1 . When my old dog developed major health problems, I knew that watching him fail would be painful, but I wasn’t prepared for the powerful lessons he’d offer in the last year of his life.
Chance was 14 when the problems started. First, he developed a cancer that left him whistling for breath. Then came cataracts(白内障)in both eyes, arthritis(关节炎)in his legs, and a series of mini-strokes(小中风)that threw off his balance. Any one of these misfortunes would have left me begging for relief, but Chance became calmer as the disabilities piled up.
When leg pain left him frozen on the floor, unable to rise for a quick pat as I came home, he didn’t complain. He just lay there patiently, signaling me with his hammering tail, each movement spelling out the value of waiting for the things you want. When his cataracts made steering impossible after dark, he’d stand calmly until I could guide him inside, proving how easy it is to find happiness if you let go of your pride and insecurities and learn to lean on those who love you. When mini-strokes had him walk unsteadily like a drunk, he taught the value of persistence. For days after each attack, he’d fall as he moved about. Yet again and again he’d try to walk, each day moving a few more steps until finally he was able to get outside and back by himself.
There were lessons in so much of what he did, but the key one surely was the importance of obtaining all the joy possible from each experience whether it’s a day lazing under a warm sun or a few minutes appreciating a favorite meal.
For most of our life together, Chance was always rushing ahead, searching out new adventures, then circling back to let me know what lay around the next turn. As an old dog, he did the same thing, using his attitude, instead of his once - fast legs, to show the way.
1. Chance suffered very much from all the diseases he had except for _______.A.having problem with breath | B.walking around awkwardly |
C.having trouble drinking | D.losing his eyesight in darkness |
A.Living in the present and enjoying what we have |
B.Learning to depend on those who we love and trust |
C.That we should expect good things to happen patiently |
D.That we should persevere in what we believe is worth trying |
A.people might suffer from different diseases when they grow old |
B.people could face aging with courage and dignity |
C.pets would become calmer for lack of energy in their last days |
D.pets and masters should stick together helping each other in difficulty |
A.Bitter. | B.Appreciative. |
C.Proud. | D.Sympathetic. |
A. profitably | B. fallen | C. sell | D. dangerous | AB. dump | AC. efficiently |
AD. plastic | BC. endless | BD. civilization | CD. throwaway | ABC. stylish |
The value of upcycling
Recycling is a well-known idea that refers to reusing waste materials in any way possible. But what about “upcycling”? It’s a new word, even though it’s something that has been going on since human
One answer to this question is that we reuse fewer and fewer things, and so have become a (n) “
So upcyclers have adopted this new word to focus people’s attention on how waste cannot simply be reused, but be reused
3 . A video last week showed a mini house in a high chair eating a bowl of carrots. It might seem ridiculous, but it might also be the logical extension of a growing trend; treating animals as human and treating pet as children,
There seems to be
Using
Every pet has its own parent—another cat or dog that feed and teaches it to survive in the animal kingdom. Our love for pets results from their
Pet and children serve different roles. Ignoring or denying these differences
A.attractive | B.equivalent | C.opposite | D.valuable |
A.Changes | B.Results | C.Explanations | D.Examples |
A.hang up | B.take up | C.pick up | D.dress up |
A.conflict | B.distinction | C.confusion | D.balance |
A.create | B.adopt | C.interpret | D.enrich |
A.lightly | B.frequently | C.practically | D.habitually |
A.unfriendly | B.abnormal | C.inaccurate | D.inactive |
A.attention | B.freedom | C.difference | D.separation |
A.without saying | B.out of control | C.beyond expectation | D.a long way |
A.best | B.joy | C.trick | D.opposite |
A.Moreover | B.However | C.Otherwise | D.Therefore |
A.Preparing | B.Exchanging | C.Possessing | D.Searching |
A.popular | B.miserable | C.dependent | D.demanding |
A.shelters | B.influences | C.upsets | D.benefits |
A.shift | B.attitude | C.misunderstanding | D.awareness |
New York—the Statue of Liberty(自由女神像),the skyscrapers(摩天大楼),the beautiful shops on Fifth Avenue and the many theaters on Broadway. This is America’s cultural(文化的)capital. It is also her biggest city, with a population of nearly 8 million. In the summer it is hot, hot, hot and in the winter it can be very cold. Still there are hundreds of things to do and see all the year round.
Manhattan is the real center of the city. When people say“New York City,”they usually mean Manhattan. Most of the interesting shops, buildings and museums are here. In addition, Manhattan is the scene of New York’s busy night life. In 1605 the first Europeans came to Manhattan from Holland. They bought the island from the Native Americans for a few glass necklaces worth about $26 today.
Wall street in Manhattan is the financial heart of the USA. It is also the most important banking center in the world. It is a street of“skyscrapers.”These are high buildings, which Americans invented, and built faster and higher than anyone else.
Like every big city, New York has its own traffic system. Traffic jams can be terrible. It’s usually quickest to go by subway. The New York subway is easy to use and quite cheap. The subway goes to almost every corner of Manhattan. But it is not safe to take the subway late at night because in some places you could get robbed. New York buses are also easy to use. You see more if you go by bus. There are more than 30,000 taxis in New York. They are easy to see, because they are bright yellow and carry large TAXI signs. Taxis do not go outside the city. However, they will go to the airports. In addition to the taxi fare, people give the taxi driver a tip of 15 percent of the fare’s value.
Central Park is a beautiful green oasis(绿洲)in the middle of New York’s concrete(混凝土)desert. It is surprisingly big, with lakes and woods, as well as organized recreation areas. New Yorkers love Central Park, and they use it all the time. In the winter, they go ice-skating, and in the summer roller-skating. They play ball, ride horses and have picnics. They go bicycling and boating. There is even a children’s zoo, with wild birds and animals.
A. The Financial Center of USA
B. American biggest cities and culture center
C. The Traffic Facilities of New York
D. Manhattan, real center of New York City
E. New York—An International City
F. Central Park—A Place of Recreation for the New Yorkers
5 . Countries are failing to take the action needed to stave off the worst effects of climate change, a UN climate report has found, and the commitments made in the 2015 Paris agreement will not be met unless governments introduce additional measures as a matter of urgency.
New taxes on fossil fuels, investment in clean technology and much stronger government policies to bring down emissions are likely to be necessary. Governments must also stop subsidizing (补贴) fossil fuels, directly and indirectly, the report said.
Greenhouse gas emissions continued their long-term rise last year, according to the report, but they could be brought under control. There are promising signs, such as investment from the private sector in renewable energy and other technologies to cut carbon, but these are currently insufficient to meet scientific advice.
Global emissions have reached what the UN has called "historic levels" of 53.5 gigatonnes(十亿吨) of carbon dioxide equivalent, and are showing no signs of peaking, despite a leveling off in the past decade.
Joyce Msuya, deputy executive director of UN Environment, said: "The science is clear: for all the ambitious climate action we've seen, governments need to move faster and with greater urgency. We're feeding this fire, while the means to extinguish it are within reach. "
Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) warned of the dire effects of allowing global warming to reach 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. The world has a little over a decade to bring down greenhouse gas emissions before such dangerous levels of warming become inevitable.
Only 57 countries, representing 60%of global greenhouse gas emissions, are on track to cause their emissions to peak before 2030.If emissions are allowed to rise beyond that, the IPCC has said countries are likely to breach the 1.5℃ limit, which will trigger sea-level rises, droughts, floods and other extreme weather events.
According to the Paris agreement, the first global pact to bind both developed and developing countries to a specific temperature goal, governments must do all they can to stop warming reaching 2℃ above pre-industrial levels, with an aspiration to limit warming to no more than 1.5℃.
Jian Liu, the chief scientist at UN Environment, said some of the necessary policies were clear and available, if there was political will to implement them. "When governments embrace fiscal(财政的) policy measures to subsidize low-carbon alternatives and tax fossil fuels, they can stimulate the right investments in the energy sector and significantly reduce carbon emissions. If all fossil fuel subsidies were phased out, global carbon emissions could be reduced by up to 10% by 2030."
1. Which of the following ideas is NOT included in the UN climate report?A.Governments should stop their subsidy to the coal and petroleum industry. |
B.The efforts made by the government showed some promising signs. |
C.Man has been breaking the historical records of global emissions. |
D.There is still hope for us to control Greenhouse gas emission. |
A.The situation is dangerous and we need to do something to bring it under control. |
B.Immediate fire-fighting measures should be taken to keep the fire under control. |
C.We are making climate efforts but the achieved effects can be easily reversed. |
D.To reduce emissions, we need to close down the fossil-fuel-powered plants. |
A.It is desirable for humanity to limit the temperature rise within 1.5℃. |
B.Countries need to control the temperature rise within 2℃ above prehistoric level. |
C.Developed and developing countries are bound by their own temperature goals. |
D.Disastrous climate change will be irrecoverable if we exceed the 1.5℃ limit. |
A.upcoming | B.hazardous |
C.crucial | D.convincing |
A.To show a huge gap between words and deeds in fighting global warning. |
B.To present a clear picture of how Paris agreement is implemented. |
C.To appeal for further global commitment to avoid disastrous climate. |
D.To warn of worsening climate caused by lack of combined human effort. |
6 . There’s more fresh water hidden below Earth’s surface in underground aquifers (含水层) than any other source besides the ice sheets. That groundwater earns an unshakably important place for rivers worldwide, keeping them running even when droughts bring their waters low.
But in recent decades humans have pumped trillions of gallons out of those underground reservoirs. In a new research, water experts and scientists are taking a global look at where groundwater is already being extracted at such a rate that it has caused water levels to drop so much in rivers and streams that they will slip into the ecological danger zone.
Much of that water is being removed much faster than it can be refilled. That has enormous potential consequences for people and crops in areas that don’t get enough rain. But far before those impacts emerge, the effects will fiercely hit rivers, streams, and the habitats around them. Hundreds of rivers and streams around the world would become so water-stressed that the entire ecological system would hit a danger point, says Inge de Graaf, the lead author of the research. “We can really consider this ecological effect like a ticking time bomb,” she says. “If we pump the groundwater now, we don’t see the impacts until like 10 years further or even longer.”
But the severity of the impacts might still be underestimated. As a baseline, they used the global water demand in 2010 and spun their climate model forward to predict how stresses on groundwater systems might develop. But as populations swell and the demand for food rises, those stresses could skyrocket for reasons other than climate change, speeding along the extraction from underground water sources.
The effects of over-pumping groundwater take years, if not decades, to become visible. Changes in rain have immediate, obvious effects on river flow. When it pours, rivers often rage. But groundwater is hidden and changes don’t always manifest in the place where the pumping occurs and are programmed to “wait for the perfect moment”. That makes aquifer management issues extra challenging. In the meantime, rivers and streams are the signal that says we’re using water in an unsustainable fashion, we need to take a hard look at what we’re doing.”.
1. The underground water is of critical importance to rivers due to the fact that ________.A.it helps to maintain the same water level of rivers |
B.it stops the running of rivers during dry spells |
C.it leaves rivers drying out due to droughts |
D.it ensures the flow of rivers throughout the year |
A.it is thrilling to explore the ecological danger zone |
B.pumping underground water is convenient though dangerous |
C.the underground water level has dropped to an alarming level |
D.the constant drop of water level prevents people feeling secure |
A.Because the water demand data in 2010 was not accurate. |
B.Because the water demand has soared ever since 2010. |
C.Because the water demand was not stressful in 2010. |
D.Because the water demand prediction didn’t consider climate change. |
A.the changes are waiting for a heavy rain |
B.underground water is used sustainably |
C.the changes take longer to come to light |
D.underground water is inexhaustible |
7 . Last week, a team of Harvard researchers announced they were on the brink of creating a hybrid woolly mammoth-elephant embryo, the next step on the long road to resurrecting (使复活) the pre-hsitoric creatures. As we move steadily closer to being able to bring extinct species or something, closely resembling them-to life through genetic engineering, some scientists say the technology could prove a valuable, much-needed conservation tool.
But a new economic analysis suggests that bringing back extinct species may detract from, rather than add to, conservation efforts. “Given this atmosphere of a biodiversity crisis and limited resources, we really need to do the best job we possibly can, ” says Joseph Bennett, a biologist at Carleton University in Ottawa and lead author of the study. “If de-extinction represents a gain in biodiversity, that's great. If it represents a Pvrrhic victory in that we could have better spend those resources to save species on their way to extinction, that's essentially a one step forward, two steps back scenario."
The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, used data from New South Wales, Australia, and New Zealand to consider the cost of sustaining de-extincted populations under two scenarios. In the first scenario, a private agency funds the resurrection of an extinct species, then hands the responsibility of caring for the revived population over to the government. In the second, a private agency pays for the entire project, covering the costs of both resurrection and maintenance.
The results, researchers found, showed no good sign for endangered, living species. Under the first scenario, the cost of maintaining the de-extincted species was taken directly from the governments' already limited conservation budget, resulting in an overall loss for biodiversity: Roughly two species would go extinct for every one resurrected, the team concluded. The second scenario produced a small increase in biodiversity, particularly for species that would require the same conservation tools and techniques already being used to protect endangered animals.
But the greatest hypothetical gains for biodiversity, the study said, came when the money required for de-extinction was instead put toward existing conservation programs for living species. In this scenario, roughly two to eight times more species were saved.
Bennett and his team aren't the first to question whether de-extinction would help or hurt conservation efforts. Other scientists have argued that harnessing the technology to bring back extinct species, or something closely resembling them, could take away momentum from the push to protect endangered animals and give property developers an excuse to build over their natural habitats.
1. As indicated in Paragraph I, it seems that some scientists ________.A.take a vain pride in their conservation tool. |
B.think highly of the conservation technology. |
C.show greater interest in the prehistoric creatures. |
D.are pessimistic about bringing back extinct species. |
A.rewarding | B.thankless |
C.fruitless | D.harmful |
A.de-extinction may not help conservation efforts. |
B.the government assumes part of responsibility |
C.the cost of maintenance outweighs that of revival. |
D.extinction poses a greater threat to biodiversity. |
A.sustained biodiversity. | B.endangered animals |
C.private properties | D.extinct species. |
8 . Vast parts of Earth should be left wild
To avoid mass extinctions of plants and animals, governments should protect a third of the oceans and land by 2030 and half by 2050, with a focus on areas of high biodiversity. So say leading biologists in an editorial in the journal Science.
This isn't just about saving biodiverse areas, says Jonathan Baillie of the National Geographic Society,one of the authors. It is also about saving ourselves by protecting
At present, just 3.6 per cent of the planet's oceans and 14.7 per cent of land is protected by law. At the 2010 Nagoya Conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, governments agreed to protect 10 per cent of the oceans and 17 per cent of land by 2020.
But this isn't nearly enough, says Baillie. In the editorial, he and his coauthor, Ya﹣Ping Zhang of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, want governments to set much bigger
"We have to enormously
It is hard to work out how much space is needed to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem
"There is no doubt that we need far more land and sea
But Watson and others stress that which areas get protected is even more important than the overall percentage. "The key thing is to protect the right areas," says Jose Montoya of the Station for Theoretical and Experimental Ecology in Moulis, France. "If we
In fact, a third of the 3.6 percent of land that is already meant to be protected is actually being
A.stricter | B.wider | C.safer | D.simpler |
A.unique | B.sufficient | C.critical | D.fit |
A.examples | B.values | C.awards | D.objectives |
A.increase | B.achieve | C.lack | D.frustrate |
A.barely | B.currently | C.roughly | D.thoroughly |
A.opposite | B.fixed | C.complex | D.positive |
A.approaches | B.management | C.benefits | D.degradation |
A.Therefore | B.Furthermore | C.However | D.Otherwise |
A.concerned | B.changeable | C.firm | D.cautious |
A.deserted | B.secured | C.measured | D.distributed |
A.damage | B.cost | C.amount | D.standard |
A.completely | B.merely | C.virtually | D.desperately |
A.mass | B.tropical | C.marine | D.low |
A.exploited | B.expanded | C.restored | D.discovered |
A.developing | B.covering | C.declaring | D.utilizing |
9 . The Paris climate agreement finalised in December last year heralded a new era for climate action. For the first time, the world’s nations agreed to keep global warming well below2℃.
This is vital for climate-vulnerable nations. Fewer than 4% of countries are responsible for more than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. In a study published in Nature Scientific Reports, we reveal just how deep this injustice runs.
Developed nations such as Australia, the United States, Canada, and European countries are essentially climate “free-riders”: causing the majority of the problems through high greenhouse gas emissions, while incurring few of the costs such as climate change’s impact on food and water. In other words, a few countries are benefiting enormously from the consumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time contributing disproportionately to the global burden of climate change.
On the flip side, there are many “forced riders”, who are suffering from the climate change impacts despite having scarcely contributed to the problem. Many of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries, the majority of which are African of small island states, produce a very small quantity of emissions. This is much like a non-smoker getting cancer from second-hand smoke, while the heavy smoker is fortunate enough to smoke in good health.
The Paris agreement has been widely hailed as a positive step forward in addressing climate change for all, although the details on addressing “climate justice” can be best described as sketchy.
The goal of keeping global temperature rise “well below”2℃ is commendable but the emissions-reduction pledges submitted by countries leading up to the Pairs talks are very unlikely to deliver on this.
More than $100 billion in funding has been put on the table for supporting developing nations to reduce emissions. However, the agreement specifies that there is no formal distinction between developed and developing nations in their responsibility to cut emissions, effectively ignoring historical emissions. There is also very little detail on who will provide the funds or, importantly, who is responsible for their provision. Securing these funds, and establishing who is responsible for raising them will also be vital for the future of climate-vulnerable countries.
The most climate-vulnerable countries in the world have contributed very little to creating the global disease from which they now suffer the most. There must urgently be a meaningful mobilisation of the polices outlined in the agreement if we are to achieve national emission reductions while helping the most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change.
And it is clearly up to the current generation of leaders from high-emitting nations to decide whether they want to be remembered as climate change tyrants or pioneers.
1. The author is critical of the Paris climate agreement because__________.A.it is unfair to those climate-vulnerable nations |
B.it aims to keep temperature rise below 2℃ only |
C.it is beneficial to only fewer than 4% of countries |
D.it burdens developed countries with the sole responsibility. |
A.They have little responsibility for public health problems. |
B.They are vulnerable to unhealthy environmental conditions. |
C.They have to bear consequences they are not responsible for. |
D.They are unaware of the potential risks they are confronting. |
A.It will motivate all nations to reduce carbon emissions. |
B.There is no final agreement on where it will come from. |
C.There is no clarification of how the money will be spent. |
D.It will effectively reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide. |
A.Encouraging high-emitting nations to take the initiative. |
B.Calling on all the nations concerned to make joint efforts. |
C.Pushing the current world leaders to come to a consensus. |
D.Putting in effect the policies in the agreement at once. |
Is renting clothes greener than buying them?
Clothing rental is a hot new industry and retailers are demanding to get on board in hopes of attracting green shoppers. But is renting fashion actually more environmentally-friendly than buying it, and if so, how much more? Journalist and author Elizabeth Cline investigated this question and concluded that it’s not as sustainable as it seems.
Take shipping, for example, which has to go two ways if an item is rented — receiving and returning. Cline writes that consumer transportation has the second largest carbon footprint of our collective fashion habit after manufacturing. She writes, “An item ordered online and then returned can send out 20 kilograms of carbon each way, and increases up to 50 kilograms for rush shipping. By comparison, the carbon impact of a pair of jeans purchased from a physical store and washed and worn at home is 33.4 kilograms, according to a 2015 study by Levi’s.”
Then there’s the burden of washing, which has to happen for every item when it’s returned, regardless of whether or not it was worn. For most rental services, this usually means dry cleaning, a high impact and polluting process. All the rental services that Cline looked into have replaced perchloroethylene (氯乙烯), a carcinogenic (致癌的) air pollutant that is still used by 70 percent of US dry cleaners, with hydrocarbon alternatives, although these aren’t great either.
Lastly, Cline fears that rental services will increase our appetite for fast fashion, simply because it’s so easily accessible. There’s something called “share washing” that makes people engage in more wasteful behaviors precisely because a product or service is shared and thus is regarded as more eco-friendly. Uber is one example of this, advertised as “a way to share rides and limit car ownership.” and yet “it has been proven to discourage walking, bicycling, and public transportation use.”
Renting clothes is still preferable to buying them cheap and throwing them in the dustbin after a few wears, but we shouldn’t let the availability of these services make us too satisfied. There’s an even better step—and that’s wearing what is already in the closet.