1 . A team of leading environmental experts have warned that the current war on plastic is detracting from the bigger threats to the environment. In an article, they say that while plastic waste is an issue, its prominence in the general public’s concern for the environment is overshadowing greater threats, for example, climate change and biodiversity loss.
The team argue that much of the bad talk about plastic waste is based on data that is not always representative of the environments that have been sampled. The dislike of plastic associated with this could encourage the use of alternative materials with potentially harmful effects.
The authors warn that plastic pollution dominates the public’s concern for the environment and has been exploited politically, after capturing the attention of the world, for example, through the images of wildlife caught in plastic was alarmist headlines. They say small political gestures such as law banning cosmetic microplastics, taxing plastic bags, and financial rewards for using reusable containers, as well as the promotion of products as “green” for containing less plastic than alternatives, make people neglect other environmental problems that are not as noticeable as plastic pollution.
The article also highlights that plastic is not the only type of polluting materials, originating from human activity that pollutes the environment. Other examples include natural textile fibres such as cotton and wool, and brake-wear particles from vehicles — all of which are present in different places. The authors note that these materials are often much more abundant than microplastics and some are associated with “plastic alternatives” that are marketed as solutions to plastic pollution. The impacts of these materials are less well-known than plastic and microplastic pollution, yet they could have huge impacts.
The article states that solutions are likely to come from a greater focus on designing materials and products that can be recycled, that have their end-of-life, and that markets and facilities exist to recycle.
1. What’s the experts’ attitude towards the current war on plastic?| A．Indifferent. | B．Favorable. | C．Critical. | D．Objective. |
| A．The negative view of plastic. |
| B．The use of alternative materials. |
| C．The potential harmful effects. |
| D．The defense for plastic. |
| A．Explain a rule. | B．Make a comparison. |
| C．Clarify a point. | D．Offer a suggestion. |
| A．A response to plastic pollution. |
| B．A schedule to fight against pollution. |
| C．An argument against climate change. |
| D．A guide to plastic management. |
2 . A new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the University of Victoria has shown that common levels of traffic pollution can damage human brain function in only a matter of hours.
“For many decades, scientists thought the brain may be protected from the harmful effects of air pollution,” said senior study author Dr. Chris Carlsten. “This study, which is the first of its kind in the world, provides fresh evidence supporting a connection between air pollution and cognition.”
For the study, the researchers briefly exposed 25 healthy adults to diesel exhaust (柴油废气) and filtered air at different times in a laboratory setting. Brain activity was measured before and after each exposure using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
The researchers analyzed changes in the brain’s default mode network (DMN), a set of inter-connected brain regions that play an important role in memory and internal thought. The fMRI revealed that participants had decreased functional connectivity in widespread regions of the DMN after exposure to diesel exhaust, compared to filtered air.
“We know that altered functional connectivity in the DMN has been associated with reduced cognitive performance and symptoms of depression, so it’s concerning to see traffic pollution interrupting these same networks,” said Dr. Jodie Gawryluk, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria and the study’s first author. “While more research is needed to fully understand the functional impacts of these changes, it’s possible that they may impair (损害) people’s thinking or ability to work.”
Notably, the changes in the brain were temporary and participants’ connectivity returned to normal after the exposure. Dr. Carlsten assumed that the effects could be long lasting where exposure is continuous. He said that people should be mindful of the air they’re breathing and take appropriate steps to minimize their exposure to potentially harmful air pollutants like car exhaust.
1. How does traffic pollution affect people according to the study?| A．Exhausting their body. | B．Decreasing their income. |
| C．Endangering their safety. | D．Harming their brain function. |
| A．Growth. | B．Sport. | C．Memory. | D．Behaviour. |
| A．Avoid being exposed to the polluted air constantly. |
| B．Be mindful of the air quality in a new city. |
| C．Measure the brain activity in laboratories. |
| D．Stay inside a house as often as possible. |
| A．A Role Of Brain Will Be Ruined |
| B．Traffic Pollution May Impair Brain Function |
| C．A Famous UK University Did A Vital Study |
| D．A Source Of Pollution Has Drawn People’s Attention |
3 . The problem of food borne metal contamination (污染) has taken on new urgency, thanks in part to a 2021 US Congressional Report detailing high levels of metals found in baby food pulled off grocery shelves. More recently, high levels of lead (铅) were discovered in children’s fruit puree pouches. Now, two new studies provide information on the correlation between exposure to heavy metals in food and the risk of cancers and other serious health risks.
Food crops can absorb heavy metals from contaminated soil, air, and water. As a result, traces of dangerous heavy metals — lead, arsenic (砷) and cadmium (镉) — are found in common foods from rice and cereals to nuts and vegetables. Felicia Wu, Michigan State University food scientist, is leading several investigations to gain a better understanding of the health risks of heavy metal exposure.
In the studies, Wu and her colleague, gathered data on the dietary intake of each metal from various sources such as food and water samples and existing studies and reports. There searchers analysand the data to determine the strength of the association between dietary exposure and bad health effects. Both cancer and non-cancer health effects were considered.
Lead is a poisonous metal commonly found in old paint, water pipes, and contaminated soil. Food sources of lead include root vegetables like beets. In the study, lead showed moderate (中度的) to high risk scores for causing lung, kidney, bladder, stomach, and brain cancers. It also showed moderate to high scores for non-cancer risks.
Their initial estimates suggest that every year, more than 6, 000 additional cases of bladder and lung cancers and over 7, 000 cases of skin cancers can be attributed (归因于) to the consumption of inorganic arsenic in the United States. The researchers also found that certain food products can be associated with higher cancer risk than others. These include rice, wheat, and leafy green vegetables.
1. What do the new studies focus on?| A．Food safety and children’s health. |
| B．Food crops and metal contamination. |
| C．Heavy metals and its danger extent. |
| D．Metal contamination in food and health risks. |
| A．Food crops need metal to grow well. |
| B．Heavy metals are added by producers. |
| C．They can help with scientific research. |
| D．Food crops grow up in polluted conditions. |
| A．By doing surveys online. |
| B．By analyzing data. |
| C．By performing experiments. |
| D．By referring to previous textbooks. |
| A．Dramatic. | B．Alarming. |
| C．Confusing. | D．Awesome. |
4 . 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. |
5 . There are many kinds of pollution, which can be classified by environment, including air pollution, water pollution, and land pollution. Modern society is also concerned about specific types of pollution, such as noise pollution, light pollution and plastic pollution. Pollution of all kinds may not only have negative effects on the environment and wildlife, but also do harm to human health and well-being.
Although environmental pollution can be caused by natural events such as forest fires and active volcanoes, use of the word “pollution” generally means that the wastes have an anthropocentric source—that is, a source created by human activities. Pollution has accompanied humankind ever since groups of people first congregated and remained for a long time in any one place. Indeed, ancient human settlements are frequently recognized by their wastes, Pollution was not a serious problem as long as there was enough space available for each individual or group. However, with the establishment of permanent settlements by great numbers of people, pollution became a problem, and it has remained one ever since.
By the middle of the 20th century, an awareness of the need to protect air, water, and land environments from pollution had developed among the general public. In particular, the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring focused attention on environmental damage caused by improper use of pesticides such as DDT. In response, major pieces of environmental law and regulation were passed in many countries to control the environmental pollution.
Great efforts are made to limit the release of harmful substances into the environment. Unfortunately, attempts at pollution control are surpassed by the scale of the problem, especially in less-developed countries. Noxious levels of air pollution are common in large cities. To control the pollution completely, we still have a long way to go.
1. What does paragraph 1 mainly talk about?| A．The history of pollution. | B．The types of pollution. |
| C．The causes of pollution. | D．The effects of pollution. |
| A．Natural disasters. | B．Forest fires. |
| C．Volcanoes. | D．Human activities. |
| A．Gathered. | B．Separated. |
| C．Attended. | D．Lived. |
| A．No measures have been taken by the government to control the problems of pollution. |
| B．The book Silent Spring helped to improve the awareness of protecting the environment. |
| C．Silent Spring concentrated on the improper use of plastic bags. |
| D．The pollution has been controlled in less-developed countries. |
6 . Recycling is a great way of doing your bit for the environment and helping to protect the earth’s precious resources. However, a new study has revealed that our desire to be sustainable maybe doing more harm than good. According to waste company Biffa, this is because of “wish-cycling” — assuming that items such as disposable coffee cup sand pizza boxes will be recycled if put in the recycling bin. In fact, pollution from those items or other non-recyclables can result in recyclable items that have been put in the correct bin going to landfill. David Heaton, a business director at Biffa, said: “Pollution happens when items are disposed of in the wrong bins or haven’t been cleaned before being recycled.”
Experts at Biffa analyzed the amounts of non-target and non-recyclable materials that entered UK material recycling facilities between 2016 and 2020. It was found that, in 2016, the average pollution rate of recycling waste was 13.4 percent, rising over four years to 17 percent by the end of 2020. This shows that, even as people are becoming more eco-conscious, wish-cycling is increasing both in households and businesses.
The Biffa experts say that one of the best ways to prevent pollution of recycling is to clean recyclable waste before putting it in the bin. They suggest cutting off the top of old pizza boxes and only recycling that part to avoid pollution from the grease (油脂). Check the on-packaging recycling label to check it can actually be recycled When it comes to plastics, Biffa recommends checking the resin code, the number in the plastic triangle, to know whether it should go in the recycling bin. In general, resin codes 1, 2, 4 and 5 are recyclable, while 3, 6 and 7 are not. Larger items, like electronics, furniture and batteries, can also be recycled but often can not go in household recycling bins as they need specialist separating. These will need to be taken to recycling centers or sustainable waste management companies.
“It’s vital as a nation that we get better at effective ‘pre-cycling’— sorting waste correctly before collection to reduce pollution rates,” added Mr. Heaton.
1. What’s the truth of “wish-cycling” according to the first paragraph?| A．The desire to lead a sustainable life. |
| B．The good intention to help recycling. |
| C．The habit of throwing items that end up in landfills. |
| D．The practice of recycling items that can not be recycled. |
| A．People are becoming more eco-conscious. |
| B．Wish-cycling is on the rise in recent years. |
| C．Pollution happens less frequently in recycling facilities. |
| D．People are used to cleaning recyclable waste before putting it in the bin. |
| A．Dispose of electronics together with household waste. |
| B．Skip the step of checking the on-packaging recycling label. |
| C．Check the resin code of plastics to see whether it is recyclable or not. |
| D．Cutoff the top of old pizza box and throw the rest to the recycling bin. |
| A．Recycling: a Big Project | B．Wish-cycling: a New Trend |
| C．Wish-cycling: a Growing Concern | D．Pre-cycling: an Effective Method |
7 . Around the world, people are realizing the significant problems caused by plastic waste. In the last 65 years, we have become increasingly dependent on plastic. It’s easy to understand why: it’s cheap to produce, light — therefore easy and cheap to transport — and incredibly strong and durable.
One popular solution to the problem is to prohibit single use plastics. In the British supermarkets, shoppers are encouraged to make more environmentally-friendly choices in packing and transporting their food.
However, such plans may not be beneficial to eliminate (消除) the use of single-use plastic altogether.
Another issue is that alternative materials to plastic are often more environmentally harmful than plastic. Take paper bags, for example.
Clearly there is a need to reduce plastic waste and its impact on the environment.
| A．But it’s these advantages that also make it so harmful. |
| B．They are very fragile and rarely reusable, unlike plastic. |
| C．One of the fields where single-use plastic has a vital role is medicine. |
| D．However, simply banning their single use may not be the best option. |
| E．It also boosts the local economy and save costs in managing littering and waste. |
| F．Bans on single-use plastic items like drinking straws are also coming into place. |
| G．According to a research, they require four times more energy when produced than a plastic bag. |
