问答题Even the most uninformed student of climate change could tell you that the solution to global warming is to alleviate global greenhouse gas emissions, and fast. But the problem is that the sheer amount of greenhouse gases we’ve already pumped into the
题目
问答题
Even the most uninformed student of climate change could tell you that the solution to global warming is to alleviate global greenhouse gas emissions, and fast. But the problem is that the sheer amount of greenhouse gases we’ve already pumped into the atmosphere has irreversibly bound us to a certain amount of warming over the next several decades. No matter what we do, we’ll have to adapt to it. (1)_______________. Already precipitation patterns seem to be changing, making some drier areas—like the arid American southwest —even drier, and rainy regions even wetter. As warmer temperatures creep northward, so do insects and other pests that are adapted to the heat. The results can be distressing. The tiny mountain pine beetle, which infests pine trees in the Rocky Mountain region, used to be controlled by freezing winters. But as temperatures have warmed over the past decade, the mountain pine beetle’s territory has spread, destroying millions of acres of Canadian pines. (2)_______________Generations of American conservationists have fought to preserve wild- life and to keep nature pristine in the face of a growing population and pollution. To a remarkable extent, they’ve succeeded—almost 16% of the entire landmass of the U.S. is protected, and the Endangered Species Acthas helped save countless animals from extinction. (3)_______________. What good is a wildlife reserve if the protected animals can’t live there, because climate change pushes them out? What difference does it make to defend trees from logging, if global warming will allow a new pest to destroy whole forests? (4)_______________. Last week the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy brought together conservation leaders from around the U.S. to discuss how to cope with warming, trying to work out a new framework for the biggest challenge facing conservation. (5)_______________. So too is the scale required to properly adapt to climate change, which will almost certainly continue for decades into the future. “Climate change will affect agriculture, water resources, forestry, transportation, waste management, energy generation, national security, immigration patterns, fisheries, food security, you name it,” said Lara Hansen. “We need to change the way we allocate resources, plan economies and protect livelihoods.” That means that the way we’ve been carrying out conservation—picking the right land spaces and playing goalie—won’t work anymore, as climate change keeps moving the target. Regardless of what we do, the changes will be coming fast. We need to begin cutting our carbon immediately, but we need to adapt now as well. The world is changing because of us; to save what’s left, we’ll have to change too. [A] But global warming threatens to change all that, by altering the very foundation on which the conservation movement was built. [B] Global warming was already having “profound effects” in the American West, and that the future would bring increased drought, heat waves, rainstorms, extinctions and more. [C] That means climate change isn’t a problem for tomorrow; the effects are happening now. [D] The conference was fruitful, if a bit depressing. What’s clear is that the sheer speed of the changes already taking place due to warming—like the mountain pine beetle infestation—are catching us off guard. [E] Conservationists will have to work even harder, trying to minimize non climate-related threats to land and species. [F] The pine beetle infestation is just one example of global warming’s present danger. It also represents the unique challenges that warming will pose for land conservation managers on the front lines of the battle against it. [G] The answer is to adapt the way we practice wildlife and land conservation to climate change. There’s a term for this—adaptive management.(此文选自Time2008年刊)
Text 1 Giant corporations often claim to be"green,"pointing to programs they've undertaken aimed at being environmentally conscious.But sometimes these efforts don't really amount to much.They can be no more than'igrcenwashing,"a public relations effort that doesn't represent any fundamental shift in thinking.But such a change may actually be going on among several of the world's largest fossil fuel companies,namcs such as ExxonMobil,Shell,and BP.One of the biggest reasons:pressure from the companies'sharcholdcrs.Investors arc asking corporations to make more transparent the effects climate change will have on their businesses,as well as explain what they are doing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.While sharcholdcr motivcs are cerlainly aimed at helping in the worldwide fight against global warming,they also represent a practical need to better understand a company's prospects.If the burning of oil and gas is grcaily curtailed as a result of the December 2015 intemational Paris climate agreement,for example,how might that affect the bottom line of a corporation whose chief source of revenue is extracting and selling carbon-emitting oil and gas?Or,conversely,how is a company planning to take advantage of the business opportunities that emerge from a shift away from fossil fuels?Climate Action 100+,for example,is a shareholder action group that is asking corporations to make stronger commitments to meeting the 80 percent cut in carbon emissions proposed by the Paris agreement signed two years ago by nearly 200 nations.Some 225 investment groups who manage more than S26.3 trillion have signed on in support.Last week,intemational energy giant ExxonMobil said it will step up its reporting to shareholders and the public about the impacts climate change will have on its business,including any expected increased risks.The new policy follows a vote by ExxonMobil investors at the company's annual meeting in May that called for a yearly assessment of the effects of climate change on the company.The new position represents a sea change for ExxonMobil,which until the early 2000s had disputed the need to take action on climate change.Around the world national govemments are shaping new policies in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will not allow global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius.In the U,S.,individual states and cities are pursuing lawsuits against companies that fail to deal responsibly with greenhouse gas emissions,which they contend harm the public.22.Which of the following is right about shareholders?
A.They explained their steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
B.They are reluctant to help fight against global warming.
C.They have made some corporations'thought changed.
D.They pointed out their understanding of companies'prospects.
Text 1 Giant corporations often claim to be"green,"pointing to programs they've undertaken aimed at being environmentally conscious.But sometimes these efforts don't really amount to much.They can be no more than'igrcenwashing,"a public relations effort that doesn't represent any fundamental shift in thinking.But such a change may actually be going on among several of the world's largest fossil fuel companies,namcs such as ExxonMobil,Shell,and BP.One of the biggest reasons:pressure from the companies'sharcholdcrs.Investors arc asking corporations to make more transparent the effects climate change will have on their businesses,as well as explain what they are doing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.While sharcholdcr motivcs are cerlainly aimed at helping in the worldwide fight against global warming,they also represent a practical need to better understand a company's prospects.If the burning of oil and gas is grcaily curtailed as a result of the December 2015 intemational Paris climate agreement,for example,how might that affect the bottom line of a corporation whose chief source of revenue is extracting and selling carbon-emitting oil and gas?Or,conversely,how is a company planning to take advantage of the business opportunities that emerge from a shift away from fossil fuels?Climate Action 100+,for example,is a shareholder action group that is asking corporations to make stronger commitments to meeting the 80 percent cut in carbon emissions proposed by the Paris agreement signed two years ago by nearly 200 nations.Some 225 investment groups who manage more than S26.3 trillion have signed on in support.Last week,intemational energy giant ExxonMobil said it will step up its reporting to shareholders and the public about the impacts climate change will have on its business,including any expected increased risks.The new policy follows a vote by ExxonMobil investors at the company's annual meeting in May that called for a yearly assessment of the effects of climate change on the company.The new position represents a sea change for ExxonMobil,which until the early 2000s had disputed the need to take action on climate change.Around the world national govemments are shaping new policies in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will not allow global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius.In the U,S.,individual states and cities are pursuing lawsuits against companies that fail to deal responsibly with greenhouse gas emissions,which they contend harm the public.23.The word"curtailed"（Para.3）most probably means
There's no doubt:In the last few decades,the average temperature on Earth has been higher than it has been in hundreds of years.Around the world,people are starting to measure the effects of global warming一 and trying to figure out what to do about it. Scientists recently used satellites to study the temperatures of lakes around the world,and they found that lakes are heating up.Between 1985 and 2009,satellites recorded the nighttime temperatures of the sur- faces of 167 lakes.During those 24 years,the lakes got warmer by an average of about 0.045 degree Celsius per year. In some places,lakes have been warming by as much as 0.10 degree Celsius per year. At that rate,a lake may warm by a full degree Celsius in just 10 years.That difference may seem small一you might not even notice it in your bath.But in a lake,slightly warmer temperatures could mean more algae（水藻）,and algae can make the lake poisonous to fish. The study shows that in some regions,lakes are warming faster than the air around them.This is impor- tant because scientists often use measurements of air temperature to study how Earth is warming. By using lake temperatures as well,scientists can get a better picture of global warming. The scientists say data on lakes give scientists a new way to measure the impact of climate change around the world. That's going to be useful,since no country is too big or too small to ignore climate change.Scientists aren't the only ones concerned.Everyone who lives on Earth is going to be affected by the rapid warming of the planet. Many world leaders believe we might be able to do something about it,especially by reducing the amount of greenhouse（温室）gases we put into the air. That's why the United Nations started the Framework Convention on Climate Change,or UNFCCC. Every year the convention meets,and representatives from countries around the world gather to talk about climate change and discuss global solutions to the challenges of a warming world.
Global warming is less threatening to small countries. A:Right B:Wrong C:Not mentioned
资料：Earlier this month, presidents Barack Obama of the US and Xi Jinping of China made an important symbolic gesture when they committed their countries, the two largest greenhouse gas emitters, to the Paris climate agreement. It was the clearest signal yet to investors worldwide that they need to think about the implications of global warming for their portfolios.
On Friday afternoon there was an example of what that might mean Mr Obama’s administration issued an order temporarily blocking construction on a section of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. The move was a response to local concerns raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe about potential damage to historic sites and the threats of oil spills. But it is the global issue of climate change that had raised the profile of Dakota Access, making it into a cause celebre for US environmental campaigners. Bill McKibben of 350.org, which played a key role in the successful effort to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, has suggested that Mr Obama could block Dakota Access permanently, on the grounds that it would exacerbate the threat of climate change.
Last month, the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality issued new guidance for federal agencies, making clear that their decisions should take into account “the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change”, and quantify their consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Dakota Access is intended to carry crude oil 1,172 miles from North Dakota, a centre of the US shale revolution, to Illinois, en route to refineries around America. The case that it would add to global greenhouse gas emission will be harder to make than for Keystone XL, which would have brought crude from the high-emitting oil sands of western Canada, but the campaigners are certain to try.
If Dakota Access is stopped, it will have a significant impact not just on energy Transfer Partners, the company leading the project, but on all North Dakota oil producers and their customers, who will be forced to use more expensive rail transport.
Climate change is now an unavoidable business issue. In an excellent paper last week, BlackRock, the world’s largest fund manager, set out some of the ways that investors can reduce their exposure to the risks and benefit from the opportunities that it creates. The paper is a landmark in the rising awareness of the issue among mainstream investors. It is one thing when a philanthropic fund with assets of a few hundred million takes a stand on climate issues, quite another when the warnings come from a company with about $4.9tn under management. As BlackRock points out, investors’ personal views on climate science are irrelevant. Enough governments and businesses are convinced by the scientific consensus that the threat is real, and are driving regulatory and technological changes that interested in you.
六If the world is to reduce the risk of catastrophic global warming to acceptable levels, there will have to be a huge reallocation of capital away from fossil fuels and toward low-emission energy sources. That shift has begun, but it needs to go much further. The transition is not straightforward: for as long as oil is the lifeblood of the world’s transport, pipelines will be needed. But when investors and boards make decisions about projects like Dakota Access, they will have to consider their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The financial consequences of climate change can no longer be ignored.
Which one of the following is not the measure taken by US government to deal with climate change? （ ）.
A.Stop the Dakota Access permanently
B.Join the Paris climate agreement.
C.Require federal agencies to take climate change into consideration when making decisions.
D.Suspend the construction of Dakota Access.
答案：A
解析：
本题考查的是细节理解。 【关键词】not; measure; US government; deal with climate change 【主题句】第一段Earlier this month， presidents Barack Obama of the US and Xi Jinping of China made an important symbolic gesture when they committed their countries， the two largest greenhouse gas emitters， to the Paris climate agreement. 本月早些时候，美国总统奥巴马和中国习近平摆出了一个重要的象征性姿态，承诺全球最大的两个温室气体排放国将履行《巴黎协定》。 第二段 Mr Obama’s administration issued an order temporarily blocking construction on a section of the Dakota Access oil pipeline.（奥巴马政府下令暂停达科他石油管道一个区段的建设。） 第三段Last month， the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality issued new guidance for federal agencies， making clear that their decisions should take into account “the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change”... 上个月，白宫环境质量委员会向联邦机构发布了新的指导意见，明确他们的决定应考虑到“拟议行动对气候变化的潜在影响”。 【解析】本题问“以下哪项不是美国政府采取的用于应对气候变化的措施？”。选项A意为“永久停止达科他管道建设”；选项B意为“加入巴黎气候协议”；选项C意为“要求联邦机构在作出决定时考虑到气候变化”；选项D意为“停止建设达科他管道建设”。根据主题句可知美国政府只是暂时禁止达科他石油管道一个区段的建设，不是永久禁止。故选项A错误。其他选项均涉及。
第5题：
Text 1 Giant corporations often claim to be"green,"pointing to programs they've undertaken aimed at being environmentally conscious.But sometimes these efforts don't really amount to much.They can be no more than'igrcenwashing,"a public relations effort that doesn't represent any fundamental shift in thinking.But such a change may actually be going on among several of the world's largest fossil fuel companies,namcs such as ExxonMobil,Shell,and BP.One of the biggest reasons:pressure from the companies'sharcholdcrs.Investors arc asking corporations to make more transparent the effects climate change will have on their businesses,as well as explain what they are doing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.While sharcholdcr motivcs are cerlainly aimed at helping in the worldwide fight against global warming,they also represent a practical need to better understand a company's prospects.If the burning of oil and gas is grcaily curtailed as a result of the December 2015 intemational Paris climate agreement,for example,how might that affect the bottom line of a corporation whose chief source of revenue is extracting and selling carbon-emitting oil and gas?Or,conversely,how is a company planning to take advantage of the business opportunities that emerge from a shift away from fossil fuels?Climate Action 100+,for example,is a shareholder action group that is asking corporations to make stronger commitments to meeting the 80 percent cut in carbon emissions proposed by the Paris agreement signed two years ago by nearly 200 nations.Some 225 investment groups who manage more than S26.3 trillion have signed on in support.Last week,intemational energy giant ExxonMobil said it will step up its reporting to shareholders and the public about the impacts climate change will have on its business,including any expected increased risks.The new policy follows a vote by ExxonMobil investors at the company's annual meeting in May that called for a yearly assessment of the effects of climate change on the company.The new position represents a sea change for ExxonMobil,which until the early 2000s had disputed the need to take action on climate change.Around the world national govemments are shaping new policies in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will not allow global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius.In the U,S.,individual states and cities are pursuing lawsuits against companies that fail to deal responsibly with greenhouse gas emissions,which they contend harm the public.21.Big corporations are far away from"green"because
A.they rarely do anything meaningful.
B.they don't have any fundamental shift.
C.they have poor public relations.
D.they lack fundamental changes in thinking
Text 1 Giant corporations often claim to be"green,"pointing to programs they've undertaken aimed at being environmentally conscious.But sometimes these efforts don't really amount to much.They can be no more than'igrcenwashing,"a public relations effort that doesn't represent any fundamental shift in thinking.But such a change may actually be going on among several of the world's largest fossil fuel companies,namcs such as ExxonMobil,Shell,and BP.One of the biggest reasons:pressure from the companies'sharcholdcrs.Investors arc asking corporations to make more transparent the effects climate change will have on their businesses,as well as explain what they are doing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.While sharcholdcr motivcs are cerlainly aimed at helping in the worldwide fight against global warming,they also represent a practical need to better understand a company's prospects.If the burning of oil and gas is grcaily curtailed as a result of the December 2015 intemational Paris climate agreement,for example,how might that affect the bottom line of a corporation whose chief source of revenue is extracting and selling carbon-emitting oil and gas?Or,conversely,how is a company planning to take advantage of the business opportunities that emerge from a shift away from fossil fuels?Climate Action 100+,for example,is a shareholder action group that is asking corporations to make stronger commitments to meeting the 80 percent cut in carbon emissions proposed by the Paris agreement signed two years ago by nearly 200 nations.Some 225 investment groups who manage more than S26.3 trillion have signed on in support.Last week,intemational energy giant ExxonMobil said it will step up its reporting to shareholders and the public about the impacts climate change will have on its business,including any expected increased risks.The new policy follows a vote by ExxonMobil investors at the company's annual meeting in May that called for a yearly assessment of the effects of climate change on the company.The new position represents a sea change for ExxonMobil,which until the early 2000s had disputed the need to take action on climate change.Around the world national govemments are shaping new policies in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will not allow global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius.In the U,S.,individual states and cities are pursuing lawsuits against companies that fail to deal responsibly with greenhouse gas emissions,which they contend harm the public.24.What's ExxonMobil's attitude toward taking action on climate change?
Text 1 Giant corporations often claim to be"green,"pointing to programs they've undertaken aimed at being environmentally conscious.But sometimes these efforts don't really amount to much.They can be no more than'igrcenwashing,"a public relations effort that doesn't represent any fundamental shift in thinking.But such a change may actually be going on among several of the world's largest fossil fuel companies,namcs such as ExxonMobil,Shell,and BP.One of the biggest reasons:pressure from the companies'sharcholdcrs.Investors arc asking corporations to make more transparent the effects climate change will have on their businesses,as well as explain what they are doing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.While sharcholdcr motivcs are cerlainly aimed at helping in the worldwide fight against global warming,they also represent a practical need to better understand a company's prospects.If the burning of oil and gas is grcaily curtailed as a result of the December 2015 intemational Paris climate agreement,for example,how might that affect the bottom line of a corporation whose chief source of revenue is extracting and selling carbon-emitting oil and gas?Or,conversely,how is a company planning to take advantage of the business opportunities that emerge from a shift away from fossil fuels?Climate Action 100+,for example,is a shareholder action group that is asking corporations to make stronger commitments to meeting the 80 percent cut in carbon emissions proposed by the Paris agreement signed two years ago by nearly 200 nations.Some 225 investment groups who manage more than S26.3 trillion have signed on in support.Last week,intemational energy giant ExxonMobil said it will step up its reporting to shareholders and the public about the impacts climate change will have on its business,including any expected increased risks.The new policy follows a vote by ExxonMobil investors at the company's annual meeting in May that called for a yearly assessment of the effects of climate change on the company.The new position represents a sea change for ExxonMobil,which until the early 2000s had disputed the need to take action on climate change.Around the world national govemments are shaping new policies in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will not allow global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius.In the U,S.,individual states and cities are pursuing lawsuits against companies that fail to deal responsibly with greenhouse gas emissions,which they contend harm the public.25.The U.S.is quoted to indicate
A.its great achievement in dealing with climate change.
B.greenhouse gas emissions have been under control.
C.countries are striving to cope with climate change.
D.it has rules and laws against greenhouse gas emissions
There's no doubt:In the last few decades,the average temperature on Earth has been higher than it has been in hundreds of years.Around the world,people are starting to measure the effects of global warming一 and trying to figure out what to do about it. Scientists recently used satellites to study the temperatures of lakes around the world,and they found that lakes are heating up.Between 1985 and 2009,satellites recorded the nighttime temperatures of the sur- faces of 167 lakes.During those 24 years,the lakes got warmer by an average of about 0.045 degree Celsius per year. In some places,lakes have been warming by as much as 0.10 degree Celsius per year. At that rate,a lake may warm by a full degree Celsius in just 10 years.That difference may seem small一you might not even notice it in your bath.But in a lake,slightly warmer temperatures could mean more algae（水藻）,and algae can make the lake poisonous to fish. The study shows that in some regions,lakes are warming faster than the air around them.This is impor- tant because scientists often use measurements of air temperature to study how Earth is warming. By using lake temperatures as well,scientists can get a better picture of global warming. The scientists say data on lakes give scientists a new way to measure the impact of climate change around the world. That's going to be useful,since no country is too big or too small to ignore climate change.Scientists aren't the only ones concerned.Everyone who lives on Earth is going to be affected by the rapid warming of the planet. Many world leaders believe we might be able to do something about it,especially by reducing the amount of greenhouse（温室）gases we put into the air. That's why the United Nations started the Framework Convention on Climate Change,or UNFCCC. Every year the convention meets,and representatives from countries around the world gather to talk about climate change and discuss global solutions to the challenges of a warming world.
Lakes seem to be warming faster in Asia. A:Right B:Wrong C:Not mentioned
资料：Earlier this month, presidents Barack Obama of the US and Xi Jinping of China made an important symbolic gesture when they committed their countries, the two largest greenhouse gas emitters, to the Paris climate agreement. It was the clearest signal yet to investors worldwide that they need to think about the implications of global warming for their portfolios.
On Friday afternoon there was an example of what that might mean Mr Obama’s administration issued an order temporarily blocking construction on a section of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. The move was a response to local concerns raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe about potential damage to historic sites and the threats of oil spills. But it is the global issue of climate change that had raised the profile of Dakota Access, making it into a cause celebre for US environmental campaigners. Bill McKibben of 350.org, which played a key role in the successful effort to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, has suggested that Mr Obama could block Dakota Access permanently, on the grounds that it would exacerbate the threat of climate change.
Last month, the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality issued new guidance for federal agencies, making clear that their decisions should take into account “the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change”, and quantify their consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Dakota Access is intended to carry crude oil 1,172 miles from North Dakota, a centre of the US shale revolution, to Illinois, en route to refineries around America. The case that it would add to global greenhouse gas emission will be harder to make than for Keystone XL, which would have brought crude from the high-emitting oil sands of western Canada, but the campaigners are certain to try.
If Dakota Access is stopped, it will have a significant impact not just on energy Transfer Partners, the company leading the project, but on all North Dakota oil producers and their customers, who will be forced to use more expensive rail transport.
Climate change is now an unavoidable business issue. In an excellent paper last week, BlackRock, the world’s largest fund manager, set out some of the ways that investors can reduce their exposure to the risks and benefit from the opportunities that it creates. The paper is a landmark in the rising awareness of the issue among mainstream investors. It is one thing when a philanthropic fund with assets of a few hundred million takes a stand on climate issues, quite another when the warnings come from a company with about $4.9tn under management. As BlackRock points out, investors’ personal views on climate science are irrelevant. Enough governments and businesses are convinced by the scientific consensus that the threat is real, and are driving regulatory and technological changes that interested in you.
六If the world is to reduce the risk of catastrophic global warming to acceptable levels, there will have to be a huge reallocation of capital away from fossil fuels and toward low-emission energy sources. That shift has begun, but it needs to go much further. The transition is not straightforward: for as long as oil is the lifeblood of the world’s transport, pipelines will be needed. But when investors and boards make decisions about projects like Dakota Access, they will have to consider their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The financial consequences of climate change can no longer be ignored.
According to the article, which one of the following statements is false? （ ）
A.To reduce the risk of global warming, more should be invested on low-emissions energy sources.
B.Climate change is not only a climate issue, but also a business issue.
C.It’s more difficult to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions on the Dakota Access than Keystone XL.
D.US and China will work together to cope with climate change.
答案：D
解析：
本题考查的是细节理解。 【关键词】following statement;false 1、【主题句】第六段 If the world is to reduce the risk of catastrophic global warming to acceptable levels， there will have to be a huge reallocation of capital away from fossil fuels and toward low-emission energy sources.如果世界要将发生灾难性全球变暖的风险降至可接受的水平，那么肯定需要将大量投资从化石燃料转向低排放的能源。 2、第五段Climate change is now an unavoidable business issue.气候变化现在是一个不可避免的商业问题。 3、第三段Last month, the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality issued new guidance for federal agencies, making clear that their decisions should take into account “the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change”, and quantify their consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. 上月，白宫的环境质量委员会向各联邦政府机构下发新的指南，明确表示，各机构在决策中应考虑“拟议措施对气候变化的潜在影响”，并量化相关措施在温室气体排放方面的影响。The case that it would add to global greenhouse gas emissions will be harder to make than for Keystone XL, which would have brought crude from the high-emitting oil sands of western Canada, but the campaigners are certain to try.与原本计划在加拿大西部地区的油砂矿（温室气体排放强度大）开采石油并输送美国的Keystone XL项目相比，达科他项目会加剧全球温室气体排放的理由显得不那么有力，但环保活动人士肯定要试一试。 4、第一段presidents Barack Obama of the US and Xi Jinping of China made an important symbolic gesture when they committed their countries， the two largest greenhouse gas emitters，to the Paris climate agreement.美国总统巴拉克?奥巴马（Barack Obama）和中国国家主席习近平摆出了一个重要的象征性姿态，承诺全球最大的两个温室气体排放国将履行《巴黎协定》。 【解析】本题问“根据文章，哪项描述是错误的？”。选项A意为“为了减少全球变暖的风险，应该投入更多的低排放能源”；选项B意为“气候变化不仅是一个气候问题，也是一个商业问题”；选项C意为“对达科他州的温室气体排放量进行量化比Keystone XL更难以量化”；选项D意为“美国和中国将共同应对气候变化”。 根据主题句1可知选项A正确， 根据主题句2可知选项B正确， 根据主题句3可知选项C正确， 选项D，根据主题句4可知，中国和美国将履行《巴黎协定》，但这并不意味着两国将合作处理气候变化，文中也没有类似表述。
第10题：
资料：Earlier this month, presidents Barack Obama of the US and Xi Jinping of China made an important symbolic gesture when they committed their countries, the two largest greenhouse gas emitters, to the Paris climate agreement. It was the clearest signal yet to investors worldwide that they need to think about the implications of global warming for their portfolios.
On Friday afternoon there was an example of what that might mean Mr Obama’s administration issued an order temporarily blocking construction on a section of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. The move was a response to local concerns raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe about potential damage to historic sites and the threats of oil spills. But it is the global issue of climate change that had raised the profile of Dakota Access, making it into a cause celebre for US environmental campaigners. Bill McKibben of 350.org, which played a key role in the successful effort to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, has suggested that Mr Obama could block Dakota Access permanently, on the grounds that it would exacerbate the threat of climate change.
Last month, the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality issued new guidance for federal agencies, making clear that their decisions should take into account “the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change”, and quantify their consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Dakota Access is intended to carry crude oil 1,172 miles from North Dakota, a centre of the US shale revolution, to Illinois, en route to refineries around America. The case that it would add to global greenhouse gas emission will be harder to make than for Keystone XL, which would have brought crude from the high-emitting oil sands of western Canada, but the campaigners are certain to try.
If Dakota Access is stopped, it will have a significant impact not just on energy Transfer Partners, the company leading the project, but on all North Dakota oil producers and their customers, who will be forced to use more expensive rail transport.
Climate change is now an unavoidable business issue. In an excellent paper last week, BlackRock, the world’s largest fund manager, set out some of the ways that investors can reduce their exposure to the risks and benefit from the opportunities that it creates. The paper is a landmark in the rising awareness of the issue among mainstream investors. It is one thing when a philanthropic fund with assets of a few hundred million takes a stand on climate issues, quite another when the warnings come from a company with about $4.9tn under management. As BlackRock points out, investors’ personal views on climate science are irrelevant. Enough governments and businesses are convinced by the scientific consensus that the threat is real, and are driving regulatory and technological changes that interested in you.
六If the world is to reduce the risk of catastrophic global warming to acceptable levels, there will have to be a huge reallocation of capital away from fossil fuels and toward low-emission energy sources. That shift has begun, but it needs to go much further. The transition is not straightforward: for as long as oil is the lifeblood of the world’s transport, pipelines will be needed. But when investors and boards make decisions about projects like Dakota Access, they will have to consider their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The financial consequences of climate change can no longer be ignored.
The best title to the article should be ( ).
A.The catastrophic consequences of climate change.
B.US efforts in controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
C.Investment threats in a changing climate.
D.The world is in danger.
答案：C
解析：
本题考查的是主旨大意。 【关键词】best title 【主题句】第一段 It was the clearest signal yet to investors worldwide that they need to think about the implications of global warming for their portfolios.（这是迄今为止向全球投资者发出的最清晰的信号，他们需要考虑全球变暖对其投资组合的影响。） 最后一段The financial consequences of climate change can no longer be ignored.（气候变化对金融的影响不能再被忽视。） 【解析】本题问“本文的最佳标题是（ ）？”。选项A意为“气候变化的灾难性后果”；选项B意为“美国在控制温室气体排放方面的努力”；选项C意为“气候变化中的投资威胁”；选项D意为“世界处于危险之中”。根据主题句可知全篇文章就是在论述气候变化中的投资风险。
