1 . The idea of turning recycled plastic bottles into clothing is not new. During the last five years, a large number of clothing companies, businesses and environmental organizations have started turning plastics into fabric to deal with plastic pollution. But there’s a problem with this method. Research now shows that microfibers could be the biggest source of plastic in the sea.
Dr. Mark Browne in Santa Barbara, California, has been studying plastic pollution and microfibers for 10 years now. He explains that every time synthetic clothes go into a washing machine, a large number of plastic fibers fall off. Most washing machines can’t collect these microfibers. So every time the water gets out of a washing machine, microfibers are entering the sewers and finally end up in the sea.
In 2011, Browne wrote a paper stating that a single piece of synthetic(合成的) clothing can produce more than 1, 900 fibers per wash. Browne collected samples from seawater and freshwater sites around the world, and used a special way to examine each sample. He discovered that every single water sample contained microfibers.
This is bad news for a number of reasons. Plastic can cause harm to sea life when eaten. Studies have also shown that plastic can absorb other pollutants.
Based on this evidence, it may seem surprising that companies and organizations have chosen to turn plastic waste into clothing as an environmental “solution.” Even though the science has been around for a while, Browne explains that he's had a difficult time getting companies to listen. When he asked well-known clothing companies to support Benign by Design-his research project that seeks to get clothes that have a bad effect on humans and the environment out of the market, Browne didn’t get a satisfying answer. Only one women’s clothing company, Eileen Fisher, offered Browne funding.
1. What has happened during the past five years?| A．Fabric has become much stronger. | B．Plastic pollution has been less serious. |
| C．Many plastic bottles have been reused. | D．Microfibers have been greatly improved. |
| A．It is adding microfibers to the clothes. |
| B．It is worsening environmental problems. |
| C．It is making synthetic clothes last longer. |
| D．It is doing great damage to washing machines. |
| A．It has achieved great success. | B．It hasn’t got anything done. |
| C．It is known to very few people. | D．It is facing some difficulties. |
| A．It’s important to learn to recycle |
| B．It’s never easy to solve pollution problems |
| C．Recycled plastic clothing: solution or pollution? |
| D．Are human beings moving forward or backward? |
2 . Scientists say a huge percentage of bird species are in danger because their habitats are disappearing.
The scientists studied the migration, or flight, paths, of almost 1,500 species and decided that 91 percent of them passed through dangerous areas. The major danger for migratory birds is development. Building and paving have covered over nature where birds stop and feed as they move from one part of the world to another.
For example, a bird called the bar-tailed godwit migrates from its breeding grounds in the Arctic. It flies all the way to Australia and New Zealand. The problem, according to investigators, is that many of these small birds die along their migration because they don't have a safe place to eat and rest. There is no place to restore their energy for the next part of their journey. "They simply perish along the way," says one of the scientists.
Countries in North Africa, Central Asia and those along the coasts of East Asia are having the most difficult time conserving land. The scientists say these countries do not have enough areas that are safe for birds.
"Our world gets poorer every time we lose a species,’’ one of the scientists says.
The researchers say countries need to work together and come up with safe stopover areas for birds that pass through their boundaries.
For example, one country might have preserved safe zones for migrating birds. But a neighbor country might not. A bird might die.
One scientist who is not involved in the report tells the Los Angeles Times that while some habitats are changing, more work can be done to make urban areas safe for birds. He says small changes—like planting more native plants or keeping cats out of areas birds would be likely to use—could make a big difference.
1. What’s the major danger for migratory birds according to the passage?| A．They can’t find enough food along the way. |
| B．They have lost their way because of human development. |
| C．Human development has occupied their natural habitats. |
| D．They are sometimes struck by human diseases. |
| A．They fly from the Arctic south to Australia every year. |
| B．They can pick out good resting place along the way. |
| C．They have died out because of human hunting. |
| D．They have their conserved land in Australia. |
| A．Continue. | B．Die. |
| C．Settle. | D．Migrate. |
| A．Countries working together to protect the sea. |
| B．Protecting the original habitats for the migrating birds. |
| C．Reserving some land for the birds to rest along the way. |
| D．Planting some native plants for the migrating birds to use. |
3 . About 4 million children worldwide develop asthma(哮喘) each year because of nitrogen dioxide(NO2 , 二氧化氮) air pollution, according to a study published by researchers at the George Washington University. The study estimates(估算) that 64 percent of these new cases of asthma occur in urban areas.
“The study is the first to quantify the worldwide burden of new pediatric(儿科的) asthma cases linked to traffic-related nitrogen dioxide by using a method that takes into account high exposure to this pollutant that occurs near busy roads, ” said Susan C. Anenberg, PhD, the senior author of the study.
“Our findings suggest that millions of new cases of pediatric asthma could be prevented in cities around the world by reducing air pollution,” said Anenberg. “Improving access to cleaner forms of transportation, like electrified public transport, cycling and walking, would not only bring down NO2 levels, but would also improve physical fitness, and cut greenhouse gas emissions(排放). ”
Asthma is a disease that makes it hard to breathe when the lung’s airways are swollen. An estimated 235 million people worldwide at present have asthma, which can cause life-threatening attacks.
The World Health Organization calls air pollution “a major environmental risk to health” and has offered Air Quality Guidelines for NO2 and other air pollutants. The researchers estimate that most children lived in areas below the NO2, guideline. They also found that about 92 percent of the new pediatric asthma cases that were caused by NO2 occurred in areas that already meet the WHO guideline.
“That finding suggests that the WHO guideline for NO2 may need to be re-evaluated to make sure it is conducive to the protection of children’s health,” said Pattanun Achakulwisut, PhD, lead author of the paper.
Additional research must be done to more persuasively identify what is leading to asthma within complex traffic emissions. This effort will help to improve the estimates of new asthma cases tied to traffic emissions.
1. What can we learn from Susan C. Anenberg?| A．Old forms of getting around need to be replaced. |
| B．Few cases of pediatric asthma occur in urban areas. |
| C．Pediatric asthma increases because of unclean energy. |
| D．Greener transportation helps to reduce asthma cases. |
| A．It proved persuasive. | B．It seemed unreasonable. |
| C．It would be abandoned. | D．It turned out instructive. |
| A．Beneficial. | B．Open. |
| C．Equal. | D．Familiar. |
| A．Asthma has put children’s life in unavoidable danger. |
| B．WHO should improve Air Quality Guidelines for NO2. |
| C．NO2 air pollution causes children to suffer from asthma. |
| D．Air pollution is a serious worldwide problem nowadays. |
4 . A sea turtle named Herman, an octopus called Octavia, and a seal named Lidia all spent this summer at the Smithsonian’ s National Zoo in Washington, D.C. But unlike the zoo’s other residents, they are not real animals. These creatures are actually huge sculptures and they’re made entirely out of plastic trash from the ocean.
These giant artworks, along with 14 others, are part of a traveling exhibit called “Washed Ashore: Art to Save the Sea”. The Washed Ashore project, led by artist Angela Haseltine Pozzi, works to raise awareness about the problem of plastic pollution in Earth’s oceans.
More than 315 billion pounds of plastic litter the world’s oceans today. Most of the plastic is garbage from towns and cities, as well as trash that people leave on beaches. Rainwater, winds, and high tides bring the trash into the ocean or into rivers that lead to the ocean. Once it is under the waves, the plastic begins to break up into smaller and smaller pieces. It often collects in spots called garbage patches, which spread over large areas of the ocean.
Thousands of marine animals — including whales, sea turtles, and fish — die each year from eating or getting stuck in plastic bags and other items. Plastic pieces can also injure coral and kill sea grass.
Washed Ashore and other organizations are working to stop that from happening. Since 2010, Washed Ashore volunteers have collected 38,000 pounds of plastic trash from more than 3000 miles of beaches. They helped Pozzi create more than 60 sculptures of marine creatures that were harmed by plastic pollution.
The artworks on display at the National Zoo include a 20-foot-long coral reef, a 12-foot-long shark, and a 16-foot-long parrot fish. Each one is made from hundreds of pieces of trash like water bottles and sunglasses.
“These sculptures are a powerful reminder of our personal role and global responsibility in preserving biodiversity on land and in the sea,” says Dennis Kelly, director of the National Zoo.
1. Why is Angela exhibiting her sculptured animal?| A．To prove her talent in sculpture. |
| B．To attract most visitors to the zoo. |
| C．To care about the plastic pollution in seas. |
| D．To teach the people the use of plastic. |
| A．Why plastic is difficult to break up. |
| B．What problems plastic litter causes. |
| C．Where plastic pieces go at last. |
| D．How garbage patches are formed. |
| A．Collecting pollution trash from the beaches. |
| B．Turning trash from the ocean into art. |
| C．Raising 38,000 pounds for plastic pollution. |
| D．Surveying the data of plastic litter in oceans. |
| A．Doubtful | B．Supportive |
| C．Negative. | D．Indifferent |
5 . 50 kilometers outside the capital of Malaysia, in the middle of a palm plantation (种植园), mountains of plastic waste lie abandoned. Much of it has come from wealthy countries in Europe and North America.
Local residents are suffering the consequences. “Tons of non-recyclable plastic is just dumped (倾倒) here every day, and then workers burn it in the backyard of this factory. So, those harmful smog actually already caused many health problems to the residents.” People living around the factory showed great anxiety.
In 2017, China banned the import of plastic waste, sending the global industry into turmoil. “Wealthy countries are exporting their own plastic waste overseas”, says Greenpeace. “They have a good collection of facilities to recycle their own plastic waste. However, they are still sending half of their collective waste to other countries.” Before the ban, they just ran to China for recycling. And now they just find other new places to send their recyclables to.
The Greenpeace report says more than half of that waste, three million tons a year, is being redirected (转向) toward Southeast Asia, including Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. The problem is that these countries have no ability to handle such a large amount of imported foreign waste, which can easily cause pollution to the local environment. In response, many Southeast Asian countries are putting more restrictions on plastic waste imports, forcing the rubbish into less controlled markets, such as Indonesia and India.
At a United Nations conference, 180 countries are discussing a suggestion that plastic waste exporters should ask for permission in advance from the countries that will receive the waste. But ecologists from the University of Texas stated, “Changes can’t come soon enough.” They added, “‘We are killing ourselves by using too much plastic.’ ‘We are too dependent on plastic…’ ‘Please manage and handle your own rubbish.’ Such voices would not stop in the near future…” Greenpeace also concludes that the best solution does not lie in improving, recycling, but in greatly reducing plastic production and consumption worldwide.
1. What made the local residents anxious? ______| A．Health problems caused by plastic waste. |
| B．The abandoned palm plantation. |
| C．The burning backyard of the factory. |
| D．Tons of non-recyclable plastic. |
| A．Boom. |
| B．Disorder. |
| C．Development. |
| D．Promotion. |
| A．Developing countries lack enough facilities. |
| B．Developed countries will take action soon. |
| C．The situation of plastic waste is very terrible. |
| D．There are practical ways to handle plastic waste. |
| A．Plastic waste caused serious results. |
| B．People are too dependent on plastic. |
| C．China banned importing plastic waste. |
| D．Plastic waste is a concern of the world. |
6 . The United Nations Environment Program is calling for urgent action to reduce growing risks from chemicals. Better management of chemicals could save millions of lives and billions of dollars. As estimated, 143,000 chemicals are now produced. Yet the report says only a small number of these chemicals have been studied for their effects on human health and the environment. It says death and disability rates are high from the unsafe use of chemical products.
Sylvie Lemmet, director of the UNEP, says poor management of chemicals has a high economic cost. For example, she says the cost is higher than the amount of overseas development aid, or ODA, for health care in sub-Saharan Africa.
She says, “If you look at the estimated cost of poisoning from pesticide (杀虫剂) in sub-Saharan Africa, only the injury and the loss of working time is estimated to be 6.3 billion US dollars in 2009. This is higher than the total ODA that is going to the health part in the same area.”
The UNEP estimates that chemical sales worldwide will increase by around three percent a year until 2050. Chemical production is moving quickly from developed to developing countries. By 2020, chemical production is expected to increase by 40 percent in Africa and the Middle East and 33 percent in Latin America. One of its biggest concerns is pollution of rivers and lakes by pesticide and fertilizer. Other major concerns are heavy metal pollution from the production of cement (水泥) and textiles (纺织品), and dioxin pollution from mining.
The UN report urges the chemical industry and governments to work together to develop safety policies. It says preventing harm costs less than fixing it.
1. The purpose of Paragraph 3 is mainly to indicate that ______.| A．chemicals have a high production cost |
| B．Africa needs more development aid |
| C．the use of pesticide causes a great loss |
| D．the estimated cost of poisoning from pesticide is incorrect |
| A．Pesticide. | B．Fertilizer. |
| C．Heavy metals. | D．Minerals. |
| A．The mass production of cement and textiles. |
| B．Lack of research funds on chemicals. |
| C．Poor management of chemicals. |
| D．Contradictions between chemical producers and governments. |
| A．The truth in Sylvie Lemmet’s comments |
| B．A UN warning about chemical dangers |
| C．The unpredictable future of chemical industry |
| D．Preventing is much better than fixing |
7 . Will you stop using plastic?
If you take a look around your kitchen or office right now, chances are that you’ll notice you’re surrounded by plastic—water bottles, to-go coffee cups, straws (吸管), plastic grocery bags, food wrappers, take-out containers, single-serve coffee pods and produce bags.
It’s certainly not realistic to remove all plastic from your life, but let’s examine some statistics that may encourage you to reduce your single-use plastic footprint by throwing away straws, switching to reusable water bottles, bringing cloth bags to the grocery store and more.
According to a study published in the journal Science Advances, the popularity of plastic, which began rising in the 1950s, is growing out of control.
“Every piece of plastic that has ever been created will remain in the environment in some form, but once we conveniently throw out our rubbish at home, wind and runoff carry our waste from landfills and streets to the ocean,” says Mystic Aquarium’s chief clinical veterinarian Jennifer Flower, DVM, MS. “Given that we are globally producing over 320 million tons of plastic annually, the marine environment is taking a big hit from our daily disposal of plastic.
| A．Our plastic consumption is directly affecting the life in the ocean. |
| B．People are concerned about the results of overusing plastic containers. |
| C．8.2 trillion kilograms of plastic have been produced around the world. |
| D．Using plastic containers in microwaves is also harmful to children’s health. |
| E．Let’s stop using plastic for the benefit of the environment and human beings. |
| F．These are all examples of single-use plastic products, which is a hot topic nowadays. |
| G．The most concerning artificial additive BPA is a chemical used in the production of plastics. |
8 . Recently, a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program in the capital. Known as the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act of D.C., the plan would place a new tax on all fossil fuels bought or sold, with the hope of ultimately discouraging the use of these polluting energy sources.
The big-picture goal of this campaign is admirable: to address the ever-deepening crisis of humanity-driven climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal, oil and gas, the filthy substances rapidly warming our planet. But unfortunately, the approach — one based in a world of financial markets, trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams — is deeply and inherently flawed. Simply put, carbon pricing is a false solution to climate change and a distraction from real, effective climate solutions we must urgently pursue.
To date, there is scant(不足的) evidence to indicate that carbon taxes lower greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the opposite is true. Recently Food & Water Watch reviewed the British Columbia carbon tax program, often cited by advocates as an example of success. From 2009 (the first full year of the tax) to 2014, emissions from taxed sources grew by 4.3 percent. And in the seven years after the carbon tax took effect, total gasoline sales increased by 7.37 percent.
Supporters of such plans like to focus on a deceivingly simple notion that increasing the price of a consumer good will automatically reduce its use. But this just isn’t the case when it comes to the purchase of necessities. People must heat their homes in winter, and they must commute to work, regardless of the cost.
Those backing the D.C. carbon pricing plan like to note that revenue from the new tax would go toward investment in clean energy sources. But only 20 percent of the generated funds would be allocated in this manner. The rest would be divvied(分摊) up in tax breaks for businesses and rebates(回扣) for consumers, another factor undercutting the notion that increased costs up front would change consumer behavior in the long run.
Meanwhile, fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil are increasingly coming out in support of carbon pricing. This should be cause for alarm for anyone concerned with stamping out the use of the dirty energy sources these corporations profit from. Exxon knows that carbon taxes will do little to change the business-as-usual dependence on oil and gas that it relies on to continue operating and enriching shareholders. Furthermore, corporations such as Exxon rightly view carbon pricing schemes as a means of diverting energy and interest from tougher regulations that might actually encroach on(侵犯) their business plans and bottom lines.
Despite what many well-intentioned activists and community leaders want to believe, there is no convenient, market-friendly solution to our dire climate condition. There is only the hard truth that we must tackle the problem at its source: We must stop using fossil fuels, and soon. The latest science indicates that in order to avoid the worst effects of deepening climate chaos, society must transition completely to clean, renewable energy by 2035.
1. Food &Water Watch found that _______ .| A．carbon taxes could limit greenhouse gas emissions |
| B．taxing carbon emissions did not reduce pollution |
| C．carbon emissions grew at a lower rate than gasoline sales |
| D．British Columbia carbon tax program achieved lasting effect |
| A．Consumers will use less of a good when its price increases. |
| B．Carbon taxes will benefit the development of clean energy. |
| C．Increased cost will do little to change the use of necessities. |
| D．The dependence on fossil fuels will decrease automatically. |
| A．are expressing dissatisfaction with carbon pricing schemes |
| B．are reducing their dependence on dirty energy sources |
| C．view clean renewable energy as their future source of profits |
| D．see carbon pricing as distraction from tough rules against them |
| A．The Carbon Tax Fallacy(谬论) | B．The Climate Change Myth |
| C．The Call for Clean Energy | D．The Causes of Climate Chaos |
9 . Recalculating the global use of phosphorus(磷), an important fertilizer element of modern agriculture, a team of researchers warns that the world's stocks may soon be in short supply and that overuse in the industrialized world has become a leading cause of the pollution of lakes, rivers and streams.
Writing in the Feb. 14 edition of the journal Environmental Research Letters, Stephen Carpenter of the University of WisconsinMadison and Elena Bennett of McGill University report that the human use of phosphorus, primarily in the industrialized world, is causing the widespread eutrophication of fresh surface water. What's more, the minable global stocks of phosphorus are concentrated in just a few countries and are in decline, posing the risk of global shortages within the next 20 years.
"There is a finite amount of phosphorus in the world," says Carpenter, one of the world's leading authorities on lakes and streams. "This is a material that's becoming rarer and we need to use it more efficiently."
Phosphorus is an essential element for life. Living organisms, including humans, have small amounts and the element is crucial for driving the energetic processes of cells. In agriculture, phosphorus mined from ancient marine deposits is widely used to boost crop yields. The element also has other industrial uses.
But excess phosphorus from fertilizer that washes from farm fields and suburban lawns into lakes and streams is the primary cause of the algae blooms that destroy freshwater ecosystems out off kilter and degrade water quality. Phosphorus pollution poses a risk to fish and other water life as well as to the animals and humans who depend on clean fresh water. In some instances, excess phosphorus sparks blooms of toxic algae, which pose a direct threat to human and animal life.
"If you have too much phosphorus, you get eutrophication," explains Carpenter of the cycle of excessive plant and algae growth that significantly degrades bodies of fresh water. "Phosphorus stimulates the growth of algae and weeds near shore and some of the algae can contain cyanobacteria(蓝菌), which are toxic. You lose fish. You lose water quality for drinking."
The fertilizer fueled algae blooms themselves amplify the problem as the algae die and release accumulated phosphorus back into the water.
Complicating the problem, says Carpenter, is the fact that excess phosphorus in the environment is a problem primarily in the industrialized world, mainly Europe, North America and parts of Asia. In other parts of the world, notably Africa and Australia, soils are phosphorus poor, creating a stark imbalance. Ironically, soils in places like North America, where fertilizers with phosphorus are most commonly applied, are already loaded with the element.
Bennett and Carpenter argue that agriculture practices to better conserve phosphate within agricultural ecosystems are necessary to avoid the widespread pollution of surface waters. Phosphorus from parts of the world where the element is abundant, they say, can be moved to phosphorus deficient regions of the world by extracting phosphorus from manure, for example, using manure digesters.
1. The word “eutrophication” (Line 4, Para.2) most probably means __________ .| A．pollution | B．excess of nutrients |
| C．increase of algae | D．growth of bacteria |
| A．It is used in industry. |
| B．It is used to increase crop yields. |
| C．It is used to drive the energetic processes of cells. |
| D．It is used only in small amounts in living organism |
| A．Environmental problems exist only in the industrialized countries. |
| B．Agriculture practices should conserve phosphate within agricultural ecosystems. |
| C．Phosphorus can be created by using manure digesters. |
| D．Soils are not short of phosphorus in Africa and Australia. |
10 . Blue Planet II’s latest episode (剧集) focuses on how plastic is having a devastating effect on the ocean and slowly poisoning our sea creatures. Researchers recently also found that sea creatures living in the deepest place on Earth, the Mariana Trench, have plastic in their stomachs. Indeed, the oceans are drowning in plastics.
Though it seems now that the world couldn’t possibly function without plastics, consumer plastics are a remarkably recent invention. The first plastic bags were introduced in the 1950s, the same decade that plastic packaging began gaining in popularity in the United States. This growth has happened so fast that science is still catching up with the change. Plastics pollution research, for instance, is still a very early science.
We put all these plastics into the environment and we still don’t really know what the outcomes are going to be. What we do know, though, is disturbing. Ocean plastic is estimated to kill millions of marine animals every year. Nearly 700 species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by it. One in three leatherback turtles, which often mistake plastic bags for jellyfish, have been found with plastic in their bellies. Ninety percent of seabirds are now eating plastics on a regular basis. By 2050, that figure is expected to rise to 100 percent.
And it’s not just wildlife that is threatened by the plastics in our seas. Humans are consuming plastics through the seafood we eat. I could understand why some people see ocean plastic as a disaster, worth mentioning in the same breath as climate change. But ocean plastic is not as complicated as climate change. There are no ocean trash deniers (否认者), at least so far. To do something about it, we don’t have to remake our planet energy system.
This is not a problem where we don’t know what the solution is. We know how to pick up garbage. We know how to recycle. We can all start by thinking twice before we use single-use plastic products. Things that may seem ordinary, like using a reusable bottle or a reusable bag — taken collectively, really do make a difference.
1. Why is plastics pollution research still a very early science?| A．The plastics pollution research is too difficult. |
| B．Plastics have produced less pollution than coal. |
| C．The world couldn’t possibly function without plastics. |
| D．Plastics have gained in popularity too fast for science to catch up. |
| A．prove the threat of plastic to marine life |
| B．explain reasons for plastic pollution |
| C．describe his own experiences and feelings |
| D．compare the differences between sea creatures |
| A．Climate change is caused by human activities. |
| B．Some people cast some doubts about climate change. |
| C．Climate change is less important than ocean pollution. |
| D．Ocean plastic is more complicated than climate change. |
| A．Plastic is a global issue arousing wide concern. |
| B．The oceans have been seriously polluted by plastic. |
| C．Blue Planet II has left viewers heartbroken. |
| D．Plastics gain in popularity all over the world. |
