1 . One out of every six deaths in 2019 were the result of pollution, according to a new estimate published in The Lancet Planetary Health.
The analysis, led by an international team of scientists, indicates that pollution played a role in 9 million deaths globally in 2019. This impact on health is higher than malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, drugs or alcohol.
Despite improvements made in water pollution in recent years, a rise in air and chemical pollution means the death rate has been relatively unchanged since 2015. Air pollution alone contributed to an estimated 75% of the reported deaths.
“Air pollution is similar to smoking cigarettes. It damages the lungs, preventing us from absorbing oxygen we need for life,” said Dr. Keith Martin, co-author of the paper.
Another primary concern is the growing numbers in chemical and heavy metal pollution, particularly lead poisoning. High concentrations of lead in the blood can cause problems with the heart, kidneys and cognition. This type of pollution arises from batteries and electronic waste, such as computers. According to the World Health Organization, The Lancet report’s estimates of deaths from lead and chemical pollution are in line with 2019 WHO estimates.
The U.S. and other high-income countries have made some steps to fight pollution. Many low- and middle-income countries are facing the brunt of the effects, accounting for most of the deaths reported. But experts say pollution doesn’t know borders—and pollution in one country can lead to health consequences on a global scale.
The scientists who led the recent analysis hope the report will encourage political action. Proposed avenues(途径) for change include standardizing monitoring of pollution levels, investing in research, strengthening pollution control partnerships and highlighting this issue in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Changing the use of fossil fuels—from coal, oil and gas—to clean, renewable energy sources are ways the researchers propose society could level improvements. Individually, researchers call for people to limit their carbon footprint, such as limiting meat consumption, avoiding waste, or walking or biking as a means of transport when possible.
1. What do we know about the new estimate?| A．One in six deaths were due to pollution in the U.S. in 2019. |
| B．Pollution played a part in millions of deaths globally in 2019. |
| C．Illness has a higher impact on health than pollution. |
| D．The water pollution has been improved in recent years. |
| A．1 | B．2 | C．3 | D．4 |
| A．Deal with batteries and electronic waste appropriately. |
| B．Treat the heart, kidneys and cognition properly. |
| C．Concentrate on lead highly in blood. |
| D．Play with computers frequently. |
| A．standardizing monitoring of pollution levels and devoting money in research |
| B．strengthening pollution control partnerships and limiting meat consumption |
| C．emphasizing this issue in the United States and running or riding for travel |
| D．using clean, renewable energy sources and limiting carbon footprint |
增加:在缺词处加一个漏字符号 ( ∧ ), 并在其下面写出该加的词.
删除:把多余的词用斜线 (\)划掉.
修改:在错的词下划一横线, 并在该词下面写出修改后的词.
注意: 1.每处错误及其修改均仅限一词;
2. 只允许修改 10 处, 多者 (从第 11处起 )不计分.
Hello, everyone! It is my honor to deliver a speech on keeping air clean. As is know to us, we humans can’t live without air, just as fish can’t live without water. However, the World Health Organization has recently announced a shocked study about the air we breathe. It has found that almost everyone on the earth breathe unhealthy air. The data is rough from 600 cities in 117 countries. The study shows that mostly of the world’s people breathe the air that it breaks WHO air quality limits. As a result, million of people die every scar because pollution - related diseases. Therefore, it was important for us to take action to solve the environment problems and keep the air clean.
The population of the earth is increasing very fast. Humans must make the earth support the increasing population. This has made it necessary for agriculture and industry
Such a rapid development produces more and more waste,
When farmers add fertilizer (肥料)
The air in some cities
4 . Microplastics — tiny pieces of plastic waste less than five millimetres long that have been degraded by waves, wind and ultraviolet rays — have been discovered in the deepest oceanic trenches and within the stomachs of the organisms that live there, but we have little idea about where the great majority of them end up. More than eight million tonnes of plastic enters our oceans every year, comprising between 80 and 85 percent of all marine trash, but with inadequate data, there are concerns that these figures could be underestimates.
Currently, most of the data we have on microplastics are accidentally captured by research ships, which use plankton nets to collect marine-microorganism samples. However, researchers Christopher Ruf and Madeline Evans from the University of Michigan have discovered an innovative way to identify and track concentrations of microplastics in the ocean.
The technique relies on NASA’s Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS), a constellation of eight micro-satellites used to predict hurricanes that calculate wind speeds above the ocean by measuring the roughness of surface waters. As the satellites are continuously recording, Ruf and Evans realised that they collect a great deal of additional data. It was while analysing these data that they noticed some differences-times where the surface of the ocean appeared to be much smoother than it should, given the prevailing wind (盛行风) conditions.
Knowing that water isn’t roughened as much when it contains a lot of floating material, Ruf and Evans identified a pattern that linked areas of unusual smoothness and predicted microplastic distributions. They found that the difference between their measurements, and how much rougher the surface would be if winds of the same speed were blowing across clear water, was “highly correlated with the presence of microplastics, and the degree of the difference also correlated with the concentration of the plastics.”
The research reveals that there are seasonal variations,where the concentrations of microplastics tend to be higher in the summer and lower in the winter in a very clean, periodic way, which Ruf explains mirrors the way in which the ocean circulation changes throughout the year. It also confirms, as was previously thought, that rivers are the main source of ocean microplastics.
Raising awareness of the issue of ocean microplastics among the public and politicians is just one of the researchers’ future aims; they are also in conversation with Duteh non-profit The Ocean Cleanup and Finnish clean-technology specialist Clewat, which are interested in using the information to more efficiently target their trash-collection campaigns.
So far, only one year’s worth of data have been processed since CYGNSS was launched in 2016. By looking at a longer time period, Ruf and Evans aim to determine whether the seasonal pattern is repeatable, and whether the concentration of micmplastics in the ocean is getting worse.
1. What is Paragraph 1 mainly about?| A．The limited knowledge about ocean microplastics. |
| B．The harm of ocean microplastics to sea creatures. |
| C．The methods of degrading ocean microplasties. |
| D．The previous research on ocean microplasties. |
| A．has offered data about the repeatable seasonal pattern |
| B．guides research ships to gather data about sea animals |
| C．provides unexpected data about the changes of sea surface |
| D．was designed to measure the distribution of ocean microplastics |
| A．Microplastics will end up in the stomachs of the ocean organisms. |
| B．Mlicroplastics play a vital role in the yearly ocean circulation changes. |
| C．The surface of the ocean can get smoother with more microplastics in it. |
| D．The new way of tracking microplastics has helped prevent ocean pollution. |
| A．To introduce the technology of CYGNSS. |
| B．To present a way to study ocean microplastics. |
| C．To test an assumption on ocean microplastics. |
| D．To propose a new means of protecting the ocean. |
5 . Around 126, 000 gallons of oil have spilled into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Orange County. The oil spill covers about 34 square kilometers of ocean.
To find the leak (裂缝、泄漏), many divers explored underwater. They found a break in a 28-kilometer pipeline (输油管道) that delivers oil off the California coast. Amplify Energy Corp. (AEC) is the oil company that owns the pipeline. It shut down the pipeline on Saturday, but experts say the company should have noticed a change in the pipeline’s pressure much sooner. The leaking pipeline is over 40 years old, even though such pipelines are normally only used for about 25 years.
Locals have said that even though the spill began on Friday night, little action was taken to contain it until Saturday afternoon. Some visitors to nearby beaches report that there is oil everywhere. Martyn Willsher, who leads Amplify, believes the leak has been stopped. “There is no active leak that we’re aware of,” he said.
Now beaches in the area have been closed, and fishing has been banned in a wide area along the coast. People are being asked to stay away from the beaches, since the oil can be poisonous.
Extra efforts are being made to keep the oil away from protected marshy (沼泽的) areas, along the coast, which are home to special wildlife. At least one of these areas, Talbert Marsh, has already been affected. Workers are trying to help animals that may have been hurt in the spill. It’s still not known exactly how many animals have been affected. But there are reports of dead fish and birds washing up on shore, and of dolphins swimming through the oily waters in the areas.
The US Coast Guard is leading efforts to place floating barriers called “booms” on the water to try to keep the spill from spreading.
1. What is the experts’ opinion on the oil spill?| A．It’s been a normal phenomenon. | B．It should have been avoided. |
| C．It has followed an earthquake. | D．It’s happened in a sailing ship. |
| A．Disappointing. | B．Wonderful. | C．Risky. | D．Sincere. |
| A．No sea foods are allowed to sell in the market. | B．Visitors come over to help the damaged wildlife. |
| C．Measures have been taken to reduce the effect. | D．The polluted area is being enlarged at present. |
| A．A story. | B．An announcement. | C．An essay. | D．A news report. |
6 . Litter may be an environmental hazard and eyesore — but for some animals, it provides a home. In a study of local rivers, researchers at the University of Nottingham in the UK have found more invertebrates (无脊椎动物) like insects living on litter than on rocks in water.
The researchers studied three local rivers; the River Leen, Black Brook and Saffron Brook, in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. They collected samples (试样) of 50 rocks and 50 pieces of litter from the riverbeds at each site and took them back to the lab for comparison.
There they washed them individually to look for macroinvertebrates and then measured the surface area of each item. They found that the surfaces of the litter were inhabited (居住) by a more diverse group of invertebrates than those found on rocks.
Plastic, metal, fabric, and masonry samples of litter had the highest diversity of inhabitants, while glass and rock were much less diverse than other types of materials. Flexible plastic, like plastic bags, had the most diverse animal communities, causing the researchers to guess that the plastic might be similar to the structure of plants found in water.
“There were five species on litter. Some of these species are normally found on plants in water, which suggests that flexible plastic might be mistaken as those plants,” says lead author Hazel Wilson, a PhD student in the School of Geography at the University of Nottingham. “However, we need more investigation to work out for sure which characteristics of litter attract so many animals. This could help us discover methods and materials to replace the litter habitat with alternative and less damaging materials when we conduct river cleanups.”
“While these invertebrates have found a use for plastic bags and other trash, that obviously doesn’t mean that’s a good reason to leave litter in the environment. Our findings highlight the poor environmental quality in some rivers and point to the need for supporting better biodiversity,” says Wilson.
1. What did the researchers do for their study?| A．They cleaned macroinvertebrates carefully. |
| B．They threw various types of litter into rivers. |
| C．They searched the samples for invertebrates. |
| D．They measured the surfaces of invertebrates. |
| A．Litter is less attractive for invertebrates. |
| B．Litter can support greater biodiversity. |
| C．It’s easy for animals to survive in rivers. |
| D．Flexible materials are ignored by animals. |
| A．Generally disapproving. | B．Particularly ambiguous. |
| C．Basically uncaring. | D．Totally positive. |
| A．Litter Turns Out Beneficial to the Environment |
| B．River Animals Need a Cleaner Home to Survive |
| C．River Cleanups Shouldn’t Include Litter Anymore |
| D．Litter Creates Habitat for Some Animals in Rivers |
Plastic pollution at sea is reaching
As plastic breaks down into smaller pieces, it also enters the marine food chain,
While consumers can help reduce plastic pollution by changing their behavior, governments have to step up and accept
8 . ICT is short for computers, phones and other information and communications technology. Lancaster University researchers examined previous scientific studies that calculated the ICT industry’s total greenhouse gas emissions (排放), which they say were put as somewhere between 1.8% and 2.8%.
But these estimates likely fall short, they warn. In fact, ICT’s true proportion (比例) is between 2.1% and 3. 9%—greater than the global aviation industry’s proportion of 2% —they say.
ICT not only consists of smartphones and computers, but televisions, mobile network equipment and data centres. It also includes the more recent trendy digital technologies such as Blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI).
The problem with many popular devices (设备) is that they contain liquid crystal display (LCD) panels. Every time these devices are made, greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere. Also, abandoned electronic devices are sometimes burnt, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and harmful chemicals into the air.
The new study has been conducted by experts at Lancaster University, who point out that ICT’s share of emissions could stop humanity from achieving net zero by 2050—one of the targets of the UK government.
The researchers recognise that several of the world’s technology giants have made statements on reducing their climate footprint, like Apple and Facebook. However, they argue that many of these promises are not ambitious (宏大的) enough.
In the paper, the experts say it’s often been cited that ICT will lead to greater efficiencies (高效) across many other sectors, leading to decrease in net greenhouse gas emissions. However, the researchers argue that historical evidence proves the opposite. They say that over the years, as ICT has become more efficient, ICT’s footprint has taken up a greater proportion of global emissions. This could be partly due to the fact that increased efficiencies result in increased demand.
1. What do the researchers at Lancaster University find?| A．ICT is related to greenhouse gas emissions. |
| B．ICT produces more greenhouse gases than estimated. |
| C．Greenhouse gas emissions present a threat. |
| D．Greenhouse gas emissions have been on the increase. |
| A．What electronic devices are made of. |
| B．Where electronic devices will go at last. |
| C．How popular devices emit greenhouse gases. |
| D．Whether popular devices are bad for the environment. |
| A．Carefree. | B．Unsatisfied. | C．Supportive. | D．Unclear. |
| A．ICT has become more efficient. | B．Higher efficiency results in more demand. |
| C．Popular devices lead to less emissions. | D．Global warming is becoming more serious. |
9 . Improved air quality to reduce ozone (臭氧) pollution may have avoided the loss of 1.5 billion birds during the past 40 years, a study found. That’s nearly 20% of bird life in the United States today.
Ozone, a gas that appears in nature, is also produced by human activities, including by power plants and cars. The ozone in the upper atmosphere protects the Earth from the harmful ultraviolet rays (紫外线) of the sun. But ground-level ozone is harmful and pollutes the air we breathe.
To examine the relationship between bird populations and air pollution, the researchers used models that connected bird observations from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird program with ground-level pollution data. They tracked monthly changes in bird populations, air quality, and regulation status (治理现状) for 3,214 US counties over a period of 15 years. The findings suggest that ozone pollution is most harmful to the small birds — such as sparrows, warblers and finches — that make up 86% of all North American land-bird species. Ozone pollution directly harms birds by damaging their breathing systems, and indirectly harms their food sources.
“Not only can ozone cause direct physical damage to birds, but it also can harm plant health and reduce numbers of the insects that birds eat,” said co-author Amanda Rodewald. “Not surprisingly, birds that cannot get high-quality habitat or food resources are less likely to survive or reproduce successfully. The good news here is that environmental policies intended to protect human health and return important benefits to birds too.”
This work contributes to our ever increasing understanding of the connection of environmental health and human health.
1. How many birds are there in the United States now?| A．0.75 billion. | B．1.5 billion. |
| C．3 billion. | D．7.5 billion. |
| A．Ozone pollution harms birds’ food sources indirectly. |
| B．86% of North American land-bird species are extinct. |
| C．3,214 counties in America have effective regulations. |
| D．The researchers have observed birds for many years. |
| A．Worried. | B．Positive. |
| C．Uncaring. | D．Doubtful. |
| A．Ground-Level Ozone Makes up Most of the Air We Breathe |
| B．Environmental Policies Intend to Protect Human Health |
| C．Reduced Ozone Pollution May Have Avoided Bird Deaths |
| D．Regulations Bring Important Protection Benefits to Birds |
10 . A team at Oregon State University has started a three-year study into the effects of poor air quality from wildfires on dairy cows(奶牛). In an area hit by increasingly severe and numerous wildfires, and where there are a large number of cows, identifying the impacts of wildfires on cows' milk production and welfare is vital.
Previous research from the University of Idaho has found that cows exposed to poor air quality and heat stress, which were caused by wildfires, produced around 1.3 liters less milk per day than the average. The study must be expanded in order to explore broader patterns.
Ashly Anderson, who worked on this particular study, said, “Due to climate change, we're going to be seeing more wildfires-and because of that there are going to be more animals exposed to wildfires. Being able to tell what kind of effects there are and how they might be affected in the future is very important.”
In an attempt to collect more data, Juliana Ranches and her colleague Jenifer Cruickshank have begun their three-year study. They have put 30 cows, which they refer to as “smoke cows”, out to pasture(牧场). Each time there is a wildfire event which results in an Air Quality Index measure of over 50, Ranches takes daily milk samples and blood tests. She also monitors and measures the cows' respiratory(呼吸的)rates and body temperatures.
“We're getting a clearer picture of what these cows are experiencing, through poor air quality associated with wildfires—a better understanding of the effects on them. With that information, we can start to look at the negative effects and minimize the damage," Juliana Ranches said.
As summers in Oregon become hotter and drier, wildfires are on the rise, even in western parts of the state which have not historically seen them as frequently. This study and others into the impacts of smoke on dairy cows provide important information for dairy farmers, when it comes to both the welfare of their animals and their commercial productivity.
1. What has the research from the University of Idaho found?| A．Wildfires can cause cows to produce less milk. |
| B．Cows' milk production is causing air pollution. |
| C．The number of cows in Oregon gradually drops. |
| D．The air quality in all states is becoming poorer. |
| A．The root cause of the global climate change. |
| B．The best way to live in harmony with animals. |
| C．The value of protecting animals from wildfires. |
| D．The necessity of identifying the effects of wildfires. |
| A．She cures cows of their illnesses. | B．She keeps cows away from smoke. |
| C．She monitors cows' physical health. | D．She helps cows produce more milk. |
| A．It is significant for dairy farmers. | B．It needs to be improved in various aspects. |
| C．It misses important information. | D．It is the first to study wildfires and cows. |
