Air pollution is damaging 60% of Europe’s prime wildlife sites in meadows, forests and bushes, according to a new report.
A team of EU scientists said nitrogen emissions(氮排放) from cars, factories and farming were threatening biodiversity. It’s the second report this week warning of the on-going risks and threats linked to nitrogen pollution.
Nitrogen in the atmosphere is harmless in its inert(惰性的) state, but the report says reactive forms of nitrogen, largely produced by human activity, can be a menace to the natural world.
Emissions mostly come from vehicle exhausts(排气), factories, artificial fertilizers(肥料) and animal waste from intensive farming. The reactive nitrogen they emit to the air disrupts the environment in two ways: It can make acidic soils too acidic to support their previous mix of species. But primarily, because nitrogen is a fertilizer, it favors wild plants that can maximize the use of nitrogen to help them grow.
In effect, some of the nitrogen spread to fertilize crops is carried in the atmosphere to fertilize weeds, possibly a great distance from where the chemicals were first applied.
The effects of fertilization and acidification favor common aggressive species like grasses, brambles and nettles. They harm more delicate species like mosses(苔藓), and insect-eating sundew plants.
The report said 60% of wildlife sites were now receiving a critical load of reactive nitrogen. The report’s lead author, Dr Kevin Hicks from the University of York’s Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), told BBC News that England’s Peak District had a definitely low range of species as a result of the reactive nitrogen that fell on the area.
“Nitrogen creates a rather big problem that seems to me to have been given too little attention,” he said. “Governments are responsible for protecting areas like this, but they are clearly failing.”
He said more research was needed to understand the knock-on effects for creatures from the changes in vegetation accidentally caused by emissions from cars, industry and farms.
At the conference, the representatives agreed “The Edinburgh Declaration on Reactive Nitrogen”. The document highlights the importance of reducing reactive nitrogen emissions to the environment, adding that the benefits of reducing nitrogen outweigh the costs of taking action.
【小题1】The underlined word “menace” is used to express that the reactive nitrogen, largely produced by human activity can be ___________.

Air pollution is damaging 60% of Europe’s prime wildlife sites in meadows, forests and bushes, according to a new report.

A team of EU scientists said nitrogen emissions(氮排放) from cars, factories and farming were threatening biodiversity. It’s the second report this week warning of the on-going risks and threats linked to nitrogen pollution.

Nitrogen in the atmosphere is harmless in its inert(惰性的) state, but the report says reactive forms of nitrogen, largely produced by human activity, can be a menace to the natural world.

Emissions mostly come from vehicle exhausts(排气), factories, artificial fertilizers(肥料) and animal waste from intensive farming. The reactive nitrogen they emit to the air disrupts the environment in two ways: It can make acidic soils too acidic to support their previous mix of species. But primarily, because nitrogen is a fertilizer, it favors wild plants that can maximize the use of nitrogen to help them grow.

In effect, some of the nitrogen spread to fertilize crops is carried in the atmosphere to fertilize weeds, possibly a great distance from where the chemicals were first applied.

The effects of fertilization and acidification favor common aggressive species like grasses, brambles and nettles. They harm more delicate species like mosses(苔藓), and insect-eating sundew plants.

The report said 60% of wildlife sites were now receiving a critical load of reactive nitrogen. The report’s lead author, Dr Kevin Hicks from the University of York’s Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), told BBC News that England’s Peak District had a definitely low range of species as a result of the reactive nitrogen that fell on the area.

“Nitrogen creates a rather big problem that seems to me to have been given too little attention,” he said. “Governments are responsible for protecting areas like this, but they are clearly failing.”

He said more research was needed to understand the knock-on effects for creatures from the changes in vegetation accidentally caused by emissions from cars, industry and farms.

At the conference, the representatives agreed “The Edinburgh Declaration on Reactive Nitrogen”. The document highlights the importance of reducing reactive nitrogen emissions to the environment, adding that the benefits of reducing nitrogen outweigh the costs of taking action.

1.The underlined word “menace” is used to express that the reactive nitrogen, largely produced by human activity can be ___________.

A. frightening              B. threatening      C. unique           D. unusual

2. We can infer from the passage that _________.

A.        it’s harmless to have reactive nitrogen existing in the atmosphere

B.        reactive nitrogen emissions help aggressive species less than crops

C.        the harm to those delicate species has a negative impact on biodiversity

D.        reactive nitrogen can fertilize soils and keep their biodiversity

3. The team of EU scientists released the second report of nitrogen emissions this week when __________.

A.        no action was taken to stop nitrogen emission

B.        governments were willing to protect areas harmed by nitrogen

C.        “The Edinburgh Declaration on Reactive Nitrogen” was agreed

D.        nitrogen emissions were threatening wildlife sites’ biodiversity

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

A. Keeping Away From Nitrogen Emissions     B. Stopping Nitrogen Emissions

C. Air Pollution Damaging Europe’s Wildlife        D. Saving Europe’s Wildlife

Air quality in Shanghai worsened last week compared with the previous week, according to the latest report from the Shanghai Environment Monitoring Centre.

The average air pollution index (API) for sulphur dioxide (SO₂) remain almost unchanged from the previous week, but the APIs for nitrogen oxide (NOx) and total suspended (悬浮) particles (TSP) rose by 35 and 27 percent.    The overall quality still belonged to class 2 category. Nitrogen oxide, caused mainly by vehicle exhaust and burning of cooking gas, was still the major pollutant of the week.

The Shanghai Environmental Monitoring Centre operates six automatic air monitors in the city’s Putuo, Yangpu, Luwan, Hongkou, Jing’an and Xuhui districts.

API

       0   12      13       14       15      16       17      18(October)

0-50: excellent               51-100: good           101-200: slight pollution

201-300: medium pollution     301-400: heavy pollution

1.Judging from the chart, on which day was the air quality the worst?

A. October 13.         B. October 14.        C. October 17.              D. October 18.

2.Which of the following can be used to describe the air quality of the week?

A. GoodB. Seriously polluted.  C. Excellent.      D. Slightly polluted.

3.Six automatic air monitors are operated in the city except ________.

A. Putuo District      B. Xuhui District     C. Chang’an District D. Hongkou District

4.In Shanghai, nitrogen oxide mainly comes from ________.

A. the burning natural gasB. the burning cooking gas

C. the burning coal                       D. dust raised by vehicles

If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, giving out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming.

In a proposal by two scientists, vehicle emissions (排放) would no longer contribute to global warming. The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they have named Green Freedom, for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.

The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution (溶液) of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be put to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: gasoline or jet fuel.

This process could change carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide produced and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic (合成的) fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming.

Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small model, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology. “Everything in the concept has been built, is operating or has a close cousin that is operating,” Dr. Martin said.

The Los Alamos proposal does not go against any laws of physics, and other scientists who have independently suggested similar ideas. Dr. Martin said he and Dr. Kubic had worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals.

There is, however, a major fact that explains why no one has built a carbon-dioxide-to-gasoline factory: it requires a great deal of energy.

According to their analysis, their concept, which would cost about $5 billion to build, could produce gasoline at an operating cost of $1.40 a gallon and would turn economically practical when the price at the pump hits $4.60 a gallon.

Other scientists said the Los Alamos proposal perhaps looked promising but could not evaluate it fully because the details had not been published.

“It’s definitely worth pursuing,” said Martin I. Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University. “It’s not that new an idea. It has a couple of pieces to it that are interesting.”

67. What is the idea of the project being discussed in the article?

A. Recycling the carbon dioxide from cars back into gasoline.

B. Create a new gasoline that gives off very little carbon dioxide.

C. Using a special liquid solution to absorb carbon dioxide from cars.

D. Build synthetic fuel factories to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

68. What’s the name given to the new concept?

A. Synthetic Fuel.                                 B. Green Freedom.    

C. Renewable Fuel.                                D. Carbon-dioxide-to-gasoline Factory.

69. Which of the following is NOT one of the benefits of this new concept as suggested in the article?

A. Reduction of global warming.            B. Cheaper gasoline for cars.

C. Longer life of cars.                     C. Less pollution of the atmosphere.

70. What’s the biggest problem in realizing the concept according to the report?

A. Shortage of starting funds.         B. Immature technology involved.

C. All previous similar attempts have failed.

D. The use of too much energy in running the fuel factory.