Considerando os aspectos linguísticos e estruturais presentes no texto, constata-se que
This is how UN scientists are preparing for the end of capitalism
Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists
appointed by the UN secretary general. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global
economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources and the shift
to less efficient energy sources .
Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising
inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the
way policymakers usually think about these problems these are not really separate crises at all. These crises are part of the same fundamental transition. The new era is characterized by inefficient fossil
fuel production and escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer
explain, predict or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age.
Energy shift
Those are the implications of a new background paper prepared by a team of Finnish biophysicists who
were asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development
Report (GSDR), which will be released in 2019.
For the “first time in human history”, the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources
that are less energy efficient.” Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic
human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort”. At the same time, our hunger for energy is driving what the paper refers to as “sink costs.” The greater our
energy and material use, the more waste we generate, and so the greater the environmental costs. Though they
can be ignored for a while, eventually those environmental costs translate directly into economic costs as it
becomes more and more difficult to ignore their impacts on our societies. Overall, the amount of energy we can extract, compared to the energy we are using to extract it, is
decreasing across the spectrum – unconventional oils, nuclear and renewables return less energy in generation
than conventional oils, whose production has peaked – and societies need to abandon fossil fuels because of
their impact on the climate.
Whether or not this system still comprises a form of capitalism is ultimately a semantic question. It
depends on how you define capitalism.
Economic activity is driven by meaning – maintaining equal possibilities for the good life while lowering
emissions dramatically – rather than profit, and the meaning is politically, collectively constructed. Well, this is the
best conceivable case in terms of modern state and market institutions. It can’t happen without considerable
reframing of economic-political thinking, in short words: rethinking capitalism as it is nowadays.
Disponível em: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/capitalism-un-scientists-preparing-end-fossil-fuels-warning-demise-a8523856.html>. Acesso em: 12 mar. 2019. (Adaptado).
Gabarito comentado
Alternativa correta: D
Tema central: transformação e análise de estruturas gramaticais em inglês (formação de perguntas, negações, classes de palavras — verbos, particípios, adjetivos — e falso cognato).
Resumo teórico rápido: 1) Formação de interrogativas: usa-se auxiliar (do/does/did) + forma base do verbo (Huddleston & Pullum; Cambridge Grammar). 2) Negação com o verbo need: need pode agir como verbo principal (usa‑se do/does para negação: "do not need") ou como semi‑modal (forma negativa: "need not" / "needn't"). Ambas são corretas conforme variedade. 3) Present participle (-ing) vs gerúndio: formas em -ing podem ser participles (componentes de tempos progressivos ou adjetivais) ou gerúndios (substantivação). Classificar depende da função na frase (Swan; Celce‑Murcia). 4) Though (conjunção = "embora") ≠ through (preposição/advérbio = "através de").
Por que D está correta: A frase original "societies need to abandon fossil fuels" tem o verbo principal need seguido de infinitivo "to abandon". Sua negação gramatical natural em inglês contemporâneo é "societies don't (do not) need to abandon fossil fuels" — usa-se o auxiliar do porque need aqui funciona como verbo lexical. Alternativa D apresenta a forma correta de negação equivalente em sentido e estrutura.
Análise das alternativas incorretas:
A — incorreta: A forma interrogativa proposta "Does it depends on how do you define capitalism?" contém dois erros: com does o verbo principal deve ficar em base form ("depend", não "depends"); e na subordinação interrogativa não se usa inversão — "how you define capitalism" (ordem afirmativa) é correta. A forma correta: "Does it depend on how you define capitalism?"
B — incorreta: Trocar though por through altera completamente o sentido. Thoughthrough = "através/devido a". Não são intercambiáveis.
C — incorreta: Em "societies are experiencing rising inequality" are experiencing é um tempo progressivo (verb + participle) e rising funciona como particípio/adjetivo qualificando "inequality" (ou gerúndio nominalizado em outros contextos). Chamar ambos de "verbos em função de gerúndio" é impreciso.
E — incorreta: "Unconventional" é adjetivo (modifica "oils"), e "renewables" é substantivo plural (renewable energy sources). Não são advérbios de modo.
Fontes indicadas: Cambridge Grammar of the English Language; Michael Swan — Practical English Usage; Cambridge Dictionary online (entries: question formation, need, though/through).
Estratégia para provas: identifique a função sintática (verbo principal vs auxiliar; adjetivo vs advérbio), verifique a ordem das palavras em perguntas indiretas e compare sentidos (não confundir homófonos ou quase-homônimos como though/through).
Gostou do comentário? Deixe sua avaliação aqui embaixo!






