Find the words in the article which mean the same.

Not of natural origin; to make a mixture of decaying organic matter; a natural effect that traps heat in the atmosphere; heavy materials used to provide stability; laws concerned with breaking up huge businesses or monopolies; to be found responsible; dangerous; protection of the ecosystem; shrewd and clever.

Explain the meaning of the following words and expressions.

To continue commitment; to benefit consumers; to give a lip service to; economy-minded forest products firms; to counteract the greenhouse effect; accomplish the goals; to have a twofold benefit; spurred on; to resolve complaints.

Choose the most suitable answer.

1. The authors admit that industry often

a. produces more toxic waste than it can eliminate

b. eliminates all the toxic waste that it produces

c. disobeys the government's toxic-waste legislation

d. works with other industries to sidestep environmental laws

2. The industries that produce the most toxic waste are

a. plastics companies

b. chemical manufacturers

c. automobile manufacturers

d. paper manufacturers

3. Which of the following is not mentioned as a solid waste that industry produces?

a. wood b. paper c. glass d. plastics

4. One of business's solutions to solid waste that the authors mention is

a. alternative packaging

b. chemical decomposition

c. burning

d. dumping

5. The authors note that the Adolph Coors brewery once created its electric­ity by

a. building a hydroelectric plant

b. recycling waste products

c. harnessing solar energy

d. harnessing wind energy

6. Which action is not an example of business helping maintain the envi­ronment?

a. Gallo Winery gave a monetary contribution to the American Forestry Association.

b. Apple Computer contributed to Earth Day 1990.

c. Timberland Shoes supported the Wilderness Society.

d. Maytag introduced the Red Carpet Service to help its customers with their repair problems.

7. The authors note that businesses have improved the safety of their products because

a. they fear lawsuits by consumers

b. they have been given financial assistance from the federal government

c. they want to increase their profits

d. they want to compete with other consumer-conscious corporations

8. Which is an example of business's response to consumer protection?

a. Fox River Mills spent $40,000 to improve energy efficiency.

b. General Electric operates the GE Answer Center.

c. Wooden pallets in the Boston Park Plaza Hotel are being reused.

d. Hershey Foods grinds cocoa-bean hulls into garden mulch.

9. This excerpt generally depicts U.S. industry as being

a. the leader in environmental protection

b. reluctant to enforce consumer protection laws

c. hostile to environmental legislation

d. supportive of environmental legislation

Summarize the article.

For discussion

- At the beginning of the article the authors discuss how industry is solving the hazardous waste problem. Choose three of the most convincing facts from these para­graphs to show industry's success in dealing with haz­ardous waste. Do you think these examples are impressive? Why or why not?

- The authors go on to discuss industry's response to recycling. Se­lect three examples of industrial recycling mentioned in this excerpt and show why they are intelligent recycling methods or not.

- The authors also speak about energy programs sponsored by in­dustry. What energy programs do they mention? Provide three other energy programs of your own that industry could employ to conserve energy.

- Examine the evidence the authors use to support their contention that in­dustry is protecting the environment. Which examples from the excerpt do you find least convincing? Why?

■ 3.6 F. The Weather Turns Wild

By Nancy Shute

The people of Atlanta can be forgiven for not worrying about global warming as they shivered in the dark last January, their city crippled by a monster ice storm that hit just before the Super Bowl. So can the 15 families in Hilo, Hawaii, whose houses were washed away by the 27 inches of rain that fell in 24 hours last November. And the FBI agents who searched for evidence blown out of their downtown Fort Worth office building, which was destroyed by a tornado last March. Not to mention the baffled residents of Barrow, Alaska, who flooded the local weather office with calls on June 19, as rumbling black clouds descended – a rare Arctic thunderstorm.

But such bizarre weather could soon become more common, and the consequences far more dire, according to a United Nations scientific panel. Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change met in Shanghai and officially released the most definitive – and scary – report yet, declaring that global warming is not only real but man-made. The decade of the ‘90s was the warmest on record, and most of the rise was likely caused by the burning of oil, coal, and other fuels that release carbon dioxide, as well as other so-called greenhouse gases. What is more, future changes will be twice as severe as predicted just five years ago, the group says. Over the next 100 years, temperatures are predicted to rise by 2.5 to 10.4 degrees worldwide, enough to spark floods, epidemics, and millions of "environmental refugees."

By midcentury, the chic Art Deco hotels that now line Miami's South Beach could stand waterlogged and abandoned. Malar­ia could be a public health threat in Ver­mont. Nebraska farmers could abandon their fields for lack of water. Outside the United States, the impact would be much more severe. Rising sea levels could con­taminate the aquifers that supply drinking water for Caribbean islands, while entire Pacific island nations could simply disap­pear under the sea. Perhaps the hardest-hit country would be Bangladesh, where thousands of people already die from floods each year. Increased snowmelt in the Himalayas could combine with rising seas to make at least 10 percent of the country uninhabitable. The water level of most of Africa's largest rivers, including the Nile, could plunge, triggering widespread crop failure and idling hydroelectric plants.

Higher temperatures and lower rainfall could stunt food production in Mexico and other parts of Latin America.

No more words.The debate is over," says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific In­stitute for Studies in Development, Envi­ronment, and Security, in Oakland, Calif. "No matter what we do to reduce green­house-gas emissions, we will not be able to avoid some impacts of climate change."

This newest global-warming forecast is backed by data from myriad satellites, weather balloons, ships at sea, and weath­er stations, and by immense computer models of the global climate system. As scientists have moved toward consensus on warming's inevitability, there has been growing movement to come up with re­alistic adaptations to blunt the expected effects. Instead of casting blame at pol­luting SUV drivers, environmentalists and businesses alike are working to create fea­sible solutions. These range from mea­sures as complex as global carbon-dioxide-emissions taxes to ones as simple as caulking leaks in Russian and Chinese natural gas pipelines. The take-home mes­sage: Change is difficult but not impos­sible, and the sooner we start, the easier it will be. Civilization has adjusted to dras­tic weather changes in the past and is well positioned to do so again. Indeed, while governments squabble over what is to be done, major corporations such as BP Amoco and DuPont are re­tooling operations to reduce greenhouse gases. "I am very, very optimistic," says Robert Watson, an atmospheric scientist, World Bank official, and leader of the IPCC panel that created the report.

Concern about greenhouse gases is hard­ly new; as early as the 1700s, scientists were wondering whether atmospheric gases could transmit light but trap heat, much like glass in a greenhouse. By 1860, Irish physicist John Tyndall (the first man to explain why the sky is blue) sug­gested that ice ages follow a decrease in carbon dioxide. In 1957, Roger Revelle, a researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California, declared that human alter­ation of the climate amounted to a "large-scale geophysical experiment" with potentially vast consequences.

Such dire predictions had been made before and not come true, and this environ­mental hysteria emboldened skeptics. But by 1988, the ev­idence was hard to rebut; when NASA atmospheric sci­entist James Hansen told a congressional hearing that global warming had arrived, climate change became a hot political topic. At the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Sum­mit, 155 nations, including the United States, signed a treaty to control greenhouse emissions, which also include other gases such as methane. That accord led to the 1997 Kyoto protocol calling for re­ducing emissions of devel­oped nations below 1990 lev­els but placing no emissions restrictions on China and other developing nations. In November, talks over the treaty broke down over the issue of how to measure na­tions' progress in reducing emissions. They are set to re­sume by midyear, after the Bush administration has for­mulated its position.

Doubters remain. Some argue that climate is too chaotic and complex to trust to any computerized predic­tion, or that Earth's climate is too stable to be greatly upset by a little more CO2. "I don't see how the IPCC can say it's going to warm for sure," says Craig Idso, a climatologist and vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz. He calls predictions of drastic warming "a sheer guess" and says that extra carbon dioxide "is going to be noth­ing but a boon for the biosphere. Plants will grow like gangbusters."

But these skeptics appear to be losing ground. "There are fewer and fewer of them every year," says William Kellogg, former president of the American Mete­orological Society and a retired senior sci­entist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "There are very few peo­ple in the serious meteorological com­munity who doubt that the warming is taking place."

If the majority view holds up and tem­peratures keep rising, over the next cen­tury global weather patterns will shift enough to affect everyday life on every continent. The effects would vary wildly from one place to the next; what might be good news for one region (warmer winters in Fairbanks, Alaska) would be bad news for another (more avalanches in the Alps). Weather would become more unpredictable and violent, with thunderstorms sparking increased tornadoes and lightning, a major cause of fires. The effects of El Nino, the atmospheric oscillation that causes flooding and mudslides in California and the tropics, would become more severe. Natural disas­ters already cost plenty; in the 1990s the tab was $608 billion, more than the four previous decades combined, according to Worldwatch In­stitute. The IPCC will release its tally of anticipated effects on climate and societies on February 19 in Geneva. Key climate scientists say that major points include:

Death and pestilence.Cities in the Northern Hemisphere would very likely become hot­ter, prompting more deaths from heatstroke in cities such as Chicago and Shanghai. Deaths would also increase from natural disasters, and warmer weather would affect transmission of insect-borne diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus, which made a surprise arrival in the Unit­ed States in 1999. "We don't know exactly how West Nile was introduced to the U.S. but we do know that drought warm winter, and heat waves are the conditions that help amplify it," says Paul Epstein a researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health.

Wildfires.Rising temperatures and declining rainfall would dry out vegetation making wildfires like last summer's—which burned nearly 7 million acres in the West and cost $1.65 billion -more common, especially in California, New Mexico, and Florida.

Rain and flooding.Rain would become more frequent and intense in the Northern Hemisphere. Snow would melt faster am earlier in the Rockies and the Himalayas exacerbating spring flooding and leaving summers drier. "This is the opposite of what we want," says Gleick. "We want to be able to save that water for dry periods."

Rising sea levels.Sea level worldwide has risen 9 inches in the last century, and 4 million people live at risk of flooding due to storm surges. That figure would double if oceans rise 20 inches. The IPCC predicts that seas will rise anywhere from 3.5 inch­es to 34.6 inches by 2010, largely because of "thermal expansion" (warmer water takes up more space), but also because of melting glaciers and ice caps. A 3-foot rise, at the top range of the forecast, would swamp parts of major cities and islands, including the Marshall Islands in the South Pacific and the Florida Keys.

Water wars.Drought—and an accom­panying lack of water—would be the most obvious consequence of warmer temper­atures. By 2015,3 billion people will be liv­ing in areas without enough water. The al­ready water-starved Middle East could become the center of conflicts, even war, over water access. Turkey has already di­verted water from the Tigris and Eu­phrates rivers with dams and irrigation systems, leaving downstream countries like Iraq and Syria complaining about low river levels. By 2050, such downstream nations could be left without enough water for drinking and irrigation.

Refugees.The United States is the sin­gle largest generator of greenhouse gases, contributing one quarter of the global total. But it, and other higher-latitude countries, would be affected less by cli­mate change than would more tropical na­tions. The developing world will be hit hardest—and least able to cope. "Bangladesh has no prayer," says Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, noting that flooding there, and in Southeast Asia and China, could dis­locate millions of people. "The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. That's not a stable situation for the world."

Those daunted by this roster of afflic­tions will be cheered, a bit, by the Unit­ed Nations group's report on how to fend off these perils, which will be released March 5 in Ghana. Not only is humanity not helpless in the face of global warming, but we may not even have to give up all the trappings of a First World lifestyle in order to survive—and prosper.

The first question is whether it's possi­ble to slow, or even halt, the rise in green­house gases in the atmosphere. Scientists and energy policy experts say yes, un­equivocally. Much of the needed tech­nology either has already been developed or is in the works. The first step is so sim­ple it's known to every third grader: Con­serve energy. Over the past few decades, innovations from higher gas mileage to more efficient refrigerators to compact fluorescent lights have saved billions of kilowatts of energy. The second step is to use less oil and coal, which produce greenhouse gases, and rely more on clean­er energy sources such as natural gas and wind, and later on, solar and hydrogen.

In Denmark, 13 percent of electricity now comes from wind power, probably the most economical alternative source. In Britain, a company called Wavegen re­cently activated the first commercial ocean-wave-energy generator, making enough electricity to power about 400 homes.

Taxing ideas.But despite such promis­ing experiments, fossil fuels remain far cheaper than the alternatives. To reduce this cost advantage, most Western Euro­pean countries, including Sweden, Nor­way, the Netherlands, Austria, and Italy, have levied taxes on carbon emissions or fossil fuels. The taxes also are intended to nudge utilities toward technologies, like coal gasification, that burn fossil fuels more cleanly. In Germany, where "eco-taxes" are being phased in on most fossil fuels, a new carbon levy will add almost 11 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline.

But the United States has always shunned a carbon tax. John Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Govern­ment, says such a tax could stimulate economic growth and help position the United States as a leader in energy tech­nology. "The energy technology sector is worth $300 billion a year, and it'll be $500 to $600 billion by 2010," Holdren says. "The companies and countries that get the biggest chunk of that will be the ones that deliver efficient, clean, inex­pensive energy."

A growing number of companies have already figured that out. One of the most advanced large corporations is chemical giant DuPont, which first acknowledged the problem of climate change in 1991. Throughout the past decade, the compa­ny worked to cut its carbon dioxide emis­sions 45 percent from 1990 levels. Last year, it pledged to find at least 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources.

Even more surprising was the dramat­ic announcement by oil giant BP in 1997 agreeing that climate change was indeed occurring. Even with other oil firms protesting that the evidence was too thin, BP pledged to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 10 percent from 1990 levels by 2010. At the same time, BP Amoco is pouring money into natural gas explo­ration and investing in renewable ener­gy like solar power and hydrogen.

Even America's largest coal-burning utility company is experimenting. Ameri­can Electric Power of Columbus, Ohio, is testing "carbon capture," which would sep­arate out carbon dioxide emissions and dispose of them in deep underground saline aquifers, effectively creating carbon-emission-free coal power. Application is at least a decade away. "If we're able to find creative solutions, they're going to place us at a competitive advantage in our indus­try," says Dale Heydlauff, AEP's senior vice president for environmental affairs.

In automobile manufacturing, there is already a race on for alternatives to fossil fuels. Several automakers like Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Volkswagen have devel­oped prototypes of cars run by hydrogen fuel cells rather than gasoline. The per­formance is very similar to that of today's cars, but the cost remains, for now, pro­hibitive. Fuel-cell vehicles are unlikely to be mass-produced until after 2010, and even then, people will need a push to make the switch. "Climate change is too diffuse to focus people's attention," says C. E. Thomas, a vice president at Directed Tech­nologies, an Arlington, Va., engineering firm working on fuel cells. "But if we have another war in the Middle East or gasoline lines, that will get their attention."

Even with these efforts, and many more, climatologists point out that turning the atmosphere around is much harder than turning a supertanker. Indeed, atmos­pheric changes already underway may take hundreds of years to change. As a re­sult, some vulnerable countries are al­ready taking preventive, if costly, mea­sures. More than half of the Netherlands lies below sea level and would be threat­ened by increased storm surges. Last De­cember, the Dutch government outlined an ambitious plan to bolster the sea de­fenses. Over the next decade, the Netherlands will spend more than $1 billion 1 build new dikes, bolster the natural sand dunes, and widen and deepen rivers enough to protect the country against a 3- foot rise in ocean levels.

Some of the most successful adaptations to climate change probably won't involve high-tech gizmos or global taxes. They'll be as simple as the strips of cloth distributed to women in Bangladesl which they use to screen cholera-causing microbes from water. Villages where women strained water have reduce cholera cases by 50 percent.

"Society is more robust than we give credit for," says Michael Glantz, a political scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Like farmers who gradually change to new crops as wells grow dry, people may learn to live comfortably in a new, warmer world.

U S news & world report, february 5, 2001

Vocabulary

cripple – to seriously damage or weaken something: crippled: crippling; cripple (n) – an offensive word for somebody who is physically unable: emotional cripple– someone who is not able to deal with their own or other people’s feelings.

idle– not working or producing anything: lie/stand idle; the idle rich (= rich people who do not have to work); idle(v): idle away; idler.

plunge – to move, fall, or to be thrown suddenly forwards or downwards: plunge off/into; plunge to your death; plunge sb/sth forward/through; plunge in – start doing sth quickly and confidently;be plunged into gloom and despair.

cast – cast light on– provide new information which makes sth easier to understand; cast a shadow – make people feel less happy or hopeful because they are worried; cast a look/glance at; cast doubt on; cast a vote/ballot; cast sth from you mind (=get rid of your worries); be cast down (= depressed and sad).

dire – extremely serious, bad or terrible: in dire need/poverty; dire consequences; be in dire straits (=be in extremely difficult situation); dire warning/threat.

rebut– to prove that a statement or a charge made against you is false; syn. Refute.

daunt – ( usually passive) to make someone feel afraid or less confident: nothing daunted– not at all discouraged; daunting – frightening; daunting prospect; dauntless.

dispose – to arrange things or put them in their places; dispose of – get rid of; dispose to ( usually passive) to make someone more likely to feel or think in a particular way; well/ favourably/ kindly disposed to – approving of someone or something such as ideas; be disposed to do sth – feel like doing sth; disposition (n): a cheerful/sunny disposition.

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 1153