Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World is one of the most important books about climate change to have been written. Hayhoe is a gifted public speaker and Saving Us is a follow-up to her awesome TED talk in 2018, “The most important thing you can do to fight climate change: talk about it.”
One of the many refreshing aspects of this book is that Hayhoe recounts both her successes and her failures to communicate, through which she has gathered evidence about what works and what does not. Much of the book’s advice is common sense, all backed up not just by Hayhoe’s experience but also with convincing research by psychologists and social scientists.
Hayhoe advises against trying to engage with a small minority, the “Dismissives”, who “angrily reject the idea that human-caused climate change is a threat; they are most receptive to misinformation and conspiracy theories (阴谋论)”. There is a warning that offering up more facts about climate change can actually increase polarisation (两极化) among them.
The book includes amusing examples of her encounters with the “Dismissives”, almost entirely older men—including an engineer who was unconvinced about the evidence but with whom she was able to establish mutual (相互的) respect through a shared passion for knitting (打毛线衣) —and is packed with inspiring accounts of how she has won over even the most suspicious of crowds. Her motto is “bond, connect and inspire”, which represents her approach of always looking for points of commonality.
She also tells of a man who approached her after an event in London in 2019. He had been so inspired by her TED talk that he had started to speak to everybody he could in his neighborhood of Wandsworth. He showed her details of 12, 000 conversations that had taken place as a result, claiming that they had helped to convince the government to declare a climate emergency and to switch investments from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
And so, while it may feel difficult to influence the outcome of the COP26, Hayhoe’s uplifting book makes a persuasive case that we can all do our bit to bring about success just by talking about the issue.
1. What does the book mainly focus on?A.Promoting people’s insight into climate change. |
B.Introducing presentation skills with TED talks. |
C.Developing critical thinking through literature. |
D.Sharing communication tips on climate change. |
A.Humorous but one-sided. | B.Novel and interesting. |
C.Well-based and workable. | D.Serious and hard to follow. |
A.By changing their political identity. |
B.By challenging their fundamental beliefs. |
C.By seeking common ground built on a shared interest. |
D.By providing more facts about climate change. |
A.The shift to clean energy is unstoppable. |
B.Conversations can influence climate decision-making. |
C.Policymakers turn a blind eye to market changes. |
D.We should call on people to prepare for the climate crisis. |
相似题推荐
【推荐1】Automation (自动化) was a hot topic. Nearly everyone agreed that people would be working less once computers and other kinds of automatic machinery became widespread. For optimists, this was a promise of liberation: At last humanity would be freed from constant toil, and we could all devote our days to more refined pursuits. But others saw a threat: Millions of people would be thrown out of work, and desperate masses would roam the streets. Looking back from 50 years hence, the controversy over automation seems a quaint and curious episode. The dispute was never resolved.
A. J. Hayes, a leader (and no relation to me), wrote in 1964: Automation is not just a new kind of mechanization but a revolutionary force capable of overturning our social order. Whereas mechanization made workers more efficient — and thus more valuable — automation threatens to make them superfluous (过剩的) — and thus without value. The opinions I have cited here represent extreme positions, and there were also many milder views. But I think it’s fair to say that most early students of automation, including both critics and enthusiasts, believed the new technology would lead us into a world where people worked much less.
As for economic consequences, worries about unemployment have certainly not gone away — not with job losses in the current recession approaching 2 million workers in our country alone. But recent job losses are commonly attributed to causes other than automation, such as competition from overseas or a roller-coaster financial system. In any case, the vision of a world where machines do all the work and people stand idly by has simply not come to pass.
The spread of automation outside of the factory has altered its social and economic impact in some curious ways. In many cases, the net effect of automation is not that machines are doing work that people used to do. Instead we’ve dispensed with the people who used to be paid to run the machines, and we’ve learned to run them ourselves. These trends contradict almost all the expectations of early writers on automation, both optimists and pessimists. So far, automation has neither liberated us from the need to work nor deprived (剥夺) us of the opportunity to work. Instead, we’re working more than ever.
What about trades closer to my own vital interests? Will science be automated? Technology already has a central role in many areas of research; for example, genome sequences could not be read by traditional lab-bench methods. Replacing the scientist will presumably be a little harder than replacing the lab technician, but when a machine exhibits enough curiosity and tenacity, I think we’ll just have to welcome it as a companion in zealous research. And if the scientist is elbowed aside by an automaton, then surely the science writer can’t hold out either. I’m ready for my 15-hour workweek.
1. In Paragraph 1, the writer mainly wants to convey that ________.A.automation results in unemployment |
B.automation does more harm than good |
C.the issue of automation was still in discussion |
D.automation brings in much convenience in life |
A.automation is more valuable than what we imagine |
B.automation is a revolutionary force to better development |
C.the disadvantages of automation far outweigh the advantages |
D.the new technology would lead people into working much less |
A.Doubtful. | B.Supportive. | C.Disapproving. | D.Neutral. |
A.People needn’t work so hard due to automation. |
B.Traditional labor force will be replaced in the near future. |
C.Automation should be accepted reasonably in development. |
D.Automation results in more job losses in the writer’s country. |
【推荐2】Mariana Bechtel isn’t exactly someone who avoids stress. Throughout her, she has pursued high-pressure management jobs: “I’m hard core,” says the 44-yearold wife and mother of two. “I wanted to be on top at work, and I wanted to be a great mom” –one who could attend baseball games, drive and help with homework even after an hour-long commute (通勤)on workdays, more often than not, with a5 a.m. marathon-training run.
However, after months of losing sleep, dropping weight and feeling pushed to lose her mind, Mariana Bechtel decided she had to address her stress-and turn it to her advantage. The new job she recently switched to still has its share of pressure, but with more support from her boss and more flexibility in her schedule, she says she feels great.
Contrary to popular belief, stress doesn’t have to be a soul-sucking, health-damaging force. But few people know how to transform their stress into the positive kind that helps them reach their goals.
A recent research confirms that gaining control over job demands, doing work with meaning and purpose and enjoying support and encouragement from co-workers are all linked to beneficial stress. Simply changing attitudes and expectations about stress-through coaching, training or peer-support groups-can also develop the constructive kind of stress.
“Stress is paradoxical,” says Alia Crum, a research scholar. “On one hand, it can be the thing that hurts us most. On the other, it’s fundamental to psychological and physical growth. The attitude that we view and approach stress will shift the outcome.”
1. What is Mariana Bechtel’s new job like?A.It is health-damaging. |
B.It is physically demanding. |
C.It has little stress. |
D.It has flexible worktime. |
A.Stress can be turned beneficial. |
B.Too much stress is harmful to health. |
C.It’s hard to balance work and family. |
D.Every job has its own advantage. |
A.By refusing the boss’s demands |
B.By taking up a meaningful job. |
C.By supporting co-workers. |
D.By sticking to our attitude to stress. |
A.Stress has far-reaching effects. | B.Stress has several disadvantages. |
C.Stress has two opposite features. | D.Stress is not necessary at all. |
【推荐3】Picture this: A goldfish swimming in a square tank on wheels as it rolls from one side of a room to the other.
It’s not a scene from a children’s book or a futuristic movie. It’s an animal behavior experiment at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, where researchers have successfully trained several goldfish to operate a robotic vehicle in an effort to explore whether their species is able to navigate (导航) on land.
It turns out that they just might be, according to one of the researchers. “Our experiment shows that goldfish have the ability to learn a complex task in an environment completely unlike the one they evolved in.”
To test the fish, researchers created the “Fish Operated Vehicle” (FOV), a special robotic car with a fish tank, which tracked where the goldfish was and what direction it was swimming, and then automatically move in the same direction.
Researchers tasked six goldfish with “driving” the vehicle toward a target — a colorful mark on the wall visible through the four clear sides of the tank. The fish were rewarded with a feed when the vehicle touched the target. Researchers conducted multiple 30-minute sessions to see how many times each fish reached the target, how long each drive took and the distance they traveled each time.
After a few days of training, the fish were able to navigate to the target even if they hit a wall along the way or started their drive from a new location. Notably, they weren’t fooled by fake targets of other colors, either. Initially, it took the fish about half an hour to drive to the target, but by the end of the experiment, they were able to complete the same challenge in less than a minute.
“The findings suggest that the way space is represented in the fish brain and the methods it uses may be as successful in a land environment as they are in an underwater one,” the study concludes. But still, scientists say more research is needed to extend these findings to more complex scenery, like open land environments.
1. What did the researchers intend to study about the goldfish?A.Their potential to evolve in the tank. | B.Their adaptability to a new environment. |
C.Their ability to find their way on land. | D.Their competence in doing complex tasks. |
A.A guide. | B.A motivator. | C.A distraction. | D.A punishment. |
A.Reach new locations. | B.Fool their companions. |
C.Distinguish different colors. | D.Understand simple language. |
A.FOV help fish explore the land. | B.Robots conduct fish experiments. |
C.Goldfish fit into new environment. | D.Scientists Train Goldfish to Navigate. |
【推荐1】Rising sea levels and the potential impacts to huge coastal populations worldwide rank near the top of concerns when it comes to consequences of a worsening climate emergency. But a lesser-known danger poses an equal or arguably more urgent threat to millions around the world living at much higher altitudes: flooding from glacial lakes.
With average temperatures rising around the world in recent decades, a number of these lakes high above population centers in South America and Asia have become swollen and unstable as the reserves of snow and ice that feed them melt ever quicker.
For the first time, an international team of researchers has quantified this threat. It reports that 15 million people are in the path of potential floods from these swollen bodies of water. “Understanding which areas face the greatest danger from glacial flooding will allow for more targeted and effective risk management actions, which in turn will help minimize loss of life and damage to infrastructure downstream,” said co-author Rachel Carr, head of physical geography at Newcastle University.
In 1941, a glacial (冰川) lake outburst flood, or GLOF, from Lake Palcacocha killed thousands in the town of Huaraz below and largely inspired the beginning of research into the phenomenon. Dams and other infrastructure were put in place to relieve the threat from the lake in the 1970s, but its volume is now over 30 times greater, requiring new improvements to safely drain and release water pressure.
Lead researcher Caroline Taylor says the researchers also found that understanding the danger requires more than just counting lakes and measuring their volume. “Instead, it is the number of people, their distance to a glacial lake and importantly, their ability to cope with a flood that determines the potential danger from a GLOF event.”
In recent years, a warning system was set up at Lake Palcacocha that could give residents of Huaraz enough time to get out of the way of an incoming flood. Meanwhile, other threatened villages with no such alert system continue to rely on hope and luck.
1. Why does the author mention rising sea levels in the first paragraph?A.To make a comparison. | B.To introduce the topic. |
C.To provide an example. | D.To support his argument. |
A.An international team first figured out the dangerous areas. |
B.Effective risk management will rid people of the danger. |
C.A GLOF in the 1970s determined the start of study into the danger. |
D.Threatened villagers without warning systems can easily get hurt. |
A.The number of the unstable lakes. | B.The volume of the unstable lakes. |
C.The coping ability of the potential victims | D.The degree of climate change. |
A.Glacial Lakes: a Potential Danger | B.GLOF: an Overlooked Threat |
C.Climate Change: the Cause of GLOF | D.Warning Systems: a Solution to GLOF |
【推荐2】A report from the UN warns that countries’ current commitments would reduce carbon by only about 7.5% by 2030, far less than the 45% cut, which scientists say is needed to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C, the aim of the COP26 summit.
António Guterres, the UN secretary-general, described the findings as a “thundering wake-up call” to world leaders, while experts called for action against fossil fuel companies.
Although more than 100 countries have promised to reach net zero emissions around mid-century, this would not be enough to avoid climate disasters, according to the UN emissions report, which examines the shortfall (差额) between countries intentions and actions needed on the climate. Many of the net zero commitments were found to be unclear, and unless accompanied by strict cuts in emissions this decade would allow global heating of a potentially disastrous extent.
Guterres said: “The heat is on, and as the contents of the report show, the leadership we need is off. Far off. Countries are wasting a massive opportunity to invest Covid-19 finance and recovery resources in sustainable, cost-saving, planet-saving ways. As world leaders prepare for COP26, that is another thundering wake-up call. How many do we need?”
Inger Andersen, the director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said: “Climate change is no longer a future problem. It is a now problem. To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5℃, we have 8 years to almost halve greenhouse gas emissions: 8 years to make the plans, put in place the policies, carry them out and deliver the cuts. The clock is ticking loudly.”
Emissions fell by about 5. 4% last year during Covid lockdowns, the report found, but only about one-fifth of the economic recovery spending goes towards reducing carbon emissions. This failure to “build back better”, despite promises by governments around the world, cast doubt on the world’s willingness to make the economic shift necessary to settle the climate crisis, the UN said.
In the run-up to COP26, countries were supposed to submit (递交) national plans to cut emissions—called nationally determined contributions (NDCs) —for the next decade, a requirement under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But the UNEP report found only half of countries had submitted new NDCs, and some governments had presented weak plans.
1. Why were the findings described as a “thundering wake-up call” in Para. 2?A.Because the world has failed to live up to its current commitments. |
B.Because the opportunities presented by covid-19 have been wasted. |
C.Because the world is falling behind in slowing down temperature rises. |
D.Because the serious problems were brought about by global fossil fuels. |
A.current commitments of many countries remain unchanged |
B.huge gaps are bridged between previous and present proposals |
C.global sustainable environmental resources develops significantly |
D.strict measures are taken to reduce emissions in the coming ten years |
A.To show the number of alarm clocks required. |
B.To explain the reason for the world’s wasting chances. |
C.To ask for the number of the countries attending the meeting. |
D.To stress the need to make the most of resources and reduce emissions. |
A.Few countries have submitted plans to reduce the emissions. |
B.Many countries’ plans to cut emissions are far from satisfactory. |
C.Most of the countries work under the Paris Climate Agreement. |
D.Much progress in reducing emissions has been made these years. |
【推荐3】In the midst of an already record-breaking heat wave, Phoenix, Arizona, set a particularly eye-popping record: the temperature only dropped to 97 degrees Fahrenheit overnight between Tuesday and Wednesday, setting an all-time record high for a nighttime low. When temperatures stay high overnight, they place a particularly heavy burden on the body, raising the risk of heat illness and death.
The U.S. —and the world—has seen a spate of extreme heat so far this year, including the planet’s hottest-ever June and hottest week on record during the first week of July. Rising global temperatures from burning fossil fuels are the main driver of more frequent and more intense heat waves. And an El Niño event is also boosting global temperatures this year.
A heat dome has been in place for weeks over the U.S. Southwest and Texas, and it has fueled many heat records. Phoenix has now seen 20 days in a row with a daytime high of 110 degrees F or higher, a record that is likely to continue for several more days. A heat dome is an area of high pressure that parks over a region. High-pressure ridges, as they are also called, feature sinking air, which compresses and heats up. These ridges’ typical clear skies also allow the sun’s rays to beat down on the ground, further raising temperatures.
Prolonged heat extremes pose a major public health threat because heat is the number-one weather-related killer in the U.S.; it causes more human deaths than hurricanes, tornadoes and floods combined. Heat can cause dehydration, which leads the blood to thicken and makes the heart pump harder. That organ and others can be damaged by too much exposure to heat.
The soaring, triple-digit high daily temperatures grab the headlines, and they definitely are a concern—but when temperatures only drop into the 80s and 90s at night, the body doesn’t get a chance to cool down. This is particularly a concern for those who lack air-conditioning, including unhoused populations. And heat is especially a health risk for the very young, the elderly and those with preexisting health conditions such as asthma and heart disease.
1. What can be inferred from the first two paragraphs?A.Extreme temperatures can cause damage to our hearts. |
B.Burning fossil fuels contributes to the hottest-ever June and July. |
C.El Nino is the dominant cause of soaring global temperature. |
D.The temperature at night has reached a record high in Phoenix, Arizona. |
A.It’s a weather phenomenon that contributes to high temperatures. |
B.It’s a peak that the low pressure should reach. |
C.It’s the damage caused by too much exposure to heat. |
D.It’s the extra heat trapped in the sinking air. |
A.It is the top one killer in America. | B.Exposure to heat contributes to heart diseases. |
C.Human organs might be impaired. | D.People accommodate to 80s and 90s Fahrenheit at night. |
A.Soaring temperatures are hitting the headlines. | B.Anew eye popping overnight low record is set. |
C.Hot overnight temperatures threaten human health. | D.Global heat waves are causing concerns. |