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2024-02-21  43
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’s the author’s opinion on nuclear power?
选项 A、It’s one of the emission reduction measures that should be advocated.
B、It’s only applicable to Britain but not the whole world in emission reduction.
C、It’s of no help to the current global climate as a slow way to pull CO2 down.
D、It’s a good way to solve both the energy and pollution problems in the world.
答案 C
解析 根据题干中的nuclear power将本题出处定位到第五段。该段提到作者对核能的看法：对于英国而言，核能是解决能源问题的一个办法， 但它不能改善全球性的气候变化。实施削减排放量的措施为时已晚。由此可知，作者认为把核能作为消减二氧化碳排放量的方法对改善全球性的气候变化起不到作用，故答案为[C]。[A]与It is too late for emissions reduction measures矛盾；核能能够帮英国解决energy problems，不是emission reduction，故排除[B]；[D]与作者提到的not a global cure for climate change矛盾，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3470637.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)