题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A. makes to
B. tends to
C. resists to
D. compares to
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“ The climate on our planet()be…”相关的问题
A．plugs in
B．fixes up
C．interacts with
D．has something to do with
A．In the absence of
B．for a while
C．if anything
D．have something to do with
Climate change may be real, but it’s still not easy being green
How do we convince our inner caveman to be greener？We ask some outstanding social scientists.
A) The road to climate hell is paved with our good intentions. Politicians may tackle polluters while scientists do battle with carbon emissions. But the most pervasive problem is less obvious: our own behaviour. We get distracted before we can turn down the heating. We break our promise not to fly after hearing about a neighbor’s rip to India. Ultimately, we can’t be bothered to change our attitude. Fortunately for the planet, social science and behavioral economics may be able to do that for us.
B) Despite mournful polar bears and carts showing carbon emissions soaring, mot people find it hard to believe that global warming will affect them personally. Recent polls by the Pew Research Centre in Washington, DC, found that 75-80 per cent of participants regarded climate change as an important issue. But respondents ranked it last on a list of priorities.
C) This inconsistency largely stems from a feeling of powerlessness. “When we can’t actually remove the source of our fear, we tend to adapt psychologically by adopting a range of defense mechanisms,” says Tom Crompton, change strategist for the environmental organization World Wide Fund for Nature.
D) Part of the fault lies with our inner caveman. Evolution has programmed humans to pay most attention to issues that will have an immediate impact. “We worry most about now because if we don’t survive for the next minute, we’re not going to be around in ten years’ time,” says Professor Elke Weber of the Centre for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University in New York. If the Thames were lapping around Big Ben, Londoners would face up to the problem of emissions pretty quickly. But in practice, our brain discounts the risks—and benefits—associated with issues that lie some way ahead.
E) Matthew Rushworth, of the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford, sees this in his lab every day. “One of the ways in which all agents seem to make decisions is that they assign a lower weighting to outcomes that are going to be further away in the future,” he says. “This is a very sensible way for an animal to make decisions in the wild and would have been very helpful for humans for thousands of years.”
F) Not any longer. By the time we wake up to the threat posed by climate change, it could well be too late. And if we’re not going to make national decisions about the future, others may have to help us to do so.
G) Few political libraries are without a copy of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. They argue that governments should persuade us into making better decisions—such as saving more in our pension plans—by changing the default options. Professor Weber believes that environmental policy can make use of similar tactics. If, for example, building codes included green construction guidelines, most developers would be too lazy to challenge them.
H) Defaults are certainly part of the solution. But social scientists are most concerned about crafting messages that exploit our group mentality(心态). ”We need to understand what motivates people, what it is that allows them to make change,” says Professor Neil Adger, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich. ”It is actually about what their peers think of them, what their social norms are, what is seen as desirable in society.” In other words, our inner caveman is continually looking over his shoulder to see what the rest of the tribe are up to.
I) The passive attitude we have to climate change as individuals can be altered by counting us in—and measuring us against—our peer group. “Social norms are primitive and elemental,” says Dr. Robert Cialdini, author of Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. “Birds flock together, fish school together, cattle herd together … just perceiving norms is enough to cause people to adjust their behavior. in the direction of the crowd.”
J) These norms can take us beyond good intentions. Cialdini conducted a study in San Diego in which coat hangers bearing messages about saving energy were hung on people’s doors. Some of the messages mentioned the environment, some financial savings, others social responsibility. But it was the one that mentioned the actions of neighbours that drove down power use.
K) Other studies show that simply providing the facility for people to compare their energy use with the local average is enough to cause them to modify their behaviour. The Conservatives plan to adopt this strategy by making utility companies print the average local electricity and gas usage on people’s bills.
L) Social science can also teach politicians how to avoid our collective capacity for self-destructive behaviour. Environmental campaigns that tell us how many people drive SUVs unwittingly (不经意地) imply that this behaviour is widespread and thus permissible. Cialdini recommends some careful framing of the message. “Instead of normalising the undesirable behaviour, the message needs to marginalise it, for example, by stating that if even one person buys yet another SUV, it reduces our ability to be energy-independent.”
M) Tapping into how we already see ourselves is crucial. The most successful environmental strategy will marry the green message to our own sense of identity. Take your average trade union member, chances are they will be politically motivated and be used to collective action—much like Erica Gregory. A retired member of the Public and Commercial Services Union, she is setting up one of 1,100 action groups with the support of Climate Solidarity, a two-year environmental campaign aimed at trade unionists.
N) Erica is proof that a great-grandmother can help to lead the revolution if your get the psychology right—in this case, by matching her enthusiasm for the environment with a fondness for organising groups. “I think there must be something in it.” She is expecting up to 20 people at the first meeting she has called, at her local pub in the Cornish village of Polperro.
O) Nick Perks, project director for Climate Solidarity, believes this sort of activity is where the future of environmental action lies. “Using existing civil society structures or networks is a more effective way of creating change … and obviously trade unions are one of the biggest civil society networks in the UK,” he says. The “Love Food, Haste Waste” campaign entered into a collaboration last year with another such network—the Women’s Institute. Londoner Rachel Talor joined the campaign with the aim of making new friends. A year on, the meetings have made lasting changes to what she throws away in her kitchen. “It’s always more of an incentive if you’re doing it with other people,” she says. “It motivates you more if you know that you’ve got to provide feedback to a group.”
P) The power of such simple psychology in fighting climate change is attracting attention across the political establishment. In the US, the House of Representatives Science Committee has approved a bill allocating $10 million a year to studying energy-related behaviour. In the UK, new studies are in development and social scientists are regularly spotted in British government offices. With the help of psychologists, there is fresh hope that we might go green after all.
46. When people find they are powerless to change a situation, they tend to live with it.
47. To be effective, environmental messages should be carefully framed.
48. It is the government’s responsibility to persuade people into making environment-friendly decisions.
49. Politicians are beginning to realize the importance of enlisting psychologists’ help in fighting climate change.
50. To find effective solutions to climate change, it is necessary to understand what motivates people to make change.
51. In their evolution, humans have learned to pay attention to the most urgent issues instead of long-term concerns.
52. One study shows that our neighbors’ actions are influential unchanging our behavior.
53. Despite clear signs of global warming, it is not easy for most people to believe climate change will affect their own lives.
54.We would take our future into consideration in making decisions concerning climate change before it is too late.
55. Existing social networks can be more effective in creating change in people’s behaviour.
1)、A.climate
B.rings
C.every
D.also
E.how
2)、A.climate
B.rings
C.every
D.also
E.how
3)、A.climate
B.rings
C.every
D.also
E.how
4)、A.climate
B.rings
C.every
D.also
E.how
5)、A.climate
B.rings
C.every
D.also
E.how
Despite gaps and uncertainties in our understanding, we can see that our world is changing. After 10,000 years of relative stability, the average global temperature is increasing. Although the European Union’s (EU’s) greenhouse gas emissions are declining, fossil fuels release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than our land and oceans can absorb. Some regions are more vulnerable to the potential impacts of climate change – and t
1Though different understandings exist, one thing people all recognize is that __________.
A、more greenhouse gases are emitted than our land can absorb
B、the world we are living in is different from what it was before
C、some countries are too vulnerable to adapt to climate change
D、EU countries are producing less greenhouse gas emissions now
2Additional pressure on our natural systems can result from ___________.
A、the change of lifestyles of people in the developed countries
B、the accelerated extinction rates of plant and animal species
C、the improvement of living standards in developing countries
D、the risk of turning our home into an unlivable place for us
3What is a main cause of global biodiversity loss？
A、The disappearance of natural habitats caused by human activities.
B、The increase of the average temperature in the world.
C、The release of excessive greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
D、The consumption and production patterns we follow today.
4Why are large areas of forests cut down every year according to the passage？
A、To provide wood for urban development.
B、To turn the land into other uses.
C、To grow grass for cattle to eat.
D、To grow crops to meet human demand.
5What point does the writer try to illustrate through the passage？
A、Our quality of life is declining due to environment change.
B、Damage to natural environment should be prevented.
C、Human beings should rethink their activities on earth.
D、Economy and natural systems are closely connected.
Low-carbon Future：We Can Afford to Go Green
Tackling climate change will cost consumers the earth．Those who campaign for a green revolution are out to destroy our western lifestyles．Such are the cries of opponents of emissions cuts，and their message has political impact：a number of surveys have found that the enthusiasm of voters for policies to reduce climate change falls off as the price tag increases．
However，a new modelling(模型化)exercise suggests that these fears are largely unfounded．It projects that radical cuts to the UK's emissions will cause barely noticeable increases in the price of food，drink and most other goods by 2050．Electricity and petrol costs will rise significantly，but with the right policies in place，say the modellers，this need not lead to big changes in our lifestyle．
"these results show that the global project to fight climate change is feasible，"says Alex Bowen，a climate policy expert at the London School of Economics．"It's not such a big ask as people are making out．"
Although it is impossible to precisely predict prices four decades from now．the exercise is one of the most detailed examinations yet of the impact of climate change policies on UK consumers．It provides a useful rough guide to our economic future．
Though its results speak directly to the UK consumer，previous research has come to similar conclusions for the US．In June，one study found that if the US were to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050，prices of most consumer goods would increase by less than 5 per cent．The findings are also consistent with analyses by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Washington DC．"Even cutting emissions by 80 per cent over four decades has a very small effect on consumers in most areas，”says Manik Roy of the Pew Center．"The challenge is now to convince consumers and policy-makers that this is the case．"
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends that wealthy nations cut their emissions to between 80 and 95 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change．The UK government aims to reduce its contribution by 80 per cent and leaders of the other G8 nations have discussed following suit．To meet this goal，industries will have to cut down fossil fuel consumption，and low-carbon power sources will have to massively expand. Companies will have to pay increasingly higher prices for the right to emit greenhouse gases.
How will this affect the average citizen's wallet？ To measure the impact of the 80 per cent target on the UK population, New Scientist approached Cambridge Econometrics, a firm known for its modelling of the European economy. The firm used historic economic data to predict the impact of emissions reductions on prices in over 40 categories of goods and services. It compared the impact of the 80 per cent cut with a baseline situation in which the government takes no action other than the limited emissions restrictions already in place as a result of the Ky-oto protocol (京都议定书).
Most of the price increases are a consequence of rising energy costs, in part because coal and gas are re-placed by more expensive low-carbon sources. The price of electricity is projected to be 15 per cent higher in 2050 compared with the baseline. In today's prices, that would add around ￡5 onto typical monthly household electricity bills. It will also result in higher prices elsewhere, as every industrial sector uses electricity.
But electricity and other forms of energy make up only a small part of the price of most goods. Other factors-raw materials, labour and taxes-are far more important. The energy that goes into producing food, alcoholic drinks and tobacco, for example, makes up just 2 per cent of the consumer price. For motor vehicle purchases and hotel stays, the figure is 1 per cent. Only for energy-intensive industries does the
A．Economic recession is widely spread.
B．Western lifestyles are destroyed.
C．The cost of a green revolution rises.
D．The environment is improved.
A.there is less extreme weather
B.the global temperature is always stable
C.the globe is not waring
D.carbon dioxide delays global wanning
Climate change is one of the most important environmental issues facing human- kind. Understanding the potential impacts of climate change for natural ecosystems is essential if we are going to manage our environment to minimize the negative consequences of climate change and maximize the opportunities that it may offer. Because natural ecosystems are complex, nonlinear systems, it follows that their responses to climate change are likely to be complex. Climate change may affect natural ecosystems m a variety of ways. In the short term. climate change can alter the mix of plant species in land ecosystems such as grasslands. In the long term, climate change has the potential to dramatically alter the geo- graphic distribution of major vegetation types savannas, forests, and climate change can also potentially alter global ecosystem processes, including the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur. Moreover. changes in these ecosystem processes can affect and be affected by changes in the plant species of the ecosystem and vegetation type. All of the climate change-induced alterations of natural ecosystems affect the services, that these ecosystems provide to humans.
The global average surface temperature increase of half a degree Celsius observed over the past century has been in part due to differential changes in daily maximum and minimum temperatures, resulting in a narrowing of the diurnal temperature range. Decreases in the diurnal temperature range were first identified in the United States, where large-area trends showed that maximum temperatures have remained constant or increased only slightly, whereas minimum temperatures have increased at a faster rate. In this issue, Al-ward et al. report on the different sensitivities of rangeland plants to minimum temperature increases.
Which of the following is NOT mentioned as a reason for the global warming？
A．The burning of fuels such as coal or oil.
B．The clearing of forests.
C．The cultivation of farmland,
D．The negative consequences of human activities.
