“People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help deal with climate change,” the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.
Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel’s chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions (排放) and other environmental problems associated with raising cattle and other animals. “It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport,” he said.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are produced during the production. For example, ruminants (反刍动物), particularly cows, give off a gas called methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than CO₂.
Pachauri can expect some opposite responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode. “I have a little bit and enjoy it,” said Torode. “Too much for any person is bad. But there’s a bigger issue here: where the meat comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food, we’d save a huge amount of carbon emissions.”
Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not regulate. “Eating less meat would help, there’s no question about that,” Watson said.
However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce them. “Some ideas were contradictory,” he said. “For example, one solution to emissions from cattle and other animals was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simple solutions being proposed.”
【小题1】What is directly related to global warming?

“People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help deal with climate change,” the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel’s chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions (排放) and other environmental problems associated with raising cattle and other animals. “It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport,” he said.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are produced during the production. For example, ruminants (反刍动物), particularly cows, give off a gas called methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than CO₂.

Pachauri can expect some opposite responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode. “I have a little bit and enjoy it,” said Torode. “Too much for any person is bad. But there’s a bigger issue here: where the meat comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food, we’d save a huge amount of carbon emissions.”

Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not regulate. “Eating less meat would help, there’s no question about that,” Watson said.

However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce them. “Some ideas were contradictory,” he said. “For example, one solution to emissions from cattle and other animals was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simple solutions being proposed.”

1.What is directly related to global warming?

2.Who holds a view opposite to the others’ in the passage?

3.It is implied in the passage that _____.

4. Which of the following might be the best title for the passage?

Television will turn 86 years old on September 7, 2013, and it has never looked better. In its youth, television was a piece of furniture with a tiny, round screen showing unclear pictures of  low­budget programs. In spite of its shortcomings, it became well-received. Between 1950 and 1963, the number of American families with a television jumped from 9% to 92% of the population.
As the audience got larger, the technology got better. Television sets became more reliable through the 1960s. Both of the reception and the picture improved. The major networks started broadcasting programs in color.
Even greater improvements were coming according to Sanford Brown, who wrote an article for the Post in 1967. Surprisingly, just about every prediction he made in the article became a reality. For example: All sets in the not­distant future will be color instruments. He also predicted that TV sets would become smaller, simpler, more reliable and less expensive and may forever put the TV repairman out of work. Smaller sets do not, of course, mean smaller screens. TV engineers expect screens to get much bigger. However, today's 3­D TV is even farther away, if it's coming at all.  There is some doubt whether the public would be eager to pay for it, in view of people's cold reception given to 3­D movies.
But the technology with the greatest potential, according to Brown, was cable television (有线电视), which was still in its early stages then. As he predicted, the future of cable television was highly interactive. It wasn't cable television that gave Americans their electronic connection to the world, however. It was the Internet.  He even foresaw the future office: using picture phones, big­screen televisions for conferences, and computers providing information, at the touch of a button.
Brown ever said, “The future of television is no longer a question of what we can invent. It's a question of what we want.”
【小题1】What can we infer about television sets in the 1960s?

Television will turn 86 years old on September 7, 2013, and it has never looked better. In its youth, television was a piece of furniture with a tiny, round screen showing unclear pictures of  low­budget programs. In spite of its shortcomings, it became well-received. Between 1950 and 1963, the number of American families with a television jumped from 9% to 92% of the population.

As the audience got larger, the technology got better. Television sets became more reliable through the 1960s. Both of the reception and the picture improved. The major networks started broadcasting programs in color.

Even greater improvements were coming according to Sanford Brown, who wrote an article for the Post in 1967. Surprisingly, just about every prediction he made in the article became a reality. For example: All sets in the not­distant future will be color instruments. He also predicted that TV sets would become smaller, simpler, more reliable and less expensive and may forever put the TV repairman out of work. Smaller sets do not, of course, mean smaller screens. TV engineers expect screens to get much bigger. However, today's 3­D TV is even farther away, if it's coming at all.  There is some doubt whether the public would be eager to pay for it, in view of people's cold reception given to 3­D movies.

But the technology with the greatest potential, according to Brown, was cable television (有线电视), which was still in its early stages then. As he predicted, the future of cable television was highly interactive. It wasn't cable television that gave Americans their electronic connection to the world, however. It was the Internet.  He even foresaw the future office: using picture phones, big­screen televisions for conferences, and computers providing information, at the touch of a button.

Brown ever said, “The future of television is no longer a question of what we can invent. It's a question of what we want.”

1.What can we infer about television sets in the 1960s?

A．They were very popular with Americans.

B．Their appearance remained unchangeable.

C．They showed black­and­white pictures.

D．Their pictures were of poor quality.

2.Which of the followings did Sanford Brown fail to predict?

A．Television's good quality.

B．The invention of 3­D TV.

C．The more functions of TV.

D．The potential of cable TV.

3.From the passage we know _________.

A．TV will certainly take the place of computers

B．There won’t be further improvement on TV

C．TV repairmen will be out of work in the future

D．3­D movies don’t appeal to people very much

4.What is the text mainly about?

A．The shortcomings of television.

B．The advantages of television.

C．The development of television.

D．The invention of television.