2. 职称英语
  3. Organic Agriculture The idea that shopping is th

Organic Agriculture The idea that shopping is th

游客2024-10-15  6
问题                             Organic Agriculture
    The idea that shopping is the new politics is certainly enticing. Never mind the ballot box: vote with your supermarket trolley instead. Elections occur relatively rarely, but you probably go shopping several times a month, providing yourself with lots of opportunities to express your opinions. If you are worried about the environment, you might buy organic food; if you want to help poor farmers, you can do your bit by buying Fair-trade products; or you can express a dislike of evil multinational companies and rampant globalization by buying only local produce. And the best bit is that shopping, unlike voting, is fun; so you can "do good and enjoy yourself at the same time".
    Sadly, it’s not that easy.There are good reasons to doubt the claims made about three of the most popular varieties of "ethical" food; organic food, Fair-trade food and local food. People who want to make the world a better place cannot do so by shifting their shopping habits: transforming the planet requires duller disciplines, like politics.
    Organic food, which is grown without man-made pesticides and fertilizers, is generally assumed to be more environmentally friendly than conventional intensive farming, which is heavily reliant on chemical inputs. But it all depends what you mean by "environmentally friendly". Farming is inherently bad for the environment. Since humans took it up around 11,000 years ago, the result has been deforestation on a massive scale. But following the "green revolution" of the 1960s greater use of chemical fertilizer has tripled grain yields with very little increase in the area of land under cultivation. Organic methods, which rely on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertilizer, are far less intensive. So producing the world’s current agricultural output organically would require several times as much land as is currently cultivated. There wouldn’t be much room left for the rainforest.
    Surely the case for local food, produced as close as possible to the consumer in order to minimize "food miles" and, by extension, carbon emissions, is clear? Surprisingly, it is not. A study of Britain’s food system found that nearly half of food-vehicle miles (ie. miles traveled by vehicles carrying food) were driven by cars going to and from the shops. Most people live closer to a supermarket than a farmer’s market, so more local food could mean more food-vehicle miles. Moving food around in big, carefully packed lorries, as supermarkets do, may in fact be the most efficient way to transport the stuff. [br] According to the last paragraph, why people’s effort to minimize "food miles" prove to be vain?
选项 A、People drive more to transport local food to supermarket.
B、People drive more to purchase local food in supermarket.
C、People drive more to purchase goods in a farmer’s market.
D、People drive more by cars than by carefully packed lorries.
答案 C
解析 事实细节题。根据题于提示关键词minimize“food miles”定位到原文最后一段第三句和第四句：．．．nearly half of food—vehicle miles…were driven by cars going to and from the shops．Most people live closer to a supermarket than a farmer’s market，so more local food could mean more food-vehicle miles．此处提到近半数的食品运输里程发生在驱车前往或离开超市的过程中。相对于超市，多数人住得离农贸市场比较远，所以买农贸市场的食品就意味着消耗更多的食品运输里程，因此选[C]项。[A]项“人们将本地食物运到超市会消耗更多里程”，[B]项“人们去超市买本地食物会消耗更多里程”和[D]项“相比满载的大货车，人们开的小车会消耗更多里程”均非正确原因。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3802024.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)