1 . Amid rolling farms and green pasture 150 miles northwest of Sao Paulo, Brazil, two tropical forests bloom as one. The first consists of a single species, row after row of non-native eucalyptus (桉树), planted in perfect lines like carrots. The other is haphazard, an assortment of dozens of varieties of native saplings.
There’s no denying it: This forest looks ridiculous. The gangly (修长的) eucalyptuses shoot like witch fingers high above patches of stubby fig (矮壮的无花果树) and evergreen trees. Yet these jumbled 2.5-acre stands of native trees, ringed by fast-growing exotics, are among many promising efforts to resurrect the planet’s forests.
The eucalyptuses, says Pedro Brancalion, the University of Sao Paulo agronomist who designed this experiment, get big so quickly they can be cut after five years and sold to make paper or fence posts. That covers nearly half or more of the cost of planting the slow-growing native trees, which then naturally reseed ground that has been laid bare by the harvest. And this process doesn’t hamper natural regeneration.
You needn’t look far these days to find organizations trying to save the world by growing trees. Too often, tree-planting groups are so focused on getting credit for each seedling planted that they ignore what matters most: What kind of woodland is created? At what cost? And most importantly: How long will it last? Using the numbers of trees planted as a magic “proxy for everything,” Brancalion says, you “spend more money and get lower levels of benefits.” You can literally miss the forest for the trees.
Tree planting seems like a simple, natural way to counter the overwhelming crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Trees provide wildlife habitats and slurp carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. No wonder trees are hailed as the ideal weapon. Yet for every high-profile planting operation, devastating failures have occurred. In Turkey, Sri Lanka, and Mexico, mass plantings have resulted in millions of dead seedlings or have driven farmers to clear more intact forest elsewhere. Trees that have been planted in the wrong places have reduced water yields for farmers, destroyed highly diverse carbon-sucking grassland soils, and allowed for invasive vegetation to spread. Simply reforesting the planet isn’t going to do much if we don’t also start cutting down on our emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. Tree planting also can’t replace old-growth forests. Saving them is even more important than growing new forests.
So, what should we do?
To Brancalion, the answer is obvious: Restore native forests, mostly in the tropics, where trees grow fast and land is cheap. While that may require planting, it may also call for the clearing out of invasive grasses, the rejuvenation (使有活力) of soils, and crop yield improvements so that farmers will need less land for agriculture and more can be allowed to revert back to forests.
The combining of eucalyptus harvests with native plantings is just one more reminder that successful restoration must provide value to local communities. In many cases, if we let nature do the heavy lifting, Brancalion says, “the forest can regrow quite effectively.”
1. What can we learn from the first three paragraphs?| A．The non-native eucalyptuses bring profits that can pay for planting native saplings. |
| B．The non-native eucalyptuses compete with native saplings for water, nutrients, and light. |
| C．The variety of trees being planted determines whether or not the restoration will succeed. |
| D．Planting fast-growing exotics together with local trees does harm to the natural environment. |
| A．emphasize the significance of protecting existing forests |
| B．explain why tree planting is regarded as the ideal solution |
| C．illustrate the serious problems planting campaigns can cause |
| D．indicate the most important point tree-planting groups ignore |
| A．clear more forest to improve crop yields for farmers |
| B．combine harvests of fast-growing exotics with native plantings |
| C．restore native forests in the tropics and clear out invasive grasses |
| D．take into consideration the benefits of reforestation to local communities |
| A．Plant trees—and time will tell. | B．Plant trees—but don’t overdo it. |
| C．Plant trees—and save the world. | D．Plant trees—but mind the variety. |
Glass recycling has become such a big industry that the amount of glass
Have you ever been to London? Which famous sites did you visit? Or, if it is the first time that you
1.说明活动意义并简述活动内容（如整理图书馆、打扫公共卫生区等）；
2.提醒携带相关工具及其它注意事项。
注意：1.词数100字左右；
2.开头、结尾已给出，不计入总词数。
Hello, everyone.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That’s all. Thank you.
The Burmese snub-nosed monkey (仰鼻猴) is a
Imprinting is a form of learning in
A series of water-conserving and recycling designs have been put into place
Around 90% of the snow
The trip to Mount Huangshan leaves me a deep impression. The scenes are so breathtaking. The rolling sea of clouds will remind you how tiny we humans are. The hot spring at the foot of the mountain will undoubtedly help you get
What comes next is the endless series of steps. You can’t help wondering
Forrest, a biologist, uses a metal clicker to count every penguin he sees. It’s not easy. He is part of a team
10 . The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that offends our sense of justice. A business may maximize the amount of money it makes by damaging the environment and hurting people. When government regulation is effective, and the public is environmentally aware, environmentally clean big businesses may out-compete dirty ones, but the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and the public doesn’t care.
It is easy to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people. But blaming alone is unlikely to produce change. It ignores the fact that businesses are not charities but profit-making companies, and they are under obligation to maximize profits for shareholders by legal means.
Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the conditions that let a business profit through destructive environmental policies. In the long run, it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal, and to make sustainable environmental policies profitable.
The public can do that by accusing businesses of harming them. The public may also make their opinion felt by choosing to buy sustainably harvested products; by preferring their governments to award valuable contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record; and by pressing their governments to pass and enforce laws and regulations requiring good environmental practices.
In turn, big businesses can exert powerful pressure on any suppliers that might ignore public or government pressure. For instance, after the US public became concerned about the spread of a disease, transmitted to humans through infected meat, the US government introduced rules demanding that the meat industry abandon practices associated with the risk of the disease spreading. But the meat packers refused to follow these, claiming that they would be too expensive to obey. However, when a fast-food company made the same demands after customer purchases of its hamburgers dropped, the meat industry followed immediately. The public’s task is therefore to identify which links in the supply chain are sensitive to public pressure.
Some readers may be disappointed or outraged that I place the ultimate responsibility for business practices harming the public on the public itself. I also believe that the public must accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs of sound environmental practices. My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits. But I think we have to recognize that, throughout human history, government regulation has arisen precisely because it was found that not only did moral principles need to be made explicit, they also needed to be enforced.
My conclusion is not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong, admirable or selfish. I believe that changes in public attitudes are essential for changes in businesses’ environmental practices.
1. The main idea of Paragraph 3 is that environmental damage__________.| A．is the result of ignorance of the public |
| B．requires political action if it is to be stopped |
| C．can be prevented by the action of ordinary people |
| D．can only be stopped by educating business leaders |
| A．reduce their own individual impact on the environment |
| B．learn more about the impact of business on the environment |
| C．raise awareness of the effects of specific environmental disasters |
| D．influence the environmental policies of businesses and governments |
| A．Meat packers stopped supplying hamburgers to fast-food chains. |
| B．Meat packers persuaded the government to reduce their expenses. |
| C．A fast-food company forced their meat suppliers to follow the law. |
| D．A fast-food company encouraged the government to introduce regulations. |
| A．Will the world survive the threat caused by big businesses? |
| B．How can big businesses be encouraged to be less driven by profit? |
| C．What environmental dangers are caused by the greed of businesses? |
| D．Are big businesses to blame for the damage they cause to the environment? |
