1 . In 2022, campaign group Fashion Revolution Chelsea dye a garden for its Chelsea Flower Show presentation. An ancient craft, natural dyeing is a practice whose time has come again, with hand tie-dyed fashion also making a comeback in recent years.
The revival has been encouraged by Covid lockdowns, “which allowed people to explore the craft at home, says natural-dyeing enthusiast and teacher Susan Dye. It’s unlikely, though, that the practice would have caught on in quite the same way if not for a continually growing discomfort about fashion’s heavy footprint. From carbon emissions to animal cruelty, fashion is under considerable inspection. “Put it this way, 97% of dyes used in the industry are petrochemically (石油化学产品) based,” says sustainable fashion consultant Jackie Andrews, who helped advise the UN Ethical Fashion Initiative. We’ve got net zero targets which mean we’re going to have to remove all those petrochemicals from the manufacturing cycle.
Fashion is a huge polluter. According to the UN Environment Program, the industry is responsible for up to one-fifth of all industrial water pollution—due to the fact that most clothes today are produced in poorer countries where regulation is weak and enforcement weaker. Waste water is dumped directly into rivers and streams, poisoning the land as well as the water sources of people and animals who rely on them.
It’s easy to see why someone who cares about people, planet and animals, as well as clothes, might turn to natural plant dyeing. From the beauty of the raw materials—often wild plants-to the property of only bonding with natural fiber like cotton and linen (亚麻布) from the minor footprint of recycling old clothing that has grayed or faded over time to the vibrant and long-lasting dyeing results, plant dyeing feels like a quiet act of rebellion. This is why, while beginners start with simply changing their clothes’ color, new worlds open. Many of today’s natural dyers grow their own dye plants, run local community workshops, and advocate for change in industrialized fashion systems and beyond.
1. What is the main reason for the growing discomfort mentioned in paragraph 2?| A．The adoption of petrochemical-based dyes |
| B．The disturbing consequences of the fashion industry. |
| C．The fashion industry’s focus on luxurious designs. |
| D．The challenging net zero targets to be achieved. |
| A．By making a comparison. | B．By listing numbers |
| C．By giving examples. | D．By introducing a new topic |
| A．A protest against turning to natural fiber. |
| B．An objection to recycling old clothing |
| C．A resistance to vibrant colors in natural dyeing |
| D．A struggle for a sustainable fashion industry |
| A．The Environmental Impact of Natural Dyeing |
| B．The Return of Natural Dyeing with Ethical Appeal |
| C．Fashion Revolution’s Dye Garden Presentation |
| D．The Petrochemical Dye Industry and Its Challenges |
2 . After years of heated debate, gray wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park. Fourteen wolves were caught in Canada and transported to the park. By last year, the Yellowstone wolf population had grown to more than 170 wolves.
Gray wolves once were seen here and there in the Yellowstone area and much of the continental United States, but they were gradually displaced by human development. By the 1920s, wolves had practically disappeared from the Yellowstone area. They went farther north into the deep forests of Canada, where there were fewer humans around.
The disappearance of the wolves had many unexpected results. Deer and elk populations — major food sources (来源) for the wolf — grew rapidly. These animals consumed large amounts of vegetation (植被), which reduced plant diversity in the park. In the absence of wolves, coyote populations also grew quickly. The coyotes killed a large percentage of the park’s red foxes, and completely drove away the park’s beavers.
As early as 1966, biologists asked the government to consider reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone Park. They hoped that wolves would be able to control the elk and coyote problems. Many farmers opposed the plan because they feared that wolves would kill their farm animals or pets.
The government spent nearly 30 years coming up with a plan to reintroduce the wolvers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service carefully monitors and manages the wolf packs in Yellowstone. Today, the debate continues over how well the gray wolf is fitting in at Yellowstone. Elk, deer, and coyote populations are down, while beavers and red foxes have made a comeback. The Yellowstone wolf project has been a valuable experiment to help biologists decide whether to reintroduce wolves to other parts of the country as well.
1. What is the text mainly about?| A．Wildlife research in the United States. |
| B．Plant diversity in the Yellowstone area. |
| C．The conflict between farmers and gray wolves. |
| D．The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone Park. |
| A．Damage to local ecology. |
| B．Preservation of vegetation. |
| C．A decline in the park’s income. |
| D．An increase in the variety of animals. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Uncaring. | C．Positive. | D．Disapproving. |
3 . Scientists say a huge percentage of bird species are in danger because their habitats, or homelands, are disappearing.
Traditional migration paths take birds through countries that are not protecting the places for birds to stop, rest and feed. The scientists studied the migration or flight paths of almost 1,500 species. They decided that 91 percent of them passed through dangerous areas.
The major danger for migratory birds is development. Buildings and pavements have covered the places where birds stop and feed as they move from one part of the world to another. One of the scientists who worked on the study says “Many of these important places have been lost to land reclamation because of urban, industrial and agricultural land expansion”.
The problem, according to scientists, is that many of these small birds die along their migration paths because they don’t have a safe place to feed and rest. There is no place to restore their energy for the next part of their journey. Countries in North Africa, Central Asia and those along the coasts of East Asia are having the most difficult time in protecting land. The scientists say these countries do not have enough areas that are safe for birds. One species that doesn’t exist now is the Eskimo curlew. “Our world gets poorer every time we lose a species,” one of the scientists says.
The researchers say countries need to work together and come up with safe stopping areas for birds that pass through their boundaries. For example, one country might have preserved safe zones for migrating birds. But a neighbor country might not. A bird might die.
One scientist who is not connected with the report tells Los Angeles Times that while some habitats are changing, more work can be done to make urban areas safe for birds.
He says small changes, like planting more native plants or keeping cats out of the areas birds would be likely to use, could make a big difference.
1. What mainly caused the disappearing of birds’ habitats?| A．The decrease of awareness to protect birds. | B．Natural disasters. |
| C．Overuse of land by human beings. | D．The rising sea level. |
| A．Tiredness and hunger. | B．Beast attack on the ground. |
| C．Hunting of humans. | D．The long journey. |
| A．By keeping fewer cats or dogs. |
| B．By restoring their destroyed habitats. |
| C．By helping change the birds’ migration paths. |
| D．By preserving the ecological environments on their migration paths. |
| A．To call on people to protect the birds’ habitats. |
| B．To analyze the reasons for disappearing of birds’ habitats. |
| C．To offer some solutions to the problem of birds’ habitats. |
| D．To tell us a huge percentage of bird species are in danger. |
4 . By 2050, 68% of the global population will live in cities. That’s 2.5 billion more people than today. In Europe, three out of four of us already live in urban areas, and the consequences of that are becoming clear. Researchers estimate that nine million people die every year as a direct result of air pollution. As our cities grow and more people move into already crowded spaces, what do we need to do to transform our urban areas into healthy places to live? An increasing body of research tells us that we should be letting nature back in.
Green spaces in cities mitigate the effects of pollution and can reduce a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect, which refers to heat trapped in built-up areas. The effect appears in towns and cities where the heat generated by people, transport and industry is trapped in the narrow roads and concrete structures, unable to escape to the atmosphere. This can bring the temperature in urban areas up 3 — 4°C higher than the surrounding countryside, and with that comes a severe cycle. Increased temperatures in summer lead to an increased demand for cooling. This expands our energy consumption, which in turn build up fossil fuel consumption, increasing pollutants in the air and harmful smog on our streets.
Planning cities to include green spaces wherever possible is the first step in making our urban areas healthier. For example, adding a layer of vegetation to rooftops and creating green roofs has proven to reduce the urban heat island effect. Trees in our streets also play their part, and a variety of tree species can have a profound effect. Simply having access to green spaces in cities can do wonders for our stress levels and concentration at work. “People need to interact with nature whenever the opportunity arises. Something as simple as a five-to-ten-minute break during the workday can improve well-being and boost productivity,” Cecil, an expert studying nature in cities says.
1. How does the author bring in the topic in Paragraph 1?| A．By presenting facts. | B．By listing examples. |
| C．By comparing numbers. | D．By questioning an estimate. |
| A．Overcome. | B．Change. | C．Ease. | D．Shift. |
| A．Lower temperature. | B．Energy regeneration. |
| C．Fuel shortage. | D．Air pollution. |
| A．How to Let Nature Back In |
| B．Why We Need Green Spaces in Cities |
| C．Heat Effect: An Unavoidable Urban Trouble |
| D．Green Roofs: Tiny Urban Forests |
5 . Food waste contributes to ever-growing landfills (垃圾堆).
Don’t buy too much food whenever you go grocery shopping.
Always make a shopping list.
Use the “First-In-First-Out” method. For example, placing the newly bought foods at the back of the fridge or cupboard will encourage people to use the ones that are in the front row. This will ensure that you know what you have and reduce food waste.
| A．It can help keep your grocery trips short. |
| B．Having a fully filled fridge may look nice. |
| C．Your fridge may be too crowded to function well. |
| D．It is a waste of your money, as well as your effort. |
| E．Some people like to store up food for emergencies. |
| F．Foods need proper storage to prevent them going bad. |
| G．If you can’t see what foods you have, you’ll forget them. |
6 . If you’re a real fitness addict, you certainly know the ultimate running challenge is to take part in a marathon. It seems every major city and town around the world hosts an annual marathon, with thousands of athletes running an exhausting 42.1 kilometres. While many runners’ motivation is to beat their personal best and cross the finishing line without collapsing, they’re also doing it for a good cause — to generate funds for charity.
But like other major events, the marathon also generates a massive carbon footprint. Thousands travel – some by plane — to the location, and waste from food packaging and goody bags gets left behind by viewers and runners.
This is becoming a big issue for cities — how to host a worthwhile event, encouraging people to exercise and help charities, while protecting the environment? Several cities have developed formal plans to reduce their environmental impact and promote sustainable ideas. One event in Wales, for example, introduced recycling for old running kit. It’s something that this year’s London Marathon tried to tackle by reducing the number of drink stations on the running route, giving out water in paper cups and offering some drinks in eatable seaweed capsules. They also trialled new bottle belts made from recycled plastic, so 700 runners could carry water bottles with them during their run.
Meanwhile, some people still think running a marathon could be our best foot forward in helping the planet. Dr Andrea Collins from Cardiff University told the BBC: “Training for a marathon makes you more sustainable in day-to-day activities. I started walking or running to work every day. Being environmentally friendly while training kind of sticks with you and becomes a way of life.”
So while you may not be the top runner in a marathon, let’s hope the event, in terms of sustainability, certainly is!
1. What can we know about a marathon from paragraph 1?| A．Everyone desires to join in it. | B．Athletes can finish it with ease. |
| C．Local governments disapprove of it. | D．It can contribute to charitable causes. |
| A．Holding a sustainable event. | B．Raising funds for charities. |
| C．Encouraging people to exercise. | D．Recycling old running facilities. |
| A．Favorable. | B．Intolerant. | C．Doubtful. | D．Conservative. |
| A．Make Marathons Greener | B．How to Run Marathons Properly |
| C．Participate in Marathons Actively | D．What Is Left Behind after Marathons |
7 . Buildings, pollution, poor soil, insects, and even car crashes can add to tree loss. However, between 2016 and 2021, the city of Seattle in Washington state was reported to have lost about 255 hectares of tree covering, for which climate change was blamed. Then came the driest summer on Seattle’s record books in 2022. The drier conditions and hotter temperatures have left many trees with brown leaves, naked branches, and extreme seeding. These are all signs of tree stress.
According to Nicholas Johnson, a tree expert for Seattle City Parks, if this warming climate continues we are going to have a lot of trees die. Just like people, under the heat trees get weak.
Researchers from France and Australia studied the effect of hotter temperatures and less rain on more than 3,100 trees and plants in 164 cities across 78 countries. They found about half the trees in the cities were experiencing climate conditions beyond their limits. They also found that by 2050 nearly all trees planted in Australian cities will not survive.
It’s not the gradual change but these extreme swings of too much water, too little water, too much wind, and terrible storms that are going to cause these rapid changes. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed about 10 percent of the trees in New Orleans, Louisiana. And in 2021, Hurricane Ida uprooted many new tree plantings.
To settle the problem of tree loss, non-native trees have been brought to cities for some time. In the city of Bellevue, Washington, experts are growing different kinds of trees specifically for climate change. On city grounds, they are planting baby giant sequoias, just a few centimeters tall. The giant sequoias are not native to the Pacific Northwest area. But the trees can deal with the lack of rain and insects. Once these trees are established, they grow incredibly fast. Having many different kinds and ages of trees is important to keeping urban forests alive.
“Life always finds a way,” said Nicholas Johnson. “And in Seattle, people are helping life find a way.”
1. What is the first paragraph mainly about?| A．The bad condition of trees in Seattle. |
| B．The terrible climate in Seattle in recent years. |
| C．Natural reasons for tree loss. |
| D．The signs of tree stress. |
| A．Buildings. | B．Pollution. |
| C．Extreme climate. | D．Car crashes. |
| A．By improving planting methods. |
| B．By changing the kinds of trees. |
| C．By treating trees as babies. |
| D．By improving the soil quality. |
| A．Indifferent. | B．Negative. | C．Skeptical. | D．Positive. |
8 . Introduced species have a bad reputation. It has been believed that the species mix in a particular place should remain as unchanged as possible. But this is just an opinion. Other opinions are possible. A study published recently by Dov Sax of Brown University, thus asks how the benefits of introduced species might be better assessed, so that opinions can be more informed. Specifically, he identifies several aspects for that.
Initially, whether introduced species provide direct human advantage is taken into account. Dr. Sax and his colleagues ignored crops, since their benefits are obvious. But they included transplanted grass species that have gone wild，yet provide grazing(牧草)for domestic animals, and introduced forest trees that produce wood for construction.
Another factor is their possible benefit to the ecosystem into which the introduction has happened. Such introduction is sometimes made to reduce the risk of a localised species becoming extinct. Pyne’s ground plum(李子)，native to a handful of sites in the central basins of Tennessee but now transplanted to others, falls into this category.
The last value is experienced on an emotional rather than a practical level. Lots of people feel good about native wildlife, which is generally the main motive for its conservation. But that feel-good factor can extend to introduced species as well. Such value can cut both ways, however. For example, ring-necked parakeets, an Asian and African species, have been spreading through Britain for several decades. Some find them a colourful addition to the local wildlife, others a noisy competitor for native birds.
In light of their analysis, Dr. Sax and his team therefore suggest that researchers studying introduced species should in future create a clear distinction in their studies between changes that have happened and judgments about the value of those changes. In addition, when making those judgments, they should acknowledge all types of values, rather than focusing narrowly on one or two of them.
That done, many species will surely still be accused of possible damage. But others, badly thought of in the past, may not.
1. What is Dr. Sax’s study aimed to do?| A．Kecp track of introduced species. |
| B．Get introduced species fully understood. |
| C．Compare opinions on introduced species. |
| D．Identify consequences of introducing species. |
| A．To provide graze for local animals. |
| B．To produce wood for construction. |
| C．To build a new local ecosystem. |
| D．To save local species from dying out. |
| A．They don’t care about it. |
| B．They consider it acceptable. |
| C．They can’t put up with it. |
| D．They hold divided opinions on it. |
| A．Focusing on main values. |
| B．Evaluating evident changes. |
| C．Analyzing previous researches. |
| D．Presenting all-round assessments. |
9 . The students stand on a pier (码头) over the Harlem River in New York City. They stare down into the brown water. Their teacher, Mr. Rodman, pulls a long rope out of the river. Fastened to the end of the rope is a metal cage and inside are oysters (牡蛎). Taking turns, the students measure all the oysters, and then compare notes. The biggest oyster is over 2 inches long, much bigger than a healthy size for its age! They also measure the level of oxygen. As more oysters grow, the water should become clearer and hold more oxygen. Also, other animals should move in.
Oysters are soft-bodied animals, and share the underwater community with plants, fish, and other life. They are food for crabs and other animals. As new oysters grow, they attach their shells to older ones，forming big reefs with many small spaces where other animals live. Oysters eat algae (藻类). If algae grow too fast，they can decrease oxygen from the water-and even fish need oxygen to breathe!
But what happened to the oysters 100years ago in New York Harbor? Before then, lots of oysters lived in these waters. They were shipped to restaurants around the world. By the early 1900s, people were eating them faster than they could grow. Pollution was pouring into the waters. The harbor became seriously polluted. Since the 1970s, new laws have helped reduce poisonous waste. Some fish started to swim through again. But oysters were still missing-until recently.
The Billion Oyster Project began in 2014 to help bring oysters back to New York Harbor. The project has recruited (招募) more than 6,500 students at more than 100 middle schools and high schools to help grow, distribute, and study the oysters.
Finally, the students put the oysters back in the cage. Mr. Rodman lowers the cage into the river. In a few months, they will check the cage again. When the oysters are big enough, they will be moved to join a healthy reef in the middle of the harbor.
1. Why do students come to the pier over the Harlem River?| A．To do research. | B．To go fishing. |
| C．To buy oysters. | D．To clean up the river. |
| A．What oysters are like. | B．How oysters get fed. |
| C．Why algae grow fast. | D．What role oysters play. |
| A．People’s love of eating oysters boosted their numbers. |
| B．More oysters than before lived in waters in the 1900s. |
| C．Polluted water was partly to blame for the missing of oysters. |
| D．New laws in the 1970s were crucial to oysters’ recovery. |
| A．Oysters Raised in New York Harbor |
| B．The Harlem River Polluted Heavily |
| C．Nature’s Helpful Crew Brought Back |
| D．Teacher Devoted to Wildlife Protection |
China on October 12 officially announced the first group of national parks. Home to nearly 30 percent of the key wildlife species found in China, they cover
The
The Three-River-Source National Park
Commercial activities are banned in the national parks and are all put
