2016年6月英语六级答案下载第一套

　　[J] There is a view that modern humans are inevitably sowing the seeds of a global Grand Banks-style disaster. The idea is that we are taking more out of what you might call the planet’s environmental bank balance than it can sustain; we are living beyond our ecological means. One recent study attempted to calculate the extent of this “ecological overshoot of the human economy”, and found that we are using 1.2 Earth’s worth of environmental goods and services—the implication being that at some point the debt will be called in, and all those service—the tings which the planet does for us for free—will grind to a halt.

　　[K] Whether this is right, and if so where and when the ecological axe will fall, is hard to determine with any precision—which is why governments and financial institutions are only beginning to bring such risks into their economic calculations. It is also the reason why development agencies are not united in their view of environmental issues; while some, like the WRI, maintain that environmental progress needs to go hand-in-hand with economic development, others argue that the priority is to build a thriving economy and then use the wealth created to tackle environmental degradation.

　　[L] This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer? Here the Stockholm declaration is ambiguous. “In the developing countries,” it says, “most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development.” So it is saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily; “In the industrialized countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialization and technological development,” it continues. In other words, poor and rich both over-exploit the natural world, but for different reasons. It’s simply not true that economic growth will surely make our world cleaner.

　　[M] Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer communities. Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers, clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources—fuel, water (all those baths and golf courses) and building materials.

　　[N] A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As a country’s wealth grows, so do its greenhouse gas emissions. The figures available will not be completely accurate. Measuring emissions is not a precise science, particularly when it comes to issue surrounding land use; not all nations have released up-to-date data, and in any case, emissions from some sectors such as aviation are not included in national statistics. But the data is exact enough, for a clear trend to be easily discernible. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.

　　[O] Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race its living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic revival.