In a world with limited land, water and other natural resources, the harm from the traditional business model is on the rise. Actually, the past decades has seen more and more forests disappearing and globe becoming increasingly warm. People now realize that this unhealthy situation must be changed, and that we must be able to develop in sustainable (可持续的) ways. That means growth with low carbon or development of sustainable products. In other words, we should keep the earth healthy while using its supply of natural resources.

Today, sustainable development is a proper trend in many countries. According to a recent study, the global market for low carbon energy will become three times bigger over the next decades. China, for example, has set its mind on leading that market, hoping to seize chances in the new round of the global energy revolution. It is now trying hard to make full use of wind and solar energy, and is spending a huge amount of money making electric cars and high speed trains. In addition, we are also seeing great growth in the global markets for sustainable products such as palm oil， which is produced without cutting down valuable rainforest. In recent years the markets for sustainable products have grown by more than 50%.

Governments can fully develop the potential of these new markets. First, they can set high targets for reducing carbon emission (排放) and targets for saving and reusing energy. Besides, stronger arrangement of public resources like forests can also help to speed up the development. Finally, governments can avoid the huge expenses that are taking us in the wrong direction, and redirecting some of those expenses can accelerate (加速) the change from traditional model to a sustainable one.

    The major challenge of this century is to find ways to meet the needs of growing population within the limits of this single planet. That is no small task, but it offers abundant new chances for sustainable product industries.

1. The traditional business model is harmful because of all the following EXCEPT that ______.

A. it makes the world warmer

B. it consumes natural resources

C. it brings severe damage to forests

D. it makes growth hard to continue

2.What can we infer from Paragraph 2?

A. China lacks wind and solar energy.

B. China is the leader of the low carbon market.

C. High speed trains are a low carbon development.

D. Palm oil is made at the cost of valuable forests.

3.To fully develop the low carbon markets, government can ______.

A. cut public expenses                       B. forbid carbon emission

C. develop public resources                   D. encourage energy conservation

4.We can learn from the last paragraph that businesses have many chances to ______.

A. develop sustainable products

B. explore new natural resources

C. make full use of natural resources

D. deal with the major challenge

5.What is the main purpose of the passage?

A. To introduce a new business model.

B. To compare two business models.

C. To predict a change of the global market.

D. To advocate (提倡) sustainable development.

With alarming regularity, we read about oil tankers having accidents near land and the terrible consequences of the oil spills（泄露） on people, nature, and the environment．
Millions of dollars have been used in developing special chemicals to help dismiss the spills and to clean up the animals, beaches, and land spoiled by the oil．Unfortunately, when many of these chemicals are used, more damage is caused to the environment, especially to lives in the sea．
Of all of today’s environmental disasters, an oil spill may actually be one of the least serious．Although oil is poisonous, it is a natural material．In the end, it breaks down naturally．There are, of course, long-term effects, but it is usually more serious in the short term．
Nature by itself works better than chemical materials, but when there is a spill we demand that governments act immediately with as much hi-tech knowledge as possible．In 1967 the tanker Torrey Canyon sank off the Sicily Isles near the coast of England and spilled 120,000 tones of oil into the ocean．If you go there today, you will find it hard to see any sign that it ever happened．
Governments seem to accept the risk of transporting millions of tons of oil by ship every day so that we can fill up our cars and drive around and cause even more environmental damage．Interestingly, the biggest companies in the world produce cars, and the next biggest supply the gasoline to make them run!
We should be thinking more about reducing our dependency on oil．Governments should be encouraging research into new technologies, such as cars run by solar power（太阳能）, electricity, hydrogen, and so on．Much of this research has, in the past, been held back by the oil, gas, and coal．
If the world’s millions of cars were 10% more efficient（高效的）— and the industry could easily produce cars at least twice as efficient — we would need many fewer tankers crossing the oceans each year．If this happened, the risks of oil spills would be reduced, and the air we breathe would be cleaner and fresher, too．
【小题1】What is the passage mainly talking about?

With alarming regularity, we read about oil tankers having accidents near land and the terrible consequences of the oil spills（泄露） on people, nature, and the environment．

Millions of dollars have been used in developing special chemicals to help dismiss the spills and to clean up the animals, beaches, and land spoiled by the oil．Unfortunately, when many of these chemicals are used, more damage is caused to the environment, especially to lives in the sea．

Of all of today’s environmental disasters, an oil spill may actually be one of the least serious．Although oil is poisonous, it is a natural material．In the end, it breaks down naturally．There are, of course, long-term effects, but it is usually more serious in the short term．

Nature by itself works better than chemical materials, but when there is a spill we demand that governments act immediately with as much hi-tech knowledge as possible．In 1967 the tanker Torrey Canyon sank off the Sicily Isles near the coast of England and spilled 120,000 tones of oil into the ocean．If you go there today, you will find it hard to see any sign that it ever happened．

Governments seem to accept the risk of transporting millions of tons of oil by ship every day so that we can fill up our cars and drive around and cause even more environmental damage．Interestingly, the biggest companies in the world produce cars, and the next biggest supply the gasoline to make them run!

We should be thinking more about reducing our dependency on oil．Governments should be encouraging research into new technologies, such as cars run by solar power（太阳能）, electricity, hydrogen, and so on．Much of this research has, in the past, been held back by the oil, gas, and coal．

If the world’s millions of cars were 10% more efficient（高效的）— and the industry could easily produce cars at least twice as efficient — we would need many fewer tankers crossing the oceans each year．If this happened, the risks of oil spills would be reduced, and the air we breathe would be cleaner and fresher, too．

1.What is the passage mainly talking about?

2.How does the author support the idea that oil spills are not as serious as people believe?

3.What does the underlined word “risk” in Paragraph 5 refer to?

4.Which suggestion is made for reducing oil tank accidents according to the passage?

It was once thought that air pollution affected only the area immediately around large cities with factories and/or heavy automobile traffic. Today, we know that although these are the areas with the worst air pollution, the problem is actually worldwide. On several occasions over the past decade, a heavy cloud of air pollution has covered the entire eastern half of the United States and led to health warnings even in rural areas away from any major concentration of manufacturing and automobile traffic. In fact, the very climate of the entire earth may be affected by air pollution. Some scientists feel that the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the air resulting from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and oil) is creating a “greenhouse effect" - holding in heat reflected from the earth and raising the world's average temperature. If this view is correct and the world's temperature is raised only a few degrees, much of the polar ice cap will melt and cities such as New York, Boston, Miami, and New Orleans will be under water.

Another view, less widely held, is that increasing particulate (废气排往空中而形成的微粒、颗粒) matter in the atmosphere is blocking sunlight and lowering the earth's temperature ─ a result that would be equally disastrous. A drop of just a few degrees could create something close to new ice age and would make agriculture difficult or impossible in many of our top farming areas. At present we do not know for sure that either of these conditions will happen (though one recent government report prepared by experts in the field concluded that the greenhouse effect is very likely). Perhaps, if we are very lucky, the two tendencies will offset each other and the world's temperature will stay about the same as it is now.

As pointed out at the beginning of the passage, people used to think that air pollution ______.

       A. caused widespread damage in the countryside

       B. affected the entire eastern half of the United States

       C. had damaging effects on health

       D. existed merely in urban and industrial areas

As far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, the author ______.

       A. shares the same view with the scientists

       B. is uncertain of its occurrence

       C. rejects it as being ungrounded

       D. thinks that it will destroy the world soon

The underlined word “offset" in Para. 2 could best be replaced by______.

       A. slip into    B. make up for       C. set up        D. catch up with

This passage is mainly concerned with ______.

       A. the greenhouse effect                   B. the burning of fossil fuels

       C. the potential effect of air pollution        D. the possibility of a new ice age