一、Part Ⅱ Listening Comprehension
1、Question 1 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Project organizer.
B、Public relations officer.
C、Marketing manager.
D、Market research consultant.
2、Question 2 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Quantitative advertising research.
B、Questionnaire design.
C、Research methodology.
D、Interviewer training.
3、Question 3 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、They are intensive studies of people’s spending habits.
B、They examine relations between producers and customers.
C、They look for new and effective ways to promote products.
D、They study trends or customer satisfaction over a long period.
4、Question 4 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、The lack of promotion opportunity.
B、Checking charts and tables.
C、Designing questionnaires.
D、The persistent intensity.
5、Question 5 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、His view on Canadian universities.
B、His understanding of higher education.
C、His suggestions for improvements in higher education.
D、His complaint about bureaucracy in American universities.
6、Question 6 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、It is well designed.
B、It is rather inflexible.
C、It varies among universities.
D、It has undergone great changes.
7、Question 7 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、The United States and Canada can learn from each other.
B、Public universities are often superior to private universities.
C、Everyone should be given equal access to higher education.
D、Private schools work more efficiently than public institutions.
8、Question 8 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、University systems vary from country to country.
B、Efficiency is essential to university management.
C、It is hard to say which is better, a public university or a private one.
D、Many private universities in the U.S. are actually large bureaucracies.
9、Question 9 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Government’s role in resolving an economic crisis.
B、The worsening real wage situation around the world.
C、Indications of economic recovery in the United States.
D、The impact of the current economic crisis on people’s life.
10、Question 10 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They will feel less pressure to raise employees’ wages.
B、They will feel free to choose the most suitable employees.
C、They will feel inclined to expand their business operations.
D、They will feel more confident in competing with their rivals.
11、Question 11 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Employees and companies cooperate to pull through the economic crisis.
B、Government and companies join hands to create jobs for the unemployed.
C、Employees work shorter hours to avoid layoffs.
D、Team work will be encouraged in companies.
12、Question 12 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Whether memory supplements work.
B、Whether herbal medicine works wonders.
C、Whether exercise enhances one’s memory.
D、Whether a magic memory promises success.
13、Question 13 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They help the elderly more than the young.
B、They are beneficial in one way or another.
C、They generally do not have side effects.
D、They are not based on real science.
14、Question 14 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They are available at most country fairs.
B、They are taken in relatively high dosage.
C、They are collected or grown by farmers.
D、They are prescribed by trained practitioners.
15、Question 15 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They have often proved to be as helpful as doing mental exercise.
B、Taking them with other medications might entail unnecessary risks.
C、Their effect lasts only a short time.
D、Many have benefited from them.
16、Question 16 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、How catastrophic natural disasters turn out to be to developing nations.
B、How the World Meteorological Organization studies natural disasters.
C、How powerless humans appear to be in face of natural disasters.
D、How the negative impacts of natural disasters can be reduced.
17、Question 17 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、By training rescue teams for emergencies.
B、By taking steps to prepare people for them.
C、By changing people’s views of nature.
D、By relocating people to safer places.
18、Question 18 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、How preventive action can reduce the loss of life.
B、How courageous Cubans are in face of disasters.
C、How Cubans suffer from tropical storms.
D、How destructive tropical storms can be.
19、Question 19 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Pay back their loans to the American government.
B、Provide loans to those in severe financial difficulty.
C、Contribute more to the goal of a wider recovery.
D、Speed up their recovery from the housing bubble.
20、Question 20 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Some banks may have to merge with others.
B、Many smaller regional banks are going to fail.
C、It will be hard for banks to provide more loans.
D、Many banks will have to lay off some employees.
21、Question 21 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、It will work closely with the government.
B、It will endeavor to write off bad loans.
C、It will try to lower the interest rate.
D、It will try to provide more loans.
22、Question 22 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、It won’t help the American economy to rum around.
B、It won’t do any good to the major commercial banks.
C、It will win the approval of the Obama administration.
D、It will be necessary if the economy starts to shrink again.
23、Question 23 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Being unable to learn new things.
B、Being rather slow to make changes.
C、Losing temper more and more often.
D、Losing the ability to get on with others.
24、Question 24 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Cognitive stimulation.
B、Community activity.
C、Balanced diet.
D、Fresh air.
25、Question 25 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Ignoring the signs and symptoms of aging.
B、Adopting an optimistic attitude towards life.
C、Endeavoring to give up unhealthy lifestyles.
D、Seeking advice from doctors from time to time.
二、Part III Reading Comprehension
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
26、(1)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
27、(2)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
28、(3)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
29、(4)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
30、(5)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
31、(6)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
32、(7)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
33、(8)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
34、(9)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Pursuing a career is an essential part of adolescent development. “The adolescent becomes an adult when he (26)_____ a real job.” To cognitive researchers like Piaget, adulthood meant the beginning of an (27)_____.
Piaget argued that once adolescents enter the world of work, their newly acquired ability to form hypotheses allows them to create representations that are too ideal. The (28)_____ of such ideals, without the tempering of the reality of a job or profession, rapidly leads adolescents to become (29)_____ of the non-idealistic world and to press for reform in a characteristically adolescent way. Piaget said: “True adaptation to society comes (30)_____ when the adolescent reformer attempts to put his ideas to work.”
Of course, youthful idealism is often courageous, and no one likes to give up dreams. Perhaps, taken (31)_____ out of context, Piaget’s statement seems harsh. What he was (32)_____, however, is the way reality can modify idealistic views. Some people refer to such modification as maturity. Piaget argued that attaining and accepting a vocation is one of the best ways to modify idealized views and to mature.
As careers and vocations become less available during times of (33)_____, adolescents may be especially hard hit. Such difficult economic times may leave many adolescents (34)_____ about their roles in society. For this reason, community interventions and government job programs that offer summer and vacation work are not only economically (35)_____ but also help to stimulate the adolescent’s sense of worth.
35、(10)
A、emphasizing
B、excited
C、entrance
D、intolerant
E、incidentally
F、recession
G、automatically
H、promises
I、occupation
J、undertakes
K、slightly
L、confused
M、existence
N、beneficial
O、capturing
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
36、36. Examples show that both rich and poor countries exploited the environment for economic progress.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
37、37. Environmental protection and improvement benefit people all over the world.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
38、38. It is not necessarily true that economic growth will make our world cleaner.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
39、39. The common theme of the UN reports is the relation between environmental protection and economic growth.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
40、40. Development agencies disagree regarding how to tackle environment issues while ensuring economic progress.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
41、41. It is difficult to find solid evidence to prove environmental friendliness generates more profits than exploiting the natural environment.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
42、42. Sustainable management of ecosystems will prove rewarding in the long run.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
43、43. A politician noted for being cautious asserts that sustainable human development depends on the natural environment.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
44、44. Poor countries will have to bear the cost for rich nations’ economic development.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Can societies be rich and green?
【A】 “If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be eliminated and if the well-being of the world’s people enhanced—not just in this generation but in succeeding generations—we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.” That statement comes not, as you might imagine, from a stereotypical tree-hugging, save-the-world-greenie (环保主义者), but from Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and above all, caution.
【B】A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world’s most powerful economies to say? Perhaps; though in the run-up to the five-year review of the Millennium (千年的) Goals, he is far from alone. The roots of his speech, given in March at the round table meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.
【C】 “The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world,” read the final declaration from this gathering, the first of a sequence which would lead to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Development Summit in Johannesburg three years ago.
【D】 Hunt through the reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups—many for conferences such as this year’s Millennium Goals review—and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread.
【E】Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy. Thoughts turn first to some sort of global statistic, some indicator which would rate the wealth of nations in both economic and environmental terms and show a relationship between the two.
【F】If such an indicator exists, it is well hidden. And on reflection, this is not surprising; the single word “environment” has so many dimensions, and there are so many other factors affecting wealth—such as the oil deposits—that teasing out a simple economy-environment relationship would be almost impossible.
【G】The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a vast four-year global study which reported its initial conclusions earlier this year, found reasons to believe that managing ecosystems sustainably—working with nature rather than against it—might be less profitable in the short term, but certainly brings long-term rewards.
【H】 And the World Resources Institute (WRI) in its World Resources 2005 report, issued at the end of August, produced several such examples from Africa and Asia; it also demonstrated that environmental degradation affects the poor more than the rich, as poorer people derive a much higher proportion of their income directly from the natural resources around them.
【I】But there are also many examples of growing wealth by trashing the environment, in rich and poor parts of the world alike, whether through unregulated mineral extraction, drastic water use for agriculture, slash-and-bum farming, or fossil-fuel-guzzling (大量消耗) transport. Of course, such growth may not persist in the long term—which is what Mr. Brown and the Stockholm declaration were both attempting to point out. Perhaps the best example of boom growth and bust decline is the Grand Banks fishery. For almost five centuries a very large supply of cod (鳕鱼) provided abundant raw material for an industry which at its peak employed about 40,000 people, sustaining entire communities in Newfoundland. Then, abruptly, the cod population collapsed. There were no longer enough fish in the sea for the stock to maintain itself, let alone an industry. More than a decade later, there was no sign of the ecosystem rebuilding itself. It had, apparently, been fished out of existence; and the once mighty Newfoundland fleet now gropes about frantically for crab on the sea floor.
【J】There is a view that modem humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those services—the things which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.
【K】 Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy, and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.
【L】This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.
【M】 Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities.Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers,clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.
【N】 A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.
【O】Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.
45、45. One recent study warns us of the danger of the exhaustion of natural resources on Earth.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Interactive television advertising, which allows viewers to use their remote controls to click on advertisements, has been pushed for years. Nearly a decade ago it was predicted that viewers of “Friends”, a popular situation comedy, would soon be able to purchase a sweater like Jennifer Aniston’s with a few taps on their remote control. “It’s been the year of interactive television advertising for the last ten or twelve years,” says Colin Dixon of a digital-media consultancy.
So the news that Cablevision, an American cable company, was rolling out interactive advertisements to all its customers on October 6th was greeted with some skepticism. During commercials, an overlay will appear at the bottom of the screen, prompting viewers to press a button to request a free sample or order a catalogue. Cablevision hopes to allow customers to buy things with their remote controls early next year.
Television advertising could do with a boost. Spending fell by 10%in the first half of the year. The popularization of digital video recorders has caused advertisers to worry that their commercials will be skipped. Some are turning to the Internet, which is cheaper and offers concrete measurements like click-through rates—especially important at a time when marketing budgets are tight. With the launch of interactive advertising, “many of the dollars that went to the Internet will come back to the TV,” says David Kline of Cablevision. Or so the industry hopes.
In theory, interactive advertising can engage viewers in a way that 30-second spots do not. Unilever recently ran an interactive campaign for its Axe deodorant (除臭剂), which kept viewers engaged for more than three minutes on average.
The amount spent on interactive advertising on television is still small Magna, an advertising agency, reckons it will be worth about $138 million this year. That falls far short of the billions of dollars people once expected it to generate. But DirecTV, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have all invested in it. A new effort led by Canoe Ventures, a coalition of leading cable providers, aims to make interactive advertising available across America later this year. BrightLine iTV, which designs and sells interactive ads, says interest has surged: it expects its revenues almost to triple this year. BSkyB, Britain’s biggest satellite-television service, already provides 9 million customers with interactive ads.
Yet there are doubts whether people watching television, a “lean back” medium, crave interaction. Click-though rates have been high so far (around 3-4%, compared with less than 0.3% online), but that may be a result of the novelty. Interactive ads and viewers might not go well together.
46、46. What does Colin Dixon mean by saying “It’s been the year of interactive television advertising for the last ten or twelve years” (Line 4, Para.1)?
A、Interactive television advertising will become popular in 10-12 years.
B、Interactive television advertising has been under debate for the last decade or so.
C、Interactive television advertising is successful when incorporated into situation comedies.
D、Interactive television advertising has not achieved the anticipated results.
Interactive television advertising, which allows viewers to use their remote controls to click on advertisements, has been pushed for years. Nearly a decade ago it was predicted that viewers of “Friends”, a popular situation comedy, would soon be able to purchase a sweater like Jennifer Aniston’s with a few taps on their remote control. “It’s been the year of interactive television advertising for the last ten or twelve years,” says Colin Dixon of a digital-media consultancy.
So the news that Cablevision, an American cable company, was rolling out interactive advertisements to all its customers on October 6th was greeted with some skepticism. During commercials, an overlay will appear at the bottom of the screen, prompting viewers to press a button to request a free sample or order a catalogue. Cablevision hopes to allow customers to buy things with their remote controls early next year.
Television advertising could do with a boost. Spending fell by 10%in the first half of the year. The popularization of digital video recorders has caused advertisers to worry that their commercials will be skipped. Some are turning to the Internet, which is cheaper and offers concrete measurements like click-through rates—especially important at a time when marketing budgets are tight. With the launch of interactive advertising, “many of the dollars that went to the Internet will come back to the TV,” says David Kline of Cablevision. Or so the industry hopes.
In theory, interactive advertising can engage viewers in a way that 30-second spots do not. Unilever recently ran an interactive campaign for its Axe deodorant (除臭剂), which kept viewers engaged for more than three minutes on average.
The amount spent on interactive advertising on television is still small Magna, an advertising agency, reckons it will be worth about $138 million this year. That falls far short of the billions of dollars people once expected it to generate. But DirecTV, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have all invested in it. A new effort led by Canoe Ventures, a coalition of leading cable providers, aims to make interactive advertising available across America later this year. BrightLine iTV, which designs and sells interactive ads, says interest has surged: it expects its revenues almost to triple this year. BSkyB, Britain’s biggest satellite-television service, already provides 9 million customers with interactive ads.
Yet there are doubts whether people watching television, a “lean back” medium, crave interaction. Click-though rates have been high so far (around 3-4%, compared with less than 0.3% online), but that may be a result of the novelty. Interactive ads and viewers might not go well together.
47、47. What is the public’s response to Cablevision’s planned interactive TV advertising program?
A、Pretty positive.
B、Totally indifferent.
C、Somewhat doubtful.
D、Rather critical.
Interactive television advertising, which allows viewers to use their remote controls to click on advertisements, has been pushed for years. Nearly a decade ago it was predicted that viewers of “Friends”, a popular situation comedy, would soon be able to purchase a sweater like Jennifer Aniston’s with a few taps on their remote control. “It’s been the year of interactive television advertising for the last ten or twelve years,” says Colin Dixon of a digital-media consultancy.
So the news that Cablevision, an American cable company, was rolling out interactive advertisements to all its customers on October 6th was greeted with some skepticism. During commercials, an overlay will appear at the bottom of the screen, prompting viewers to press a button to request a free sample or order a catalogue. Cablevision hopes to allow customers to buy things with their remote controls early next year.
Television advertising could do with a boost. Spending fell by 10%in the first half of the year. The popularization of digital video recorders has caused advertisers to worry that their commercials will be skipped. Some are turning to the Internet, which is cheaper and offers concrete measurements like click-through rates—especially important at a time when marketing budgets are tight. With the launch of interactive advertising, “many of the dollars that went to the Internet will come back to the TV,” says David Kline of Cablevision. Or so the industry hopes.
In theory, interactive advertising can engage viewers in a way that 30-second spots do not. Unilever recently ran an interactive campaign for its Axe deodorant (除臭剂), which kept viewers engaged for more than three minutes on average.
The amount spent on interactive advertising on television is still small Magna, an advertising agency, reckons it will be worth about $138 million this year. That falls far short of the billions of dollars people once expected it to generate. But DirecTV, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have all invested in it. A new effort led by Canoe Ventures, a coalition of leading cable providers, aims to make interactive advertising available across America later this year. BrightLine iTV, which designs and sells interactive ads, says interest has surged: it expects its revenues almost to triple this year. BSkyB, Britain’s biggest satellite-television service, already provides 9 million customers with interactive ads.
Yet there are doubts whether people watching television, a “lean back” medium, crave interaction. Click-though rates have been high so far (around 3-4%, compared with less than 0.3% online), but that may be a result of the novelty. Interactive ads and viewers might not go well together.
48、48. What is the impact of the wide use of digital video recorders on TV advertising?
A、It has made TV advertising easily accessible to viewers.
B、It helps advertisers to measure the click-through rates.
C、It has placed TV advertising at a great disadvantage.
D、It enables viewers to check the sales items with ease.
Interactive television advertising, which allows viewers to use their remote controls to click on advertisements, has been pushed for years. Nearly a decade ago it was predicted that viewers of “Friends”, a popular situation comedy, would soon be able to purchase a sweater like Jennifer Aniston’s with a few taps on their remote control. “It’s been the year of interactive television advertising for the last ten or twelve years,” says Colin Dixon of a digital-media consultancy.
So the news that Cablevision, an American cable company, was rolling out interactive advertisements to all its customers on October 6th was greeted with some skepticism. During commercials, an overlay will appear at the bottom of the screen, prompting viewers to press a button to request a free sample or order a catalogue. Cablevision hopes to allow customers to buy things with their remote controls early next year.
Television advertising could do with a boost. Spending fell by 10%in the first half of the year. The popularization of digital video recorders has caused advertisers to worry that their commercials will be skipped. Some are turning to the Internet, which is cheaper and offers concrete measurements like click-through rates—especially important at a time when marketing budgets are tight. With the launch of interactive advertising, “many of the dollars that went to the Internet will come back to the TV,” says David Kline of Cablevision. Or so the industry hopes.
In theory, interactive advertising can engage viewers in a way that 30-second spots do not. Unilever recently ran an interactive campaign for its Axe deodorant (除臭剂), which kept viewers engaged for more than three minutes on average.
The amount spent on interactive advertising on television is still small Magna, an advertising agency, reckons it will be worth about $138 million this year. That falls far short of the billions of dollars people once expected it to generate. But DirecTV, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have all invested in it. A new effort led by Canoe Ventures, a coalition of leading cable providers, aims to make interactive advertising available across America later this year. BrightLine iTV, which designs and sells interactive ads, says interest has surged: it expects its revenues almost to triple this year. BSkyB, Britain’s biggest satellite-television service, already provides 9 million customers with interactive ads.
Yet there are doubts whether people watching television, a “lean back” medium, crave interaction. Click-though rates have been high so far (around 3-4%, compared with less than 0.3% online), but that may be a result of the novelty. Interactive ads and viewers might not go well together.
49、49. What do we learn about Unilever’s interactive campaign?
A、It proves the advantage of TV advertising.
B、It has done well in engaging the viewers.
C、It helps attract investments in the company.
D、It has boosted the TV advertising industry.
Interactive television advertising, which allows viewers to use their remote controls to click on advertisements, has been pushed for years. Nearly a decade ago it was predicted that viewers of “Friends”, a popular situation comedy, would soon be able to purchase a sweater like Jennifer Aniston’s with a few taps on their remote control. “It’s been the year of interactive television advertising for the last ten or twelve years,” says Colin Dixon of a digital-media consultancy.
So the news that Cablevision, an American cable company, was rolling out interactive advertisements to all its customers on October 6th was greeted with some skepticism. During commercials, an overlay will appear at the bottom of the screen, prompting viewers to press a button to request a free sample or order a catalogue. Cablevision hopes to allow customers to buy things with their remote controls early next year.
Television advertising could do with a boost. Spending fell by 10%in the first half of the year. The popularization of digital video recorders has caused advertisers to worry that their commercials will be skipped. Some are turning to the Internet, which is cheaper and offers concrete measurements like click-through rates—especially important at a time when marketing budgets are tight. With the launch of interactive advertising, “many of the dollars that went to the Internet will come back to the TV,” says David Kline of Cablevision. Or so the industry hopes.
In theory, interactive advertising can engage viewers in a way that 30-second spots do not. Unilever recently ran an interactive campaign for its Axe deodorant (除臭剂), which kept viewers engaged for more than three minutes on average.
The amount spent on interactive advertising on television is still small Magna, an advertising agency, reckons it will be worth about $138 million this year. That falls far short of the billions of dollars people once expected it to generate. But DirecTV, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have all invested in it. A new effort led by Canoe Ventures, a coalition of leading cable providers, aims to make interactive advertising available across America later this year. BrightLine iTV, which designs and sells interactive ads, says interest has surged: it expects its revenues almost to triple this year. BSkyB, Britain’s biggest satellite-television service, already provides 9 million customers with interactive ads.
Yet there are doubts whether people watching television, a “lean back” medium, crave interaction. Click-though rates have been high so far (around 3-4%, compared with less than 0.3% online), but that may be a result of the novelty. Interactive ads and viewers might not go well together.
50、50. How does the author view the hitherto high click-through rates?
A、They may be due to the novel way of advertising.
B、They signify the popularity of interactive advertising.
C、They point to the growing curiosity of TV viewers.
D、They indicate the future direction of media reform.
What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there’re no quick or easy answers. There’s work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it—they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural”, and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand. Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise. But it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act. In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.
The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5%. So the evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment. Why, then, has this claim become so popular?
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment—in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem deeply rooted, with no easy answers, makes them sound serious.
I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression: it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now. Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the workforce is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs—and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.
But now, as then, powerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there’s no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse—a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
51、51. What does the author think is the root cause of mass unemployment in America?
A、Corporate mismanagement.
B、Insufficient demand.
C、Technological advances.
D、Workers’ slow adaptation.
What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there’re no quick or easy answers. There’s work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it—they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural”, and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand. Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise. But it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act. In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.
The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5%. So the evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment. Why, then, has this claim become so popular?
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment—in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem deeply rooted, with no easy answers, makes them sound serious.
I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression: it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now. Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the workforce is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs—and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.
But now, as then, powerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there’s no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse—a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
52、52. What does the author think of the experts’ claim concerning unemployment?
A、Self-evident.
B、Thought-provoking.
C、Irrational.
D、Groundless.
What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there’re no quick or easy answers. There’s work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it—they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural”, and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand. Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise. But it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act. In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.
The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5%. So the evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment. Why, then, has this claim become so popular?
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment—in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem deeply rooted, with no easy answers, makes them sound serious.
I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression: it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now. Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the workforce is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs—and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.
But now, as then, powerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there’s no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse—a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
53、53. What does the author say helped bring down unemployment during the Great Depression?
A、The booming defense industry.
B、The wise heads’ benefit package.
C、Nationwide training of workers.
D、Thorough restructuring of industries.
What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there’re no quick or easy answers. There’s work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it—they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural”, and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand. Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise. But it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act. In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.
The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5%. So the evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment. Why, then, has this claim become so popular?
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment—in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem deeply rooted, with no easy answers, makes them sound serious.
I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression: it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now. Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the workforce is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs—and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.
But now, as then, powerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there’s no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse—a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
54、54. What has caused claims of huge structural problems to multiply?
A、Powerful opposition to government’s stimulus efforts.
B、Very Serious People’s attempt to cripple the economy.
C、Evidence gathered from many sectors of the industries.
D、Economists’ failure to detect the problems in time.
What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there’re no quick or easy answers. There’s work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it—they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural”, and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand. Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise. But it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act. In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.
The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5%. So the evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment. Why, then, has this claim become so popular?
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment—in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem deeply rooted, with no easy answers, makes them sound serious.
I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression: it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now. Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the workforce is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs—and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.
But now, as then, powerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there’s no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse—a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
55、55. What is the author’s purpose in writing the passage?
A、To testify to the experts’ analysis of America’s problems.
B、To offer a feasible solution to the structural unemployment.
C、To show the urgent need for the government to take action.
D、To alert American workers to the urgency for adaptation.
三、Part IV Translation
56、深圳是中国广东省一座新开发的城市。在改革开放之前，深圳不过是一个渔村，仅有三万多人。20世纪80年代，中国政府创建了深圳经济特区，作为实施社会主义市场经济的试验田。如今，深圳的人口已超过1000万，整个城市发生了巨大的变化。
到2014年，深圳的人均（per-capital）GDP已达25000美元，相当于世界上一些发达国家的水平。就综合经济实力而言，深圳居于中国顶尖城市之列。由于其独特的地位，深圳也是国内外企业家创业的理想之地。
参考答案：
Shenzhen is a newly-developed city in Guangdong province, China. Before the implementation of reform and opening-up policy, Shenzhen was just a fishing village with over 30,000 residents. In the 1980s, Chinese government set up Shenzhen Special Economic Zone as a test field of socialist market economy. Nowadays, with a population of over 10 million, the whole city has undergone great changes.
Till 2014, the per-capital GDP of Shenzhen had reached $25,000, equivalent to that of some developed countries in the world. As for comprehensive economic power, Shenzhen is listed among the top cities of China. Due to its unique status, Shenzhen is also an ideal place to start business for entrepreneurs both at home and abroad.
四、Part I Writing
57、Directions：For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a short essay on the use of robots. Try to imagine what will happen when more and more robots take the place of human beings in industry as well as people’s daily lives. You are required to write at least 150 words but no more than 200 words.
参考答案：
It seems the evolution of modern robot technology is a mixed blessing. Some people believe robots will enlighten our life, while others complain robots will bring about great unemployment crisis in human society. As for me, the benefits of increasing robots outweighs the potential problems.
On the one hand, the wide-use of robots lead to greater productivity and economic growth. There is no doubt that for some complicated or routine working stuff, smart robots with set program can finish more quickly and perfectly. On the other hand, robots can free human from dirty, dangerous or boring tasks so that human can focus on innovative tasks. Moreover, though machines will replace workers in specific jobs, technological progress will create more opportunities for employment at the same time.
All in all, the increasing number of robots will change our lifestyle for sure, but there is no need to worry. With the help of robots we will enjoy an exceptional comforting life in the forthcoming future.
译文：
现代机器技术的进步似乎是祸福兼具。一些人认为机器人会给我们的生活以启发，另一些人则抱怨机器人会带来失业危机。就我而言，越来越多的机器人能带来的好处要比潜在问题多。
一方面，机器人的广泛使用导致更高的生产力和经济增长。毫无疑问，对于一些复杂或者机械的工作，设定好程序的智能机器人完成的更快更完美。另一方面，机器人可以将人从脏乱、危险或者无趣的工作中解放出来，这样人类就可以专注于创新性工作。此外，尽管机器会在特定工作中取代工人，与此同时，科技的进步会创造更多的工作机会。
总之，机器人数量的增长必然会改变我们的生活，但没必要为此担忧。在机器人的协助下，未来我们会享受到格外舒适的生活。
喵呜刷题：让学习像火箭一样快速，快来微信扫码，体验免费刷题服务，开启你的学习加速器！
