Greenhouse gas emissions would rise if all farms in England and Wales went organic.Though the emissions of each farm would go down，much more food would have to be imported，as the amount they would produce would decrease greatly.
"The key message from my perspective is that you can't really have your cake and eat it，" says Laurence Smith，now at the Royal Agricultural University in the UK，who was part of the team that ran the numbers.Smith is a supporter of organic farming and says "there are a lot of merits of the organic approach"，but his analysis shows that organic farming has downsides too.
Farming and changes in land use，such as cutting down forests，are responsible for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions.That means reducing farming emissions and the land needed for farming is required to limit further global warming.
Smith and his colleagues found that emissions per unit of food are，on average，20 per cent lower for organic crops and 4 per cent lower for organic animal products.However，organic harvests per hectare （公頃） are also lower on average.For wheat and barley，for instance，harvests are just half of those of conventional farms.This means 1.5 times as much land would be needed to grow the same amount of these foods.
The estimated increase in emissions varies greatly，depending on where the extra farmland comes from.If only half comes from turning grassland into farms，the increase could be as low as 20 per cent.If grassland that would otherwise have been reforested is turned into farmland，emissions could nearly double.
This doesn't necessarily mean people should stop eating organic produce，says Smith.People might choose organic food for other reasons，such as to reduce their pesticide exposure （though contrary to popular belief，organic farmers do use pesticides） or for the sake of wildlife.
Going 100 per cent organic could also harm global biodiversity.The extra land used for farming would mean the land available for wildlife would be smaller and more fragmented （碎片化的）.
Smith says the best option may be to use some organic and conventional farming methods at the same time.
（1）Why may greenhouse gas emissions increase if a country goes organic？ DD
A．Organic farms take longer to build.
B．The agricultural output will increase greatly.
C．The emissions of each farm unit will increase.
D．Greater demand for imported food will be created.
（2）What does the underlined word "merits" in Paragraph 2 probably mean？ CC
A．Changes.
B．Challenges.
C．Advantages.
D．Differences.
（3）What did Smith and his colleagues find？ BB
A．Organic harvests per unit are greater than traditional harvests.
B．Organic farming needs more farmland to feed a country.
C．Global warming could be brought under control.
D．Land was not used in a responsible way.
（4）What is Smith's proposal？ DD
A．Stopping using pesticides.
B．Eating less organic produce.
C．Going back to traditional farming.
D．Adopting mixed farming methods.
【考點(diǎn)】說(shuō)明文．
【答案】D；C；B；D
【解答】
【點(diǎn)評(píng)】
聲明：本試題解析著作權(quán)屬菁優(yōu)網(wǎng)所有，未經(jīng)書面同意，不得復(fù)制發(fā)布。
發(fā)布：2024/4/20 14:35:0組卷：5引用：5難度：0.6
相似題
-
1．It is widely believed that biodiversity（生物多樣性）is promoted to save species.But in reality species exist only as part of ecosystems and cannot survive unless their ecosystems are protected along with as much as possible of the diversity they contain.
Protecting habitats（棲息地）is important for keeping biodiversity.In 2003，over 102，000 habitats covering nearly 19 million square kilometres，or 11.5% of the world's land surface，were under some form of protection.Though this is a great improvement since 1962，when just 1，000 protected habitats were listed，it is still not considered enough to stop the ecocide that is endangering the world's biodiversity.
For a number of environmentalist，protecting the world's 25 biodiversity hotspots（熱點(diǎn)地區(qū)）is critical to saving habitats and species.But many hotspots are endangered already，having lost up to three-quarters of their original plants.
The poor state of most biodiversity hotspots results directly from population growth and migration（遷移） into these areas.A study found that by the mid-1990s around 1.1 billion people lived in these hotspots.Moreover，the annual population growth rate in these areas was 1.8%，higher than the global average of 1.4%.The PAI report concluded that human-related environmental changes will continue to put pressure on hotspots.Therefore，keeping biodiversity requires paying close attention to population size.
Protecting hotspots is not simply a matter of putting up fences and employing guards.The best results are achieved when local people are educated about the value of wildlife，and actually gain a share of the benefits from eco-tourism.Only then do they have a chance to see the benefits of protecting hotpots.
（1）What can we infer from paragraph 1？
A．The loss of any species can affect humans.
B．Endangered species are paid more attention to by humans.
C．Species can still survive when their ecosystems are destroyed.
D．Ecosystem protection is as important as diversity protection.
（2）What does the underlined word "ecocide" in paragraph 2 mean？
A．Ecosystem protection.
B．Reduction of the number of species.
C．Serious damage to habitats.
D．Habitats protection.
（3）What's the direct cause of the terrible state of the hotspots？
A．Population growth in hotpots.
B．Migration out of these areas.
C．Global warming.
D．The global average population growth rate.
（4）What's the author's opinion on protecting the hotspots？
A．It's simple to carry out.
B．It leads to the increase of tourists.
C．It's closely connected with local people.
D．It suggests that the local people are well educated.發(fā)布：2025/1/6 16:30:6組卷：0引用：1難度：0.5 -
2．Most of us spend our lives seeking the natural world.We go fishing，sit in the garden，have a picnic，live in the suburbs or go to the seaside.The most popular leisure activity in Britain is going for a walk.When joggers jog，they don't run on the streets.Every one of them tends to go to the park or the river.
But despite this，our children are growing up naturedeprived（剝奪）.I spent my boyhood climbing trees.These days，children are robbed of the ancient freedom，due to problems like crime，traffic，the loss of the open space and strange new ideas about what is best for children，that is to say，things that can be bought，rather than things that can be found.
The truth is to be found elsewhere.A study in the US：families had moved to better housing and the children were assessed for ADHD—Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder（注意力缺陷多動(dòng)癥）.Those whose accommodation had more natural views showed an improvement of 19%；those who had the same improvement in material surroundings but no nice view improved just 4%.
ADHD is one of the great problems of modern childhood.One study after another indicates that contact with nature gives huge benefits to ADHD children.However，we spend money on drugs rather than on green places.
The life of old people is measurably better when they have access to nature.The increasing concern for the growing population of old people is in quality rather than quantity of years.And study after study finds that a garden is the single most important thing in finding that quality.Even problems with crime and aggressive behaviour are reduced when there is contact with the natural world.
We need the wild world.It is essential to our wellbeing，our health and our happiness.
（1）According to the author，people enjoyto seek nature.
A．jogging on the street
B．running in the gym
C．shopping in the supermarket
D．sitting in the garden
（2）From the second paragraph，we can see that.
A．Children don't want to approach nature
B．children probably spend less time in nature nowadays
C．climbing trees will certainly do good to the children
D．children tend to be happier as a result of their material satisfaction
（3）In what way do people benefit from their contact with nature？
A．Children with ADHD can be cured.
B．Children's performance at school is greatly improved.
C．Problems with crime and violent behavior will easily be solved.
D．A garden nearby improves the quality of old people's life.
（4）what is the main idea of this passage？
A．Access to nature improves our life.
B．Nature treats children for ADHD.
C．Getting close to nature reduces crime.
D．Man can't live without natural areas.發(fā)布：2025/1/6 16:30:6組卷：0引用：1難度：0.5 -
3．New editions of Roald Dahl's classic books，such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Matilda，are now available in bookstores.Some passages relating to weight，mental health，gender and race were changed.The changes made by Puffin Books，a division of Penguin Random House，first were reported by Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper.
The changes to Dahl's books mark the latest debate over cultural sensitivity.Those who support updates seek to protect young people from cultural，ethnic and gender stereotypes in literature and other media.Critics complain that revisions to suit 21st century sensibilities risk weakening the genius of great artists and preventing readers from facing the world as it is.
The Roald Dahl Story Company controls the rights to the books.The company said it worked with Puffin Books to review the texts because it wanted to ensure that"Dahl's wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today."
Inclusive Minds，a group that is working to make children's literature more inclusive and accessible，reviewed the language in a partnership effort with Puffin Books.Inclusive language avoids terms that could be seen as excluding specific groups of people.Any changes were"small and carefully considered，"the company said.
"When publishing new print runs of books written years ago，it's not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details，including a book's cover and page layout，"the company said their guiding principle throughout had been to maintain the storylines，characters，and the spirit of the original text.
PEN America，a community of some 7，500 writers that advocates for freedom of expression，said it was"alarmed"by reports of the changes to Dahl's books.Suzanne Nossel，chief executive of PEN America，commented on Twitter.She said if we try"to correct for sensing slights （怠慢） instead of allowing readers to receive and react to books as written，we risk distorting the work of great authors and clouding the essential lens （透鏡） that literature offers on society."
Laura Hackett is a childhood Dahl fan who is now deputy literary editor of London，England's Sunday Times newspaper.She had a more personal reaction to the news."The editors at Puffin should be ashamed of the botched surgery they've carried out on some of the finest children's literature in Britain，"she wrote."As for me，I'll be carefully putting away my old，original copies of Dahl's stories，so that one day my children can enjoy them in their full，nasty and colorful glory."
（1）What is the reason for the changes to Dahl's books？
A．To make Dahl's books more enjoyable.
B．To review the language used and add details.
C．To remove words that show disrespect to some people.
D．To keep the storylines，characters，and the spirit of the original text.
（2）What might the underlined word in Paragraph 6 probably mean？
A．Preventing.
B．Appreciating.
C．Understanding.
D．Misrepresenting.
（3）Which of the following may Laura Hackett agree？
A．The new version of the books is worth collecting.
B．The original version of the books are more valuable.
C．The original books weaken the genius of great artists.
D．The new version allows readers to receive books as written.
（4）What might be the proper title of the passage？
A．New Changes to Roald Dahl Books Start Argument
B．Different Opinions on New Editions of Classic Books
C．Authors or Publishers both Control the Right to Books
D．New Editions of Roald Dahl's Classic Books Available
（5）What is the purpose of the passage？
A．To persuade readers to buy Roald Dahl's classic books.
B．To entertain readers by the changes of Roald Dahl's books.
C．To recommend the new version of Roald Dahl's classic books.
D．To inform diverse views on the changes of Roald DahI's books.發(fā)布：2025/1/30 8:0:1組卷：1引用：1難度：0.4