E-TRASH
Nowadays, every household produces electronic trash (or e-trash)—an old TV or computer, a printer, or an out-of-date cell phone. But when we throw these everyday items away, not many of us know
In particular, Essick found that a lot of e-trash goes to Ghana. There, he saw
As a result of his journey, Peter Essick thinks it’s important to stop
2 . Recycling in general can be an effective way to reuse natural material resources. The U.S.’s high recycling rate of paper, 68 percent, has proved this point. But although some materials can be effectively recycled and safely made from recycled content, plastics cannot. Plastic recycling does not work and will never work.
The problem with recycling plastic lies not with the concept or process but with the material itself. There are thousands of different plastics, each with its own characteristics. They all include different chemicals that cannot be recycled together, making it impossible to sort the trillions of pieces of plastics into separate types for processing. What’s more, plastic recycling costs more than new plastic because collecting, sorting, transporting, and reprocessing plastic waste is very expensive.
Despite this obvious failure, the plastics industry has begun a decades-long campaign to keep the lie that the material is recyclable, which reminds the public of the tobacco industry’s efforts to tell smokers that filtered (过滤的) cigarettes are healthier than unfiltered cigarettes.
Traditional mechanical recycling, in which plastic waste is ground up and melted (熔化), has been around for many decades. Now the plastics industry is promoting the benefits of so-called chemical recycling, in which plastic waste is broken down using high heat and turned into a low-quality fossil fuel. In 2018, Dow Chemical claimed that the Renewlogy chemical-recycling factory in Salt Lake City was able to reprocess mixed plastic waste through the “Hefty EnergyBag” program and turn it into diesel fuel (柴油). As Reuters showed in a 2021 survey, however, the pyrolysis (高温分解) process was not worth it.
We’re not making a case for hopelessness. Just the opposite(相反的). We need the facts so that individuals and policymakers can take action. Proven solutions to the plastic-waste and pollution problems exist and can be quickly copied across the country. These solutions include placing bans on single-use plastic bags and unrecyclable single-use plastic food-service products, and installing dishwashing equipment in schools.
Consumers can put pressure on companies to stop filling store shelves with single-use plastics by not buying them and instead choosing reusables and products in better packaging. And we should all keep recycling our paper, boxes, cans, and glass, because that actually works.
1. What is the problem with recycled plastic?| A．It costs too much to produce. |
| B．It can hardly be selected out. |
| C．It is generally of poor quality. |
| D．It can’t be stored in large numbers. |
| A．To compete with the tobacco industry. |
| B．To cut down the cost of recycling plastic. |
| C．To uncover the lie of the tobacco industry. |
| D．To prove the possibility of recycling plastic. |
| A．Traditional recycling proves to be safer. |
| B．Chemical recycling turns out to be a failure. |
| C．Chemical recycling can save energy resources. |
| D．Traditional recycling can deal with limited waste. |
| A．To show the difficulty in recycling plastic. |
| B．To introduce a new way of recycling plastic. |
| C．To stress the importance of recycling plastic. |
| D．To call for a ban on single-use plastic products. |
3 . Blue whales eat up to 10 million pieces of microplastic every day, research estimated Tuesday, suggesting that the pollution causes a bigger danger to the world’s largest animal than previously thought.
A US-led research team put tags on 191 blue whales that live off the coast of California to observe their movements. “It’s basically like an Apple Watch, just on the back of a whale,” said Shirel Kahane-Rapport, a researcher at California State University, Fullerton, and the study’s first author.
The whales mostly fed at depths of between 50 to 250 meters, which is home to the “greatest concentration of microplastics in the sea,” Kahane-Rapport said. The researchers then estimated the size and number of mouthfuls the whales had daily, modeling three different situations. Under the most likely situation, the blue whales ate up to 10 million microplastic pieces a day. Over the 90 to 120 days’ annual feeding season, which represents more than a billion pieces a year.
The largest animal ever to live on Earth is also likely the biggest microplastic consumer, eating up to 43.6 kilograms a day, the study said. While it is easy to imagine whales sucking (吞没) in vast amounts of microplastics as they ate, the researchers found that was not the case.
Instead, 99 percent of the microplastics entered the whales because they were already inside their prey (猎物). “That’s concerning for us,” Kahane-Rapport said, because humans eat that prey. “We also eat sardines,” she said, adding that “krill (磷虾) is the basis of the food web.” “Previous research has shown that if krill is in a tank with microplastic, they will eat it,” Kahane-Rapport said.
Now that the researchers know how much microplastic is being consumed by whales, next they aim to determine how much harm it could be doing. “The quantity defines the poison,” Kahane-Rapport said.
1. Why is a tag placed on the back of the whales?| A．It can treat the illness of whales. | B．It can track the living of whales. |
| C．It can ensure the safety of whales. | D．It can record the danger of whales. |
| A．By providing data. | B．By giving examples. | C．By explaining the reason. | D．By expressing their guess. |
| A．The research process was very complicated. | B．The whales live in the area free from pollution. |
| C．Most microplastics entered the whales directly. | D．Humans may eat microplastics through their diet. |
| A．It will be highly profitable. | B．It will be further conducted. |
| C．It will involve food poison. | D．It will help whales avoid risk. |
4 . It’s no secret that inhaling (吸入) smoke is bad for your lungs. But now, scientists are suggesting smoke may also carry and spread infectious diseases. The theory, published in Science Magazine, is based on research that found wildfire smoke is crowded with thousands of species of microorganisms. Some of these microorganisms, including bacteria and fungal spores, are known to cause disease.
The new research suggests that when a wildfire burns plant or animal matter and disturbs soils, it exposes thousands of species of bacteria and fungi that otherwise might not easily become airborne (空气传播的). You might think the high heat from fire would kill these organisms, but one study mentioned in the article found that some bacteria even multiply post-fire. Scientists say the organisms attach to smoke particles, allowing them to travel thousands of miles across continents.
Dr. Peter Chen, director of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, is interested in the theory but somewhat skeptical that the microorganisms in smoke would actually cause infections. Many bacteria and fungi don’t cause lung infections, says Chen, but it’s certainly possible that a significant amount could worsen symptoms in someone with a preexisting lung condition. “I always thought it was the particles in smoke that were causing these issues,” says Chen. “But when I read this, I started thinking: Could it be the microorganisms that are also worsening existing illnesses?”
Whether the microorganisms in smoke actually cause infection or simply worsen potential respiratory (呼吸的) issues, the article raises a new health threat that is “certainly alarming”, says Kelsey Jack, an associate professor of environmental and development economics. This is especially true for lower-income populations, Jack says, because people with fewer means are often more exposed to the environment. If smoke is affecting the air quality in a certain area, the people who work outside, or who have to go to the office on foot or by bike will inhale more smoke than those who drive.
But until more research is done, Chen says the best thing people can do is just follow existing recommendations when air quality is poor—including staying indoors, keeping windows and doors closed, using HEPA filters and running air conditioning.
1. What can we know about the microorganisms from paragraph 2?| A．They could be killed by high heat. |
| B．They could reproduce in large numbers after fires. |
| C．They could possibly travel through air by themselves. |
| D．They can easily attach themselves to smoke particles. |
| A．They might worsen lung diseases. | B．They will cause lung infections. |
| C．They will destroy living environments. | D．They might damage respiratory systems. |
| A．They live in poor areas. |
| B．They drive to and from work. |
| C．They have suffered from lung disease. |
| D．They are exposed to polluted air more frequently. |
| A．Results of the new research. |
| B．Suggestions on dealing with poor air quality. |
| C．Disagreements between the author and Chen. |
| D．Benefits of preventing smoke from polluting the air. |
1. What does the man suggest?
| A．Warning drivers of air pollution. |
| B．Encouraging people to walk. |
| C．Limiting the use of cars. |
| A．The lack of the governments support. |
| B．More and more serious air pollution. |
| C．Peopled dependence on driving cars. |
| A．It’s interesting. | B．It’s impractical. | C．It’s worth trying. |
6 . Pollution
Pollution happens when the environment is dirtied, by waste, chemicals, and other harmful substances(物质).Pollution is a problem all over the world. But it is especially bad in large cities with a lot of industries and cars.
Wildfires, volcanoes, and industrial chemicals cause some air pollution. But most air pollution comes from burning fossil fuels (矿物燃料）These include coal, oil and natural gas. The burning of fossil fuels may release harmful gases. Air pollution may cause such diseases cancer and asthma. It also leads to polluted rain that can harm living things
Causes of water pollution are easy to see. People dump(倾倒) garbage and dirty water into river, lakes and oceans. Factories or cities sometimes release poisonous chemicals, and other wastes into water. These chemicals may make the groundwater unfit to drink.
Littering, or throwing garbage on the ground, is a form of land pollution. Litter can destroy the habitats of plants and animals. The buildup of dangerous chemicals in the ground is another form of land pollution. The chemicals may come from farms or factories.
Many governments, environmental groups, and ordinary people are working to control pollution. Governments have passed laws to keep people from releasing dangerous chemicals into the environment
| A．Farmers use chemical to help crops grow. |
| B．This type of pollution may be seen in big cities. |
| C．They also can harm fish and other forms of life. |
| D．These chemicals can spread to plants and animals. |
| E．In addition, air pollution may be a cause of global warming. |
| F．There are three main forms of pollution: air, water, and land. |
| G．Some companies and people are trying to use fewer fossil fuels. |
7 . The fertile land of the Nile delta is being eroded (侵蚀) along Egypt’s Mediterranean coast at an astonishing rate, in some parts estimated at 100 metres per year. In the past, land washed away from the coastline by the currents of the Mediterranean Sea used to be replaced by sediment (沉淀物) brought down to the delta by the River Nile, but this is no longer happening.
Up to now, people have blamed this loss of delta land on the two large Aswan dams in the south of Egypt, which hold back almost all of the sediment that used to flow down the river. Before the dams were built, the Nile flowed freely carrying huge quantities of sediment. But when the Aswan dams were constructed to provide electricity and irrigation, and to protect the huge population centre of Cairo from annual flooding and drought, most of the sediment with its natural fertilizer accumulated up above the dam in the southern upstream half of Lake Nasser, instead of passing down to the della.
Now, however, there turns out to be more to the story. It appears that the sediment-free water picks up sand as it erodes the river bed and banks on the 800-kilometre trip to Cairo. Daniel Jean Stanley of the Smithsonian Institute noticed that water samples taken in Cairo indicated that the river sometimes carries more than 850 grams of sediment per cubic metre of water — almost half of what it carried before the dams were built.
International environmental organizations are beginning to pay closer attention to the region, partly because of the problems of erosion and pollution of the Nile delta, but mainly because they fear the impact this situation could have on the whole Mediterranean coastal ecosystem.
But there are no easy solutions. In the immediate future, Stanley believes that one solution would be to make artificial floods to flush out the delta waterways, in the same way that natural floods did before the construction of the dams. He says, however, that in the long term an alternative process such as desalination (脱盐) may have to be used to increase the amount of water available.
1. What stopped the sediment coming down to the delta?| A．The Mediterranean Sea. | B．The River Nile. |
| C．The Aswan dams. | D．Lake Nasser. |
| A．To flush out the river beds. |
| B．To offer electricity and protection. |
| C．To make the water in the River Nile clean. |
| D．To keep the soil in the region nearby nutrient-rich. |
| A．There is no need to worry about the delta. |
| B．The methods of measurement need improving. |
| C．Whether the situation is good or not remains to be seen. |
| D．The dams’ consequences are beyond people’s expectation. |
| A．Difficulties to be settled. |
| B．Rewards for the challenge. |
| C．Severe influence of the situation. |
| D．Possible solutions to the problem. |
8 . Microplastic pollution is increasing greatly around the globe, according to a study of plastic particles (微粒)carried in the air.
People are already known to breathe, drink and eat microplastics, and research suggests that pollution levels will continue to rise rapidly. The researchers said that breathing in these particles can be harmful to lung tissue and lead to serious diseases.
Professor Natalie Mahowald, at Cornell University in the US and part of the research team, said, “ But maybe we could solve this before it becomes a huge problem, if we manage our plastics better, before they accumulate in the environment and move around everywhere.”
The research, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Acadenry of Sciences, examined airborne (空气传播的)microplastics, which have been far less studied than plastics in oceans and rivers.
The team gathered more than 300 samples of airborne microplastics from 11 sites across the western US. These were the basis for atmospheric modeling that estimated the contribution from different sources (来源),and it was the first such study to do so.
They found that roads were the main factor (因素)in the western US, linked to about 85% of the microplastics in the air. These are likely to include particles from tires and brake pads on vehicles, and plastics from litter that had been broken down.
The researchers extended their modeling work to a global level and this suggested that while roads are also likely to be the major driver of airborne plastics in Europe, South America and Australia, plastic particles blown up from fields may be a much bigger factor in Africa and Asia.
Professor Andreas Stohl of the University of Vienna’s Faculty of Earth Sciences said, “The study confirms the global-scale (全球规模的)nature of microplastic transport in the atmosphere and does a good job in highlighting highly relevant and concerning possibilities, but more measurement data is needed to get a better idea of the sources.”
1. What can be known about microplastic pollution from this text?| A．The particles can do great harm to our lungs. |
| B．Airborne microplastics have been widely studied. |
| C．It has become the most pressing environmental problem. |
| D．There is less plastic in the air than in oceans and rivers. |
| A．Its results differ across many continents. |
| B．Africa and Asia are suffering most from it. |
| C．Roads and fields are largely to blame for it. |
| D．It spreads fast from one continent to another. |
| A．To predict the potential damage of microplastics. |
| B．To understand the nature of microplastic pollution. |
| C．To improve the method of collecting samples of microplastics. |
| D．To collect more data to understand the sources of microplastics. |
| A．Effects of microplastics on human health |
| B．Microplastic pollution on the global scale |
| C．Possible solutions to microplastic pollution |
| D．Microplastic pollution rising quickly in the air |
9 . To solve a big environmental problem, chemists have been thinking small. Really small: a new mini robot with the purpose of helping clean up tiny plastic that pollutes water across the world.
The new microrobots, each of which is no bigger than the tip of a pencil, are magnetic(有磁性的)and shaped like four-pointed stars. When the sunlight shines on them, they can swim in a direction; when the sunlight disappears, they stop moving. Finding a piece of plastic, they hold onto it, produce chemical reactions and start to break it down.
The project is led by chemist Martin Pumera, a researcher who also studies ways to build microrobots at the Czech University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. About ten years ago, he noticed the microplastic was everywhere, from the bottom of the ocean to the ice on the top of mountains. It even turned up in drinking water, both bottled and tap water. Just think about how much plastic you meet every day. It doesn’t easily degrade ( 降 解 ) which is a big problem. Therefore, Pumera chose to focus on the problem of water pollution caused by microplastic.
The researchers tested the microrobots on four types of plastic in the lab. After a week, all four began degrading, losing around 3 percent of their weight, which showed the microrobots were breaking the plastic down. The robots also turned the plastic’s smooth surface into the rough one. Finally, the scientists showed that magnets could attract the microrobots at the end of the test - along with the plastic waste.
In fact, Pumera says they still have a long way to go. These microrobots are unlikely to succeed in degrading all types of plastic. They’ll also need a lot of testing to show that they’re safe in open waterways, such as at sea. But he thinks that these challenges can be overcome. Someday, the microrobots will play a big role in a worldwide cleanup effort.
1. What can be learned about the new microrobot?| A．It is in the shape of a ball. | B．It is as small as a pencil. |
| C．It is driven by sunlight. | D．It uses physical reactions. |
| A．The microplastic pollution. | B．The ice on the mountains. |
| C．The need for drinking water. | D．The development of ocean resources. |
| A．Sorting it into four types. | B．Making its surface smooth. |
| C．Taking in it completely. | D．Breaking it down to some degree. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Confident. | C．Regretful. | D．Uncertain. |
10 . Most stars are invisible against the overhead glare from city lights. At best, there is only a bit of the Milky Way to see: the combined radiance of a hundred billion stars dims (暗淡) to near-nothingness by bright streetlamps and storefronts.
This is light pollution-human-generated light cast up into the heavens-causing the sky itself to glow and washing out the stars. Astronomers have known for years the situation is bad for observing stars, but it also has real and negative effects on the well-being of many living things-plants, animals and even human beings. More than 80 percent of humanity is affected by light pollution, their view of the skies being stolen away.
All this extra light at night has a large effect on the life under it. Researchers have shown that it has negative impacts on many animals and plants; light pollution disturbs the great migrations of birds, the delicate blossoming of flowers, and even the courtship (求偶) of fireflies, etc. It affects humans as well, possibly causing insomnia (失眠) among many other health problems.
So what can we do about our brightening skies? There is a lot already happening. Groups like the International Dark Sky Association, or IDA, advocate not for more lighting but for more intelligent lighting; smarter street lights that concentrate their light downward is one example. Because these lights offer more efficient light, they save energy, too, eventually paying for themselves. The IDA offers advice on how to contact local authorities to fix better equipment and create ordinances to lower pollution. Many cities in the United States and other countries are certified Dark Sky Communities (DSC), ones that have shown “exceptional devotion to the preservation of the night sky” by discouraging wasteful lighting practices.
Many people don’t even know that they-and their children-are losing this cosmic (宇宙的) experience just over their heads. We need the dark night sky, and it’s up to all of us to make sure it’s still there every time the sun goes down.
1. How does the author organise Paragraph 3?| A．By listing figures. | B．By giving examples. |
| C．By following the order of time. | D．By analyzing cause and effect. |
| A．Surveys. | B．Jobs. | C．Wonders. | D．Regulations. |
| A．The importance of the dark night sky. |
| B．The urgency of having cosmic experience. |
| C．The necessity of solving the problem of light pollution. |
| D．Our children’s responsibility to fight light pollution. |
| A．Light Pollution Is Dimming Our View of the Sky |
| B．IDA Is Advocating Much Smarter Street Lights |
| C．DSC Has Shown Devotion to Preserving the Night Sky |
| D．The Applications of Intelligent Lighting Are Worldwide |
