组卷网 > 高中英语综合库 > 主题 > 人与自然 > 环境 > 环境污染
题型:阅读理解-阅读单选 难度:0.65 引用次数:110 题号:15772304

Levels of an ozone-destroying chemical are mysteriously rising, despite international efforts to crack down on the problem. The uptick in the airborne chemical HCFC-141b comes even though reported production has declined steadily since 2012, leaving scientists stumped about the source. “All I can really say is these emissions are up,” says Luke Western, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Monitoring Laboratory, who helped lead the new research.

The discovery underscores the challenge of getting rid of these once widely used chemicals, which can linger in appliances for decades. It also shows how continent-size gaps in a network of sensors make it hard to pinpoint sources of the problem.The chemical, used chiefly to make foam insulation for appliances such as refrigerators, is part of a family of fluorocarbon molecules blamed for eating away at a layer of stratospheric ozone, roughly 20 kilometers above the ground, that filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. The world began to wean itself off these chemicals under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, widely considered the most successful international environmental treaty. Overall, ozone-damaging chemicals have declined steadily since the early 2000s, and the ozone “holes” above the poles have begun to heal.

In 2018, however, researchers reported that levels of the banned chemical CFC-11 had been rising since 2012. An international panel concluded that surge was likely due to illicit production, much of it in eastern China, perhaps because HCFC-141b, then used as a substitute for CFC-11 because it is less destructive to ozone, was in scarce supply. Releases of CFC-11 started to fall once again in 2019. By now production of HCFC-141b should also be declining. Its phase-out began in 2013, with a complete ban scheduled for 2030. It is already being replaced by a group of chemicals that doesn’t damage the ozone layer.

But scientists say atmospheric levels of HCFC-141b are actually rising. Emissions have climbed each year between 2017 and 2021, an increase totaling 3000 tons from 2017 to 2020, the researchers estimate. The findings, based on a combination of measurements from air sensors and computer models of how the gases move through the atmosphere, were posted online on 27 April by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, although the paper hasn’t been peer reviewed yet. The rise of the newer chemical doesn’t appear to be a repeat of the CFC-11 incident, says Stephen Montzka, an atmospheric scientist who heads NOAA’s monitoring lab and led the work that uncovered the CFC-11 emissions. “I think in the instance of 141b the situation is much murkier,” he says. Results from air sensors in South Korea suggest the problem isn’t originating from eastern China. It does seem to be coming from somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, because levels have risen faster there than in the south.

One possibility is that unreported HCFC-141b is being manufactured somewhere in the world, Montzka says. But the blip could also be temporary, triggered as aging appliances are thrown out and the foam breaks down, releasing the gas. “Taking a close look, we realized there are possible explanations that don’t require somebody doing something that they weren’t supposed to do,” Montzka says.The monitoring work in papers like this is “critical,” says Helen Walter-Terrinoni, a member of the Montreal Protocol’s technical panel and a chemical engineer with the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, which represents major manufacturers. The panel reports every 4 years on the state of ozone-depleting gases and the science surrounding them. Its new report, slated for 2023, “could help shed more light on what’s going on” with the rising emissions, Walter-Terrinoni says.

For now, gaps in the air sensor network have made answers elusive. The sensors are concentrated in North America and Europe, with only a handful in East Asia and at isolated sites elsewhere. Scientists are blind to what’s happening in much of India, Russia, and the Middle East, and most of Africa and South America. “If there were emissions in those regions,” Montzka says, “we wouldn’t be able to tell you very accurately where they are coming from.”

The picture could improve in the coming years. In the wake of the CFC-11 incident, an EU-funded initiative is underway to install more sensors and close some of those gaps. For now, Montzka isn’t alarmed about the added dose of chemicals. It amounts to a “small perturbation” in the ozone layer, he says, just a fraction of 1% of the ozone-damaging power of gases now in the atmosphere.

1. Which type of writing does this passage belong to?
A.Descriptive writing.B.Expository writing.C.Persuasive writing.D.Narrative writing.
2. What is the meaning of the underline word ‘illicit’ in Paragraph 3?
A.Valid.B.Licensed.C.Constitutional.D.Illegal.
3. What is the possible reason can explain the fact that atmospheric levels of HCFC-141b are actually rising now?
A.Ground filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun.
B.The world began to wean itself off these chemicals.
C.Unreported HCFC-141b is being manufactured somewhere in the world.
D.Ozone-damaging chemicals haven’t declined steadily.
4. Which of the following can be the best title for the text?
A.Atmospheric Levels of HCFC-141b Are Actually Rising
B.Bad Picture Could Improve in The Coming Years
C.Ozone-destroying Chemical Is on The Rise Despite Crackdown
D.Continent-size Gaps in Sensors Make It Hard to Pinpoint Sources of The Problem

相似题推荐

阅读理解-阅读单选(约390词) | 适中 (0.65)
文章大意:本文是一篇说明文。文章介绍了海洋中充满了垃圾,海洋垃圾污染问题严重威胁海洋生物的生存,并危及人类,我们需要及时采取行动应对这一问题。

【推荐1】Blue Planet ’s latest episode (情节) is about how plastic is having a terrible effect on the ocean and slowly poisoning our sea creatures. Researchers have also found that sea creatures living in the deepest place on Earth, Mariana Trench, have plastic in their stomachs. Indeed, oceans are drowning in plastic.

Though it seems that the world couldn’t possibly function without plastic, plastic is a very recent invention. The first plastic bags were introduced in the 1950s, the same decade (十年) that plastic packaging began gaining popularity in the United States. This growth has happened so fast that science is still catching up with the change. Plastic pollution research, for example, is still a very early science.

We put all the plastic into the environment, but we still don’t really know what the outcomes are going to be. What we do know, though, is disturbing. Ocean plastic is expected to kill millions of sea animals every year. Hundreds of species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by it. One in three leatherback turtles, which often mistake plastic bags for jellyfish, have been found with plastic in their stomach. Ninety percent of seabirds are now eating plastic regularly. By 2050, that figure is expected to rise to 100 percent.

And it’s not just wildlife that is threatened by the plastic in our seas. Humans are consuming plastic through the seafood we eat. I could understand why some people see ocean plastic as a disaster, worth mentioning in the same breath as climate change. But ocean plastic is not as complicated (复杂的) as climate change. There are no ocean waste deniers (否认者), at least so far. To do something about it, we don’t have to remake our planet energy system.

This is not a problem where we don’t know what the solution is. We know how to pick up garbage. Anyone can do it. We know how to deal with it. We know how to recycle. We can all start by thinking twice before we use single-use plastic products. Things that may seem ordinary, like using a reusable bottle or a reusable bag — when taken collectively, these choices really do make a difference.

1. Why is plastic pollution research still a very early science?
A.The plastic pollution research is too difficult.
B.Plastic has produced less pollution than coal.
C.Plastic has gained popularity too fast for science to catch up.
D.The world couldn’t possibly function without plastic.
2. How did the author support his opinion in Paragraph 3?
A.By presenting reliable data.
B.By citing quotes from leading experts.
C.By making a comparison and contrast.
D.By listing examples from his own experiences.
3. What does the author intend to tell us in the last paragraph?
A.We reap what we sow.
B.The shortest answer is doing.
C.All things are difficult before they are easy.
D.Actions speak louder than words.
4. What is the main idea of the passage?
A.The oceans become choked with plastic.
B.Ocean plastic is a global problem.
C.Blue Planet has left viewers heartbroken.
D.Plastic gains in popularity all over the world.
2023-06-12更新 | 21次组卷
阅读理解-阅读单选(约300词) | 适中 (0.65)
名校

【推荐2】Food production does great harm to our environment. There are many procedures involved in the manufacture of food that result in greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Some procedures require the consumption of large amounts of fossil fuels, such as the transportation and storage of food products. Other factors that cause great damage to our environment include the overuse of fresh water.

The production of beef is more damaging to the environment than that of any other food we consume. Raising large numbers of cattle requires the production of large amounts of food for the animals. it's estimated that producing one pound of beef requires seven pounds of feed.

Land use is also a problem. If the cattle are free-range cattle, large areas of land are required for them to live on. This has led to disastrous forest cutting and the loss of rare plants and animal species, particularly in tropical rain forests in Central and South America.

Another problem specific to beef production is methane emissions (甲烷排放). Although many people are aware of the damaging effects of carbon dioxide, they don't realize methane's global warming potential is 25 times worse, making it a more dire problem.

Unfortunately, beef consumption is growing rapidly. This is the result of simple supply and demand factors. Specifically, there are two main causes of demand that are encouraging the production of more supply. First, the increase in the world population means there are more people to consume meat. The second factor is socioeconomic advancement. As citizens in developing nations become financially stable, they can afford to buy more meat.

Therefore, one way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions is for people around the world to significantly cut down on the amount of beef they eat.

1. Which of the following is TRUE?
A.Raising free-range cattle is eco-friendly.
B.People cut down trees for animal habitats.
C.Producing beef can damage the environment.
D.Carbon dioxide causes far more harm than methane.
2. The underlined word "dire" in Para. 4 means _______.
A.common
B.urgent
C.beneficial
D.avoidable
3. Beef production is growing rapidly because_______.
A.more people are in demand of beef
B.developing countries raise more cattle
C.more land is available to raise cattle
D.the cost of raising cattle is relatively low
4. The author writes this article to_______.
A.describe the booming of the beef production
B.emphasize the advantages of beef production
C.criticize the cutting of the rain forest
D.argue for a decrease in beef consumption
2018-04-06更新 | 53次组卷
阅读理解-阅读单选(约340词) | 适中 (0.65)

【推荐3】Somewhere between 40,000 and 110,000 tons of plastic waste produced by Americans ends up in the ocean, according to a study published in the journal Science.

It's difficult to point out where all that waste comes from, and researchers think that much or most of it probably comes from the nation's seriously-populated coasts. But there's also evidence that the nation's inland waterways serve as a passage for plastic to travel thousands of miles into the oceans.

While researchers have documented plastic and human trash floating in the world's oceans, there has been relatively little attention paid to plastics in rivers, streams and lakes. "To my knowledge, no one has studied particular routes, with the exception of places like L.A, and Baltimore Harbor where there are measures in place to prevent trash in rivers from entering the ocean." said Kara Lavender Law, an oceanographer.

The few studies that exist, however, suggest that it may be a huge problem. A 2011 study of two southern California urban rivers---including Santa Ana River---found that every square meter of water contained from 125 to 819 pieces larger than 4.75 millimeters. Another survey of the Meuse River, which flows 575 miles through France, Belgium and the Netherlands to the North Sea, found that it contained 70,000 pieces of plastics per square meter of water, about 500 of which were roughly an inch or bigger in size.

If there's anything positive in this, it's you that can do something, at least on a personal level, to reduce the amount of plastic that goes into the oceans. "Put trash where it goes." said Jenna Jambeck, an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Georgia. "Use reusable items---bags, cups and bottles---to reduce waste."

Finally, Jambeck urges people to pick up litter along waterways, and record it with a phone app called the Marine Debris Tracker. The data you provide can help scientists to get a better handle on the trash problem.

1. According to the text, the least polluted place might be __________.
A.Santa Ana RiverB.Meuse River
C.Baltimore HarborD.The North Sea
2. How does the author prove plastic waste in rivers is a huge problem?
A.By referring to experts' views.B.By listing statistics.
C.By making comparisons.D.By following time order.
3. What does Jenna Jambeck advise us to do?
A.Make use of plastic items.B.Reduce the size of waste we throw away.
C.Stay positive about the oceans' future.D.Start from small things to deal with waste.
2020-06-19更新 | 66次组卷
共计 平均难度:一般