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 . We’re shopping online more than ever now, including various personal care and food items. Of U.S. Internet users, one-third do it at least once a week. Seeing your limited toilet paper (TP), you might pull up your smartphone and after a few taps have a fresh order of TP set to arrive in a day, maybe even less, and all done right from the toilet seat.
But this type of shopping — numerous small, quick-to-ship orders placed through e-tailing companies like Amazon — might be the worst for the environment, according to a recent study in Environmental Science & Technology. With their current business model of free shipping and fast delivery, greenhouse gas emissions linked with transporting “fast consumer goods” are high. “The online-only retailers are growing rapidly,” says lead author Sadegh, a scientist at Radboud University in the Netherlands.
Previous analyses haven’t agreed on whether online or in-store shopping is better. In fact, some studies have found that online shopping has a lower impact, because it saves the emissions associated with driving your car to the store (95 percent of Americans drive to go shopping). But this benefit can vary, or even disappear, depending on how fast we want that TP to arrive. And if you’re shopping in real life, factors like how you transport those items, how far you travel, and how much you buy at once all affect the carbon footprint of your purchase. “There have been some contradicting results, with some saying online shopping is better and some saying traditional shopping is better,” says Sadegh. So he tried to settle the debate with an approach that showed how likely one option was to be better than the other.
Sadegh and his team compared three shopping styles: traditional in-store shopping, online ordering from a physical store (which they called “bricks and clicks”), and ordering through an online-only retailer. Nearly two-thirds of the time, bricks and clicks shopping resulted in fewer emissions per item than in-store shopping — and was better than online shopping 97 percent of the time. In-store shopping had fewer emissions than online — only 81percent of the time.
1. Why was “ordering TP on the smartphone” mentioned in paragraph 1?| A．To state convenience of TV shopping. |
| B．To show importance of smartphones. |
| C．To encourage people to purchase TP online. |
| D．To stress people’s frequency of online shopping. |
| A．It requires more energy to produce these products. |
| B．Its current business model generates more greenhouse gas. |
| C．It causes people not to care much about the environment. |
| D．Its packaging of goods produces numerous harmful waste. |
| A．Traditional in-store shopping. |
| B．Online ordering from a physical store. |
| C．Ordering through an online-only store. |
| D．Driving to shop in huge supermarkets. |
| A．By analyzing causes. | B．By listing theories. |
| C．By making comparison. | D．By giving examples. |
3 . The health of millions could be at risk because supplies of medicinal plants are being used up. These plants are used to make traditional medicine, including drugs to fight cancer. “The loss of medicinal plants is a quiet disaster,” says Sara Oldfield, secretary general of the NGO Botanic Gardens Conservation International.
Most people worldwide rely on herbal (药草制的) medicines which are got mostly from wild plants. But some 15,000 of the 50,000 medicinal species are under threat of dying out, according to report from the international conservation group Plantlife. Shortages have been reported in China, India, Kenya, Nepal, Tanzania and Uganda.
Over-harvesting does the most harm, though pollution and competition from invasive species (入侵物种) and habitat destruction all contribute. Businessmen generally harvest medicinal plants, not caring about sustainability (可持续性),” the Plantlife report says, “damage is serious partly because they have no idea about it, but it is mainly because such collection is unorganized”. Medicinal trees at risk include the Himalayan yew (紫衫) and the African cherry, which are used to treat some cancers.
The solution, says the report’s author, Alan Hamilton, is to encourage local people to protect these plants. Ten projects studied by Plantlife in India, Pakistan, China, Nepal, Uganda and Kenya showed this method can succeed. In Uganda, the project has kept a sustainable supply of low-cost cancer treatments, and in China a public-run medicinal plant project has been created for the first time.”
“Improving health, earning an income and keeping cultural traditions are important in encouraging people to protect medicinal plants,” says Hamilton, “You have to pay attention to what people are interested in.”
Ghillean Prance, the former director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in London, agrees that medicinal plants are in need of protection. “Not nearly enough is being done,” he told New Scientist. “We are destroying the very plants that are of most use to us.”
1. From the first two paragraphs, we can learn that ________.| A．millions of people are threatened with cancer |
| B．most countries see a shortage of herbal medicines |
| C．about two thirds of medicinal species will disappear |
| D．a number of medicinal species are in danger of extinction |
| A．over-harvesting | B．habitat destruction |
| C．pollution | D．invasive species |
| A．pollution | B．other species’ invasion |
| C．sustainability | D．over-harvesting |
| A．Protecting medicinal plants has a long way to go. |
| B．Local people don’t know how to protect medicinal plants. |
| C．Ghillean Prance is optimistic about medicinal plants’ future. |
| D．China has made great progress in protecting medicinal plants. |
4 . Colorado officials will stick to a plan to kill some mountain lions and bears to support the state’s dropping mule deer (长耳鹿) population.
Wednesday’s vote permits organizations to kill up to 25 black bears and 15 mountain lions per year in the central and western parts of the state. The project will run for three years, to be followed by a six-year study of how deer populations respond to fewer predators(捕食者).
The population of Colorado’s mule deer has suffered a puzzling, years-long drop to about 450,000, which state officials said was about 110,000 fewer than there should be. A 2014 state study tied it to seven causes, including predators, whose number has greatly increased in recent years.
Some experts, however, said the state should focus first on the human-led destruction(破坏) of mule deer habitat(栖息地). “The drop of the mule deer population is obviously not a simple problem with simple causes,” Brian Kurzel, director of the National Wildlife Federation, said. “By far, the greatest problem—the one that I think deserves the most attention in any science-based study—is habitat quantity and quality.”
Kurzel pointed out that the U.S Bureau of Land Management recently agreed to create 15,000 new oil and gas wells somewhere in western Cororado, which was often called “the mule-deer factory”. There, the number of mule deer has fallen to about 30,000 from more than 100,000 in the early 1980s. Though state officials have known oil and gas development affects the population of mule deer, they didn’t go against the plan.
Other causes like building highways, population growth and human activities are also curbing the mule deer population, according to the study.
State Parks and Wildlife officials don’t necessarily disagree. They started a $4.5 million program as a way to gather research for later decisions.
1. Why do Colorado officials want to have so many mountain lions and bears killed?| A．To stop them hurting people. |
| B．To leave more habitat for mule deer. |
| C．To stop the mule deer population from dropping. |
| D．To help researchers carry out a three-year-long study. |
| A．Protecting their habitat. | B．Providing enough food for them. |
| C．Reducing the number of their predators. | D．Asking the government to make an effort. |
| A．limiting. | B．ensuring. | C．increasing. | D．protecting. |
| A．Decisions will be made in one year. |
| B．Habitat loss is the main cause of the drop. |
| C．Human activities aren’t responsible for the drop. |
| D．It’s too early to say what exactly caused the drop. |
