2. 职称英语
  3. The work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons(氯氟化碳)led eventually to a global

The work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons(氯氟化碳)led eventually to a global

游客2023-07-20  23
问题     The work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons(氯氟化碳)led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer reduction. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?
    Not a hope at all. Most of the "green" stuff is very close to a big trick. Carbon trading, with its huge government grants, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.
    I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It’s absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2,500 square kilometers to produce a gigawatt (十亿瓦特) — that’s an awful lot of countryside.
    Work to sequester (隔离) CO2 (carbon dioxide) is also a waste of time. It’s a crazy idea — and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.
    And, nuclear power is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures.
    Yet we are not doomed. There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal (木炭). It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste — which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering — into charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting vast quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.
    What we can do is getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of bio-fuel as an additional product of the burning process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy (补贴): the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference. [br] What does the author say about wind farms in Britain?
选项 A、The gain does not equal to the loss.
B、They can help solve world’s energy problems.
C、They would be perfect if they take up smaller space.
D、They will waste the government lots of time and money.
答案 A
解析 根据题干中的wind farms将本题出处定位到第三段。该段首句提到，作者无法容忍风力发电场对英国城郊环境的破坏，下一句解释说明原因：这绝对没有必要，而且还要占用2500平方公里的面积——这可是极大的乡村面积——去发十亿瓦特的电。由此可推断出，作者认为风力发电场得不偿失，故答案为[A]。[B]、[D]在文中未提及，故排除；[C]是根据an awfullot of countryside进行的过度推断。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2854372.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)