According to Harry Morrison, businesses .A．will benefit from cutting carbon emissionsB．should buy carbon allowances for shoppersC．are required to make up for their carbon emissionsD．have encouraged shoppers to take their custom elsewhere

On Venus there is a lot of__________.

A.water
B.carbon dioxide
C.carbon monoxide
D.oxygen

Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program 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 everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is 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 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）t0 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 shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates 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 their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious 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.
Which of the following is true,according to Paragraphs 4 and 5?

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.

Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program 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 everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is 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 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）t0 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 shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates 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 their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious 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.
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

Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program 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 everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is 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 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）t0 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 shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates 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 their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious 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.
The author views the carbon pricing campaign with______.

A.sincere admiration
B.strong skepticism
C.reserved approval
D.slight uncertainty

共用题干
第一篇

Carbon Footprint

How often do you travel by plane?How much electricity do you use?
These days everyone is worried about the size of their carbon footprint.In order to reduce global warming we need to make our carbon footprints smaller. But how much CO₂ are we responsible for?
A new book might be able to help.The Carbon Footprint of Everything looks at the different things we do and buy,and calculates the amount of CO₂ all of the following created:the ingredients, the electricity used in the brewery，the equipment,the travel and commuting of the beer,and the packaging. It's amazing how many different things need to be included in each calculation.And it's frightening how much carbon dioxide everything produces.
But all of this can help us decide which beer to drink.From Berners-Lee's calculations,it's clear that a pint(568ml)of locally-brewed beer has a smaller carbon footprint than a bottle of imported beer. This is because the imported beer has been transported from far away,and it uses more packaging. The local beer only produces 300g of CO₂,but the imported beer produces 900g! So, one pint of local beer is better for the environment than three cans of cheap foreign lager from the supermarket.
Berners-Lee has even calculated the carbon footprint of cycling to work.Nothing is more environmentally-friendly than riding a bike,surely?Well,it depends on what you've had to eat before. To ride a bike we need energy and for energy we need food.So if we eat a banana and then ride a kilometer and a half,our footprint is 65g of CO₂.However,if we eat bacon before the bike ride,it's 200g. In fact,bananas are good in general because they don't need packaging,they can be transported by boat and they grow in natural sunlight.
So,does this mean that cycling is bad for the environment?Absolutely not,for a start,if you cycle,you don't use your car,and the fewer cars on the road,the fewer traffic jams.And cars in traffic jams produce three times more CO₂ than cars traveling at speed.Cycling also makes you healthy and less likely to go to a hospital. And hospitals have very big carbon footprints!
So maybe it's time for us all to start making some changes.Pass me a banana and a pint of local beer,please.

To make our carbon footprints smaller,we should often________.
A:cycle to work
B:drink more local beer
C:calculate the amount of CO₂
D:buy cheap things from the supermarkets

共用题干
第一篇

Carbon Footprint

How often do you travel by plane?How much electricity do you use?
These days everyone is worried about the size of their carbon footprint.In order to reduce global warming we need to make our carbon footprints smaller. But how much CO₂ are we responsible for?
A new book might be able to help.The Carbon Footprint of Everything looks at the different things we do and buy,and calculates the amount of CO₂ all of the following created:the ingredients, the electricity used in the brewery，the equipment,the travel and commuting of the beer,and the packaging. It's amazing how many different things need to be included in each calculation.And it's frightening how much carbon dioxide everything produces.
But all of this can help us decide which beer to drink.From Berners-Lee's calculations,it's clear that a pint(568ml)of locally-brewed beer has a smaller carbon footprint than a bottle of imported beer. This is because the imported beer has been transported from far away,and it uses more packaging. The local beer only produces 300g of CO₂,but the imported beer produces 900g! So, one pint of local beer is better for the environment than three cans of cheap foreign lager from the supermarket.
Berners-Lee has even calculated the carbon footprint of cycling to work.Nothing is more environmentally-friendly than riding a bike,surely?Well,it depends on what you've had to eat before. To ride a bike we need energy and for energy we need food.So if we eat a banana and then ride a kilometer and a half,our footprint is 65g of CO₂.However,if we eat bacon before the bike ride,it's 200g. In fact,bananas are good in general because they don't need packaging,they can be transported by boat and they grow in natural sunlight.
So,does this mean that cycling is bad for the environment?Absolutely not,for a start,if you cycle,you don't use your car,and the fewer cars on the road,the fewer traffic jams.And cars in traffic jams produce three times more CO₂ than cars traveling at speed.Cycling also makes you healthy and less likely to go to a hospital. And hospitals have very big carbon footprints!
So maybe it's time for us all to start making some changes.Pass me a banana and a pint of local beer,please.

We CANNOT infer from this passage that________.
A:many different things need to be included in carbon footprint calculation
B:everything produces carbon dioxide
C:bananas are good in general because they are healthy food
D:cycling is good for the environment

Forests give us shade,quiet and one of the larder callenges in the fight against climate change.Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce,we are threatening their ability to do so.The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.Thankfully,there is a way out of this trap-but it involves striking a subtle balance.Helping forests flourish as valuable“carbon sinks”long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now.California is leading the way,as it does on so many climate efforts,in figuring out the details.The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest.This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity.But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture,so they grow and thrive,restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air.Healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects.The landscape is rendered less easily burnable.Even in the event of a fine,fewer trees are consumed.The need for such planning is increasingly urgent.Already,since 2010,drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in California,most of them in 2016 alone,and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.California plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020,and 60,000 by 2030-financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions.That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit,about half a million acres in all,so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels.New research on transportation biofuels is already under way.State governments are well accustomed to managing forests,but traditionally they’ve focused on wildlife,watersheds and opportunities for recreation.Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon.California’s plan,which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year,should serve as a model.To maintain forests as valuable“carbon sinks,”we may need to_______.《》（）

A.preserve the diversity of species in them
B.accelerate the growth of young trees
C.strike a balance among different plants
D.lower their present carbon-absorbing capacity

Forests give us shade,quiet and one of the larder callenges in the fight against climate change.Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce,we are threatening their ability to do so.The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.Thankfully,there is a way out of this trap-but it involves striking a subtle balance.Helping forests flourish as valuable“carbon sinks”long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now.California is leading the way,as it does on so many climate efforts,in figuring out the details.The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest.This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity.But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture,so they grow and thrive,restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air.Healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects.The landscape is rendered less easily burnable.Even in the event of a fine,fewer trees are consumed.The need for such planning is increasingly urgent.Already,since 2010,drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in California,most of them in 2016 alone,and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.California plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020,and 60,000 by 2030-financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions.That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit,about half a million acres in all,so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels.New research on transportation biofuels is already under way.State governments are well accustomed to managing forests,but traditionally they’ve focused on wildlife,watersheds and opportunities for recreation.Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon.California’s plan,which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year,should serve as a model.California’s Forest Carbon Plan endeavors to_______.《》（）

A.cultivate more drought-resistant trees
B.reduce the density of some of its forests
C.find more effective ways to kill insects
D.restore its forests quickly after wildfires

Forests give us shade,quiet and one of the larder callenges in the fight against climate change.Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce,we are threatening their ability to do so.The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.Thankfully,there is a way out of this trap-but it involves striking a subtle balance.Helping forests flourish as valuable“carbon sinks”long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now.California is leading the way,as it does on so many climate efforts,in figuring out the details.The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest.This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity.But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture,so they grow and thrive,restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air.Healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects.The landscape is rendered less easily burnable.Even in the event of a fine,fewer trees are consumed.The need for such planning is increasingly urgent.Already,since 2010,drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in California,most of them in 2016 alone,and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.California plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020,and 60,000 by 2030-financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions.That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit,about half a million acres in all,so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels.New research on transportation biofuels is already under way.State governments are well accustomed to managing forests,but traditionally they’ve focused on wildlife,watersheds and opportunities for recreation.Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon.California’s plan,which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year,should serve as a model.
　　What is essential to California’s plan according to Paragraph 5?《》（）

A.To handle the areas in serious danger first.
B.To carry it out before the year of 2020.
C.To perfect the emissions-permit auctions.
D.To obtain enough financial support.

Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program 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 everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is 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 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）t0 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 shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates 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 their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious 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
Fossil fuel giants____.

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

共用题干
第一篇

Carbon Footprint

How often do you travel by plane?How much electricity do you use?
These days everyone is worried about the size of their carbon footprint.In order to reduce global warming we need to make our carbon footprints smaller. But how much CO₂ are we responsible for?
A new book might be able to help.The Carbon Footprint of Everything looks at the different things we do and buy,and calculates the amount of CO₂ all of the following created:the ingredients, the electricity used in the brewery，the equipment,the travel and commuting of the beer,and the packaging. It's amazing how many different things need to be included in each calculation.And it's frightening how much carbon dioxide everything produces.
But all of this can help us decide which beer to drink.From Berners-Lee's calculations,it's clear that a pint(568ml)of locally-brewed beer has a smaller carbon footprint than a bottle of imported beer. This is because the imported beer has been transported from far away,and it uses more packaging. The local beer only produces 300g of CO₂,but the imported beer produces 900g! So, one pint of local beer is better for the environment than three cans of cheap foreign lager from the supermarket.
Berners-Lee has even calculated the carbon footprint of cycling to work.Nothing is more environmentally-friendly than riding a bike,surely?Well,it depends on what you've had to eat before. To ride a bike we need energy and for energy we need food.So if we eat a banana and then ride a kilometer and a half,our footprint is 65g of CO₂.However,if we eat bacon before the bike ride,it's 200g. In fact,bananas are good in general because they don't need packaging,they can be transported by boat and they grow in natural sunlight.
So,does this mean that cycling is bad for the environment?Absolutely not,for a start,if you cycle,you don't use your car,and the fewer cars on the road,the fewer traffic jams.And cars in traffic jams produce three times more CO₂ than cars traveling at speed.Cycling also makes you healthy and less likely to go to a hospital. And hospitals have very big carbon footprints!
So maybe it's time for us all to start making some changes.Pass me a banana and a pint of local beer,please.

According to Berners-Lee,which of the following produces the most carbon dioxide?
A:A pint of local beer we drink.
B:A pint of imported beer we drink.
C:A banana we eat before a bike ride.
D:The bacon we eat before a bike ride.

Which of the following，according to the passage，is a list of three natural sources of radiation？( )

A.Radioactive potassium in bone，strontium 90，uranium ore.
B.Carbon 14 in tissues，cosmic rays，X rays.
C.Cosmic rays，radioactive potassium in bones，radioactive carbon in tissues.
D.X rays，carbon 14，plutonium.