1 . After a week of talks in Canada, negotiators (谈判者) from 170 countries have a “clear path to landing an ambitious deal” on plastic pollution at a final round of negotiations in South Korea in November, Inger Andersen, executive director of the U. N. Environment Programme, said in a statement.
“The work, however, is far from over,” she added. “Some countries continue to block a crucial measure: a global limit on the production of new plastic, which is essential to control pollution.”
Plastic is made from fossil fuels, and major oil and natural gas producers like Russia and Saudi Arabia have been widely criticized for throwing up roadblocks in the negotiations in order to protect future profits. However, scientists and environmentalists say the United States also bears a lot of blame. The country is the top producer of oil and gas globally, and it has the world’s biggest economy, which has historically given the U. S. huge power in environmental negotiations.
Critics say American negotiators haven’t been willing to push for a global cap (限额) on plastic production, and are instead throwing their weight behind measures like recycling that are favored by the country’s fossil fuel and petrochemical industries.
Erin Simon, head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund who attended the talks in Canada, says the U. S. and a lot of other countries are brainstorming and trying to come up with creative solutions to meet everybody’s needs as best as possible.
The State Department has said that for an agreement to be effective, it needs to be supported by every country, including nations that are major producers of fossil fuels and plastics. More than 50 countries now say they want an agreement to include targets for reducing plastic production.
“The drumbeat to reduce plastic production is growing from countries worldwide,” Ana Rocha, the director of global plastics policy in Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, said in a statement. “More and more leaders are waking up to what the science and our lived experiences tell us: plastic is pollution, and we need to stop it where it starts.”
1. What is the key to controlling plastic pollution according to Inger Andersen?A.Limiting the use of second-hand plastic. |
B.Raising people’s environmental awareness. |
C.Reducing the worldwide production of plastic. |
D.Passing laws to regulate the disposal of waste plastic. |
A.Stopping producing plastic. | B.Sharing quality plastic. |
C.Forbidding using plastic. | D.Recycling used plastic. |
A.All countries’ support. | B.The shared laws. |
C.Everyone’s permission. | D.Creative solutions. |
A.Plastic production is reducing all the time. |
B.The plastic pollution should be handled technically. |
C.People’s awareness of reducing plastic pollution is increasing. |
D.More leaders realize lived experiences can help handle plastic pollution. |
2 . Back in 1807, London became the first city on the planet to have a street lit up by gaslight lamps. For the city’s residents, it seemed like an extraordinary thing to have evening turned into a version of daytime. But more than two centuries later, artificial light has spread across so much of the planet that it has become a threat to us as well as the environment.
The extent of light pollution is evidenced by a study in the journal Science Advances, in which researchers used measurements taken by satellites to study the artificial brightness of Earth’s surface at nighttime. They found the artificially lit outdoor area grew at a rate of 2.2% per year. But those increases are just part of the story. Christopher Kyba, a scientist at German Research Center, says the increasing transition to high-efficiency LED lamps for outdoor lighting, which were regarded by most people originally as a way to reduce our dependence upon fossil (化石的) fuels and slow climate change, may not be saving as much electricity as expected.
The American Medical Association added that the wavelengths (波长) at which the lights operate control the hormone that helps us to sleep. “It is estimated that white LED lamps have a much greater impact on people’s sleep than the former streetlights.” Research shows that such impact may be a significant aspect inducing fatness and other physical disorders. Many species on Earth are active at night, and electric lighting, especially dusk to dawn lighting, represents damage to the environment of these species. A study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, for example, found powerful beams of light from the National September 11 Memorial and Museum changed the flight paths and speed of 1.1 million migrating birds over a seven-day period alone. And in Florida, light pollution along beaches is disturbing sea turtles having babies, resulting in thousands of young animals’ dying each year.
But perhaps the most obvious thing about light pollution is that much of it results from wasteful light that isn’t necessary, according to Kyba, who estimates that it could be reduced by five to ten times. “I think we should be asking as taxpayers (纳税人). Why are we paying for lights that shine uselessly into people’s windows and disturb their sleep?”
1. What did most people use to think of LED light s according to Paragraph 2?A.They would be beneficial to people's sleep. |
B.They could be used to reduce light pollution. |
C.They would contribute to serious global warming. |
D.They could make people depend less on fossil fuels. |
A.Causing. | B.Marking. | C.Preventing. | D.Reducing. |
A.To present the sources of light pollution. |
B.To show the influence of light pollution on animals. |
C.To compare the sleeping habits of different animals. |
D.To highlight the strong adaptability of particular animals. |
A.Avoiding arranging unnecessary lights. |
B.Improving the function of streetlights. |
C.Calling on taxpayers to protect animals. |
D.Decreasing the great pressure on taxpayers. |
3 . If humans were truly at home under the light of the moon and stars, we would go in darkness happily, the midnight world as visible to us as it is to the vast number of nocturnal (夜间活动的) species on this planet. Instead, we are diurnal creatures, with eyes adapted to living in the sun’s light. This is a basic evolutionary fact, even though most of us don’t think of ourselves as diurnal beings. Yet it’s the only way to explain what we’ve done to the night: We’ve engineered it to receive us by filling it with light.
The benefits of this kind of engineering come with consequence called light pollution whose effects scientists are only now beginning to study. Light pollution is largely the result of bad lighting design, which allows artificial light to shine outward and upward into the sky. Ill-designed lighting washes out the darkness of night and completely changes the light levels and light rhythms to which many forms of life, including ourselves, have adapted. Wherever human light spills into the natural world, some aspect of life is affected.
In most cities the sky looks as though it has been emptied of stars, leaving behind a vacant haze (霾) that mirrors our fear of the dark. We’ve grown so used to this orange haze that the original glory of an unlit night—dark enough for the planet Venus to throw shadow on Earth—is wholly beyond our experience, beyond memory almost.
We’ve lit up the night as if it were an unoccupied country, when nothing could be further from the truth. Among mammals alone, the number of nocturnal species is astonishing. Light is a powerful biological force, and on many species it acts as a magnet. The effect is so powerful that scientists speak of songbirds and seabirds being “captured” by searchlights on land or by the light from gas flares on marine oil platforms. Migrating at night, birds tend to collide with brightly lit tall buildings.
Frogs living near brightly lit highways suffer nocturnal light levels that are as much as a million times brighter than normal, throwing nearly every aspect of their behavior out of joint, including their nighttime breeding choruses. Humans are no less trapped by light pollution than the frogs. Like most other creatures, we do need darkness. Darkness is as essential to our biological welfare, to our internal clockwork, as light itself.
Living in a glare of our making, we have cut ourselves off from our evolutionary and cultural heritage—the light of the stars and the rhythms of day and night. In a very real sense light pollution causes us to lose sight of our true place in the universe, to forget the scale of our being, which is best measured against the dimensions of a deep night with the Milky Way—the edge of our galaxy—arching overhead.
1. According to the passage, human being ________.A.are used to living in the daylight | B.prefer to live in the darkness |
C.were curious about the midnight world | D.had to stay at home with the light of the moon |
A.show how light pollution affects animals |
B.provide examples of animal protection |
C.compare the living habits of both species |
D.explain why the number of certain species has declined |
A.human beings are curious about the outer space |
B.human beings should reflect on their position in the universe |
C.light pollution does harm to the eyesight of animals |
D.light pollution has destroyed some of the world heritages |
A.The Magic Light | B.The Orange Haze |
C.The Disappearing Night | D.The Rhythms of Nature |
4 . The amount of plastic pollution in the oceans is rapidly increasing. This is problematic, as at least 700 species of sea animals may mistake it for a tasty snack. While we know that some species seem to eat plastic because it looks like jellyfish or some other food sources, less research has been carried out into what plastic smells like to marine animals.
But now, a study from the University of North Carolina has found that the coating of algae that naturally builds up on ocean plastics causes the rubbish to give off the scent of food.
The researchers took 15 loggerhead turtles, each around five months old, and placed them in a laboratory tank. They then piped in clean water, clean plastic, turtle food, and plastic that had been immersed in the marine environment for five weeks.
The turtles showed no reaction to the smell of clean water or clean plastic. But when they were exposed to the smell of ocean-soaked plastic or turtle food, they exhibited food-seeking behaviours like reaching their noses out of the water or showing increasing activities.
“This finding is the first demonstration that the smell of ocean plastics causes animals to eat them, ” said Dr Kenneth J. Lohmann, who took part in the study. “It’s common to find loggerhead turtles with their digestive systems fully or partially blocked because they’ve eaten plastic materials. There are also increasing reports of sea turtles that have become ill and stranded on the beach due to their ingestion (摄食) of plastic.”
According to the researchers, areas of the ocean with dense concentrations of plastic may trick turtles and other marine animals into thinking that there is an abundant food source. “Once these plastics are in the ocean, we don’t have a good way to remove them or prevent them from smelling like food,” said Lohmann.
1. Why is plastic pollution posing a threat to marine animals?A.It may eat up all jellyfish. |
B.It may mislead them as food. |
C.It may kill them with its smell. |
D.It may trap 700 species of sea animals. |
A.Sea water. | B.Clear water. |
C.Brand-new plastic. | D.Sea-soaked plastic. |
A.Turtles should be trained to be more intelligent. |
B.Plastics should be kept from getting into the ocean. |
C.An abundant food source should be offered to sea animals. |
D.Researchers should come up with a solution to the current problem. |
A.Ways Found to Remove Plastic |
B.Loggerhead Turtles Faced with Food Shortage |
C.Ocean Plastics Smell like Food to Turtles |
D.Plastic Pollution — Compromise or Control? |
5 . Plastic is everywhere, from the Arctic ice to vital organs in the human body. In fact, previous estimates suggest that the average person swallows a credit card-worth of microscopic plastic particles(颗粒) every week. But new research shows that this could actually be an understatement.
Microplastics are plastics smaller than 5 millimeters, found in industrial waste, beauty products, and formed during the degradation of larger plastic pieces. Over time, they break down into even smaller nanoplastics. These tiny particles can pass through our intestines and lungs into our bloodstreams, reaching vital organs like the heart and brain.
While the idea of eating plastic is unsettling in itself, the major concern here is that these plastic particles contain chemicals that can interrupt our body’s natural release of hormones, potentially increasing our risk of reproductive disorders and certain cancers. They can also carry toxins(毒素) on their surface like heavy metals.
In the past, researchers have shown bottled water can contain tens of thousands of identifiable plastic fragments in a single container. However, until recently, only the larger microplastics were detectable with available measuring tools, leaving the area of nanoplastics largely a mystery.
Using Raman microscopy (显微镜学), capable of detecting particles down to the size of a flu virus, the team measured an average of 240, 000 particles of plastic per liter of bottled water, 90 percent of which were nanoplastics, a revelation 10 to 100 times larger than previous estimates.
These plastics likely originate from the bottle material, filters used to “purify” the water, and the source water itself. “It is not totally unexpected to find so much of this stuff, ” the study’s lead author, Columbia graduate student Naixin Qian, said in a statement. His team hopes to expand their research into tap water and other water sources to better inform our exposure to these potentially dangerous particles. “The idea is that the smaller things get, the more of them I reveal, ” he added.
1. What is the primary focus of the new research?A.The presence of plastic particles. | B.The use of plastic in everyday products. |
C.The detection methods for microplastics. | D.The potential risks of nanoplastics to human. |
A.Finding the source of plastic particles. | B.Helping to cure the deadly flu virus. |
C.Detecting the smaller plastic particles. | D.Improving the quality of bottled water. |
A.To focus on areas with higher plastic pollution. |
B.To be aware of the dangerous particles in daily life. |
C.To further measure the types of particles in tap water. |
D.To detect the smaller plastic particles in industrial areas. |
A.Skeptical. | B.Objective. | C.Conservative. | D.Positive. |
6 . There is an increasing alarm about the extent of microplastics pollution, which has been found everywhere from Everest to the Arctic. However, it turns out there’s an even smaller and more poisonous form of plastic pollution entering remote reaches of the globe. A new study published in Environmental Research found significant quantities of nanoplastics (纳米塑料) in ice samples from both the North and South Poles.
“Now we know that nanoplastics are transported to these corners of the Earth in these quantities. This indicates that nanoplastics are really a bigger pollution problem than we thought,” study lead author Dusan Materic said in a press release.
Nanoplastics are plastics that are smaller than a micrometer in size. Their small size means they are more difficult to study than microplastics, or plastics between five millimeters and a micrometer. But they may be even more dangerous.
“Nanoplastics are very toxicological active compared to, for instance, microplastics, and that’s why this is very important,” Materic said.
Materic and his team used new methods to measure nanoplastic pollution in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica. They sampled a 14-meter-deep ice core from the Greenland ice cap and sea ice from Antarctica’s McMurdo Sound. They found that there were an average of 13.2 nanograms per-milliliter of nanoplastics in the Greenland ice and an average of 52.3 nanograms per milliliter in the Antarctic ice
But what was even more surprising than the amount of nanoplastics in the remote ice was just how long they had sat there. “In the Greenland core, we see nanoplastic pollution happening all the way from the 1960s. So organisms, despite the lack of the solid evidence, likely all over the world, have been exposed to it for quite some time now,” Materic said.
The study also looked at the types of plastic present in the samples. Half of the Greenland nanoplastics were polyethylene (PE), the kind of plastic used for plastic bags and packaging. A quarter came from tires and a fifth were polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is used for clothing and bottles.
1. Why should researchers focus more on nanoplastics?A.They are smaller but more dangerous. |
B.They are more important to science. |
C.They are easily polluted by ocean water. |
D.They are more active in cold surroundings. |
A.The North and South poles are the birthplace of nanoplastics. |
B.Nanoplastics have less influence on the planet than microplastics. |
C.Nanoplastics have been existing since the 1960s throughout the world. |
D.Nanoplastics found in the samples are widely used in the daily life. |
A.The Greenland core. |
B.The Antarctic ice. |
C.The amount of nanoplastics. |
D.Nanoplastics pollution. |
A.Mircoplastics prove to be more dangerous. |
B.Nanoplastics pose a threat to people’s life. |
C.Nanoplastics are making their way to the poles. |
D.Mircoplastics set the alarm bells ringing. |
7 . Air pollution remains a critical health risk in the European Union, claiming over 500,000 lives in 2021, with findings suggesting nearly half of these could have been prevented if pollution were reduced to levels recommended by health experts. Data from the European Environment Agency (EEA) show that of these deaths, 253,000 were linked to exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) going beyond the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guideline limit of 5 micrograms per cubic meter. These particles are especially dangerous as they can pass into the bloodstream and affect various organs. Nitrogen dioxide and ozone also contributed to the mortality (死亡频率) statistics, associated with 52,000 and 22,000 deaths respectively. The EU’s environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevicius, underlined that air pollution poses the top environmental health risk in the EU. Nevertheless, there is evidence of improvement, with deaths from PM2.5 decreasing by 41% between 2005 and 2021, and the EU targets a reduction of 55% by 2030.
In response to these concerns, the WHO, which updated its air quality guidelines in 2021, warns that no level of air pollution can be considered safe but has set upper limits for certain pollutants. The European Parliament vote to bring the EU’s air quality standards in line with the WHO but decided to delay doing so until 2035.
Sinkevicius said that air quality is indeed improving due to effective clean air policies. Beyond death counts, the EEA also assessed air pollution’s broader impact on diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes, stressing not only mortality but the quality of life impacts. EEA researcher Alberto Gonzalez Ortiz pointed to severe disability states caused by these conditions, worsened by air pollution.
The EEA’s comprehensive approach shows that while the fight against air pollution has seen progress, immediate action is still critical to reduce pollution and reduce its widespread effects on public health.
1. Why does the author mention specific figures in Paragraph 1?A.To stress the risk of PM2.5 in the EU. | B.To illustrate the impact of air pollution. |
C.To prove the improvement in air pollution. | D.To show the guidelines of EEA lose control. |
A.It adjusted air quality standards accordingly. |
B.It didn’t perform the new limits until 2035. |
C.It claimed current pollution levels were relatively safe. |
D.It decided to change the guidelines completely. |
A.Concerned about its policies. | B.Indifferent due to its level. |
C.Uncertain about its impact. | D.Optimistic about its progress. |
A.The impact of wise decisions on air pollution in the EU. |
B.The specific health conditions worsened by air pollution. |
C.The progress and challenges in dealing with air pollution. |
D.The role of the WHO in establishing global health policies. |
8 . 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. |
A.Effective policy. | B.Healthy lifestyle. |
C.Social influence. | D.Financial support. |
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. |
A.Doubtful. | B.Optimistic. | C.Objective. | D.Indifferent. |
9 . On Christmas Eve, a team of reindeer (驯鹿) will help Santa Claus deliver gifts to children all around the world. The reindeer, led by their fearless leader Rudolph, won’t be the only ones doing something special. Back in the highest Arctic, their cousins have a remarkable ability changing their eye color.
During the summer months, when the days are long and the sun is bright, reindeer’s tapetum lucidum (荧光膜), a mirror-like layer at the back of their eye, appears golden, which helps bounce the majority of light off the eyes, effectively acting like a pair of natural sunglasses. As winter comes, and the days become shorter and darker, the tapetum lucidum turns blue to absorb more light, allowing reindeer to improve their night vision and see clear in low light conditions.
With these adaptations, reindeer can adapt and thrive in one of the harshest environments on Earth. Unlike humans, reindeer can see well into the shorter Ultra Violet (UV) range. This UV vision enables them to spot food and predators more effectively in the snowy landscape. Lichens, a key part of their winter diet, absorb UV, so they show up dark against UV-reflecting white snow. Wolf and polar bear fur also absorb UV, so instead of disappearing against snow they pop out in high contrast, allowing reindeer to spot potential threats from a distance.
Reindeer change their eyes by adjusting their tapetum lucidum, which is made of collagen fibers. In winter, the collagen fibers become packed tighter, causing the tapetum lucidum to mainly reflect blue light. This change happens when reindeer dilate their pupils (瞳孔). In summer, the reindeer’s pupils return to a smaller size, which helps reindeer reduce the amount of light entering the eye.
But their unique adaptation may hurt them. Today, the increasing use of artificial lighting, especially during the winter months, poses a potential threat to their sensitive eyes. It can make reindeer lose their way, affecting their ability to survive in their challenging environment. So it is crucial for us to be mindful of our use of electricity and make efforts to minimize light pollution to ensure the well-being and survival of these magnificent creatures.
1. What do we know from paragraph 2?A.The shape of reindeer’s eyes varies with seasons. |
B.It is difficult for reindeer to live in low light conditions. |
C.The tapetum lucidum helps reindeer adapt to seasonal changes. |
D.Reindeer’s eyes appear golden in winter while blue in summer. |
A.To help them see clear in dark nights. |
B.To distinguish food of different colors quickly. |
C.To protect their eyes from harsh sunlight in summer. |
D.To better locate food and enemies during snowy days. |
A.Relax. | B.Expand. | C.Narrow. | D.Hide. |
A.To call on people to protect reindeer from light pollution. |
B.To show the reasons for the decline in reindeer population. |
C.To present humans’ great efforts to reduce artificial lighting. |
D.To prove reindeer’s strong adaptability to harsh environments. |
10 . Sea life near Turkey is being harmed by a layer of brown foam (泡沫) on the ocean’s surface. The foam, which many people are calling “sea snot”, is natural, but it’s caused by pollution and global warming.
The actual name for the foam is mucilage (粘液). Scientists first noticed and described mucilage in 2007, when it was found near Turkey. Then, it was also found in other parts of the Aegean Sea, near Greece. Mucilage covers the ocean’s surface with a thick, slimy layer that gives it the nickname of sea snot.
This year’s appearance of mucilage is the worst ever recorded. It’s been developing for seven months and is now covering large parts of the Sea of Marmara. The Sea of Marmara is an inland sea, surrounded by land belonging to Turkey, and connected to the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea.
There are many different kinds of algae (海藻), and it’s natural and normal for algae to grow in the ocean or in other bodies of water. But when there is lots of food for the algae, and other conditions are just right, algae would boom, which results in algae growing quickly and in huge numbers. And in very bad situations, mucilage is the result.
There are two main causes of the present appearance of mucilage. One is the heavy pollution — waste water and chemicals — flowing into the Sea of Marmara. The second cause is higher water temperatures because of climate change.
By covering the ocean’s surface, mucilage stops sunlight from reaching all the sea life below. “This mucilage is now covering the sea surface like a tent,” says Muharrem Balci, who teaches biology at Istanbul University. Because there is so much algae, it takes up lots of oxygen from the seawater. That means that there’s very little oxygen left for the other sea life that depends on it. The BBC reports that divers in the area are seeing large numbers of dying fish. After a while, the mucilage falls to the bottom of the ocean, where it covers the sea floor, poisoning sea life that lives there. The mucilage has already been found as deep as 30 meters below the surface.
Mahsum Daga, a local fisherman, told the reporter, “Do you know what it does to shellfish? When they open up, it prevents them from closing up again because it gets in the way. All the seasnails here are dead.”
1. What do we know about mucilage?A.It generally doesn’t last long. | B.It was first noticed near Turkey. |
C.It is the result of algae poisoning. | D.It is mainly formed in inland seas. |
A.Shoot up. | B.Stand out. | C.Break down. | D.Take off. |
A.The reason for the formation of mucilage is difficult to explain. |
B.Mucilage is doing much more harm than good. |
C.The present situation of mucilage needs attention. |
D.Mucilage puts sea life in danger in different ways. |
A.Sea life in Turkey is in great danger of extinction. |
B.A new kind of poisonous algae is found in Turkey. |
C.Turkey’s coastal waters are covered with mucilage. |
D.Mucilage is likely to cause great damage to Turkey. |