A plan to restore green spaces
The UK government has revealed a plan to protect and restore England’s wild life. It focuses on at-risk species by making canals, rivers and streams cleaner and expanding green spaces.
The new Environmental Improvement Plan sets goals to create or restore more than 5,000 square kilometres of wildlife habitats across England and restore 400 miles of rivers. It will create or expand 25 national nature reserves. New woodland will also be planted alongside rivers. At the moment, access to green spaces is not equal across the UK. Around 4% of people live more than 10 minutes away from their nearest park. The Environmental Improvement Plan aims to make sure households in England are within a 15-minute walk to a green space.
As well as helping more people to act close to nature, the plan should increase England’s biodiversity. A species Survival Fund will be set up to help some of England’s most endangered animals, such as red squirrels (松鼠) and watch rats. The Government has set targets to boost these species by 2030. There are also targets to reduce food waste, glass, metal, paper and plastic by 2028, and to improve the quality of water in rivers.
New rules mean that the Government will have to consider the environmental effects of any policy it puts forward. These goals are part of a 25- year plan that was launched in 2018. The aim of the plan is to improve the environment “within a generation ” which is roughly 25 years.
Although lots of people have welcomed the plan, not everyone is impressed. Pail de Zylva, from the charity Friends of the Earth, said it wasn’t clear enough how the goals would be met and that many of them were like promises the Government had already made but not yet delivered.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Does Recycling Work For Plastic?
Dealing with plastic waste is always a tough problem. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), half of the world’s plastic waste ends up in a landfill, 19% burned, and another 22% escapes waste management systems and goes into uncontrolled dumpsites.
So environmentalists suggest plastic waste should be recycled properly, which proves an effective way to handle other waste like paper, cardboard, metal and glass. However, a new study by Greenpeace, and reporting in the Boston Globe, suggests that recycling plastic is a “myth” and raises a major question about the future: does recycling work? Unfortunately, the short answer is “not really.”
There’s been a lot of debate over what really happens to recycled plastic. But scientists say that recycling plastic waste has mostly failed because it’s very difficult to collect and nearly impossible to sort. Because plastic is often made from harmful materials, it can be harmful to the environment to reprocess.
Much of the solution falls on big companies to change the way they do business. The way forward seems to be mostly to cut down on companies’ reliance on plastic packaging, and to move toward reusable packaging and packaging-free alternatives. Above all, companies need to phase out all single-use plastics. For the consumer, living more plastic-free is the only real solution available. Avoiding drinks in plastic containers, using a travel mug or reusable water bottle, bringing your own reusable bag, buying in bulk and cutting back on pre-packaged foods are all a good start.
But in the end, corporate America needs a deeper commitment to the plastic waste problem. “Companies must take action now to get rid of single-use plastics and packaging and not rely on false solutions such as recycling,” says Greenpeace.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3 . Directions: Read the following three passages. Summarize the main idea and the main point(s) of the passage in no more than 60 words. Use your own words as far as possible.
IKEA, known around the world as a supplier of furniture and other home goods, is taking steps to protect the environment. By 2030 IKEA plans to be a circular business, one whose products can all be reused or recycled rather than thrown away. To achieve this goal, the company is redesigning all of its products. How can it design products that will last longer and be easier to fix and that people can recycle when they are finished with them? By answering these questions, IKEA hopes to improve the sustainability of its business model.
IKEA wants people to be able to repair its products rather than throw them away when something goes wrong. To accomplish that goal, the company is standardizing the parts, materials and colors that it uses. This means that if a part needs to be replaced, it will be easy to find. In the past IKEA has only offered spare parts for some products; now it is greatly expanding the number of spare parts customers can purchase. This makes it feasible for customers to repair their own furniture. IKEA is also redesigning the parts of its products that are most likely to wear out quickly.
To extend the life of its products, IKEA is trying to make their maintenance easier. It is also making its products easier to take apart and transport, so the furniture is less likely to break when being moved or changing hands.
Sometimes people replace their furniture not because there is something wrong with it, but because their needs have changed. So IKEA is also trying to help people keep furniture for a longer time by making it easy to modify. Some pieces can be expanded or reduced in size as family members and guests come and go. Others have covers that can be exchanged for different look.
But even with all these efforts, it is likely that certain products will eventually no longer be usable. At that point they can be remanufactured — the pieces reassembled (重新组装) into something new-or recycled. And IKEA is designing products to make these processes easier. The company is also working to reduce waste in other areas, such as packaging and food waste from restaurants inside its stores.
These efforts to reduce the number of IKEA products that are abandoned and thrown in landfills will help create a more environmentally friendly economy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The problem of electronic waste
We have gradually come to realise that in two ways in particular, modern hi-tech can be bad for the planet. The first is its energy use; the worldwide scale of information technology is so enormous that electronics now produce fully two percent of global carbon emissions, which is about the same as the highly controversial emissions of aeroplanes. The other is the hardware, when it comes to the end of its natural life. This, increasingly, is pretty short. We have hardly noticed this important stream of waste, so much so that a Greenpeace report on the untraced and unreported e-waste two years ago referred to it as “the hidden flow”. We need to be aware of it.
The latest United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report estimates that worldwide, electronic waste is mounting by about 40 million tons a year. So what can we do about it?
The European Union has recognised the problem by adopting a key principle: producer responsibility. In other words, making it the duty of manufacturers of electronic goods to ensure their safe disposal at the end of their lives. In practice, an EU regulation now means that electronics dealers must either take back the equipment they sold you, or help to finance a network of drop-off points, such as public recycling sites. Its main feature is quite ambitious: it aims to deal with “everything with a plug”.
The new UN report suggests that all countries could do something about the problem with a change in design. Groups such as Greenpeace have led the way in putting pressure on major manufacturing companies to find substitutes for the toxic chemicals inside their products. Encouragingly, they have had some success in forcing them to develop non-poisonous alternatives to these. This may be the real way forward.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Should Hand Feeding Dolphins Be Encouraged?
Some tourist centers train Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins to approach beachside public sighting areas or boats by hand-feeding them small amounts of fish every day. Because hand-fed males aggressively attack each other over the food, putting themselves and nearby humans in danger, tourist centers focus their hand feeding only on female dolphins, says Valerie Senigaglia at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia
But recent studies have shown that only 38% of the calves (崽) of hand-fed wild dolphins survive to three years of age, which is much lower than the average 77% survival rate for wild calves in general. To better understand why, Senigaglia and her colleagues evaluated the social behavior of dolphins around the Bunbury coast in Western Australia. In particular, they observed the individual behavior and movement of 35 dolphins, including 13 that had been hand-fed using a small boat. They regularly followed each dolphin for periods lasting from 20 minutes to 3 hours for two years in a row for a total of 180 hours.
They found that hand-fed dolphins swam in relatively large groups, but more readily broke away from them to join different ones. In general, they created weak ties with other group members. “You can feel lonely in a room full of people and it’s the same thing for dolphins,” says Senigaglia. Free-swimming dolphins that are fed by hand become less socially involved with their peers. As a result, their calves may grow up lacking vital social skills-which could explain, at least in part, why they are twice as likely to die before reaching adulthood as wild calves generally.
No wonder animal right activists are calling on the practice of hand-feeding dolphins to be stopped.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Is Leather Good or Not?
For thousands of years, humans have used leather to make everything from clothing to furniture to footwear. The skin of animals is a material that is strong, hard-wearing and flexible. These qualities make leather a popular material for many different products, but more people are becoming concerned about the potential harm caused by items they buy. Should we respect ancient traditions or is having real leather not as important as it used to be?
The treatment of animals raised for their skins is a massive issue. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), more than 2.29 billion cows, pigs and goats are killed each year for their hides. This does not include the animal skin of fancier leather products, such as sheep, crocodiles, kangaroos and lizards.
There’s also an environmental problem. Producing leather is a very polluting process, because it requires treating the skins with chemicals. During the procedure, called tanning, chemicals change the fibres (纤维) inside the leather, making it tougher. A tanning facility uses more than 60,000 litres of water for every tonne of leather produced. It uses huge amounts of poisonous chemicals, including substances containing heavy metals such as chromium, which when washed out ends up in nearby soil and drinking water that people use.
However, the making of leather is not entirely negative. Selling animal skin is a key source of income for remote populations such as the Inuit people in Canada. Every day, cows, pigs and goats are killed for their meat to be sold in supermarkets. It’s respectful not to waste anything, and without leather their skins would have to be buried or burned.
Although there are alternatives to leather, some of these fabrics are only 85% to 90% biodegradable (可生物降解的). Vegan leather can be made from plastics which take years to biodegrade, so it’s actually worse for the planet.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are Oceans Silent?
Most sea creatures, from whales and dolphins to fish, sharks and shrimps, respond to sound, and many can produce it. They use it to hunt and to hide, find mates and food, send messages and give warnings, establish territories, warn off competitors, confuse their targets, deceive enemies, and sense changes in water and conditions. Marine animals click bones, grind teeth and belch gases (磨牙打嗝); use special organs to make various noises. Far from the ‘silent deep’, the oceans are so noisy.
Into this age-long confused noise, in the blink of an evolutionary eye, has entered a new thunder: the trembling sound of mighty engines as 46,220 large ships passed the world’s shipping courses. Scientists say that background noise in the ocean has increased roughly by 15 decibels (分贝) in the past 50 years. It may not sound like much in overall terms, but it is enough, according to many marine biologists, to mask the normal sounds of ocean life going about its business. At its most intense, some even say noise causes whales to become disoriented, dolphins to suffer from ‘the bends’, fish to go deaf, leave their breeding grounds or fail to form groups—enough to disorganize the basic biology of two thirds of the planet.
“Undersea noise pollution is like the death of a thousand cuts”, says Sylvia Earie, chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Each sound in itself may not be a matter of critical concern, but taken all together, the noise from shipping, earthquake-related surveys, and military activity is creating a totally different environment than existed even 50 years ago. That high level of noise is bound to have a hard, sweeping impact on life in the sea.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
91. The Problem of Packaging
A large source of rubbish is packaging material. It often makes up more than 30 percent of the total. To understand why this is true, think of the packaging commonly used for a simple product, such as toothpaste. The packaging includes not only the tube for the toothpaste, but also the box for the tube. This box is put into a plastic wrapper. Then, the boxes are transported in a cardboard container.
Most packaging material ends up in a landfill after it is thrown away. Though necessary, landfills take up valuable space, often stink, and can leak harmful substances into the soil. Landfills not included, the production of packaging material itself is a major source of air and water pollution.
People are now trying to solve the problems caused by packaging materials. In 1991, Germany took the lead by requiring companies to recycle the packaging used for their goods. To do this, the companies set up recycling bins in every neighborhood. Consumers now separate their rubbish into three categories—metal, plastic and paper cartons. They then put it into the appropriate bin. The rubbish sorted, it is transported to recycling company for processing.
The programme worked well at first. However, the amount of rubbish has begun to increase again. One reason for this is that many consumers no longer reduce waste because they think the problem is solved. It seems that to properly deal with the problem of rubbish, everyone must remain alert and do their part.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nowadays, leaders the world over are busy mapping out blueprints for a new age with environmental protection high on their agenda. Sustainable development hits headlines almost every day. It is of utmost importance to restore the harmonious balance between man and nature, given the damage we’ve already done to it.
First of all, we must realize that man and nature are interactive. To begin with, we derive everything from nature. Among other things, I’m sure you’ve all tasted natural produce that is otherwise known as green food. And you must have noticed that nearly all beautifying products boast of being natural creams, natural lotions or natural gels. For man, nature has an irresistible appeal.
But on the other hand we must also realize that nature can be unruly. Nature is indeed like a riddle, some areas of which are beyond the reach of science and technology, at least in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the advancement of science and technology will still characterize the next millennium. The coming new age will provide many opportunities, but it will be likewise run of challenges. For instance, United Nations’ demographers predict that global population could soar from its current 5.9 billion to as many as 11.2 billion by 2050. This will worsen the current scarcity of natural resources caused by environmental degradation. More conflicts over this scarcity may occur with the ghost of nuclear wars always hiding in the background. To prevent this nightmare from coming true, governments need to work closely with each other and back up their verbal commitment by actions. However, it is not enough only to ask what governments can do to achieve the harmony between man and nature. We must ask ourselves what we as individuals can do.
Can we all be economical with food, water, electricity or other resources? Can we, or rather, some greedy ones among us, stop making rare plants and animals into delicious dishes? Can we stop using the unrecyclable style of lunch boxes? If not, one day they may bury us in an ocean of white rubbish. After all, the earth is not a dustbin; it’s our common home.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shark attacks in U.S. waters—and how common they really are
The first American shark panic began in the hot summer of 1916, when a series of attacks of the Jersey Shore killed four in two weeks. This was thought to be the work of a single great white shark—a species native to the Atlantic coast and the same likely involved in recent attacks. In a time when little was known about beasts from the deep, the deaths were big news. One paper warned that, facing a scarcity of fish, the shark had “probably acquired a taste for human flesh.”
But 1916 did not start a new time of human-hunting sharks. The rate of attacks in the U.S. stayed relatively stable, at two or three per year, for decades. From the 1950s on, that number rose with human population growth, and its attendant increase of people in the water.
Globally, both numbers have been climbing faster since the late 1980s and into the 21st century, but such encounters with sharks are still remarkably uncommon given that the human population is some 7.5 billion. In 2017, 53 of the world’s 88 confirmed attacks took place on U.S. coastlines, with 31 in Florida - but even there, you’re far less likely to be killed by a shark than by lightning. Thanks to beach safety and hospital access, only five of last year’s global attacks were fatal.
“If sharks were actively hunting people, we’d see far more attacks,” says Gavin Naylor, director at the Florida Museum’s Program for Shark Research.
Statistically, sharks have far more to fear from us than we do from them—fisheries wipe out an estimated 100 million each year, and climate change and other human activity have threatened shark habitats, sending their global population into decline. But that doesn’t make it any less sad when the beasts bite back.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
