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:26 题号:21152799

When Abdus Salam looks across the garbage-filled river near his home in one of the major clothing producing districts in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, he remembers a time before the factories moved in. “When I was young there were no clothing factories here. We used to catch fish in the river,” he said. The river beside him is now black like ink. Waste from nearby clothing factories has polluted the water.

Fashion is responsible for up to one-fifth of industrial water pollution, thanks in part to weak management and enforcement in producer countries like Bangladesh, the world’s second biggest clothing producing country, where wastewater is commonly discharged directly into rivers and streams. The wastewater not only hurts the environment, but pollutes drinking water sources.

Once in waterways, poisonous chemicals from dyes (染料) build up to the point where light is prevented from coming through the surface, reducing plants’ ability to photosynthesize (进行光合作用). This lowers oxygen levels in the water, killing plants and animals. These chemicals and heavy metals can also build up in the body, increasing the risk of serious illnesses and skin problems. What’s worse, chemical-rich water is also used to water crops, with one recent study finding that dyes were present in vegetables and fruit grown aiound Savaz, just north of Dhaka.

Luckily, change is coming. In Bangladesh, there are signs clothing producers are taking environmental responsibility more seriously, with brands committing to initiatives, such as the Partnership for Cleaner Textile, that tackle water, energy and chemical use in the industry. Shahab Uddin of Bangladesh’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change said a range of measures were being taken to address pollution, including updating conservation and environmental laws, giving fines to polluters, setting up centralized treatment plants, and working with international development partners to improve wastewater treatment. And under a new environmental policy called Zero Liquid Discharge, dyeing, finishing and washing industries must submit a time-bound plan to reduce, recycle and reuse wastewater.

“There is definitely room for further improvement. These challenges cannot be solved overnight,” Uddin added.

1. What is the main purpose of the first paragraph?
A.To blame clothing factories for river pollution.
B.To introduce Bangladesh’s clothing industry.
C.To call for the closure of clothing factories.
D.To recall the good old days in Dhaka.
2. What can we say about Bangladesh?
A.It is the biggest clothing producing country.
B.It causes 20% of the world’ s water pollution.
C.It suffers from serious drinking water shortages.
D.It has poor control over wastewater discharge.
3. What does paragraph 3 mainly talk about?
A.The difficulty of dealing with poisonous chemicals in waterways.
B.The chemicals from dyes negatively affecting photosynthesis.
C.The damaging effects of wastewater from the fashion industry.
D.The way to remove harmful chemicals from the food chain.
4. What does Zero Liquid Discharge require the clothing industry to do?
A.Establish centralized treatment plants.
B.Set a deadline for tackling wastewater.
C.Pay high fines for discharging wastewater.
D.Join international groups to treat wastewater.
【知识点】 环境污染 说明文

相似题推荐

阅读理解-阅读单选(约250词) | 适中 (0.65)
名校

【推荐1】Starbucks will stop using plastic straws from its stores globally by 2020, in a nod to the growing push for businesses to be more environmentally friendly. The Seattle-based company said on Monday it will instead use straws made from other materials, and lids designed not to need straws. McDonald's also recently said it would switch to paper straws in the UK and Ireland by next year, and test alternatives to plastic straws in some US locations. In February, Dunkin' Donuts said that it would refuse polystyrene foam (塑料泡沫) cups from its stores by 2020.

Environmental activists have been pressuring businesses to ditch plastic straws because they can end up in the ocean and hurt marine life. The push gained great support after a video in 2015 showed rescuers removing a straw from a sea turtle's nose in great detail. Local governments have also been looking at the issue. Last week, Seattle’s ban on single-use plastic straws and utensils in food service outlets took effect, and Starbucks says it already offers alternative straws there. Similar proposals are being considered elsewhere, including New York and San Francisco.

While straws have become a highly-concerned issue, they make up only about 4% of the plastic trash by number of pieces, and far less by weight. Straws add up to only about 2,000 tons of the nearly 9m tons of plastic waste that hits waters each year.

1. What can be inferred from Paragraph 1?
A.Some businesses are shouldering their social responsibility.
B.Paper straws will be popular in the UK and Ireland.
C.The use of plastic straws has been stopped.
D.There will be alternatives to plastic straws.
2. Why is the video in 2015 mentioned in the text?
A.To show how to rescue sea turtles.
B.To explain how to remove plastic straws.
C.To emphasize the necessity of stopping plastic straws.
D.To get the readers’ support.
3. The numbers in the last paragraph suggest that_________.
A.plastic straws do little harm
B.plastic waste should be highly focused on
C.plastic waste gets to waters more easily
D.plastic straws are a highly-concerned issue
4. What can be a suitable title for the text?
A.Refuse plastic straws in companies.
B.Replace plastic straws with alternatives.
C.Stop using plastic products in catering business.
D.Reduce plastic waste by combined efforts.
2019-02-05更新 | 55次组卷
阅读理解-阅读单选(约400词) | 适中 (0.65)
名校

【推荐2】On average, we each eat more than 20 kilograms of fish per year. Worldwide, between 1961 and 2016, fish consumption increased faster than meat consumption, and grew twice as fast as the human population. All of these fishy dinners have reduced marine fish stocks to a point where a third of global fish stocks are now classed as "overfished". Fishing also has negative impacts on non-food species in the ecosystem, and pollutes the waters with fishing waste. Temporary fishing bans may help, but what if we banned fishing altogether?

One thing is for sure: the ocean would hopefully become a better place for marine species. Recent years have seen plastic products much less used as the public has woken up to the effects of marine plastics. But few people realize the contribution that fishing makes. Pieces of abandoned fishing tools account for about 10 percent of all marine litter, and according to a 2018 study, 86 percent of the big pieces of plastics floating in the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch". Without fishing, we'd also wipe out emission from fishing boats. One 2014 study claimed that fishing industry was actually highly fuel-consuming, like lobsters, with some boats using 20,000 liters of fuel to catch a single ton.

However, what we must not forget is that our planet is highly dependent on fishing in various ways. Around the world,40 million people earn their living directly from catching wild fish, while another 19 million are employed in relevant industries. A total ban on fishing would make it hard for them to put food in their families' mouths. Moreover, seafood is a major source of protein across Southeast Asia and islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. So while in Europe or the US people could eat more meat or soy products to make up for lost protein, there could be food shortage in communities with little land-based farming.

Though not a realistic choice, a total fishing ban is an interesting thought experiment, which may throw light on how man can get along with marine species. After all, the damage fishing does to the entire ecosystem and the pollution it brings about are becoming so enormous that it's time we did something to change it.

1. Why would the ocean become a better place if we banned fishing altogether?
A.Because there would be less pollution to the ocean.
B.Because the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" would disappear.
C.Because lobster fishing boats would consume less fuel.
D.Because people would realize the effects of using plastics.
2. What could happen to humans if fishing were completely banned?
A.Some would suffer from a lack of food.
B.Some would change their diet and eat less meat.
C.Some communities would start developing land-based farming.
D.Some workers would have to find jobs in fishing-relevant industries.
3. What is the author's attitude towards a total fishing ban?
A.Favorable.B.Objective.C.Disapproving.D.Concerned.
4. What can be the best title for the passage?
A.The Urgent Need of a Total Fishing Ban.B.The Harmful Effects of Fishing industry.
C.A Newly Launched Policy on Fishing Industry.D.An Assumption of a Complete Fishing Ban.
2022-01-21更新 | 155次组卷
阅读理解-阅读单选(约340词) | 适中 (0.65)
名校

【推荐3】It was once thought that air pollution affected only the areas immediately around large cities with factories and heavy automobile traffic. Today, we know that although these are the areas with the worst air pollution, the problem is actually worldwide. On several occasions over the past decade, a heavy cloud of air pollution has covered the entire eastern half of the United States and led to health warnings even in rural areas away from any major concentration of manufacturing and automobile traffic. In fact, the very climate of the entire earth may be affected by air pollution. Some scientists feel that the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the air resulting from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and oil) is creating “a greenhouse effect”, holding in heat reflected from the earth and raising the world’s average temperature. If this view is correct and the world’s temperature is raised only a few degrees, much of the polar ice cap will melt and cities such as New York, Boston, Miami, and New Orleans will be under water.

Another view, less widely held, is that increasing particulate (废气排到空中而形成的微粒、颗粒) matter in the atmosphere is blocking sunlight and lowering the earth’s temperature—a result that would be equally disastrous. A drop of just a few degrees could create something close to a new ice age and would make agriculture difficult or impossible in many of our top farming areas. At present we do not know for sure that either of these conditions will happen (though one recent government report prepared by experts in the field concluded that the greenhouse effect is very likely). Perhaps, if we are very lucky, the two tendencies will offset each other and the world’s temperature will stay about the same as it is now.

1. As pointed out at the beginning of the passage, people used to think that air pollution ________.
A.caused widespread damage in the countryside
B.affected the entire eastern half of the United States
C.had damaging effects on health
D.existed merely in urban and industrial areas
2. As far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, the author ________.
A.shares the same view with the scientists
B.is uncertain of its occurrence
C.rejects it as being ungrounded
D.thinks that it will destroy the world soon
3. The underlined word “offset” in Para. 2 could best be replaced by “________”.
A.slip intoB.make up for
C.set upD.catch up with
4. It can be inferred from the passage that ________.
A.lowering the world’s temperature merely a few degrees would lead many major farming areas to disaster
B.raising the world’s temperature only a few degrees would not do much harm to life on earth
C.almost no temperature variations have occurred over the past decade
D.the world’s temperature will remain constant in the years to come
2020-09-19更新 | 122次组卷
共计 平均难度:一般