填空题The world’s most extensive research effort on climate change is now regulated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.____
填空题
The world’s most extensive research effort on climate change is now regulated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.____
参考解析
解析：
由题干中“The world’s most extensive research effort”定位至I段，由本段可直接得出匹配段落为I段。
由题干中“The world’s most extensive research effort”定位至I段，由本段可直接得出匹配段落为I段。
相关考题：
They also warn that these countries are among the most _________ to climate change.AlaxBvulnerableCaddictiveDnasty
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.24.What's ExxonMobil's attitude toward taking action on climate change?A.Biased.B.Objective.C.Indifferent.D.Supportive.
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 meansA.limited.B.forbidden.C.improved.D.affected.
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 indicateA.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
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"becauseA.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
Questions 184-188 refer to the following article.President Barack Obama has issued his call to put global warming at the top of the internationalagenda, pledging to push for coordinated action by the world's biggest countries to tackle problem of climate change.In the speech, the US president on Tuesday laid out a three-pan plan to deal with climate change using the power of his office.He outlined a strategy to cut the US's carbon pollution by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants; to prepare the US for the impact of climate change, suchas the super storm that ravaged the New Jersey coastline last year, and to lead the world by example in combating changing climate."While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, the president believes we have a moral obligation to our kids to leave them a planet that's not polluted and White House official said.The coal industry said the proposals could prove devastating-----shares in US coal mining companies have been falling sharply-but Mr. Obama ' s speech was being watched closely around the world.In Europe, where the Eurozone crisis has pushed theclimate change agenda firmly into the political background, environmental campaigners said they hoped Mr.Obama's speech would puncture arguments tackling global warming as bad for the economy.”If you have got the US and China moving, then the argument that the EU is going it alone clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny anymore," said Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation.The president said he would seek to expand new and existing international initiatives,including bilateral initiatives with China, India and other big emissions countries.According to the passage, what was the possible solution for the problem?A. Seeking international coordination of big emission countriesB. Making EU 's action ahead of environment campaignersC. Enhanced awareness of environmental campaignersD. Expanding the influence of some Asian countries
Questions 184-188 refer to the following article.President Barack Obama has issued his call to put global warming at the top of the internationalagenda, pledging to push for coordinated action by the world's biggest countries to tackle problem of climate change.In the speech, the US president on Tuesday laid out a three-pan plan to deal with climate change using the power of his office.He outlined a strategy to cut the US's carbon pollution by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants; to prepare the US for the impact of climate change, suchas the super storm that ravaged the New Jersey coastline last year, and to lead the world by example in combating changing climate."While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, the president believes we have a moral obligation to our kids to leave them a planet that's not polluted and White House official said.The coal industry said the proposals could prove devastating-----shares in US coal mining companies have been falling sharply-but Mr. Obama ' s speech was being watched closely around the world.In Europe, where the Eurozone crisis has pushed theclimate change agenda firmly into the political background, environmental campaigners said they hoped Mr.Obama's speech would puncture arguments tackling global warming as bad for the economy.”If you have got the US and China moving, then the argument that the EU is going it alone clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny anymore," said Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation.The president said he would seek to expand new and existing international initiatives,including bilateral initiatives with China, India and other big emissions countries.The Eurozone crisis has caused that_______A. People believed that dealing with environmental problems is bad for the economyB. There has been more environmental campaigners discussing about the issueC. The climate change agenda was influenced by politicsD. The EU was going along with US and China
Questions 184-188 refer to the following article.President Barack Obama has issued his call to put global warming at the top of the internationalagenda, pledging to push for coordinated action by the world's biggest countries to tackle problem of climate change.In the speech, the US president on Tuesday laid out a three-pan plan to deal with climate change using the power of his office.He outlined a strategy to cut the US's carbon pollution by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants; to prepare the US for the impact of climate change, suchas the super storm that ravaged the New Jersey coastline last year, and to lead the world by example in combating changing climate."While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, the president believes we have a moral obligation to our kids to leave them a planet that's not polluted and White House official said.The coal industry said the proposals could prove devastating-----shares in US coal mining companies have been falling sharply-but Mr. Obama ' s speech was being watched closely around the world.In Europe, where the Eurozone crisis has pushed theclimate change agenda firmly into the political background, environmental campaigners said they hoped Mr.Obama's speech would puncture arguments tackling global warming as bad for the economy.”If you have got the US and China moving, then the argument that the EU is going it alone clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny anymore," said Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation.The president said he would seek to expand new and existing international initiatives,including bilateral initiatives with China, India and other big emissions countries.According to the passage, it can be implied that the coal industry______A. was indifferent about the proposalB. agreed with the proposalC. would express opinions after close watchingD. disagreed with the proposal
Questions 184-188 refer to the following article.President Barack Obama has issued his call to put global warming at the top of the internationalagenda, pledging to push for coordinated action by the world's biggest countries to tackle problem of climate change.In the speech, the US president on Tuesday laid out a three-pan plan to deal with climate change using the power of his office.He outlined a strategy to cut the US's carbon pollution by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants; to prepare the US for the impact of climate change, suchas the super storm that ravaged the New Jersey coastline last year, and to lead the world by example in combating changing climate."While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, the president believes we have a moral obligation to our kids to leave them a planet that's not polluted and White House official said.The coal industry said the proposals could prove devastating-----shares in US coal mining companies have been falling sharply-but Mr. Obama ' s speech was being watched closely around the world.In Europe, where the Eurozone crisis has pushed theclimate change agenda firmly into the political background, environmental campaigners said they hoped Mr.Obama's speech would puncture arguments tackling global warming as bad for the economy.”If you have got the US and China moving, then the argument that the EU is going it alone clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny anymore," said Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation.The president said he would seek to expand new and existing international initiatives,including bilateral initiatives with China, India and other big emissions countries.Which of the following is NOT included in the US president 's strategy?A. to set a good example for the worldB. to fight against the super storm in the New JerseyC. to cut emissions from coal-fired power plantsD. to prepare the US for the influence of the changing climate
Questions 184-188 refer to the following article.President Barack Obama has issued his call to put global warming at the top of the internationalagenda, pledging to push for coordinated action by the world's biggest countries to tackle problem of climate change.In the speech, the US president on Tuesday laid out a three-pan plan to deal with climate change using the power of his office.He outlined a strategy to cut the US's carbon pollution by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants; to prepare the US for the impact of climate change, suchas the super storm that ravaged the New Jersey coastline last year, and to lead the world by example in combating changing climate."While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, the president believes we have a moral obligation to our kids to leave them a planet that's not polluted and White House official said.The coal industry said the proposals could prove devastating-----shares in US coal mining companies have been falling sharply-but Mr. Obama ' s speech was being watched closely around the world.In Europe, where the Eurozone crisis has pushed theclimate change agenda firmly into the political background, environmental campaigners said they hoped Mr.Obama's speech would puncture arguments tackling global warming as bad for the economy.”If you have got the US and China moving, then the argument that the EU is going it alone clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny anymore," said Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation.The president said he would seek to expand new and existing international initiatives,including bilateral initiatives with China, India and other big emissions countries.What was the main point of Obama ' s speech?A. to call for actions to tackle the problems of climate changeB. to co-ordinate for the implementation of international agendaC. to lay out a plan for environmental problemsD. to find reasons for recent global warming
The world's oceans have warmed 50 percent faster over the last 40 years than previously thought due to climate change,Australian and US climate researchers reported Wednesday．Higher ocean temperatures expand the volume of water,contributing to a rise in sea levels that is covering small island nations and threatening to destroy the low-lying,densely-populated low regions around the globe.The study,published in the British journal Nature,adds to a growing scientific chorus of warnings about the pace and consequences rising oceans．It also serves as a corrective to a massive report issued last year by the Nobel-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC),according to the authors.Rising sea levels are driven by two things:the thermal expansion of sea water,and additional water from melting sources of ice．Both processes are caused by global warming．The ice sheet that sits atop Greenland,for example,contains enough water to raise world ocean levels by seven meters,which would bury sea-level cities from Dhaka to Shanghai.Trying to figure out how much each of these factors contributes to rising sea levels is critically important to understanding climate change,and forecasting future temperature rises,scientists say．But up to now,there has been a puzzling gap between the projections of computer-based climate models,and the observations of scientists gathering data from the oceans.The new study,led by Catia Domingues of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research,is the first to reunite the models with observed data．Using new techniques to assess ocean temperatures to a depth of 700 meters from 1961 to 2003,it shows that thermal warming contributed to a 0.53 millimeter-per-year rise in sea levels rather than the 0.32 mm rise reported by the IPCC.What was the main finding of the study?A.The warming of the world's oceans is not a threaB.That not enough is being done about global warminC.There is a puzzling gap between the model and observationD.Ocean waters have warmed faster than scientists had previously though
The world's oceans have warmed 50 percent faster over the last 40 years than previously thought due to climate change,Australian and US climate researchers reported Wednesday．Higher ocean temperatures expand the volume of water,contributing to a rise in sea levels that is covering small island nations and threatening to destroy the low-lying,densely-populated low regions around the globe.The study,published in the British journal Nature,adds to a growing scientific chorus of warnings about the pace and consequences rising oceans．It also serves as a corrective to a massive report issued last year by the Nobel-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC),according to the authors.Rising sea levels are driven by two things:the thermal expansion of sea water,and additional water from melting sources of ice．Both processes are caused by global warming．The ice sheet that sits atop Greenland,for example,contains enough water to raise world ocean levels by seven meters,which would bury sea-level cities from Dhaka to Shanghai.Trying to figure out how much each of these factors contributes to rising sea levels is critically important to understanding climate change,and forecasting future temperature rises,scientists say．But up to now,there has been a puzzling gap between the projections of computer-based climate models,and the observations of scientists gathering data from the oceans.The new study,led by Catia Domingues of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research,is the first to reunite the models with observed data．Using new techniques to assess ocean temperatures to a depth of 700 meters from 1961 to 2003,it shows that thermal warming contributed to a 0.53 millimeter-per-year rise in sea levels rather than the 0.32 mm rise reported by the IPCC.Ultimately,the new study should help scientists to__.A.lower water levelsB.change their opinionsC.better predict climate changeD.bury sea-level cities like Dhaka and Shanghai
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.
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 permanentlyB.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.
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.What can we learn from Paragragh 5? （ ）A.BlackRock is philanthropic fund that cares about climate change.B.Investors can take the opportunities brought by climate change.C.The threat brought by climate change still needs scientific evidence.D.What investors think of the climate change is very important.
填空题At the global level, countries around the world have expressed a firm commitment to strengthening international responses to the risks of climate change.____
单选题请阅读 Passage 2，完成第 26~30小题。Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbomly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival ofa country's coasts and farms, the health ofits people and stability ofits economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those mterested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will. I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelmmg, says Fred Krupp. But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.Judging from the context, the word rub (Para. 3) probably means ____ .AfrictionBcontradictionCconflictDproblem
单选题请阅读 Passage 2，完成第 26~30小题。Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbomly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival ofa country's coasts and farms, the health ofits people and stability ofits economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those mterested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will. I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelmmg, says Fred Krupp. But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.What is the author's attitude towards America's policies on global warming?ACritical.BIndifferent.CSupportive.DCompromising.
单选题Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course,a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly citespatriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will.I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp.But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.What is the author's attitude towards America's policies on global warming？ACritical.BIndifferent.CSupportive.DCompromising.
单选题请阅读 Passage 2，完成第 26~30小题。Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbomly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival ofa country's coasts and farms, the health ofits people and stability ofits economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those mterested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will. I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelmmg, says Fred Krupp. But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.The paragraphs immediately following this passage would most probably deal with ____.Athe new book wntten by Fred KruppBhow America can fight against global warmingCthe harmful effects ofglobal warmingDhow America can tide over economic crisis
填空题The world’s most extensive research effort on climate change is now regulated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.____
单选题Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course,a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly citespatriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will.I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp.But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.The paragraphs immediately following this passage would most probably deal with______.Athe new book written by Fred KruppBhow America can fight against global warmingCthe harmful effects of global warmingDhow America can tide over economic crisis
单选题Which of the following is the best title for the passage?ARising Global TemperaturesBRainforests Are in DangerCCoral Reefs Face ExtinctionDGlobal Climate Change
单选题Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course,a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly citespatriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will.I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp.But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.What does the passage mainly discuss？AHuman wars.BEconomic crisis.CAmerica's environmental policies.DGlobal environment in general.
单选题请阅读 Passage 2，完成第 26~30小题。Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbomly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival ofa country's coasts and farms, the health ofits people and stability ofits economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those mterested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will. I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelmmg, says Fred Krupp. But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.From the last sentence of Paragraph 2, we may learn that the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy is ____.Aof utmost importanceBa fight no one can winCbeyond people 's imaginationDa less significant issue
单选题Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course,a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly citespatriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will.I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp.But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.Judging from the context，the wordrub（Para.3）probably means________.AfrictionBcontradictionCconflictDproblem
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)