单选题
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 roundtable 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-burn 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 re-building 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 modern humans are inevitably sowing the seed 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 flee—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-band 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-flee 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.
问答题     Examples show that both rich and poor countries exploited the environment for economic progress.
 
【正确答案】I
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词Examples、both rich and poor countries和exploited the environment for economic progress。文章段落中举例说明富裕和贫穷的国家都为发展经济而开发环境的内容出现在I段。该段首句提到,仍有很多通过破坏环境来增加财富的例子,在世界上富裕和贫穷的地方都是如此,不管是通过不加控制的矿物开采,极为大量的农业用水,砍伐和烧毁森林以发展农耕,还是消耗大量矿物燃料的交通运输。由此可知,题干是对原文内容的同义转述。题干中的Examples show that对应原文中的there are also many examples of,题干中的both rich and poor countries对应原文中的in rich and poor parts of the world alike,题干中的exploited the environment for economic progress对应原文中的growing wealth by trashing the environment。
问答题     Environmental protection and improvement benefit people all over the world.
 
【正确答案】C
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词Environmental protection and improvement和benefit people。文章段落中论及保护和改善环境对全世界有益的内容出现在C段。该段首句提到,保护和改善人类环境是一个重要的议题,这个议题影响着人类的幸福和世界经济的发展。由此可知,题干是对原文的同义转述。题干中的Environmental protection and improvement对应原文中的The protection and improvement of the human environment,题干中的benefit people all over the world对应原文中的affects the well-being of peoples... throughout the world。
问答题     It is not necessarily true that economic growth will make our world cleaner.
 
【正确答案】L
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词not necessarily true、economic growth和make our world cleaner。文章段落中提到经济发展是否会使我们的世界更洁净的内容出现在L段。该段首句提到,有观点认为富裕的社会将会对环境保护进行投资,下文用斯德哥尔摩声明中的内容论证:贫穷和富裕同样会过度开发自然世界,只是出于不同的原因。该段最后一句指出,经济发展将必然使我们的世界变得更洁净,这绝非事实。由此可知,题干是对原文的同义转述。题干中的not necessarily true对应原文中的simply not true,题干中的economic growth will make our world cleaner是原词重现。
问答题     The common theme of the UN reports is the relation between environmental protection and economic growth.
 
【正确答案】D
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词common theme of the UN reports。文章段落中论及联合国报告的常见主题的内容出现在D段。该段提到,找遍由联合国组织和发展小组准备的报道,你会发现环境保护和经济发展之间的联系是一条普遍的线索。由此可知,题干是对原文的同义转述。题干中的common theme对应原文中的common thread,题干中的UN reports对应原文中的reports prepared by UN agencies and development groups,题干中的the relation between environmental protection and economic growth对应原文中的the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress。
问答题     Development agencies disagree regarding how to tackle environment issues while ensuring economic progress.
 
【正确答案】K
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词Development agencies和disagree。文章段落中论及发展机构意见不统一的内容出现在K段。该段提到,这也是发展机构在环境问题方面的观点不统一的原因。一些机构认为,环境发展有必要与经济发展并行不悖;其他一些机构则辩称,建立起兴旺发达的经济才是首要任务,然后可以利用创造的财富去解决环境退化问题。由此可知,题干是对原文的同义概括。题干中的disagree regarding how to tackle environment issues While ensuring economic progress对应原文中的are not united in their view of environmental issues。
问答题     It is difficult to find solid evidence to prove environmental friendliness generates more profits than exploiting the natural environment.
 
【正确答案】E
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词solid evidence和environmental friendliness generates more profits than exploiting the natural environment。文章段落中论及找到证据证明环保比开发自然环境能产生更多利润的内容出现在E段。该段前两句提到,根据千年生态系统评估,可持续地管理生态系统比开发生态系统更有利可图。但是要找到确凿的证据来支撑这个论点并不容易。由此可知,题干是对原文的同义转述。题干中的difficult to find solid evidence对应原文中的finding hard evidence to support the thesis is not so easy,题干中的environmental friendliness generates more profits than exploiting the natural environment对应原文中的Managing ecosystems sustainably is more profitable than exploiting them。
问答题     Sustainable management of ecosystems will prove rewarding in the long run.
 
【正确答案】G
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词Sustainable management of ecosystems、rewarding和in the long run。文章段落中论及对生态系统进行可持续管理是否有益的内容出现在G段。该段指出,今年早些时候,千年生态系统评估汇报了它初步的研究结论:有理由去相信可持续地管理生态系统或许从短期来看获利较少,但一定能带来长期的回报。由此可知,题干是对原文的同义转述。题干中的Sustainable management of ecosystems对应原文中的managing ecosystems sustainably,题干中的prove rewarding in the long run对应原文中的certainly brings long-term rewards。
问答题     A politician noted for being cautious asserts that sustainable human development depends on the natural environment.
 
【正确答案】A
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词A politician noted for being cautious。文章段落中提到一位因谨慎而闻名的政治家的内容出现在A段。该段首先引用了一段话:“如果我们的经济要繁荣,如果要根除全球贫困,如果要让世界人民更加幸福,不仅仅在我们这一代,而是接下来的世世代代,我们必须确保照看好我们的经济活动所依赖的自然环境和资源。”接着指出,这番话并非出自一个狂热的环保主义者,而是来自于戈登·布朗,一位以严苛、认真、尤其是谨慎而闻名的政治家。由此可知,题干是对原文的同义概括。题干中的sustainable human development depends on the natural environment即是对原文中戈登·布朗的话的总结概括。
问答题     Poor countries will have to bear the cost for rich nations' economic development.
 
【正确答案】N
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词Poor countries和bear the cost for rich nation's economic development。文章段落中论及贫困国家不得不承受富裕国家经济发展所造成的代价的内容出现在N段。该段首句指出,富裕的国家把环境问题输出到国外了,最形象的例子就是气候变化。最后一句提到,随着国家变得更富裕,它们产生更多的温室气体;而那些气体的影响将主要波及世界贫困地区。由此可知,题干是对原文的同义概括。
问答题     One recent study warns us of the danger of the exhaustion of natural resources on Earth.
 
【正确答案】J
【答案解析】注意抓住题干中的关键词One recent study、danger和exhaustion of natural resources。文章段落中论及一项最近的研究对我们提出警告的内容出现在J段。该段第三句提到,最近的一项研究试图计算出这种“人类经济生态超标”的程度,该研究发现,我们正在使用相当于地球价值1.2倍的环境产品和服务,言下之意即,在某一时刻,债是要追偿的,所有那些服务——地球免费提供给我们的东西——将慢慢停止。因此,这项研究其实是在对自然资源可能被消耗殆尽提出警告。题干是对原文的同义概括。