THE GROWING PROBLEM OF E-WASTE
The term e-waste is short for “electronic waste”. It refers to electrical or electronic products that are thrown away when they are no longer needed. These include computers, televisions, ovens, and basically anything else that runs on batteries or has an electrical cord.
E-waste has been a problem since the 1970s because of how difficult it is to separate things like metal and plastic from various products. Also, many electronics contain toxic materials that can pollute the environment if left in landfills. Over the past few decades, the problem of e-waste has only increased along with advancements in technology.
E-waste is now the fastest-growing waste stream around the world. The total amount of e-waste created every year is expected to reach 74 million tons by the year 2030. Currently, it’s estimated that only about 17 percent of global e-waste is properly recycled. However, the United Nations hopes to bring that number up to 30 percent by the end of 2023.
With more people using smartphones and computers every year, the problem of e-waste cannot be ignored. To increase the recycling rate of e-waste items, cities should consider adding special collection boxes at grocery stores or government offices. There should also be delivery or pick-up services for e-waste items. That way, these items can be sent directly to people who are able to properly take them apart and recover their useful components.
Despite current difficulties, e-waste has great recycling potential. In addition to the items thrown away, lots of people keep old devices that aren’t used anymore. As a whole, they add up to a lot of metals and minerals that can, and should, be recycled. If these components are recycled to make new products, there would be less of a need to dig for more around the world.
So, if you must replace your phone or computer, try returning the device to the manufacturer or dropping it off at an e-waste processing facility if there is one nearby.
1. What does “electronic waste” refer to?2. What is Paragraph 2 mainly about?
3. Decide which part of the following statement is wrong. Underline it and explain why.
▶In order to reduce e-waste, people had better keep old devices that aren’t used anymore or drop them off in special collection boxes.
4. Apart from the ways mentioned in the passage, please share your way(s) to reduce e-waste. (About 40 words)
Construction of the Tower of Pisa began in 1173
Dean Schneider leaves his life in Switzerland behind and goes to Africa
4 . With climate change continuing to worsen, our situation is beginning to feel increasingly serious.
Techno-optimism is one of the greatest misconceptions when it comes to solutions to ensure our future. It can be defined as a belief that future technologies will solve all of our current problems. This definition reinforces (强化) the idea that there’s no reason to panic or change our current energy-intensive lifestyle. All society needs to do is look to green technology to work its magic.
One of the best examples of this optimistic misconception is the electric car. Despite being highly regarded as an eco-friendly way to get around, electric cars are not the end for the future of transport. Batteries in electric cars use chemical elements which we could be seeing a shortage of by the midcentury.
Techno-optimism puts too much emphasis on technology and not enough on what we can do right this minute. Unfortunately, people seem to like the picture that techno-optimism paints.
| A．So where should we look for answers instead? |
| B．The modern world’s simple solution is technology. |
| C．Moreover, they are more energy intensive to produce. |
| D．Is it a trap that many people have fallen into in recent years? |
| E．Unfortunately, this is an incredibly dangerous opinion to hold. |
| F．Despite any technology, we as a whole are not living sustainably. |
| G．Nevertheless, the truth is, we need a widespread change in our lifestyles. |
5 . Hardly a day goes by without a company telling us in its beautifully crafted advertising how much it contributes to the environment on our behalf. Flowers grow out of power-station chimneys; SUVs are presented in natural habitats; oil companies use sunny, friendly logos and promise cleaner technologies- although, in fact, they fail to make enough investment in renewable or alternative energy sources. Statistics are made up, and the tiniest ecological improvements are overstated in multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns, while in the meantime the greedy side of the business continues.
This is known as greenwashing, which means “making things that are not green look green”. The phenomenon has long existed since the first Earth Day in 1970, when companies spent $300 million advertising themselves as green companies—many times more than the money they actually spent on research into pollution reduction itself. And the trend continued over the following decades when some of the planet’s worst polluters tried to pass themselves off as eco-friendly. As the public’s environmental awareness grew, so too did the experience of corporate public relations strategies, and advertisers found ever- more-creative ways to use a green curtain to hide dark motives.
Of course, some businesses are genuinely committed to making the world a better, greener place. But when a company spends more time and money claiming to be “green” than actually adopting business practices that minimize environmental impact, it is clear that, for them, environmentalism is little more than a convenient slogan(口号). Their message is “buy our products and you will end global warming, improve air quality and save the oceans”. At best, such greenwashing pushes the fact to its limits; at worst, it helps conceal deception.
And what about today s consumers? Few of them are truly well-equipped to make informed decisions about what is true. Greenwashing is only possible because consumers often believe what they are being told-why else would companies do it? More information and greater awareness are essential. Analysing the tricks used by advertisers should be part of every school curriculum. Non- governmental organisations can spread the word. Consumer groups can punish the greenwashing companies. But it is not enough. Legally enforceable systems must be put in place.
So what is already being done about planned attempts to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes? In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is taking action against misleading advertising claims. France has published Green Claims Guidance, stressing that “an advertisement must avoid conveying a message contrary to the accepted principles of sustainable development”. All of these surely are the heart of the matter: the true impact of advertising is the promotion of unsustainable lifestyles. And therein lies the real danger to our planet, a danger which cannot be ignored any longer.
1. What can we learn about greenwashing?| A．It is an ecological concept. |
| B．It is a marketing technique. |
| C．It is an awareness campaign. |
| D．It is an advertising innovation. |
| A．Hide the truth. | B．Raise the risk. |
| C．Expose the weakness. | D．Break the limit. |
| A．They are lacking in legal knowledge. |
| B．They have encouraged greenwashing. |
| C．They may question consumer groups. |
| D．They tend to make sensible decisions. |
| A．Actions to fight false advertising. |
| B．Ways to protect customers’ interest. |
| C．Attempts to solve environmental problems. |
| D．Proposals to ensure sustainable development. |
6 . Scientists Crack Monkey Behaviour
Scientists have observed two groups of long-tailed macaque monkeys (长尾猕猴) in Thailand, Southeast Asia, using stone tools differently, even though the islands they live on are less than six miles apart.
Long-tailed macaques are one of only a few primate species (灵长类物种) known to use stone tools. The macaques use stones that they choose carefully to hammer the shells of shellfish, such as oysters, sea snails and crabs. They crack them open and scoop out (挖出) the flesh to eat.
On two neighbouring islands off the coast of Thailand, one group of macaques were seen reusing their tools, called hammer stones, whereas the monkeys on the other island threw their stones away after using them once. A team of scientists from the UK, Germany and Thailand, led by Lydia Luncz from the University of Oxford, studied hammer stones found on Yao Noi island and on nearby Boi Yai island.
Distinctive patterns of wear on stones meant that they could tell which stones had been used as tools. The team found that the stones on Boi Yai used to crack open oysters had more and deeper lines and they had been well used, but on Yao Noi the ones hadn’t been used much at all. The hammer stones used by each group were so different that the researchers were able to work out which group had used the tool just by looking at it. At first, the researchers thought there might be a shortage of stones on Boi Yai, which would explain why one group reused them. However, the team soon found lots of solid stones on both islands.
They think that the difference in the behaviour of each group is an example of culture. Culture is the ideas, customs and social behaviour in a group and is a typically human quality. It includes shared habits passed down from older to younger animals. The different patterns of behaviour between the two groups of monkeys suggest that different traditions can develop in different groups of macaques, even though they live in similar sorts of environments. “The use of tools is passed on from monkey to monkey as they learn from each other,” said Luncz.
The researchers hope that this work will be helpful for scientists Studying any early humans and the way they used stone tools.
1. What can we know about the macaques from the first two paragraphs?| A．They can make use of stones. | B．They use different tools to hunt. |
| C．Their favourite food is shellfish. | D．Their groups live far from each other. |
| A．Damage. | B．Dirt. | C．Size. | D．Decoration. |
| A．macaques on Boi Yai work harder |
| B．macaques on Yao Noi have more stones |
| C．macaques have their own traditions in groups |
| D．macaques learnt some behaviour from humans |
The koala is a symbol of Australia. Recently, the Australian government has listed it as an
COP26, known as “Conferences of the Parties”, was the latest in a series of
9 . Lots of humans cannot resist interpreting dogs' faces in the terms defined by human languages. A puppy licking your cheek enthusiastically is giving a "kiss". If dogs could speak like their owners, many humans want to know, what would their dogs have to say?
Into the market for answers step Christina Hunger, author of the book How Stella Learned to Talk, and Alexis Devine, the owner of Bunny, a TikTok star with over 6.3m followers. After careful training, both Stella and Bunny can paw a series of buttons that make a recorded voice speak one of several dozen programmed words. Both Ms. Devine and Ms. Hunger claim that their dogs are using language.
Human linguists tend to be skeptical of "talking" animals. To understand why, consider Noam Chomsky's critical review of "Verbal Behaviour" by B.F. Skinner, a pioneer in behavioral psychology. Skinner described human language acquisition as he did other learned behaviours: the strengthening of a response after conditioning with a stimulus. If saying "food" gets you food, you' re more likely to say it.
Skinner wrote that "if we are shown a prized work of art and shout ‘Beautiful!', the speed and energy of the response will have an effect on the owner." Mr. Chomsky noted that this reasoning might lead people "to cry out 'Beautiful' in a loud voice, repeatedly and with no delay". Real humans, by contrast, might in fact show appreciation through a long moment of silence, and then barely whispered praise.
Ms. Hunger came up with her button system after working with children who were not developing language normally und has helped many youngsters express themselves better(often with tablet computers). But some dog experts dislike the practice of forcing word-based communication onto dogs. By focusing on a basic kind of language that seems human, it ignores dogs' abilities to express themselves in their own ways.
Dogs are fond of sniffing each other, who are using sensitive noses to exchange information, about age, health and other things. Dogs urinate frequently not, as once assumed, primarily to claim territory, but to leave similar information for others.
Posture, too, conveys masses of information between dogs; eyes, ears and teeth contribute to a range of messages transmitted between them. Finally, their own vocalizations, though hardly of the words-and-syntax type that make up human language, are complicated.
Scientists have yet to report on the "talking" abilities of dogs like Stella and Bunny. In the meantime, ordinary owners can have a go at training their dogs with the advice Ms. Hunger offers. Or they can try another approach: buy one of the many good books on understanding how dogs naturally communicate, and spend the time they might invest in programming buttons on getting to know their pets instead. Even the best-trained dog is a poor conversationalist in human terms — but a brilliant one on their own.
1. Why does the author mention Stella and Bunny?| A．To present an attempt. | B．To put forward a theory. |
| C．To settle an argument. | D．To prove an assumption. |
| A．Chomsky further developed behavioral psychology. |
| B．Devine's and Hunger's practices agree with Skinner's theory. |
| C．Language is acquired by strengthening a conditioned response. |
| D．Hunger's button system helps children to express themselves better. |
| A．ignore dogs' psychological needs | B．suggest a new way to get to know dogs |
| C．fail to acknowledge what makes a dog a dog | D．believe dogs have their own language system |
| A．A dog deserves more care and company. |
| B．Training can help a dog learn human language. |
| C．Improving their understanding of pets is crucial. |
| D．Research on animal behavior still has a long way to go. |
Then what is causing the increase in the global average surface temperature? Climate scientists often mention a key climate process
