1 . JP Morgan Chase, the world’s biggest fossil fuel funder, has noted in an internal report leaked to Extinction Rebellion that the company “cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened.”
Most of the science inside the report is not shocking to the casual reader, but the analysis is most concerned about climate change caused by fossil fuel. These include possibilities like the sudden collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which would send sea levels more than 10 feet higher than current levels and displace millions of humans. Another terrible case is that the melting permafrost sends more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing more warming, and in turn more the melting of ice sheets, and carbon emissions. Of course, these are already happening. The real danger behind the motivation for this internal report lies in the possibility that the Earth’s climate could reach a tipping point.
Many believe the emergence of the internal report should serve as proof convincing enough for world leaders to take collective and decisive action. However, the attitude of many world governments towards the development of fossil fuel can surely make the global situation even worse for future generations now.
However, the report doesn’t mention other banks, or even JP Morgan itself, even though these institutions are often the ones blamed in enabling this crisis, according to a Gizmodo report. “Changes are occurring at the micro level, involving shifts in behavior by individuals, companies and investors,” says the Extinction Rebellion report. It goes on to suggest that these micro-level changes “will push emissions in the right direction,” but says nothing about government oversight, or actions that many believe is necessary to reverse the current course of the climate crisis.
It’s still half way even though one has made 90 miles out of a 100-mile journey. Humans may still fail the journey if they doesn’t persist to the last. Therefore, something will have to change at some point if the human race is going to survive.
1. What does Paragraph 2 mainly tell us about fossil fuel?| A．It may cause catastrophic outcomes. |
| B．It has nothing to do with climate changes. |
| C．It kills millions of humans every year. |
| D．It has sent sea levels 10 feet higher. |
| A．Ambitious. | B．Approving. | C．Constructive. | D．Opposed. |
| A．It’s never too late to act actively. |
| B．Many hands make light work. |
| C．A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. |
| D．A job half-done is still a job left unfinished. |
| A．A government report. | B．A science fiction. |
| C．A news report. | D．A health magazine. |
2 . The process of mountaintop removal mining (MTR) has caused permanent damage to Appalachia. Although the law requires that mining companies restore the mountaintops after the mining has been completed, the 1.5 million acres of mountains that have already been removed cannot be regrown, rebuilt, or replaced. The companies do secure the rock formations to prevent erosion and landslides, but their efforts cannot recreate the once-beautiful mountain landscape. Furthermore, while companies are usually cautious about securing the rock formations, they seem less interested in restoring the native plants. MTR operations clear enormous areas of forests; some experts estimate that over 2,000 square miles of forests in the Appalachian region will have been razed by mining companies by the end of this year. Instead of replanting the native trees and shrubs that have been cleared, many companies chose to plant cheap, fast-growing plants.
Environmental threats are not only created in preparing a mountaintop for mining, but they also continue once the coal has been extracted. After the explosion, the excess mountaintop——which miners refer to as “overburden”——is usually dumped into nearby valleys or streams. The overburden contains a variety of poisonous substances, including explosive residue, silica, and coal dust. Over 700 miles of streams in Appalachia have been polluted by this dumping. Although the mining companies have built structures known as “sludge dams” that are intended to contain the runoff, these dams may easily burst or leak, sending thousands of gallons of poisonous chemicals into drinking water.
While the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other environmental protection bills can theoretically be enforced to protect Appalachia, local lawmakers have been unwilling to take action for fear of upsetting those who believe that the jobs created by MTR are vital to the community. However, instead of bringing jobs and prosperity to poor Appalachian communities, MTR companies actually bring destruction and poverty. MTR does not involve the amount of human labor required by traditional sub surface mining. Despite the poverty. MTR does not involve the amount of human labor required by traditional sub-surface mining. Despite the fact that coal production has increased between 1950 and 2004. the human labor force working in these mines has sharply decreased. In the 1950s, there were approximately 130,000 people employed by the mining companies; by 2004, that number had decreased to 16,00. Moreover, while the coal companies may make enormous profits from MTR, Appalachian communities located near the mines suffer increased rates of kidney cancer, brain cancer, lung cancer, chronic pulmonary disorders and vision problems.
1. What does the underlined word “razed” in Paragraph I probably mean?| A．Restored. | B．Closed. | C．Researched. | D．Destroyed. |
| A．They are of little help in avoiding pollution. |
| B．They are a threat to local mining companies. |
| C．They are big enough to contain the overburden. |
| D．They are cleverly designed to prevent flooding. |
| A．MTR hasn't contributed too much to employment. |
| B．The population of Appalachia has decreased greatly. |
| C．The number of mining companies has declined sharply. |
| D．Mining companies haven't brought in enormous profits. |
| A．The importance of traditional coal power. |
| B．His love for Appalachian communities. |
| C．His concern about the impact of MTR. |
| D．The urgency of developing Appalachia. |
3 . The truest explanation of recycling involves taking a material, melting(融化) it down, and turning it back into itself over and over. This can be done with glass and metal, which can both be remelted and reformed into bottles or cans forever. This is a closed-loop(闭环) system, so it’s very desirable. On the other hand, some materials slowly degrade(降解) over time, meaning they can be reformed maybe once or twice, but after a while the chemical composition of the original substance has changed and it can no longer be turned back into what it once was. This is called downcycling(降级回收).
The downcycling of plastic is one of the serious issues surrounding this material. For example, plastic water or soda bottles are seldom turned back into bottles. The other is the fact that plastic never biodegrades(生物降解). Many materials newspaper included, will biodegrade at the end of their lives. When paper enters the environment, given exposure to the air, it breaks down, leaving the world undamaged. Plastic, on the other hand, photodegrades(光降解), and this is very concerning. As discussed earlier, in the process of photodegrading, wind, sun, and water break plastic down into smaller and smaller particles(颗粒) that will cause great damage to the ocean ecosystem.
Finally, there is concern about heating food in plastic containers. Avoid reheating food in plastic containers in the microwave, and stop covering food with plastic wrap. Storing cool food in plastic containers isn’t as big a concern, but avoid heating food and plastic together to eliminate the possibility of plastic into your food.
So the disadvantages to plastic are that it can’t really be recycled in the true meaning of the term, it will never disappear from our environment because it can’t biodegrade, and it is a vehicle to deliver dangerous chemicals into our food chains.
1. What is a satisfying recycling system?| A．It’s easy to find alternative metals. | B．Its process is an open-loop system. |
| C．Materials can be reused over and again. | D．Composition of materials can be changed. |
| A．The threat to oceans. | B．The impact on foods. |
| C．The process of breaking down. | D．The pollution of the atmosphere. |
| A．Assess. | B．Remove. | C．Weight. | D．Reduce. |
| A．Positive. | B．Indifferent. | C．Negative. | D．Unclear. |
4 . Nobody wants to snack on plastic bags or soda rings, but according to a recent study from the University of Neweastle, we could be consuming roughly a credit card's worth of plastic every week.
Microplastic, which are less than a quarter-inch size and come in various shapes, have polluted the natural world and infiltrated(渗入)our bodies. The first clue to microplastic exposure in humans came around 2013, when scientists discovered plastic particles in seafood prepared for consumption. But in 2019, when the University of Newcastle study was published, the scientific community understood that the problem was considerably broader. Microplastics shed off clothes and tires and have been found in beer, honey, table salt and other food items. We breathe in plastic staying in the air and drink plastic floating in our drinks. It's no stretch to conclude that our exposure is significant. What we don't know is what this means for us.
The amount of evidence collected on this subject is growing rapidly, according to Scott Coffin, a toxicologist(毒理学家). Studies done on mice and rats have found that plastic in their bodies can severely damage cells and cause stress.
Because microplastics are too small to clean up, the only solution is to stop plastic waste at the source. And doing so would take a thorough adjustment, given that plastics are deeply embedded in our economy and lifestyle. Stopping using them would fundamentally affect countless industries, including textiles(纺织业), transportation and manufacturing.
"I think we need to have more studies coming out that are directly related to human health before we see a lot more concern from the general public," Scott said. "It takes a lot to convince people that something that is really convenient for them to use is something they should sacrifice."
The question of microplastics and human health needs more attention—from the scientific community ,the general public, the government and funding groups. The issue isn't being ignored, but it's not being prioritized either.
1. What does the second paragraph mainly tell us about microplastics?| A．Their wide usage in daily life. |
| B．Their harm to human health. |
| C．Their significant exposure in humans. |
| D．The new study conducted on them. |
| A．The way that microplastics exist. |
| B．The pollution caused by microplastics. |
| C．The relationship between microplastics and human health. |
| D．The reason for the existence of microplastics. |
| A．To cut down plastic production. |
| B．To carry out more studies on mice and rats. |
| C．To invent something more convenient than plastics. |
| D．To promote people's awareness on the harm brought by microplastics. |
| A．Is Microplastic pollution harmful to our health? |
| B．Why is Microplastic pollution everywhere? |
| C．Why is plastic harmful? |
| D．What do you know about Microplastics? |
My home town used to
6 . For a long time, beef has been a target of environmentalists because of cattle farming’s contribution to global warming. But what about ordinary shrimp(小虾) and prawns(大虾)? When compared with cows, it turns out the tasty shrimp are just as big an environmental problem. The issue is not so much their life cycle: shrimp do not emit methane(甲烷) the way cows do. But shrimp farms tend to occupy coastal land that used to be covered in mangroves(红树林).
Draining mangrove swamps to make way for aquaculture(水产养殖) is even more harmful to the atmosphere than cutting down rainforest to provide grassland for cattle. A study conducted in 2017 by CIFOR, a research institute, found that in both these instances, by far the biggest contribution to the carbon footprint of the resulting beef or shrimp came from the clearing of the land. As a result, CIFOR concluded, a kilo of farmed shrimp was responsible for almost four times the greenhouse-gas emissions of a kilo of beef. Eating a surf-and-turf dinner of prawn cocktail and steak, the study warned, can be more polluting than driving across America in a petrol-fuelled car.
Eating wild shrimp is not much better: catches are declining around the world as a result of overfishing. Fishing boats can pull as much as 20kg of the unwanted fish and other creatures from the sea for every kilo of shrimp.
Most of the world’s shrimp and prawns come from Asia. The continent accounts for 85% of the farmed sort and 74% of the wild catch. Global sales were around $45 billion in 2018 and are thought to be growing by about 5% a year.
But the industry is controversial(有争议的), not just because of its part in global warming. Destroyed mangroves also leave coastal regions defenceless against flooding. Many shrimp farms are unsanitary(不卫生的); ponds often have to be abandoned after a few years because of problems with disease and pollution.
All this has given one Singaporean company a brain wave. “Farmed shrimps are often bred in overcrowded conditions and literally swimming in waste water. We want to change that by providing farmers with technology that is cleaner and more efficient,” says Sandhya Sriram, one of the founders of Shiok Meats.
The firm aims to grow artificial shrimp, much as some Western firms are seeking to create beef without cows. The process involves producing shrimp cells in a nutrient-rich solution. Since prawn-meat has a simpler structure than beef, it should be easier to reproduce in this way.
Moreover, shrimp is eaten in lots of forms and textures: whole, minced(切碎的), as a paste and so on. The firm is already making shrimp mince which has tested in Chinese dumplings. It hopes the by-product of the meat-growing can be used as a flavoring(调味的) for prawn crackers and instant noodles. Eventually it plans to grow curved “whole” shrimp—without the head and shell, that is.
The problem is that producing shrimp in this way currently costs $5,000 a kilo. Shiok Meats thinks it can bring the price down dramatically by using less rare ingredients in its growing solution.
People want to know more about where their food comes from and how it is harvested, argues Ms Sriram. “Cell-based technology is one of the ways to answer those questions.” And even ordinary shrimp, whether farmed or fished, come at a heady price.
1. Why do farmed shrimp have a serious effect on the environment?| A．They destroy grassland. |
| B．They release a greenhouse gas. |
| C．They take the land away from mangroves. |
| D．They change the environment of rainforest. |
| A．It is not as healthy as expected. |
| B．It can influence other sea creatures. |
| C．It may cause a decline in global sales. |
| D．It can hardly be enjoyed in many forms. |
| A．They have high cost of production. |
| B．They grow well in waste water. |
| C．They are harder to be made than beef. |
| D．They are less delicious than natural shrimp. |
| A．Doubtful | B．Concerned | C．Optimistic | D．Indifferent |
| A. capable B. effectiveness C. employing D.exposure E.famously F. joining G. limitation H. minimal I.precisely J.recognizing K.worthwhile |
Clean Air Act
The air in modern homes and offices is pretty clean,but not as clean as it might be.Often it contains small amounts of volatile(挥发性的）,poisonous,organic compounds.Long-term
Finding an effective way to do so has proved difficult.But Stuart Strand, Long Zhang and Ryan Routsong, of the University of Washington,in Seattle,think they have succeeded,As they report in Environmental Science and Technology, their method involves
The idea of
Dr Strand, Dr Zhang and Mr Routsong thus sought something suitably transgenic ( 转 基 因 的),but that does not flower indoors. The plant they settled on was Devil's vine,
8 . Slat's life began to change after a holiday trip to Greece with his family when he was 16. What he actually saw in the ocean was an awful lot or plastic waste. From that moment on, Slat dived into a project to find a solution to this alarming problem. Struck by the idea of a floating barrier that could collect plastic, he founded his company, The Ocean Cleanup, at the age of 18. Although the idea was named one of the best inventions of 2015 by TIME magazine, he received negative feedback from the specialists in environmental issues.
Slat was not discouraged and saw his mission as a race against time. It is estimated that up to 14 million tons of plastic enter the oceans from land every year. Plastic gradually breaks down into very small pieces called microplastics, which can eventually enter the food chain.
After five and a half years' hard work, the Dutch inventor launched the world's first ocean plastic cleanup system: System 001. The U-shaped pipe, about 609 meters in length, snakes its way out under the Golden Gate Bridge into the Pacific. These floating barriers will capture plastic waste as the ocean currents flow past. Ships will collect the waste and bring it to land for recycling every few months. According to Slat, if all goes to plan, an array of 60 systems could reduce the amount of plastic there by as much as 50 percent by 2025.
However, there remains a problem: What will happen to the plastic brought back to shore from Slat's systems? It's likely that lots of the waste will eventually be recycled into more single-use plastics that end up back in the oceans. That doesn't mean Slat will give up.
1. What contributes to Slat's idea of solving plastic waste in the ocean?| A．A vacation abroad. | B．Negative feedback from the experts. |
| C．Diving deep into the ocean. | D．A floating barrier to collect plastic. |
| A．It will pollute the ocean. | B．It will make the ocean too dirty to swim in. |
| C．It will make it difficult ocean currents to flow. | D．It will be contained in the foods for humans. |
| A．It's the world's best ocean plastic cleanup system. |
| B．It winds its way into the Pacific. |
| C．Ships will capture the plastic waste. |
| D．The amount of plastic will be decreased by a quarter. |
| A．To praise. | B．To warn. | C．To inform. | D．To entertain. |
9 . More than a million tons a year of America's plastic rubbish are not ending up where they should. As many as 1, 300 plastic grocery bags per person is landing in places such as oceans and roadways, according to a new study of U. S.
In 2016, the United States generated 46.3 million tons of plastic waste, by far the most in the world. Between2.7% and 5. 3% of that was mismanaged, according to a study in Friday's journal Science Advances. “If you took nearly 2. 5 million tons of mismanaged plastic waste and dumped it on the White House lawn, it would pile as high as the Empire State Building,” said Jenna Jambeck, an environmental engineering professor.
Previous studies hadn't put the United States among the 10 worst offending nations for plastic waste in oceans. That's because the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency only tracks what goes into official parts of the waste stream such as landfills (废物填埋场) and recycling centers.
“The new study provides a more realistic view of our mismanaged waste,” said University of Toronto ecology professor Chelsea Rochman, who wasn't part of the study. “We consume a lot of plastic which then becomes plastic waste. We recycle very little of this material, which is a waste of resources.”
“A large but hard to quantify part of the problem involves the 51% of U. S. plastic waste shipped abroad for recycling to countries that routinely mismanage waste," Law said. The situation has been converting since many countries have become more limiting about taking U. S. rubbish imports. American exports of plastic waste have declined dramatically since their peak in 2016.
The government is spending billions of dollars trying to fix the problem, with modernized recycling technology and new business models to reduce waste while urging compulsory recycled content standards for new products and packaging.
“The best thing you can do environmentally is to produce no waste at all,” Jambeck said.
1. What can we know about the plastic waste in America?| A．It is improperly dealt with. | B．It is increasing every year. |
| C．It is as high as a tall building. | D．It is finding its way into landfills. |
| A．How plastic waste is managed officially. | B．Why all plastic waste isn't recycled. |
| C．When plastic waste reaches its peak. | D．Where all plastic waste finally ends up. |
| A．continuing | B．changing | C．existing | D．affecting |
| A．The lack of capital for waste management. | B．The lack of modern technology. |
| C．The limit of waste exports. | D．The seriousness of waste. |
| affect effect environment float negative extremely produce recycle shocking solution take action thick |
A Plastic Ocean a film to make you think. Think, and then act. We need to
The film begins as a journey to film the largest animal on the planet, the blue whale. But during the journey the filmmakers make the
But the film doesn't only present the
