, das will ich dch damit ausdrücken
There have to be individual things, which make environment protection very attractive and also necessary. da versteh ich nicht, was genau falsch ist
All in all (Komma) I think it's very good that there are people who think about a solution and things that can be do to stop (---) global warming. Wieso kann man nicht things verwenden? habe do in done verändert richtig? Dankeschön!!!