1 . In 2016, the world’s population cast aside 49 million tons of electronic waste, known as e-waste. It has been calculated that this number will grow to more than 60 million tons by 2021.
What is causing the upsurge (激增) in e-waste? Technology is becoming more and more widespread, covering almost every aspect of our lives. Meanwhile, the lifespan of devices is getting shorter—many products will be thrown away once their batteries die, to be replaced by new devices. Companies intentionally plan the obsolescence (过时) of their goods by updating the design or software and discontinuing support for older models, so that now it is usually cheaper and easier to buy a new product than to repair an old one. Since prices are falling, electronic devices are in demand around the world.
As more people buy electronic equipment, manufacturers (制造商) are beginning to face shortages of the raw materials needed to make their products, so recycling and reusing materials from discarded (扔掉的) products and waste makes economic and environmental sense.
Recycling e-waste is practiced both formally and informally. Proper or formal e-waste recycling usually involves taking apart the electronics, separating and sorting through the materials and cleaning them. Companies must obey health and safety rules to reduce the health and environmental hazards of handling e-waste by using pollution-control technologies. All this makes formal recycling expensive. Informal recycling is typically unlicensed and uncontrolled. At informal recycling workshops, men and women recover valuable materials by burning devices to melt away non-valuable materials. Usually they do not wear protective equipment and lack any awareness that they are handling dangerous materials.
With the amount of e-waste growing around the world, recycling alone will not be enough to solve the problem. In order to reduce e-waste, manufacturers need to design electronics that are safer, and more durable, repairable and recyclable. The best thing you can do is resist buying a new device until you really need it. Try to get your old product repaired if possible and, if it can’t be fixed, resell or recycle it responsibly. Before you recycle your device, put any broken parts in separate containers and close these tightly to prevent chemicals from leaking. Wear latex gloves and a mask if you’re handling something that’s broken.
1. Which of the following is a reason for e-waste’s sharp increasing?| A．The falling of devices’ quality. | B．The results of updating devices. |
| C．The methods of recycling e-waste. | D．The shortage of protective equipment. |
| A．Increasing the variety of electronic products. | B．Lowering the costs of technology innovation. |
| C．Relieving the lack of the raw materials. | D．Improving the poor quality of e-devices. |
| A．Influence. | B．Harm. | C．Limits. | D．Costs. |
| A．They are blamed for shortening the lifespan of devices. |
| B．Their ways of reusing waste are sometimes encouraged. |
| C．They aim to discover rare materials from waste for new products. |
| D．Their workers are unaware of the danger from dealing with devices. |
| A．Everyone should take action to reduce e-waste. |
| B．Companies should be mainly responsible for reducing e-waste. |
| C．Fixing a device could cause more pollution than buying a new one. |
| D．E-waste could be broken down by burying it underground for a long time. |
2 . In our modern world, when something wears out, we throw it away and buy a new one. The
How did we
Another cause is our
Our appetite for new products also
All around the world, we can see the
Maybe there is another way out. We need to repair our possessions
| A．key | B．reason | C．project | D．problem |
| A．gifts | B．rubbish | C．debt | D．products |
| A．face | B．become | C．observe | D．change |
| A．hide | B．control | C．replace | D．withdraw |
| A．Thanks to | B．As to | C．Except for | D．Regardless of |
| A．safe | B．funny | C．cheap | D．powerful |
| A．love | B．lack | C．prevention | D．division |
| A．sensitive | B．kind | C．brave | D．busy |
| A．ways | B．places | C．jobs | D．friends |
| A．donate | B．receive | C．produce | D．preserve |
| A．adapts | B．returns | C．responds | D．contributes |
| A．tired of | B．addicted to | C．worried about | D．ashamed for |
| A．newer | B．stronger | C．higher | D．larger |
| A．pick up | B．pay for | C．hold onto | D．throw away |
| A．advantages | B．purposes | C．functions | D．consequences |
| A．show | B．record | C．decrease | D．measure |
| A．technology | B．environment | C．consumers | D．brands |
| A．However | B．Otherwise | C．Therefore | D．Meanwhile |
| A．by | B．in favour of | C．after | D．instead of |
| A．spending | B．collecting | C．repairing | D．advertising |
3 . Microplastic pollution has been detected in human blood for the first time, with scientists finding the tiny particles(微粒) in almost 80% of the people tested. The discovery shows the particles can travel around the body and may live in organs.
The impact on health is as yet unknown. But researchers are concerned as microplastics cause damage to human cells in the laboratory and air pollution particles are already known to enter the body and cause millions of early deaths a year.
Huge amounts of plastic waste are left in the environment and microplastics now pollute the entire planet, from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. People were already known to consume the tiny particles via food and water as well as breathing them in, and they have been found in the faeces (排泄物) of babies and adults.
The scientists analysed blood samples from 22 healthy adults and found plastic particles in 17. Half the samples contained PET plastic, which is commonly used in drinks bottles, while a third contained polystyrene, used for packaging food and other products. A quarter of the blood samples contained polyethylene, from which plastic carrier bags are made.
“Our study is the first indication that we have polymer particles(聚合物颗粒) in our blood — it’s a breakthrough result,” said Prof Dick Vethaak, an expert at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. “But we have to extend the research and increase the sample sizes, the number of polymers assessed, etc.” Further studies by a number of groups are already under way, he said.
“It is certainly reasonable to be concerned,” Vethaak said. “The particles are there and are transported throughout the body.” He said previous work had shown that microplastics were 10 times higher in the faeces of babies compared with adults and that babies fed with
plastic bottles are taking millions of microplastic particles a day.
Vethaak acknowledged that the amount and type of plastic varied considerably between the blood samples. “But this is a pioneering study,” he said, with more work now needed. He said the differences might reflect short-term exposure before the blood samples were taken, such as drinking from a plastic-lined coffee cup, or wearing a plastic face mask.
“The big question is what is happening in our body?” Vethaak said. “Are the particles retained in the body? Are they transported to certain organs, such as getting past the blood-brain barrier? And are these levels sufficiently high to cause disease? We urgently need to fund further research so we can find out.”
1. What could be inferred from Paragraph 2?| A．Air Pollution particles can cause death eventually. |
| B．Microplastics can be deadly to humans. |
| C．There is no evidence that microplastics harm human cells. |
| D．Microplastics can travel throughout body and damage organs. |
| A．They are found in most people. |
| B．Polyethylene found in blood samples might be taken from drinks bottles. |
| C．A quarter of the blood samples contained PET particles. |
| D．Half of the microplastics in the blood samples were likely introduced by drinking from plastic containers. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Negative. | C．Excited. | D．Depressed. |
| A．we are the pioneers in the field of plastic research |
| B．we need more blood examples and more work to do |
| C．we are entering a whole new field of research |
| D．this is an extremely important study |
| A．Political. | B．Fashion. | C．Food. | D．Environment. |
4 . The story of a voyage bearing witness to plastic pollution in the oceans. Junk Raft, based on facts, is an exciting book. Science educator and researcher Marcus Eriksen's navigational feat(航海壮举）is holding readers’ attention and interest — 88 days crossing some 4,000 kilometers of open ocean, on a raft(筏子) made of 15.000 plastic bottles wrapped in fishing nets. But it is more. Two equally fascinating story lines are made up through the written records of a series of events: Eriksen’s evolution from soldier to research director of the environmental non-profit 5 Gyres Institute, and the journey we all need to take towards a more sustainable use of plastics.
Around 15% of all the liner in our oceans is plastic, and a calculated 5 million tons of plastic waste enter the seas annually. Unavoidably, it is now present at the sea surface and on shorelines, in Arctic seas and on the sea bed at depths of 3,500 metres. Around 700 sea species are known to come into contact with pieces of waste plastic material and can be harmed or killed by taking in it or becoming twisted and caught in it.
This environmental challenge has attracted increasing scientific, media and societal attention in recent years, yet few accounts have conveyed the wider picture accessibly Junk Raft does just this while exposing our frustratingly slow progress on an issue of major importance to fisheries, tourism and, finally, the health of the world's oceans.
Eriksen lists the issues associated with the accumulation of sea plastic: the causes, consequences and potential solutions. Our single use culture is the main offender. For more than 60 years, society and industry have been producing more and more throwaway items particularly packaging. Eriksen takes the crisis into consideration together with a timeline of scientific discovery and advancement since the 1970s. Eriksen believes that the troubles of industry and policy involvement is because people lack correct consciousness of the problem.
We are brought back to the realities of life aboard the raft, with Eriksen's fellow sailor Joel Paschal. This is both fascinating and eventful, from their blow, occasionally very dangerous progress to the moments when it seems the raft will break up into pieces, littering the ocean with the waste material, Eriksen is trying so hard to fight against.
Junk Raft is filled with adventure, romance, a sense of optimism and important truths that will be needed by the thousands of groups. It serves as a reflection of the choices and journeys that each of us makes and helps us understand how plastic in the oceans is closely connected with the future of human life.
1. What makes the book Junk Raft attractive to readers?| A．Eriksen's fellow sailor Joel Paschal. |
| B．Efforts made to put an end to the use of plastics. |
| C．Erisken's adventures on the plastic ocean on a raft. |
| D．Kriksen's soldierly service and environmental study. |
| A．More rubbish being poured into the oceans. |
| B．Plastics accumulating in rare species of fish. |
| C．Many species in the oceans suffering from shock. |
| D．The waters of the oceans being polluted by plastics. |
| A．Making accounts accessible. |
| B．Listing the environmental issues. |
| C．Taking the pollution into account. |
| D．Facing the environmental challenge. |
| A．The overuse of household items. |
| B．The wasteful throwaway culture. |
| C．The production of more materials. |
| D．The failure to find potential solutions. |
| A．the current policy is yet to be further perfected |
| B．people turn a blind eye to the plastics industry |
| C．people lack correct awareness of the problem |
| D．the market need for plastics is enlarging on land |
| A．Cautious. |
| B．Ambiguous. |
| C．Doubtful. |
| D．Appreciative. |
5 . Ohio—Lake Erie, the smallest of North America's five Great Lakes, supplies fresh drinking water to an estimated 11 million people in Ohio, Michigan and southern Ontario province, Canada.
Yet sometimes pollution, bath from industrial waste and farm-chemical run-off, leaves large areas of the lake covered in half-meter-thick layers of green slime. Scientists blame a lot of chemicals entering the water, which has caused pollution.
To find out where these extra nutrients come from, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has been studying data from its network of 14 water-quality monitoring stations installed along the rivers that flow into the Lake Erie basin.
At one point, water from the small stream is diverted into a pipe where it is pumped into the testing station.
We'll have 'a sample a day, year-round every day so that really pins down what the chemistry is like," says Dave Baker of Ohio's Heidelberg University, who takes charge of the monitoring stations for the Department of Natural Resources.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government's pollution watchdog, requires point sources, such as factories, to monitor and report their discharges. So Baker is looking for where the other sources of pollution come from.
"If there are problems in Lake Erie, we want to know where it's coming from and make sure we're putting resources to solve the problem properly," Baker says.
In this case, a primary source of the pollution turns out to be chemical fertilizer that turn off farmland during rainstorms.
Because farmers believe fertilizers are essential to high crop yields, they would like to use them. However, the USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service isn't asking them to abandon farm chemicals, but rather to use them more sparingly so they don't run off the land when it rains.
Another technique for reducing farm chemical pollution of Lake Erie is cover-crop farming. After the harvest, farmers plant a second quick-growing crop to reduce erosion. The deep-rooted plants, such as rye or turnips, help to cover the soil, allowing worms and fungi to work their magic and helping the soil to absorb more water and nutrients.
1. What is the problem with Lake Erie?| A．There are no fish in it. | B．There is little water in it. |
| C．The water is unfit to drink. | D．It contains a lot of chemicals. |
| A．The water-quality monitoring stations. | B．Natural Resource Conservation Service. |
| C．The Ohio Department of Natural Resources. | D．The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. |
| A．looks through | B．explains exactly | C．keeps a record of | D．shows clearly |
| A．Animal waste from nearby farms. | B．Waste water from a nearby factory. |
| C．Chemical fertilizers from the fields. | D．Pesticide farmers used to kill locusts. |
| A．prevent worms from eating crops | B．increase the harvest of the farmers |
| C．make full use of chemical fertilizers in the soil | D．keep the soil from being washed away |
6 . Many people love gum(口香糖). Delicious as it is, the dirty waste can be a problem for humans. The main material for gum cannot break down naturally. Lots of gum waste ends up being thrown away into the rivers and grounds each year.
Now thanks to the company, Gumdrop Ltd., there may be a way to deal with this problem. The UK-based company has come up with a clever idea that enables easy disposal of gum waste using pink boxes they’ve produced. Passers-by can simply throw any unwanted gum into the pink boxes set up across London. Once full, they are mailed to the factory where the gum is used to create more pink boxes. The company said that gum waste could be changed into other useful things like shoes as well.
Bullus, who founded the company, said she decided to create the clever boxes after observing the mess caused by gum waste on the streets of London. She had spent many months studying how to use gum waste as a material for the clever boxes. After hundreds of failures, she finally succeeded.
To know whether people would like to throw gum waste into the pink boxes, she did two tests. She set up two boxes inside a men’s restroom at Southampton Airport. Bullus said they had to pick up the full boxes just 5 times a year, an effort that cost the company $300. But airport officials would have spent $4,600 over the same period cleaning up the mess left behind by carelessly thrown gum waste. A similar test at London’s famous Villiers Street resulted in a 40% decrease(减少)in gum waste.
Their success has led to the rapid setting-up of the pink boxes across London. Bullus now hopes the pink boxes can help not only London, but also many other places. There are many countries and cities where gum is a problem. The company has also introduced the pink boxes that can be easily carried by people.
1. The introduction to gum in the first paragraph is mainly to show ______.| A．it’s a kind of unhealthy food |
| B．it’s environmentally unfriendly |
| C．it needs improvement in quality |
| D．it becomes popular all over the world |
| A．They can break down gum waste |
| B．They can change people’s views on gum |
| C．They are used for recycling gum waste. |
| D．They are made from the same materials as shoes |
| A．Creative and hardworking. | B．Funny and smart |
| C．Kind and courageous. | D．Careful and trustful |
| A．lead to a decrease in gum sales |
| B．can be too costly for some airports |
| C．are less helpful in busy places |
| D．reduce the pressure to deal with gum waste |
| A．Applying the pink boxes in more places. |
| B．Encouraging people to avoid buying gum. |
| C．Making it more convenient to carry the pink boxes. |
| D．Improving London’s relationship with other cities. |
1. How did the woman get to know about third-hand smoke?
| A．From young smokers. |
| B．From a newspaper article. |
| C．From some smoking parents. |
| A．He has just become a father. |
| B．He wears dirty clothes. |
| C．He is a smoker. |
| A．Stop smoking altogether. |
| B．Smoke only outside their rooms. |
| C．Reduce dangerous matters in cigarettes. |
8 . When you think of the Arctic, you imagine an icy land of pure white snow. Others imagine it as the last really clean place left on earth. We have polluted the deepest oceans with plastic rubbish. “And now”, CNN says, “It's the Arctic's turn.”
German scientists have recently found microplastics in Arctic snow. Microplastics are pieces of plastic smaller than 5 millimeters. Sadly, the scientists found 1800 pieces of microplastics per liter of snow.
How is plastic pollution reaching the Arctic? According to scientists, “It's clear that most of the microplastics in the snow come from the air.” They fall off the plastic objects and are moved by the wind, just like dust. They mix with ice in the air and fall to the ground as snow. Finding these plastics in Arctic snow means that we may breathe them in.
Are they bad for us? Scientists cannot answer this question for now, according to the WHO. We do know that our bodies cannot take in “large” pieces of microplastics. However, if the plastics are small enough, they can find ways into our bodies and stay there for a long time, which can be bad for our health. What's more, earlier studies have shown that microplastics may contribute to lung cancer risk.
Microplastics have also been found in rivers and oceans around the world. Earlier research has found that they flow over long distances and into our oceans, hurting ecosystems along the way. They start in our wastewater, then flow into rivers and out to the sea, where they are eaten by sea animals. If people then cat these animals, it means that we're eating the plastic as well.
1. What can we learn from Paragraph 1?| A．the Arctic has been polluted by plastic rubbish |
| B．the Arctic is an icy land of pure white snow. |
| C．the Arctic is a beautiful icy land with clean air. |
| D．the Arctic is the last rally clean place left on earth |
| A．From water. | B．From air. |
| C．From wind. | D．From food. |
| A．reduce | B．donate |
| C．cause | D．help |
| A．We may breathe microplastics in Arctic. |
| B．Microplastics may contribute to lung cancer risk. |
| C．We don't have to mind microplastics right now. |
| D．Microplastics have hurt ecosystems. |
| A．By advising us to drink clean water. |
| B．By asking people not to eat sea animals. |
| C．By showing the beauty of Arctic. |
| D．By telling the seriousness of plastic pollution. |
1. 全球水资源短缺情况严峻；
2. 水资源短缺的原因（环境污染、人口增长等）；
3. 应对措施（科学的储存未来用水、开发现有水资源使用新方式、节约用水等）。
注意：1. 词数不少于 100；2. 可以适当添加细节，以使行文连贯；3. 开头和结尾以为你写好。
参考用词：资源 resources
Good morning, everyone, I am Li Hua. It’s my great honor to speak here.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That’s all. Thank you!
10 . Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be more dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins.
People in California love to talk about “zero-emissions(排放) vehicles”, but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants mostly use fire to make it. Aside from the new folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators(发电机). Generators are fueled by something--usually coal, oil, but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal
(地热) plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.
In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars. It’s just because the coal is burned somewhere else, it looks clean. It is not. It's as if the California Greens are covering their eyes—“If I can't see it, it's not happening.” Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat—at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.
A gallon of gas may propel your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won't get you nearly as far—so electric cars burn more fuel than gasoline-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes or geothermal, or hydro or wind or solar, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don't use much of those energy sources.
In addition, electric cars' batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill. And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.
1. What does “clueless” mean in paragraph 2?| A．People see the California Greens everywhere. |
| B．People there have no idea that so far electricity mainly comes from burning coal, oil, etc. |
| C．People in California love to have their roofs covered with solar cells. |
| D．People in California love to talk about zero-emissions vehicles. |
| A．Electric cars are not clean at all. |
| B．Electric cars are better than gasoline-powered ones. |
| C．People cast doubts on electric cars’ batteries. |
| D．Gasoline is an efficient way to power a vehicle. |
| A．not less than 25 miles | B．as far as 50 miles |
| C．as far as 25 miles | D．not more than 25 miles |
| A．are more environmentally friendly |
| B．burn more fuel than gas-powered ones |
| C．are very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated |
| D．are poisonous for a long time and will eventually end up in a landfill |
| A．being green is good and should be encouraged in communication |
| B．electric cars are now the dominant vehicle compared with gasoline-powered cousins |
| C．zero-emissions vehicles should be chosen to protect our environment |
| D．electric cars are not clean because we get electricity mainly by burning something |
