1 . A team of leading environmental experts have warned that the current war on plastic is detracting from the bigger threats to the environment. In an article, they say that while plastic waste is an issue, its prominence in the general public’s concern for the environment is overshadowing greater threats, for example, climate change and biodiversity loss.

The team argue that much of the bad talk about plastic waste is based on data that is not always representative of the environments that have been sampled. The dislike of plastic associated with this could encourage the use of alternative materials with potentially harmful effects.

The authors warn that plastic pollution dominates the public’s concern for the environment and has been exploited politically, after capturing the attention of the world, for example, through the images of wildlife caught in plastic was alarmist headlines. They say small political gestures such as law banning cosmetic microplastics, taxing plastic bags, and financial rewards for using reusable containers, as well as the promotion of products as “green” for containing less plastic than alternatives, make people neglect other environmental problems that are not as noticeable as plastic pollution.

The article also highlights that plastic is not the only type of polluting materials, originating from human activity that pollutes the environment. Other examples include natural textile fibres such as cotton and wool, and brake-wear particles from vehicles — all of which are present in different places. The authors note that these materials are often much more abundant than microplastics and some are associated with “plastic alternatives” that are marketed as solutions to plastic pollution. The impacts of these materials are less well-known than plastic and microplastic pollution, yet they could have huge impacts.

The article states that solutions are likely to come from a greater focus on designing materials and products that can be recycled, that have their end-of-life, and that markets and facilities exist to recycle.

1. What’s the experts’ attitude towards the current war on plastic?

A．Indifferent.

B．Favorable.

C．Critical.

D．Objective.

2. What does the underlined word“this” in paragraph 2 refer to?

A．The negative view of plastic.

B．The use of alternative materials.

C．The potential harmful effects.

D．The defense for plastic.

3. What does the author intend to do in the last paragraph?

A．Explain a rule.	B．Make a comparison.
C．Clarify a point.	D．Offer a suggestion.

4. What is the text most likely to be?

A．A response to plastic pollution.

B．A schedule to fight against pollution.

C．An argument against climate change.

D．A guide to plastic management.

2 . A new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the University of Victoria has shown that common levels of traffic pollution can damage human brain function in only a matter of hours.

“For many decades, scientists thought the brain may be protected from the harmful effects of air pollution,” said senior study author Dr. Chris Carlsten. “This study, which is the first of its kind in the world, provides fresh evidence supporting a connection between air pollution and cognition.”

For the study, the researchers briefly exposed 25 healthy adults to diesel exhaust (柴油废气) and filtered air at different times in a laboratory setting. Brain activity was measured before and after each exposure using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The researchers analyzed changes in the brain’s default mode network (DMN), a set of inter-connected brain regions that play an important role in memory and internal thought. The fMRI revealed that participants had decreased functional connectivity in widespread regions of the DMN after exposure to diesel exhaust, compared to filtered air.

“We know that altered functional connectivity in the DMN has been associated with reduced cognitive performance and symptoms of depression, so it’s concerning to see traffic pollution interrupting these same networks,” said Dr. Jodie Gawryluk, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria and the study’s first author. “While more research is needed to fully understand the functional impacts of these changes, it’s possible that they may impair (损害) people’s thinking or ability to work.”

Notably, the changes in the brain were temporary and participants’ connectivity returned to normal after the exposure. Dr. Carlsten assumed that the effects could be long lasting where exposure is continuous. He said that people should be mindful of the air they’re breathing and take appropriate steps to minimize their exposure to potentially harmful air pollutants like car exhaust.

1. How does traffic pollution affect people according to the study?

A．Exhausting their body.	B．Decreasing their income.
C．Endangering their safety.	D．Harming their brain function.

2. What may the DMN be responsible for?

A．Growth.

B．Sport.

C．Memory.

D．Behaviour.

3. What can people do to reduce the impact according to Dr. Carlsten?

A．Avoid being exposed to the polluted air constantly.

B．Be mindful of the air quality in a new city.

C．Measure the brain activity in laboratories.

D．Stay inside a house as often as possible.

4. What is the best title for the text?

A．A Role Of Brain Will Be Ruined

B．Traffic Pollution May Impair Brain Function

C．A Famous UK University Did A Vital Study

D．A Source Of Pollution Has Drawn People’s Attention

3 . You are welcome to our channel. An interest in the way ocean currents move led Dr. Erik van Sebille to track garbage. This Dutch scientist hopes that by making us aware of how much we litter our oceans, we’ll be motivated to better stash (存放) our garbage.

Question: Where does the garbage in our oceans come from ?
Answer: It can come from litter people leave behind on beaches. Or from things falling off ships. Almost every river’s garbage will end up in the ocean too. Plastic garbage is the biggest problem, though. That’s because it doesn’t easily break down. It can stay in the ocean for thousands of years. Eventually, it arrives at the garbage patches (垃圾带).
Question: Does this mean that ocean garbage is worse than garbage on land ?
Answer: Litter in the ocean is probably just as bad as litter in a forest or a park. The main problem in either place is that, if animals eat plastic pieces, they can become very ill. But we know how to solve the problem: Just stop polluting!
Question: Many persons love tossing a message in a bottle into the ocean. Is that a bad idea ?
Answer: Finding a bottle with a message in it is awesome, very special! But most bottles will never end up on a beach. They’ll turn up in the garbage patches, where it’s unlikely that someone will find them. If you want to play with ocean currents, go to the website and release virtual bottles. That way, you’re   not littering our oceans.
1. Animals can become very ill if they _______________.

A．turn up in the garbage patches.	B．arrive at the garbage patches.
C．eat plastic pieces.	D．play with bottles.

2. It is almost _______________ to toss a message in a bottle into the ocean.

A．educative.

B．useful.

C．interesting.

D．meaningless.

3. This passage belongs to a   _______________.

A．story.

B．poem.

C．scientific article.

D．television interview.

4 . The problem of food borne metal contamination (污染) has taken on new urgency, thanks in part to a 2021 US Congressional Report detailing high levels of metals found in baby food pulled off grocery shelves. More recently, high levels of lead (铅) were discovered in children’s fruit puree pouches. Now, two new studies provide information on the correlation between exposure to heavy metals in food and the risk of cancers and other serious health risks.

Food crops can absorb heavy metals from contaminated soil, air, and water. As a result, traces of dangerous heavy metals — lead, arsenic (砷) and cadmium (镉) — are found in common foods from rice and cereals to nuts and vegetables. Felicia Wu, Michigan State University food scientist, is leading several investigations to gain a better understanding of the health risks of heavy metal exposure.

In the studies, Wu and her colleague, gathered data on the dietary intake of each metal from various sources such as food and water samples and existing studies and reports. There searchers analysand the data to determine the strength of the association between dietary exposure and bad health effects. Both cancer and non-cancer health effects were considered.

Lead is a poisonous metal commonly found in old paint, water pipes, and contaminated soil. Food sources of lead include root vegetables like beets. In the study, lead showed moderate (中度的) to high risk scores for causing lung, kidney, bladder, stomach, and brain cancers. It also showed moderate to high scores for non-cancer risks.

Their initial estimates suggest that every year, more than 6, 000 additional cases of bladder and lung cancers and over 7, 000 cases of skin cancers can be attributed (归因于) to the consumption of inorganic arsenic in the United States. The researchers also found that certain food products can be associated with higher cancer risk than others. These include rice, wheat, and leafy green vegetables.

1. What do the new studies focus on?

A．Food safety and children’s health.

B．Food crops and metal contamination.

C．Heavy metals and its danger extent.

D．Metal contamination in food and health risks.

2. Why do heavy metals exist in food?

A．Food crops need metal to grow well.

B．Heavy metals are added by producers.

C．They can help with scientific research.

D．Food crops grow up in polluted conditions.

3. How did Wu and her colleague conduct their studies?

A．By doing surveys online.

B．By analyzing data.

C．By performing experiments.

D．By referring to previous textbooks.

4. Which can best describe Wu’s findings?

A．Dramatic.	B．Alarming.
C．Confusing.	D．Awesome.

5 . For most of human history, the stars shone brightly in a dark night sky. But today, cities and towns, increasingly lit by artificial light at night, dramatically reduce the visibility of stars.

Satellite data suggests that light pollution has been increasing in many parts of the world over the last decade. However, satellites miss the blue light of LEDs (发光的二极管), which are commonly used for outdoor lighting, resulting in an underestimate of light pollution.

An international citizen science project called Globe at Night (环球夜景) aims to measure how everyday people’s view of the sky is changing. The data shows that the night sky got, on average, 9.6% brighter every year. For many people, the night sky today is twice as bright as it was eight years ago. The brighter the sky, the fewer stars you can see. If this trend continues, a child born today in a place where 250 stars are visible now would only be able to see 100 stars on his/her 18th birthday.

The main factors leading to increasing brightness of the night sky are industrialization and the growing use of LEDs for outdoor lighting. The loss of dark skies threatens our ability as astronomers to do good science. But everyday people feel this loss too. Starry night skies have inspired artists, writers, musicians and philosophers for thousands of years. Light pollution also has a bad effect on the daily cycle of light and dark that plants and animals use to adjust their lifestyle. Two-thirds of the world’s key biodiversity (生物多样性) areas are affected by light pollution.

Individuals and their communities can make simple changes to reduce light pollution. The secret is using the right amount of light, in the right place and at the right time. Making outdoor lights shine downward, using lights that give out more yellow-colored light instead of white light and putting on light timers can all help reduce light pollution. A view of about 2,500 stars in a truly dark sky might convince you that dark skies are a resource worth saving.

1. How is the first paragraph mainly developed?

A．By giving an example.	B．By making a comparison.
C．By reaching a conclusion.	D．By raising a question.

2. What do the figures in the third paragraph indicate?

A．The light pollution is getting more serious.

B．The night sky today gets darker than before.

C．It’s difficult to imagine a child’s fast growth.

D．LEDs are commonly used for outdoor lighting.

3. What does Paragraph 4 mainly tell us?

A．The bad effects of light pollution.	B．The factors causing light pollution.
C．The functions of starry night skies.	D．Key biodiversity areas in the world.

4. What is the purpose of writing this text?

A．To explain a phenomenon.	B．To suggest a solution.
C．To remember a scientist.	D．To increase public awareness.

6 . Many news reports focus on climate change these days. Extreme heat, wildfires, floods, homeless polar bears... How do you feel when reading worrying news about climate change? You may believe that people are becoming insensitive to the warming planet, accepting that it is only getting worse.

A research team at Pennsylvania State University, US, reported otherwise. To record how the news can impact people’s emotions, participants were first exposed to negative news stories about climate change for three days. They then continued to read negative news headlines for seven days. In the first three days, the participants experienced greater fear and less hope, which can potentially hurt an audience’s belief that they can do anything to tackle the problem.

However, during the seven-day-long exposure, the fear peaked and then held steady (稳定的). “We saw the opposite pattern in our second study. The more exposure people had to these threatening news stories each day, the more likely they are to think that they can make a difference in tackling climate change,” Christofer Skurka, the paper’s lead author told the Pennsylvania State University website.

According to the researchers, one possibility is that when the public hears about climate change threats, they may convince themselves that they have control over the situation. They will then believe that their actions may make a difference.

Knowing that everyone is able to help is only the first step. According to a study that analyzed information from 430 different studies, what motivates people the most to change their behavior is social comparison. For example, if a person’s neighbors follow a low-carbon lifestyle, such as driving electric cars, the person may feel social pressure and become more likely to follow this behavior. This happens because people usually judge their own behavior and follow social norms (规范). Another effective motivation is providing financial rewards to consumers, helping them save money.

“There are so many routes to our goals,” Matthew Goldberg, the co-author of the study, told Scientific American. As Goldberg pointed out, future research like this can help policymakers decide how best to encourage people to ward more climate-friendly habits.

1. How did the participants react to negative news in the second study?

A．They found the news unbelievable.

B．They lost hope in tackling climate change.

C．They experienced greater fear for the future.

D．They felt a strong sense of social responsibility.

2. What encourages people most toward more climate-friendly behavior?

A．Effective policy.	B．Healthy lifestyle.
C．Social influence.	D．Financial support.

3. What is Paragraph 5 mainly about?

A．Responses to climate change education.

B．T he effectiveness of community initiatives.

C．T he impact of social norms on environment.

D．Ways to encourage climate-friendly behavior.

4. What is Goldberg’s attitude towards similar future research?

A．Doubtful.

B．Optimistic.

C．Objective.

D．Indifferent.

7 . As newer, more advanced technologies come out, huge amounts of electronics (电子产品) are thrown away, instead of being reused. These goods often end up in landfills, where the chemicals inside them may be a danger to the environment. Electronics can contain harmful materials. If these materials get into the ground or water, the pollution can cause serious problems. Most electronics require metals. These metals must be mined from the Earth. Often the mining process creates serious pollution.

A group known as Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Forum is trying to make people more aware of the problems of e-waste. Recently, the WEEE Forum asked researchers from the United Nations (UN) to study a kind of e-waste that’s often not noticed because people don’t consider the goods to be electronics. The WEEE Forum calls this kind “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste.

The UN study shows that about 1/6 of all e-waste is “unable-to-be-seen”. Though it’s “unable-to-be-seen”, it’s certainly not a small amount. The “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste weighs about 9 billion kilograms. The WEEE Forum says that if this e-waste were put into 40-ton trucks and the trucks were then lined up, the line of trucks would be about 5,630 kilometers long.

The surprising kind leading the “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste group was toys. Worldwide, roughly 7.3 billion electronic toys are thrown away each year. These include goods like car racing sets, electric trains, and musical toys. They also include toys with electronic parts, like dolls that speak or games with electronic timers. In all, toys make up about 35% of “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste. But the problem is far larger than just toys. The report also shows that other everyday goods like home alarms, smoke alarms, power tools, and computer cables (电缆) are also big sources of “unable-to-be-seen” e-waste.

The WEEE Forum is hoping that as more people and governments become aware of e-waste, they will make a much greater effort to make sure electronics get reused.

1. What is paragraph 1 mainly about?

A．The amount of electronics.	B．The development of electronics.
C．The ways of reusing electronics.	D．The pollution of electronics.

2. What causes some e-waste often unnoticed?

A．People’s interest in electronics’ character.

B．People’s impression on electronics’ package.

C．People’s misunderstanding of electronics.

D．People’s struggle to adapt to electronics.

3. How does the author support his viewpoint in paragraph 3?

A．By showing numbers.	B．By providing examples.
C．By making a summary.	D．By making a comparison,

4. Which of the following is the WEEE Forum’s solution to e-waste?

A．Designing advanced electronics.	B．Making electronics get reused.
C．Stopping giving away electronics.	D．Reducing electronics’ production.

8 . In the U. S., people eat more protein than they need to, which might not be bad for human health, but does pose a problem for the country’s waterways. The nation’s wastewater is loaded with the leftovers from protein digestion: nitrogen compounds(氯化合物) that can feed harmful algal blooms(藻华) and pollute the air and drinking water.

Maya Almaraz, a biogeochemist at the University of California, Davis, and her team wanted to see how much of this nitrogen entered into the U. S. wastewater system because of a protein-heavy diet. The researchers found that the majority of nitrogen pollution present in wastewater—some 67 to 100 precent—is a by-product of water people consume.

Once it enters the environment, the nitrogen can have a series of ecological impacts. It helps algae grow much faster than they would normally, which is harmful to humans, other animals and plants. And when the algae eventually die, the problem is not over. Microorganisms(微生物) that feed on dead algae use up the oxygen in the water, leading to “dead zones,” where many species simply cannot survive, in rivers, lakes and oceans.

Although it is possible to treat algal blooms, many of the current methods are not always effective at getting rid of all of the harmful growth. Some of these methods can even lead to additional pollution. So the best strategy for dealing with the effects of nitrogen pollution is prevention, says Patricia Glibert, an ocean scientist at the University of Maryland. Almaraz and her team suggest that controlling nitrogen pollution could be approached more quickly with a change in eating habits that could save billions of dollars in the long term.

1. Which aspect of Americans’ diet does Almaraz’s research focus on ?

A．Its variety.

B．Its effect.

C．Its make-up.

D．Its amount.

2. What causes “dead zones” in the water?

A．No oxygen for many species.	B．Death of lots of healthy algae.
C．Microorganisms’overconsumption of nutrients.	D．Poisonous chemicals released by harmful algae.

3. What is the problem with current algal bloom treatment methods?

A．They are costly.	B．They may kill all algae.
C．They are slow to take effect.	D．They may cause secondary pollution.

4. What does the text mainly tell us?

A．It is high time to treat wild algae growth.	B．Eating too much protein harms the planet.
C．Prevention is better than cure in treating air pollution.	D．Researchers find solutions to the wastewater problem.

9 . Micro plastics can accumulate in the brains of mammals (哺乳动物) and even lead to behavioral changes,   according to a new study. This not only adds to evidence about the harm that micro plastics are doing to our environment, but crucially provides new insight into what they could be doing to our bodies.

Plastic pollution is a huge environmental concern. In particular, tiny pieces of micro plastic have been found everywhere from our oceans to the atmosphere. A team led by University of Rhode Island professor Jaime Ross wanted to learn about whether these micro plastics accumulate in the brains of mammals and the potential impact on behavior.

The researchers gave mice drinking water contaminated (污染) with different concentrations of micro plastics over a three-week period. They used mice of different ages to see whether the effects would vary in the younger or older mice.

Besides indications of changes in the mice’s brains, the team saw changes in their behavior, which were particularly apparent in the older animals. The behavioral changes are similar to symptoms you might expect to see in patients with dementia (痴呆) .

“These were not high doses of micro plastics, but in only a short period of time, we saw these changes,” Ross said in a statement.

“In this study, the micro plastics were delivered orally via drinking water, detection in tissues such as the gastrointestinal tract, which is a major part of the digestive system, was always probable,” Ross explained. “But the brain is protected by a boundary called the blood-brain barrier, which should make it harder to access. The team found that micro plastics had entered the brain’s tissues.”

“Once inside, micro plastics cause a decrease in the levels of a brain protein called GFAP,” Ross said. “A decrease in GFAP has been associated with early stages of some neurodegenerative diseases, including dementia and depression.”

Now that even the remotest parts of our planet are seemingly unable to escape contamination with micro plastics, more research like this, which seeks to better understand how human beings’ plastic habit could be coming back to bite us, is more urgently needed than ever.

1. What does paragraph 2 focus on?

A．Why the study was carried out.	B．How ocean pollution appeared.
C．How a team studied micro plastics.	D．Why micro plastics spread quickly.

2. What did the researchers do in the study?

A．They delivered micro plastics directly into mice’s brains.

B．They used mice of the same age to consume micro plastics.

C．They set boundaries for mice’s digestive systems in advance.

D．They gave mice micro plastic-contaminated drinking water.

3. What do Jaime Ross’ words suggest?

A．Brain tissues are easy to attack.	B．The study is far from convincing.
C．The research results are surprising.	D．Mice’s brains are generally inactive.

4. What does the author suggest doing in the end?

A．Moving to the remotest parts of our planet.

B．Conducting more research on micro plastics.

C．Keeping human beings’ current plastic habit.

D．Preventing industries from producing plastics.