Question

    At the Kyoto conference on global warming in December 1997, it became much clear how complex it has become to work out international agreements relating to the environment because of economic concerns unique to each country.  It is no longer enough to try to forbid certain activities or to reduce giving off certain substances.  The global challenges of the interlink between the environment and development increasingly bring us to the core of the economic life of states.  During the late 1980s we were able, through international agreements, to make deep cuts in giving off harmful substances to the ozone（臭氧）layer.  These reductions were made possible because substitutions（替代品）had been found for many of the harmful chemicals and, more important, because the harmful substances could be replaced without negative effects on employment and the economies of states.

    Although the threat of global warming has been known to the world for decades and all countries and leaders agree that we need to deal with the problem, we also know that the effects of measures, especially tough measures taken in some countries, would be of no use if other countries do not control

their giving off.  Whereas the UN team on climate change has found that the carbon dioxide would have to be cut globally by 60%.  This path does not work for several reasons.  Such deep cuts would cause a breakdown of the world economy.  Many developing countries are not yet willing to control their energy uses.  In addition, the state of world technology would not yet permit us to make such a big leap.

    We must, however, find a solution to the threat of global warming early in the 21 S` century.  Such amission would require a degree of shared vision and common responsibilities new to humanity.  Success lies in the force of imagination, in imagining what would happen if we fail to act.  Although many living in cold regions would welcome the global-warming effect of a warmer summer, few would cheer the arrival of the following tropical disease, especially where had been none.

 

51The main purpose or ims passage is to

    A.  convince people that global warming is a threat

    B . criticize some countries for refusing to cut down giving off harmful substances to the ozone layer.

    C.  analyze the problem of global warming

    D.  argue against making deep cuts in giving off harmful substances

52.  The reason why it is difficult to get rid of the threat of global warming is that＿.

    A.  the leaders of many countries are not fully aware of the gravity of the problem.

    B . world technology is not able to solve the problem

    C.  not.  all the countries are willing to make deep cuts in giving off harmful substances

    D.  many people welcome the global-warming effect of a warmer summer

53. In the passage the author implies that＿.

    A . it is always difficult to work out international agreements to cut down giving off harmful substances to the ozone layer

    B.  it is no longer easy to reach international agreements relating to the environment

    C.  the world has recently become aware of the threat of global warming

    D.  the problem of global warming has largely been solved

54.  According to the author, it is impossible at present to cut 60% of .  carbon dioxide globally  because

    A.  it is only a goal to be reached in the future

    B . some people are lacking in imagination

    C . some people are irresponsible

    D.  it would cause a turndown of the world economy

55. What should all countries do to help solve the problem of global warming?

    A . They should replace all the harmful substances.

    B . They should willingly undertake legal commitments, about their energy uses.

    C.  They should hold another world conference on climate change.

    D.  They should provide advanced technology.

Answer 1

CCBDB