“There is clear evidence that the global mean temperature is steadily rising,” says Mike Szulczewski, a researcher in MIT’s Juanes Research Group. “The real risk with global warming is if it accelerates so quickly that we can’t respond fast enough.” Whether current climate change is part of a natural cycle or people-generated, the fear is that if left unchecked, the trend could have serious consequences: disrupted plant cycles, the flooding of coastal cities as sea levels change, a breakdown of geopolitical systems across the globe.
What is also clear is the increased level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. “Before the late 18th century, the concentration of CŨ2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million,” Szulczewski explains. “Currently, it’s approximately 390 parts per million.” A byproduct of burning fossil fuels, CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Its buildup in the atmosphere over time means a steady rise in the earth’s average surface temperature,
“The problem is so big that there is no one technological silver bullet for fixing things,” says Szulczewski. Given the geographic, meteorological, and political scope of the situation, studies have focused not on reversing global warming, but on mitigating it by stabilizing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. “In order to do that,” says Szulczewski, “we must reduce our energy usage, increase the efficiency of the energy we do use, and look at solutions like carbon capture and storage.”
Szulczewski and his research team are currently investigating the safety and viability of capturing CƠ2 emissions from power plants and putting them deep underground. “This is one of the only options that would allow us to continue using fossil fuels,” says Szulczewski. Everything from the manufacture of toasters to the generation of the electricity to operate them traces back to power plants. If the US were to make a dent in those emissions by injecting one sixth of them, the country would have to inject about 1 billion gallons or 40 million barrels of CO2 every day. The US has never extracted more than about 10 million barrels of crude oil a day in its entire history.
(Source: htips://engineering.mit.edu/)
Question 1: What is the main topic of the passage?
A. Technological solutions.
B. Carbon dioxide emission.
C. Rising sea levels.
D. Global warming.
Question 2: The word “Its” in paragraph 2 refers to_________
A. industrial Revolution’s
B. fossil fuel
C. greenhouse gas’s
D. infrared radiation’s
Question 3: The word “mitigating” in paragraph 3 is closest in meaning to_____________
A. reducing
B. justifying
C. modifying
D. helping
Question 4: According to paragraph 4, the author mention the US’s crude oil situation to_______________________ .
A. Introduce the concept of using Co2 as a source of energy instead of crude oil.
B. Show how difficult it is to solve climate change by geologically storing CO2.
C. Prove that the US is the most polluted country among the developed ones.
D. Explain the impact of the human’s tendency to think in four-year cycles.
Question 5: The word “viability” in paragraph 4 is closest in meaning to____________ .
A. endurance
B. survivability
C. vitality
D. feasibility
Question 6: According to the passage, what can be suggested about climate change?
A. Climate change is proven to be an inevitable natural phenomenon.
B. The biggest hurdle to solving climate change is the people.
C. Greenhouse effect is responsible for the climate change.
D. Climate change is verified to be an anthropogenic disaster.
Question 7: Which statements is NOT true, according to the passage?
A. The effect of CO2 storage would not be immediately noticeable.
B. We can change the atmosphere to pre-Industrial Revolution state.
C. There is no simple and miraculous solution to global warming.
D. Carbon dioxide traps the infrared radiation on the earth surface.