Тест 3. Чтение. ЕГЭ по английскому языку

1) Установите соответствие между заголовками 1 — 8 и текстами A — G. Используйте каждую цифру только один раз. В задании один заголовок лишний.

1. Health Problem
2. Significant Difference
3. Fashions in Food
4. New Weapon
5. The Price of Success
6. Holiday Regulations
7. Strong Competitor
8. Psychological Barrier

A. Nowadays, potatoes are the ‘in’ thing so far as health is concerned. In the 60s and 70s we were told to avoid them at all costs for fear of getting fat, but now they have been reinvented by the dieticians as a source of fibre and vitamins. Sensible people, like you and me, have always eaten them because they taste so good.

B. Organizing a holiday isn’t the easiest task in the world; there are so many things to think about. Let’s keep it simple by assuming that there’s no overseas travel to arrange. That doesn’t mean that you can also forget about injections and other health precautions entirely. What about sun blocker? What about regular medication prescribed by your doctor? My point, quite frankly, is that planning a holiday can be a real pain although a well-planned holiday can more than reward the pains you go to before you set out.

C. Symantec, McAfee and Trend Micro have the US market for anti-virus software sewed up between them. But here comes Russia’s Kaspersky Lab trying to gain a foothold. The Moscow-based company opened a sales office outside of Boston in February and has signed up about 40 resellers. Kaspersky reacts quicker than the giants to new viruses and other forms of malware, and gets fixes out fast.

D. Sitting in the office armchairs all-day long has become the norm for many of us. Stress and rush make us forget about regular food and stuff our stomachs with cheeseburgers and sodas, which don’t do any good to our bodies. As a result, we rarely find time for exercises, gyms or balanced nutrition and it’s one of the reasons why a lot of people are overweight nowadays. However, it is possible to change your lifestyle and lose your weight if you are willing to.

E. The Internet is a very effective medium for spreading ideas or news. It eliminates geographical boundaries, and Greenpeace is aware of it, and benefits from it. For instance, in 1995, Greenpeace utilised its site to publicise a route that the French use to send nuclear shipments to Japan. They also included the fax number of the French Embassy and of the newspaper Le Monde so that letters of protest could be sent.

F. The biggest problem most people face in learning a new language is their own fear, like Stage Fear. They worry that they won’t say things correctly or that they will look stupid so they don’t talk at all. Don’t do this. Actually, the fastest way to learn anything is to do it — again and again until you get it right. Like anything, learning English requires practice. Don’t let your fear stop you from getting what you want.

G. Fuel cells are similar to a battery except unlike batteries, they don’t need to be recharged. Fuel causes air pollution and noise, while fuel cells do not cause either. Fuel cells don’t cause pollution because they don’t create waste like fuel. Fuel cells are also very efficient, so efficient that fuel cells have been providing energy on spacecrafts for a very long time.

A	B	C	D	E	F	G

🔗

2) Прочитайте текст и заполните пропуски A — F частями предложений, обозначенными цифрами 1 — 7. Одна из частей в списке 1—7 лишняя.

The ancient Greeks coined the term ‘atomos’, meaning the smallest possible separation of matter. In ancient times, both the Greeks and Indians had philosophised about the existence of the atom. However, it was first hypothesised scientifically by the British chemist John Dalton in the early years of the 19th century, ___ (A). Since then, smaller subatomic particles have been discovered and the part they play as the basic building blocks of the universe is clear. We now know that atoms are made up of differing numbers of electrons, neutrons and protons, and these too are made up of even smaller particles.

Dalton’s theory about atoms was not immediately accepted by chemists, although one reason for this was Dalton’s well-known carelessness in experimental procedures. However, we know that Dalton was correct in almost everything he said in his theory of the atom. He described an atom, even though he had never seen one, ___ (B). It could combine with the atoms of other chemical elements to create a compound.

Almost a century later the first subatomic particles were discovered. By the 1930s, physicists were working with new ideas ___ (C). In turn, these developments helped them to develop quantum mechanics.

In chemistry, the atom is the smallest part of an element ___ (D). The difference in the number of subatomic particles makes one atom different from another.

Subatomic particles also have another purpose. If there is the same number of electrons and protons in the atom, ___ (E). A difference between the two means the atom has an electrical charge. In other words, it produces electricity. This electricity means the electrons can become attracted to each other. In this way, atoms can bond together to form molecules, and when enough molecules are joined together we have matter ___ (F).

1. when he suggested it was the smallest particle that could exist
2. that we can see
3. as he has no equipment
4. as a particle that cannot change its nature
5. then it will be electronically neutral
6. that can still be recognised
7. which allowed them to investigate the parts of the atom in great detail

A	B	C	D	E	F

🔗

3) Прочитайте текст и запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Показать текст. ⇓

The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats — ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods — are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.

‘Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there’s a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern,’ says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. ‘Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately.’

Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the ‘burning embers,’ that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming.

According to the new graph, risks to ‘unique and threatened systems’ such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia.

‘We’re definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest,’ says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. ‘We’re going to have to learn how to adapt.’ Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage.

Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set — and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. ‘It’s a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around.’

But even with such policies in place—not only in the U.S. but across the globe—climate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: ‘Will it be catastrophic or not?’ ‘We’ve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse,’ Schneider says. ‘It’s time to move.’

(Adapted from ‘Risks of Global Warming Rising" by David Biello)

The current temperature change
1) is less than it was predicted.
2) is too little to cause any concern.
3) makes natural disasters more probable.
4) has caused the catastrophic climate change.

🔗

4) Прочитайте текст и запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Показать текст. ⇓

The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats — ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods — are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.

‘Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there’s a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern,’ says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. ‘Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately.’

Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the ‘burning embers,’ that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming.

According to the new graph, risks to ‘unique and threatened systems’ such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia.

‘We’re definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest,’ says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. ‘We’re going to have to learn how to adapt.’ Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage.

Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set — and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. ‘It’s a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around.’

But even with such policies in place—not only in the U.S. but across the globe—climate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: ‘Will it be catastrophic or not?’ ‘We’ve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse,’ Schneider says. ‘It’s time to move.’

(Adapted from ‘Risks of Global Warming Rising" by David Biello)

According to Stephen Schneider, people should be more worried because
1) the heat wave is going to kill more people.
2) the intensity of floods and drought will increase in the near future.
3) nobody can explain the dramatic melting of Greenland.
4) nature has proved the climate change theory.

🔗

5) Прочитайте текст и запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Показать текст. ⇓

The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats — ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods — are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.

‘Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there’s a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern,’ says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. ‘Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately.’

Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the ‘burning embers,’ that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming.

According to the new graph, risks to ‘unique and threatened systems’ such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia.

‘We’re definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest,’ says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. ‘We’re going to have to learn how to adapt.’ Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage.

Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set — and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. ‘It’s a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around.’

But even with such policies in place—not only in the U.S. but across the globe—climate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: ‘Will it be catastrophic or not?’ ‘We’ve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse,’ Schneider says. ‘It’s time to move.’

(Adapted from ‘Risks of Global Warming Rising" by David Biello)

In paragraph 3 ‘dubbed’ means
1) added.
2) labelled.
3) doubled.
4) showed.

🔗

6) Прочитайте текст и запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Показать текст. ⇓

The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats — ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods — are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.

‘Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there’s a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern,’ says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. ‘Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately.’

Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the ‘burning embers,’ that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming.

According to the new graph, risks to ‘unique and threatened systems’ such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia.

‘We’re definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest,’ says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. ‘We’re going to have to learn how to adapt.’ Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage.

Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set — and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. ‘It’s a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around.’

But even with such policies in place—not only in the U.S. but across the globe—climate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: ‘Will it be catastrophic or not?’ ‘We’ve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse,’ Schneider says. ‘It’s time to move.’

(Adapted from ‘Risks of Global Warming Rising" by David Biello)

According to the updated graph, risks of negative consequences begin to appear
1) when the temperature change reaches 1 degree C.
2) when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degree C from 1990 levels.
3) after 3.6 degrees F of warming.
4) after 3 degrees C of warming.

🔗

7) Прочитайте текст и запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Показать текст. ⇓

The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats — ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods — are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.

‘Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there’s a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern,’ says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. ‘Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately.’

Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the ‘burning embers,’ that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming.

According to the new graph, risks to ‘unique and threatened systems’ such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia.

‘We’re definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest,’ says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. ‘We’re going to have to learn how to adapt.’ Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage.

Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set — and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. ‘It’s a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around.’

But even with such policies in place—not only in the U.S. but across the globe—climate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: ‘Will it be catastrophic or not?’ ‘We’ve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse,’ Schneider says. ‘It’s time to move.’

(Adapted from ‘Risks of Global Warming Rising" by David Biello)

Global warming has
1) only negative consequences.
2) only positive consequences.
3) more negative than positive consequences.
4) more positive than negative consequences.

🔗

8) Прочитайте текст и запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Показать текст. ⇓

The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats — ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods — are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.

‘Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there’s a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern,’ says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. ‘Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately.’

Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the ‘burning embers,’ that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming.

According to the new graph, risks to ‘unique and threatened systems’ such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia.

‘We’re definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest,’ says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. ‘We’re going to have to learn how to adapt.’ Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage.

Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set — and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. ‘It’s a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around.’

But even with such policies in place—not only in the U.S. but across the globe—climate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: ‘Will it be catastrophic or not?’ ‘We’ve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse,’ Schneider says. ‘It’s time to move.’

(Adapted from ‘Risks of Global Warming Rising" by David Biello)

Cap-and-trade policy implies that
1) companies will have to cut their emissions.
2) companies could sell their emissions.
3) the overall amount of emissions must stay within a certain limit.
4) companies will have to pay a fixed carbon tax.

🔗

9) Прочитайте текст и запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Показать текст. ⇓

The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats — ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods — are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.

‘Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there’s a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern,’ says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. ‘Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately.’

Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the ‘burning embers,’ that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming.

According to the new graph, risks to ‘unique and threatened systems’ such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia.

‘We’re definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest,’ says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. ‘We’re going to have to learn how to adapt.’ Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage.

Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set — and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. ‘It’s a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around.’

But even with such policies in place—not only in the U.S. but across the globe—climate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: ‘Will it be catastrophic or not?’ ‘We’ve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse,’ Schneider says. ‘It’s time to move.’

(Adapted from ‘Risks of Global Warming Rising" by David Biello)

According to the IPCC, global warming
1) is no worse than predicted a few years ago.
2) will have catastrophic effect.
3) is still uncertain.
4) is inevitable.

🔗