1 . Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.
There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel’s report: “Science never has all the answers. But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.”
Just as on smoking, voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it’s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.
Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it’s obvious that a majority of the president’s advisers still don’t take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research — a classic case of “paralysis by analysis.”
To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won’t take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry, is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.
1. What was an argument made by supporters of smoking?A.There was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death. |
B.The number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant. |
C.People had the freedom to choose their own way of life. |
D.Antismoking people were usually talking nonsense. |
A.A protector. | B.A judge. | C.A critic. | D.A guide. |
A.Cautious. | B.Arbitrary. | C.Responsible. | D.Expericed. |
A.They both suffered from the government’s negligence. |
B.A lesson from the latter is applicable to the former. |
C.The outcome of the latter aggravates the former. |
D.Both of them have turned from bad to worse. |
1. What is the woman doing?
A.Carrying trees. | B.Planting trees. | C.Picking up waste. |
A.To play in it. | B.To clean it. | C.To measure the depth of it. |
A.Strangers. | B.Teammates. | C.Schoolmate |
3 . Have you heard of the save soil movement? It was
The efforts of Sadhguru have
The movement aims to
The main motive of the campaign was to bring together people from all around the world to protect the soil’s health. Sadhguru has become
Sadhguru is also the author of the New York Times bestseller Inner Engineering: A Yogi’s Guide to Joy. He has been a(n)
A.launched | B.sponsored | C.experienced | D.commanded |
A.resulted in | B.originated from | C.paid back | D.reacted to |
A.airports | B.companies | C.conferences | D.locations |
A.abilities | B.struggles | C.characters | D.requests |
A.transform | B.address | C.drag | D.confirm |
A.messages | B.responses | C.proposals | D.positions |
A.exhausted | B.ambitious | C.successful | D.confident |
A.improvement | B.awareness | C.imagination | D.standard |
A.locally | B.individually | C.nationally | D.globally |
A.urging | B.requiring | C.cheering | D.permitting |
A.stable | B.ongoing | C.favorable | D.temporary |
A.However | B.Besides | C.Therefore | D.Meanwhile |
A.ensure | B.bring | C.affect | D.define |
A.strong | B.pleasant | C.determined | D.influential |
A.circumstance | B.lifestyle | C.atmosphere | D.soil |
4 . If you’re looking for something fun to do, pack a picnic dinner and take your family or friends to a beautiful place to eat. However, there’s a wrong trend to view picnics as an excuse to transport food in single-use plastic containers. Sure, it means the cleanup is easy at the moment, but it just puts it off to a later point, when it takes the form of volunteer cleanups and landfill management.
●Use food containers smartly
Using reusable containers is the easiest way to reduce waste.
●Choose real cutlery (餐具)
Using washable dishes and cutlery for a picnic does not require much more work than single-use ones.
You’d have to carry the waste out anyway in a trash bag, so why not pack your dirty plates and cutlery into a bag and put them in the dishwasher at home?
●Think about the drinks
Forget the single-use, single-serve drink bottles.
●Put cloth bags to good use
Cloth bags are amazing. I use them for so much more than just buying food at the store. They’re perfect for packing sandwiches, dried or whole fruit, and other snack foods. You can use them to pack glasses or plates to prevent breaking. They can also work as a napkin, tea towel, or trash bag if needed.
A.Be sure to add a few to your picnic basket. |
B.There are some healthy dishes you can make or buy. |
C.To avoid this, a plastic-free picnic can be a brilliant idea. |
D.If you’re worried about breaking, take some light camping plates. |
E.Instead, just bring along a cloth tablecloth to spread on the ground. |
F.These create a huge amount of waste, which can be easily avoided. |
G.In addition, keep in mind that you don’t have to pre-pack everything. |
Lake Powell, the second largest human-made reservoir (水库) in the US, has lost nearly 7% of its potential storage capacity since it
In addition to water
The capacity of the reservoir is becoming smaller because of sediments (沉淀物)
Lake Powell is
1. Who are the listeners of the program?
A.People who have a car. | B.School students. | C.Businessmen. |
A.140 or more. | B.240 or more. | C.340 or more. |
A.He used to drive a car. |
B.He used to shop in a supermarket. |
C.He used to drink bottled water. |
A.Encourage a greener lifestyle. |
B.Give tips on a healthy life. |
C.Share his experiences. |
7 . The forest of today will not be the forests of tomorrow. Rising temperatures, trees being cut down, development and climate-change-caused disasters are changing the very makeup of the Earth’s forests, new research published in Science finds.
Older, bigger trees are being lost at an alarming rate, making the planet’s forests shorter and younger. The change is being driven at different rates by different causes in different places, the study’s authors say, but the consequences will be global.
Old growth forests absorb and store massive amounts of climate-warming CO2. They provide habitats for rare and endangered species and promote rich biodiversity. Researchers found that the world lost roughly one-third of its old growth forests between 1900 and 2015. In North America and Europe, they found that tree mortality has doubled in the past 40 years.
“Warming temperatures, wildfires, logging and insect outbreaks were among the many causes of the decline,” says Nate McDowell, the study’s lead author. “What’s perhaps more concerning is that the trajectory of all these disturbances is generally increasing over time and is expected to continue increasing in the future.” he says.
McDowell’s focus is on how trees are affected by rising temperatures, arguably the biggest driver of forest change. To get a broader understanding of how forests are changing globally, he brought in more than 20 other researchers in different fields. Together, they examined more than 160 previous studies about tree mortality and its global causes, applying current satellite data and modeling to create a look at the Earth’s changing forests to date.
“It’s not a shock, but it’s very sad,” says Kristina, an ecologist and leader of the ForestGEO Ecosystems &Climate Program who helped with the research. “We as a human society are hitting these forests so rapidly with so many different changes that they can’t keep up.” she says.
1. What can we know from the figures in the paragraph 3?A.More trees should be planted in no time. | B.We are losing old growth forests quickly. |
C.Forests are important habitats for wildlife. | D.Different trees can absorb CO2 differently. |
A.Timely and long-standing | B.All-sided and careful |
C.Time-limited and regional | D.Traditional and extensive |
A.Worried | B.Optimistic | C.Supportive | D.Indifferent |
A.To call on people to plant more trees. |
B.To discuss the influence of climate change. |
C.To warn against the loss of old growth forests. |
D.To compare forests of today with those of the future. |
8 . Scientific reports show the destructive effects of climate change, but many scientists say it is important to remain positive. If the world continues to change, don’t give up, and we can still prevent some of the worst effects of climate change.
Recently, however, many scientists are dealing with the feeling of doom about climate change or “doomism.” Jacquelyn Gill is a climate scientist at the University of Maine. She says that around 2018 she noticed an increase in these “doomers,” or people who think that saving the earth is hopeless. They refuse to change their behavior or consider how they can work to prevent climate change.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently published its third report. This report explained the damage caused by the burning of traditional fuels, like oil and coal. New investments in traditional fuels and removal of forests for farming are preventing the world from helping stop climate change.
Anderson is the Environment Program Director for the United Nations. She says officials are trying to get people to take action because there is a climate crisis. Their goal is not to scare people into doing nothing.
“We are not doomed, but rapid action is absolutely essential. With every month or year that we delay action, climate change becomes more complex, expensive and difficult to overcome,” Andersen said.
The UN IPCC report stated that without fast and extreme measures to cut carbon pollution, the world is not likely to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The global temperature has already increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius. After 1.5 degrees, climate change will quickly worsen causing environment to be in danger. It will cause an increase in weather disasters.
James Skea is a leader from the UN IPCC Report. “We don’t fall over the cliff at 1.5 degrees. Even if we were to go beyond 1.5, it doesn’t mean we throw up our hands in despair,” Skea said.
Michael Mann is a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. He says that scientists used to think Earth would continue to warm decades after we balance emissions. Balancing emissions to net zero means not creating more carbon in the atmosphere than oceans and forests can remove. New research suggests that it will only take a few years to decrease carbon levels in the air after we balance emissions.
1. What is the writer’s attitude towards climate change?A.Optimistic. | B.Pessimistic. | C.Cautious. | D.Objective. |
A.The change of people’s behaviors. |
B.The damage caused by human activities. |
C.The sharp increase in number of doomers. |
D.The measures to help stop climate change. |
A.The significance of UNIPCC third report. |
B.The difficulties of decreasing carbon levels. |
C.Scientists’ optimistic attitude towards climate change. |
D.The need to take immediate actions against climate change. |
9 . Concerns about microplastics are not new. They’ve been growing for more than a decade. Over the past two years, however, many creative solutions have emerged to address the problem on a local level. Still, experts say there’s a need for a huge effort if we want to curb (控制) the global issue.
The term microplastics was coined in 2004 by marine ecologist Richard Thompson after he discovered tiny bits of plastic littering British beaches. Since then, scientists have found microplastics nearly everywhere. Even inside us. According to a 2021 study in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, the physical presence of plastic inside the body poses a potential problem. Plastic’s chemical additives might also affect different species’ tissues and organs. However, there is disagreement as to how much microplastics harm species, including humans.
For a global view of this vast issue, Duke University scientists created a public database to track plastic removal innovations. For instance, the Hoola One is a vacuum that internally separates microplastics from organic materials. In Amsterdam, scientists have introduced the Bubble Barrier in canals, a device that creates a wall of bubbles to send submerged plastic to the surface. Hong Kong Polytechnic University researchers presented a unique idea — a bacteria biofilm that could attract and trap microplastics before they flow into rivers and oceans.
But “if you have a technology that would capture microplastics before they enter our waterways, that would be ideal,” says Zoie Diana, who added 40 new inventions this year. That’s where Alain Marty, chief scientist at the biochemistry start-up Carbios, comes into the picture. In a 2020 Nature article, Marty and colleagues describe how they engineered an enzyme (酶) to break down plastic efficiently. “Industries could employ that in their manufacturing processes so that nearly all of their material could be reused to create products. Marty’s discovery is a breakthrough in the right direction, though preventing microplastics by reducing our plastic use also matters,” says Diana. “We really want to turn off the tap.”
1. What can we learn about microplastics?A.They didn’t exist until 2004. |
B.They can be easily tracked down. |
C.They remain a matter of worldwide concern. |
D.They do more harm to other species than humans. |
A.By giving examples. | B.By making comparisons. |
C.By referring to another study. | D.By presenting research findings. |
A.The enzyme can solve industries' productivity problems. |
B.Taps should be prohibited for fear of the spread of microplastics. |
C.A decline in plastic use is no less important than Marty's discovery. |
D.Microplastics-capturing technology can rid waterways of microplastics. |
10 . If you look up in the sky, you probably see, at some point, an aircraft. And behind that aircraft are white, fluffy streaks (条纹). And that's what we call a contrail. Contrails are made up of ice crystals that form when aircraft engines emit exhaust (废气) that hits the cold air.
The ice crystals reflect incoming light from the sun back into space, which has a cooling effect on the atmosphere. But the contrails also stop heat coming up from the ground from escaping into space. It is reflected back down toward the ground. And so that's a warming effect. Stettler, an engineer from Imperial College London, says, on balance, contrails warm the atmosphere more than they cool it. And that's mainly because the cooling effect due to reflecting of sunlight can only happen during the day, when the sun's shining, whereas the warming effect due to trapping of outgoing heat happens all of the time.
How long do contrails last? This depends on the atmospheric conditions at the altitude where a plane is flying. Some contrails can form clouds that last for up to 18 hours. During that time, they spread out, trapping even more heat. This process allows contrails to warm the planet about as much as the carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft.
But when Stettler and his team analyzed flight data they obtained of Japan airspace, they found that most contrail warming was caused by just 2 percent of flights. And most of those flights originated in the late afternoon because as the sun goes down, cooling can no longer offset (抵消) the warming. And the warming effect continues to exist throughout the evening into the night. But what if the contrails that contribute the most to warming could be got rid of?
1. What does “it” in paragraph 2 refer to?A.A cooling effect. |
B.Heat from the ground. |
C.Light from the sun. |
D.Exhaust hitting the cold air. |
A.They can easily disappear in the air. |
B.They actually contribute to global warming. |
C.Their cooling effect happens all of the time. |
D.Their warming effect is usually overlooked. |
A.A future plan for Japan airspace. |
B.The negative influence of contrails. |
C.Other potential causes of contrails. |
D.A possible way to remove contrails. |