- •Part three
- •2. Write the word next to its definition. The sentences in the previous exercise will help you decide on the meaning of each word.
- •3. Using the answer line provided, complete each item below with the correct word from the box. Use each word once.
- •4. Summarize the issue presented in the text.
- •3.2 B. Listening and Watching
- •1. Check the statement that summarizes the commentator's viewpoint.
- •2. Read the following questions and answers. Listen to the commentary again and circle the best answer.
- •3. For discussion
- •3.2 C. Live and Let the Others Live
- •1. Read the article
- •Based on the article by Jon Bowermaster1
- •2. Find the words meaning the same in text.
- •3. Match the words that collocate.
- •4. Authors can have different viewpoints, but their opinions can sometimes be similar. Read the statements below and say whether Trefil and or Bowermaster would agree with them.
- •5. After you have distinguished the opinions of the commentator and the author, express your own opinions on the above statements.
- •3.2 D. Vocabulary in Focus
- •1. “All Creatures Great and Dying” is an allusion to Biblical all creatures great and small.
- •2. Match the following allusions with their meaning.
- •3. Replace the italicized words with one of the discussed allusions.
- •4. Use allusions from the list above no more than once in completing the sentences below.
- •5. Choose the word that best completes each of the sentences.
- •6. Explain the meaning of the following animal idioms and use them in the sentences, change the form if necessary.
- •3.2 E. Creative Consolidation
- •2. Complete the sentences with the terms from the previous exercise.
- •3.3 B Words in Context
- •1. Tick the word closest in meaning to that of the each boldfaced word. Use the context of the sentences to help you figure out each word’s meaning.
- •2. Write the word next to its definition. The sentences in the previous exercise will help you decide on the meaning of each word.
- •3. Using the answer line provided, complete each item below with the correct word from the box. Use each word once.
- •Indoor pollution
- •3.3 C. Economics and Ecology
- •1. Read the article.
- •2. Find the words in the article which mean the same.
- •2. Read the four questions below and answer them after listening to the first part of the interview.
- •3. Match the words from the second part of the interview with their explanations.
- •4. Listen to the second part of the interview about eco-efficiency label. And answer the questions below.
- •5. Discuss the following questions.
- •3.3 E. Vocabulary in Focus
- •1. Explain the meaning of the words and phrases in bold.
- •2. Make the sentences more formal using the words from the previous exercise instead of the underlined ones. Make any other necessary changes to produce a correct sentence.
- •3. Complete the sentences with the following expressions from the box.
- •4. What do the words in the bold mean? Match the words with their explanations. Answer the questions that follow.
- •5. Study the following expressions and match the two parts of the sentences containing these expressions.
- •6. Use the words in the box once each to complete the paragraph below.
- •3.3 F. Creative Consolidation
- •2. Write the word next to its definition. The sentences in the previous exercise will help you decide on the meaning of each word.
- •3. Using the answer line provided, complete each item below with the correct word from the box. Use each word once.
- •3.4 B. Strive to Thrive
- •1. Read the article.
- •In Time for a Divine Comedy4
- •2. Match the following words from the article with their explanation.
- •3. What evidence is there in the article for the following statements? If there is no evidence, decide what the article really says.
- •4. There are a number of questions or unfinished sentences below. Choose the best answer from a, b, c or d.
- •5. We can infer the writer's views on certain aspects of medieval and modern life by his choice or words.
- •6. Which of these statements would the writer agree with?
- •6. Find the following sentences in the article. What does each sentence comment on? Which sentences express approval and which express disapproval?
- •7. Discuss the following questions.
- •3.4 C. Listening and Watching
- •1. Say whether the statements are true or false, according to what Prof. Abrahams says.
- •2. Discuss the following questions:
- •3.4 D. Vocabulary in Focus
- •1. Complete the text with the words from the box.
- •2. Answer the following questions.
- •3. Guess the meaning of the following words and match them with their definitions.
- •4. Choose the three best answers to fill the gap in each sentence.
- •3.4 E. Creative Consolidation
- •2. Write the word next to its definition. The sentences in the previous exercise will help you decide on the meaning of each word.
- •3. Using the answer line provided, complete each item below with the correct word from the box. Use each word once.
- •3.5 B Genetic Engineering
- •1. Read the article.
- •2. Explain the meaning of the following expressions connected with genetic engineering.
- •3. Look at the title of the article and comment on the interplay of words.
- •4. Answer the following questions.
- •5. Discuss the following questions.
- •2. Revise the active vocabulary. Complete the text with the words from the boxes.
- •3.6 Reading Selection
- •Vocabulary
- •Divert – to change the direction or purpose of sth: diverted traffic; divert sth into; divert attention/criticism; divert people – entertain them; diverting (adj) – entertaining and amusing.
- •1. Find the words and expressions which mean the same.
- •2. Explain the meaning of the following expressions.
- •3. Answer the following questions.
- •4. For discussion
- •By Masha Gessen
- •Vocabulary
- •1. Find the words and expressions in the article which mean the same.
- •Vocabulary
- •1. Scan the text as quickly as possible to find where these ideas are mentioned. Read the article and decide whether the statements are true or false.
- •2. There are a number of questions or unfinished sentences below. Choose the best answer from a, b, c or d.
- •3. Scientific texts often look more complicated than they really are. Look at the article in this section again and note down any 'difficult' scientific words or expressions.
- •4. The opening sentence of the text suggests that there are other 'nightmare scenarios'. What scenarios is the writer probably referring to?
- •By Dick Thompson
- •Vocabulary
- •1. Find the words in the article which mean the same.
- •2. Explain the meaning of the following phrases.
- •3. Answer the following questions.
- •4. Comment on the title of the article summarizing the information provided by the writer.
- •5. For Discussion
- •By Joseph t.Straub and Raymond f.Attner
- •Voicing Concerns
- •Vocabulary
- •1. Find the words in the article which mean the same.
- •2. Explain the meaning of the following words and expressions.
- •3. Choose the most suitable answer.
- •4. Summarize the article.
- •5. For discussion
- •By Nancy Shute
- •Vocabulary
- •1. Find the words and expressions in the article meaning the same.
- •2. Explain the meaning of the following expressions.
- •3. Answer the following questions.
- •4. Comment on the title of the article summarizing the arguments provided by the writer.
- •5. For discussion
- •Vocabulary
- •2. According to the article, genetic engineering has already been used to modify the following foods:
- •3. Decide where the following sentences should go in the article.
- •4. What evidence is there in the article for the following statements?
- •5. Would you say the writer of this article has done the following?
- •6. Which arguments in the article do you sympathize with?
- •7. Write a short paragraph summarizing your views.
- •Vocabulary
- •Vocabulary
- •1. Find the equivalents in the article.
- •3.8 Panel Discussion
- •3.9 Creative Consolidation
- •1. Project-Making
3.3 C. Economics and Ecology
1. Read the article.
Dirty Work Ahead2
Environmental pollution is one of the major hazards facing the world in the current decade. The industrialized nations have for years been burning fossil fuels to provide energy as consumer demand has gradually increased. As Third World countries develop, they are likely to continue this trend. But the emissions from power stations and the burning of wood from forests lead to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is one of the main gases contributing to the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer, the layer of the atmosphere that protects the Earth from the effects of harmful rays from the Sun. The so-called “greenhouse gases” contribute to global warming that threatens to change the future. Don’t be fooled by that nice little name. The deadly effect of these gases is commensurate with the lethal weapon.
At the Kyoto conference, plans were laid to tackle global warming. But who will pay for clean air? Asian countries are belligerent. The financial crisis made Asian countries think about immediate survival, not of expensive new commitments to save the world from an arguably uncertain disaster. Moreover some Asians are suspicious that the environmental movement masks a subversive form of "economic colonialism ". It’s imperative in this context to find a way to dissipate the concerns of developing countries with the need to cut emissions within the tight timetable.
Can Asia afford to combat global warming or at least to mitigate its consequences? Of course. In the worst case, average annual growth rates in Asia will fall from around 7 percent to a normal 3 or 4 percent. Whether they'll choose to afford it is another thing.
If they don't so choose, prospects at Kyoto are grim. Under pressure from its own industrialists and from Congress, Washington won't cut a deal which doesn't include Asia. But in Asia itself nations, which before the currency crisis seemed ready to agree to tough emission controls, are now backing away. They try to vindicate themselves alluding to their favourite argument that environment is what people think about when they're rich.
Furthermore the factory towns of East Asia are latter-day reflections of Pittsburgh or Essen in the 1950s, soot-darkened zones of concentrated manufacturing might. Many officials in East Asia say the blame lies not with them but with the West's dirty past. "Our industrial history is too short to have made any changes in global climate," says Cho Han Jin, an assistant director at South Korea's Ministry of the Environment.
No one disputes that the West is largely to blame for the existing greenhouse cover. But it's equally clear that the future trouble lies in Asia with its unprecedented growth of carbon dioxide production in the industrial world.
By the way countries classed as “developing” have no obligation to reduce their emissions under the protocol as it stands. A few suggestions have been proposed such as a system of rewarding poor countries if their emissions fall below a certain threshold but not penalizing them if they rise above it.
But the emissions of several of these countries have been soaring in tandem with their economic growth. It is believed that it is China that holds the key to climate change. According to prognosis by 2020 it will have displaced the United States as the world's leading producer of noxious greenhouse gases.
Kyoto addressed several ways to leap the funding hurdle. One is supposed to create partnerships in which developing nations set up emission-reducing projects, like natural-gas power plants, while developed nations provide financing and technology. Another scheme is to create a global market in emissions quotas, allowing rich nations to meet their responsibilities by paying poor nations to cut their pollution.
In the years after Kyoto the scientific consensus on climate change – that the warming of the earth can be traced largely to human activity and our ever-increasing yen for more material possessions – has increased. But the political will to take actions to reduce the output of these gases, by measures such as switching to new sources of energy and using fuel more efficiently, appears still to be lacking.
The implementation of the protocol has deepened the divide between the US and the rest of the developed world which has accepted the agreement. The European Union has toyed with the idea of a carbon tax. The US, however, rejects the idea of new taxation. The US supports the idea of international trading in carbon dioxide permits, distributed to countries and companies, which would achieve reductions as cheaply and as flexibly as possible. Trading in emission quotas is believed to have two main advantages over traditional environmental regulation. It gives companies a financial incentive to reduce emissions for less than it would cost to buy permits. And, by leaving it to companies to decide how and when to cut emissions, it reduces not just the cost of compliance but the bureaucracy required to enforce environmental legislation. The country alludes to its own successful experience in this sphere to demonstrate the workability of this scheme.
And finally, trading could prove the best mechanism for drawing developing countries into the fight against global warming without asking them to sacrifice their right to economic development.
While the White House remains implacably opposed rather than nonchalant to the Kyoto protocol, mayors across the country are signing up to the climate-change agenda in the most utilitarian way – committing to cut the greenhouse gas emissions generated by their own towns and cities.
Cutting the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases would involve a shift away from the fossil fuels that powered the industrial revolution and provided cheap energy for more than a century. As this implies massive disruption at a potentially huge cost, businesses must be at the forefront of any attempt to curb the gases. But while some business lobbies have resisted international action on climate change for precisely these reasons, a growing number of high-profile companies are calling for stiffer regulation of carbon dioxide. These businesses are seeking greater regulatory certainty for future investment decisions. Some also have an eye to the possibility of future legal actions by environmental groups holding them responsible for damaging the planet.