1 . A carbon capturing device, called Orca, began operating in Iceland in September. The machine was invented and made by a Swiss company called Climeworks. The name comes from the Icelandic word orka which means energy.
Orca can pull carbon dioxide out of the air and send it deep into the ground, where it is turned into stone. The device is made up of four sections which look like giant air conditioners stacked together. Each section contains 12 large fans that suck air from outside into steel compartments.
Inside, the air passes through a filter (过滤器) which gathers the carbon dioxide. It is then heated to a high temperature so the carbon dioxide can be collected from the filter. Then, the carbon dioxide is mixed with water and put deep in the ground into a type of rock called basalt. Basalt causes the carbon dioxide mixture to turn into stone after two or three years.
Orca is an experimental device. It was built to demonstrate that it is possible to permanently remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It can remove 4, 000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year. That’s about the same amount as the emissions produced by 850 cars in a year. In order to remove enough carbon dioxide to make a big difference to global warming, much larger devices like Orca would have to be built in many countries around the world.
Some environmental activists say governments should spend more time and money on reducing the amount of greenhouse gas we produce each year, instead of investing in carbon capture methods. But others say that, in order for countries to meet their goal of net zero emissions by 2050, they will need to do both: reduce new emissions and remove the carbon dioxide already in the air.
How does Orca work?
a. Sucking the air. b. Collecting the carbon dioxide.
c. Mixing with water. d. Filtering and heating.
e. Putting into the ground.
| A．a, d, b, c, e | B．a, c, d, b, e | C．a, d, c, b, e | D．a, b, c, d, e |
2 . Composite image of Europe and North Africa at night, 2016. Credit: NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using Suomi NPP VIIRS data from Miguel Román, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Artificial light is often seen as a sign of progress: the march of civilization shines a light in the dark; it takes back the night; it illuminates. But a chorus of scientists and advocates argues that unnaturally bright nights are bad not just for astronomers but also for nocturnal (夜间活动的) animals and even for human health.
Now research shows the night is getting even brighter. From 2012 to 2016 the earth’s artificially lit area expanded by an estimated 2.2 percent a year (map), according to a study published last November in Science Advances. Even that increase may understate the problem, however. The measurement excludes light from most of the energy-efficient LED lamps that have been replacing sodium-vapor technology in cities all over the world, says lead study author Christopher Kyba, a postdoctoral researcher at the German Research Center for Geosciences in Potsdam.
The new data came from a NASA satellite instrument called the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). It can measure long-wavelengths of light, such as those produced by traditional yellow-and-orange sodium-vapor street lamps. But VIIRS cannot see the short-wavelength blue light produced by white LEDs. This light has been shown to disrupt human sleep cycles and nocturnal animals’ behavior.
Credit: Mapping Specialists; Source: “Artificially Lit Surface of Earth at Night Increasing in Radiance and Extent,” by Christopher C. M. Kyba et al., in Science Advances, Vol. 3, No. 11, Article No. E1701528; November 22, 2017.
The team believes the ongoing switch to LEDs caused already bright countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. To register as having stable levels of illumination in the VIIRS data. In contrast, most nations in South America, Africa and Asia brightened, suggesting increases in the use of traditional lighting. Australia actually appeared to lose lit area—but the researchers say that is because wildfires skewed the data.
“The fact that VIIRS finds an increase (in many countries), despite its blindness in the part of the spectrum that increased more, is very sad,” says FabioFalchi, a researcher at Italy’s Light Pollution Science and Technology Institute, who did not participate in the study. In 2016 Falchi, along with Kyba and several other members of his research team, published a global atlas of artificial lighting that showed one third of the world’s population currently lives under skies too bright to see the Milky Way at night.
The data also cast doubt on the idea that the LED lighting revolution will lead to energy cost savings. Between 2012 and 2016 the median nation pumped out 15 percent more long-wavelength light as its GDP increased by 13 percent. And overall, countries’ total light production correlated with their GDP. In other words, Kyba says, “we buy as much light as we are willing to spend money on.”
1. Which is not true about the spread of lit areas?| A．Lit area expanded by an estimated 2.2 percent a year. |
| B．Artificial light is often seen as a sign of progress. |
| C．The increase in GDP is due to the increase in light. |
| D．It is bad for nocturnal animals and even for human health. |
| A．It is a kind of NASA satellite device. |
| B．It can record and analyze long-wavelength light. |
| C．The blue light generated by white LEDs can disrupt human sleep cycles. |
| D．VIIRS has found an increase of traditional lighting in lots of nations. |
3 . Ocean Noise Pollution
Some scientists say that animals in the ocean are increasingly threatened by noise pollution caused by human beings.
The noise that affects sea creatures comes from a number of human activities. It is caused mainly by industrial underwater explosions, ocean drilling, and ship engines. Such noises are added to natural sounds. These sounds include the breaking of ice fields, underwater earthquakes, and sounds made by animals themselves.
Decibels (分贝) measured in water are different from those measured on land. A noise of 120 decibels on land causes pain to human ears. In water, a decibel level of 195 would have the same effect.
Some scientists have proposed setting a noise limit of 120 decibels in oceans. They have observed that noises above that level can frighten and confuse whales.
A team of American and Canadian scientists discovered that louder noises can seriously injure some animals. The research team found that powerful underwater explosions were causing whales in the area to lose their hearing. This seriously affected the whales’ ability to exchange information and find their way. Some of the whales even died. The explosions had caused their ears to bleed (流血) and become infected (感染).
Many researchers whose work depends on ocean sounds object to a limit of 120 decibels. They say such a limit is a greater danger than they believed. They want to prevent noises from harming creatures in the ocean.
1. According to the passage, which of the following is increasingly dangerous to sea creatures?| A．The sound of a car. |
| B．The sound of voices. |
| C．Manmade noise pollution. |
| D．The sound of steps. |
| A．sounds made by animals themselves |
| B．ocean drilling |
| C．underwater earthquakes |
| D．the breaking of ice fields |
| A．They won’t be confused by noises. |
| B．They are deaf to noises. |
| C．Their ability to reproduce will be lowered by high level noises. |
| D．Their hearing will be damaged by high level noises. |
| A．They will work hard to reduce ocean noise pollution. |
| B．They will protect animals from harmful noises. |
| C．They will try to set a limit of 120 decibels. |
| D．They will study the effect of ocean noise pollution. |
4 . Around 40 million tonnes of electronic waste, known as e-waste, is produced every year. This includes electrical or electronic equipment that has been discarded. But where does it all go? In the US alone, 100 million mobile phones, 41 million computers and over 20 million televisions are thrown into landfills in a year. Even for standard waste this is a big headache, because any materials that are buried in the ground can’t be easily recovered and recycled. Recycling electronics can save energy and means that less of Earth’s natural resources need to be mined.
Failing to recycle e-waste is extremely damaging the environment due to the nature of the materials used in modern devices. While heavy metals and chemicals improve a device’s safety and user experience, these components become poisonous if they’re not dealt with properly. Your old phones, Gameboys, kettles, microwaves and more can end up in landfills, leaking their harmful contents into the soil, water and air. Not only does this kill wildlife and destroy ecosystems, but the accumulation of poison can impact human health too. As heavy metals and chemicals flow into lakes and rivers, drinking water becomes polluted. These poisons spread through the soil, impacting the health of crops and animals that people also rely on.
In some western countries, e-waste isn’t hidden out of sight in landfills but is burnt in giant, open junkyards. They even ship waste electronics to other countries to deal with, and this often ends up in dumps across Africa and Asia. Workers in these places are exposed to polluted lands and chemical gas.
It is urgent that we should reduce the damaging and unsustainable side of e-waste production. Rare earth metals, some plastics and chemicals can be fed into the next generation of electronics. The steps to proper recycling of e-waste are extensive and need large investment, but more and more countries around the world are turning to e-waste recycling.
1. What does the underlined word “discarded” in Paragraph 1 mean?| A．Repaired. | B．Protected. | C．Used. | D．Abandoned. |
| A．E-waste has a permanent effect on the environment. |
| B．E-waste may do harm to both ecosystems and humans. |
| C．Heavy metals and chemicals are poisonous to the users. |
| D．Burying e-waste into landfills is an effective way to recycle. |
| A．supportive | B．objective | C．concerned | D．uncertain |
| A．Solutions to destroying e-waste. | B．Ways to recycle e-waste properly. |
| C．Applications of recycled materials. | D．Investments in restoring ecosystems. |
China will closely track
Japan's plan prioritizes its own interests
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida
"We urge the Japanese government to listen to the voice of the international community and
6 . Have you ever had the feeling that you can’t think when there is too much noise around? Did you ever think a fish could experience that feeling too? A recent paper published in Science titled “Soundscape (声景) of the Anthropocene Oceans”, combined over 10,000 scientific papers, confirming that undersea life knows that exact same feeling, more often than not. Anthropogenic (人为的) ocean noise, also known as underwater noise pollution, has created a dramatic impact on marine life due to “human-caused” activity within and neighboring our oceans.
Disney Pixar’s animated film Finding Nemo educated us about the ocean, and specifically within the ordinary world of a clown fish. A fact many may not know is that clown fish spend the first part of their lives as larvae (幼体), drifting with the current of the ocean until they become strong enough to swim against it. Once they are powerful and strong, they head home in sheltered coral reefs. There is only one drawback-the fish can’t physically see the reef, but they can hear it. The only problem is, if they can’t hear it, will they ever make it home?
Our anthropogenic ocean noise, such as cargo ships, ship and boat propellers (螺旋桨), surfing, deep sea mining, etc. are causing destruction of marine life. According to Time, sound is the sensory signal that travels the farthest through the ocean. Anthropogenic noise drowns out the natural soundscapes, putting marine life under immense stress. Altogether, this stress then affects their general health, disrupts their behavior, physiology, reproduction and, in extreme cases, causes death. Marine life can adapt to noise pollution, however, only if they can escape it. This only renders further complications of forcing species to leave their traditional breeding regions or their families.
Now, what if we told you there is already a solution? Multiple solutions, ideas and designs are currently in the works or already exist to reduce and reverse the damage of anthropogenic ocean noise. As Time explains, from wind-powered ships to noise-reducing propellers, floating wind turbines and “bubble curtains” that muffle construction noise, the solutions are already available and in some cases, cost-effective. The authors of the paper hope it will catch the attention of policymakers, who historically speaking, have ignored the matter still to this day.
Of all the challenges ocean creatures are battling, luckily sound pollution is the easiest compromise (妥协方案) humans can make. Once the noise has decreased, marine life will be able to better manage everything else it is up against.
1. What do we know about “Soundscape of the Anthropocene Oceans”?| A．It analyses how sound travels in the ocean. |
| B．It discusses different types of ocean pollution. |
| C．It explores the effects of noise pollution on sea life. |
| D．It studies how sea animals communicate with each other. |
| A．present their life cycles |
| B．show how terrible their living conditions are |
| C．introduce a famous animation about the ocean world |
| D．stress the importance of natural soundscapes to sea life |
| A．Reduces. | B．Causes. | C．Solves. | D．Prevents. |
| A．publicize the knowledge of soundscape |
| B．regulate human’s activities on the ocean |
| C．emphasize the importance of animal protection |
| D．draw people’s attention to anthropogenic ocean noise |
7 . August 24, 2023 may be imprinted in history as the day of disaster for the marine environment. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has asked Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, to release nuclear wastewater into the ocean from Thursday, ignoring strong objections from both home and abroad.
It will be a public crime if the discharge goes through and the decision will prove to be extremely unrewarding. The international community can hold Japan accountable indefinitely.
According to Paris-based French TV network France 24, some 1.34 million tonnes of nuclear wastewater, equivalent to almost the water in 540 Olympic pools, will be released into the ocean off Japan’s northeast coast, at a maximum rate of 500 cubic meters per day. The whole process is expected to take 30 to 40 years and cost around eight trillion yen (55 billion USD).
Junichi Matsumoto, the TEPCO executive in charge of the water release, told the Associated Press in July that the company plans to release 7,800 tonnes of treated water for 17 days in the first round. By the end of March 2024, the aim is to release 31,200 tonnes. The pace is expected to pick up later.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Sun Weidong asked the Japanese ambassador to China Hideo Tarumi on August 22 to meet him and make serious representations over the Japanese government’s announcement that it would start releasing nuclear-contaminated water on August 24.
Sun said the Fukushima nuclear accident is one of the world’s most serious nuclear accidents to date, resulting in the release of a large amount of radioactive material, which has far-reaching implications for the marine environment, food safety, and human health.
“The ocean is the blue home that all humanity depends on for survival, and the Japanese side should not dump nuclear-contaminated water at will,” Sun said.
1. Who did Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida ask to release nuclear wastewater into the ocean?| A．Spokesperson Wang Wenbin. |
| B．The TEPCO executive Junichi Matsumoto. |
| C．Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Sun Weidong. |
| D．The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. |
| A．1.34 million tonnes. | B．7,800 tonnes. | C．2,3400 tonnes. | D．31,200 tonnes. |
| A．It has no implications for the marine environment. |
| B．Has no implications for food safety and human health. |
| C．It is one of the most serious nuclear accidents in history. |
| D．It resulted in the release of a small amount of radioactive material. |
| A．A research paper. | B．A newspaper report. |
| C．A business report. | D．A geography textbook. |
8 . Microplastics, as the name implies, are tiny plastic particles found in the environment. Any plastic particle that has a diameter of less than 5 mm is considered to be microplastic. For a long time, a majority of people were unaware of the presence of microplastics and their effects on the environment. However, these particles have become a significant topic of debate in recent times after researchers noted their presence in almost every corner of the globe. from Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench.
There are two categories of microplastics: primary and secondary. Primary microplastics are tiny particles meant for external commercial use such as cosmetics, as well as microfibers to make other textiles, such as fishing nets. Secondary microplastics are particles that result from the breakdown of larger plastic items, such as water bottles.
There are various sources of microplastics. Wastewater treatment plants and sewage treatment plants are the major sources of primary microplastics, most of which are residues (残留物) of cosmetics, paint, household and industrial waste. Single-use plastics plastic items meant to be used just once and then discarded, such as a straw — are the main source of secondary plastics in the environment.
The problem with microplastics is that like plastic items of any size they do not readily break down into harmless molecules. Plastics can take hundreds or thousands of years to decompose (降解). That means once produced, we cannot get rid of them. Microplastics exist on beaches and deeper waters, and have been detected in marine organisms from plankton to whales, in commercial seafood, and even in drinking water. They are mistaken for food by marine animals and some plastics are so tiny that they end up in the animal tissues. They are passed across the food chain, and some find their way to humans.
Scientists are still unsure whether consumed microplastics are harmful to human or animal health and if so, what specific dangers they may pose. Even so, many countries are taking action to reduce microplastics in the environment. The best approaches to controlling microplastics include proper handling of plastics and thorough treatment of wastewater.
1. According to the first two paragraphs, microplastics are_________| A．common in our daily life |
| B．used to make glass bottles |
| C．found in all the uninhabited areas |
| D．tiny plastic particles with a diameter of 5mm |
| A．The use of straws should be forbidden. |
| B．Household waste contains microplastics. |
| C．Industrial waste is a source of secondary plastics |
| D．Wastewater and sewage treatment plants are useless. |
| A．Because they’re consumed as food. |
| B．Because they exist on the beaches. |
| C．Because they easily break down. |
| D．Because they’re left out in the food chain. |
| A．To analyze the sources of microplastics. |
| B．To warn people of the danger of microplastics. |
| C．To give an overall introduction to microplastics. |
| D．To persuade people to give up the use of microplastics. |
Light pollution is a serious problem. This became completely obvious when the World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness, a computer-created map based on thousands of satellite (卫星) photos,
Sky glow is the brightening of the night sky, mostly over cities, because
People
According to research, more
A new study found that light pollution is making the night sky brighter and the stars dimmer. Man-made lighting is the main cause, making the night sky about 10 percent brighter each year.
The result was a much faster rate of change than scientists had estimated. The research team gave an example to explain the result. If a child is born where 250 stars can be seen on a clear night, by the time that child turns 18, only 100 stars will be seen.
The researchers said they had hoped to see improvements in light pollution in recent years, because many urban centers have changed their lighting to be more energy-efficient. Towns and cities are replacing older streetlights with modern LEDS that are more carefully directed downwards, where the light is useful.
The hope was that if the light was better directed, the situation would get better. But there are many types of lighting — streetlights, decorative, advertising. So, with all these things combined — and possibly more lighting overall, we are making sky brightness worse. The relatively low cost of LED lighting is also contributing to the problem, that is, the cheaper and better the lighting, the higher society’s addiction to light.
Consequently, light pollution leads to a loss of universal human experience, a source of inspiration for art, science, literature. It also affects the routine of human as well as other forms of life. Migratory songbirds normally use starlight to position where they are in the sky at night. And when sea turtle babies hatch, they use light to position toward the ocean — light pollution is a huge deal for them.
1. What causes light pollution?2. What are the negative effects of light pollution?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
The sky brightness becomes worse because of more modern types of lighting being used and the lack of LED lighting.
4. Besides light pollution, what do you think is the most serious pollution in life? And explain its effects. (In about 40 words)
