单选题 0分

Text 2 MPs are to investigate the environmental impact of throwaway "fast fashion" in the UK ami...

Text 2
MPs are to investigate the environmental impact of throwaway "fast fashion" in the UK amid growing concerns that the multi-billion pound industry is wasting valuable resources and contributing to climate change. The inquiry, launched on Friday by the House of Commons environmental audit committee, will explore the carbon impact, resource use and water footprint of clothing throughout its lifecycle and supply chain.
Inviting evidence on how the influential sector should remodel itself to be both "thriving and sustainable", it will look at how improved recycling rates of clothing could slash waste and pollution. "Fashion shouldn't cost the Earth," said Mary Creagh MP, chair of the committee. "But the way we design, make and discard clothes has a huge environmental impact. Producing clothes requires climate-changing emissions. Every time we put on a wash, thousands of plastic fibres wash down the drain into the oceans. We don't know where or how to recycle end-of-life clothing."
Despite recent troubles on the UK high street, the fashion sector has continued to grow. According to the British Fashion Council, the UK fashion industry contributed ~28.lbn to national GDP in 2015, up from £21bn in 2009. But the globalised market for fashion manufacturing has facilitated a "fast fashion" phenomenon: a proliferation of cheap and cheerful clothing, with quick turnover that encourages consumers to keep buying, the committee warns.
The raw materials used to manufacture clothes require land and water, or extraction of fossil fuels, while carbon dioxide is emitted throughout the clothing supply chain and some chemical dyes, finishes and coatings may be toxic. Research has found that plastic microfibres in clothing are released when they are washed, and enter rivers, the ocean and even the food chain.
Last year the fashion designer Stella McCartney condemned her own industry as "incredibly wasteful and harmful to the environment." A report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation put the annual cost to the UK economy of landfilling clothing and household textiles at about ~82m. It wamed that if the global fashion industry continues on its current growth path, it could use more than a quarter of the world's annual carbon budget by 2050.
Key to the inquiry is how consumers could be encouraged to buy fewer clothes, reuse clothes and think about how best to dispose of clothes when they are no longer wanted. An estimated 300,000 tonnes of fashion waste goes straight into lan曲ll each year, despite growing efforis to encourage consumers to recycle their worn and unwanted clothing.
28. Which of the following features is odd about the "fast fashion" phenomenon?
  • A. Low price.
  • B. High sales.
  • C. Happy feeling.
  • D. Speedy update.

你可能感兴趣的试题

1 单选题 0分
Text 1
Smartphones have by now been implicated in so many crummy outcomes-car fatalities, sleep disturbances, empathy loss, relationship problems, failure to notice a clown on a unicycle-that it almost seems easier to list the things they don't mess up than the things they do. Our society may be reaching peak criticism of digital devices.
Even so. emerging research suggests that a kev Droblem remains underaDDreciated. It involves kids' development, but it's probably not what you think. More than screen-obsessed young children, we should be concerned about tuned-out parents.
Yes, parents now have more face time with their children than did almost any parents in history. Despite a dramatic increase in the percentage of women in the workforce, mothers today astoundingly spend morc time caring for their children than mothers did in the 1960s. But the engagement between parent and child is increasingly Iow-quality, even ersatz. Parents are constantly present in their children's lives physically, but they are less emotionally attuned. To be clear, I'm not unsympathetic to parents in this predicament. My own adult children like to joke that they wouldn't have survived infancy ifl'd had a smartphone in my clutches 25 years ago.
To argue that parents' use of screens is an underappreciated problem isn't to discount the direct risks screens pose to children: Substantial evidence suggests that many types of screen time (especially those involving fast-paced or violent imagery) are damaging to young brains. Today's preschoolers spend more than four hours a day facing a screen. And, since 1970, the average age of onset of "regular" screen use has gone from 4 years to just four months.
Some of the newer interactive games kids play on phones or tablets may be more benign than watching TV or YouTube, in that they better mimic children's natural play behaviors. And, of course, many well-functioning adults survived a mind-numbing childhood spent watching a lot of cognitive garbage. (My mother-unusually for her time-prohibited Speed Racer and Gilligan's Island on the grounds of insipidness. That I somehow managed to watch every single episode of each show scores of times has never been explained.) Still, no one really disputes the tremendous opportunity costs to young children who are plugged in to a screen: Time spent on devices is time not spent actively exploring the world and relating to other human beings.
21. We can learn from the first two paragraphs that smartphones .
  • A. hardly have any advantages
  • B. bring numerous bad effects
  • C. bear the most severed criticism
  • D. have little effect on parents
2 单选题 0分
Text 1
Smartphones have by now been implicated in so many crummy outcomes-car fatalities, sleep disturbances, empathy loss, relationship problems, failure to notice a clown on a unicycle-that it almost seems easier to list the things they don't mess up than the things they do. Our society may be reaching peak criticism of digital devices.
Even so. emerging research suggests that a kev Droblem remains underaDDreciated. It involves kids' development, but it's probably not what you think. More than screen-obsessed young children, we should be concerned about tuned-out parents.
Yes, parents now have more face time with their children than did almost any parents in history. Despite a dramatic increase in the percentage of women in the workforce, mothers today astoundingly spend morc time caring for their children than mothers did in the 1960s. But the engagement between parent and child is increasingly Iow-quality, even ersatz. Parents are constantly present in their children's lives physically, but they are less emotionally attuned. To be clear, I'm not unsympathetic to parents in this predicament. My own adult children like to joke that they wouldn't have survived infancy ifl'd had a smartphone in my clutches 25 years ago.
To argue that parents' use of screens is an underappreciated problem isn't to discount the direct risks screens pose to children: Substantial evidence suggests that many types of screen time (especially those involving fast-paced or violent imagery) are damaging to young brains. Today's preschoolers spend more than four hours a day facing a screen. And, since 1970, the average age of onset of "regular" screen use has gone from 4 years to just four months.
Some of the newer interactive games kids play on phones or tablets may be more benign than watching TV or YouTube, in that they better mimic children's natural play behaviors. And, of course, many well-functioning adults survived a mind-numbing childhood spent watching a lot of cognitive garbage. (My mother-unusually for her time-prohibited Speed Racer and Gilligan's Island on the grounds of insipidness. That I somehow managed to watch every single episode of each show scores of times has never been explained.) Still, no one really disputes the tremendous opportunity costs to young children who are plugged in to a screen: Time spent on devices is time not spent actively exploring the world and relating to other human beings.
22. The word "ersatz" (Para. 3) most probably means .
  • A. invalid
  • B. disputable
  • C. unreal
  • D. insufficient
3 单选题 0分
Text 1
Smartphones have by now been implicated in so many crummy outcomes-car fatalities, sleep disturbances, empathy loss, relationship problems, failure to notice a clown on a unicycle-that it almost seems easier to list the things they don't mess up than the things they do. Our society may be reaching peak criticism of digital devices.
Even so. emerging research suggests that a kev Droblem remains underaDDreciated. It involves kids' development, but it's probably not what you think. More than screen-obsessed young children, we should be concerned about tuned-out parents.
Yes, parents now have more face time with their children than did almost any parents in history. Despite a dramatic increase in the percentage of women in the workforce, mothers today astoundingly spend morc time caring for their children than mothers did in the 1960s. But the engagement between parent and child is increasingly Iow-quality, even ersatz. Parents are constantly present in their children's lives physically, but they are less emotionally attuned. To be clear, I'm not unsympathetic to parents in this predicament. My own adult children like to joke that they wouldn't have survived infancy ifl'd had a smartphone in my clutches 25 years ago.
To argue that parents' use of screens is an underappreciated problem isn't to discount the direct risks screens pose to children: Substantial evidence suggests that many types of screen time (especially those involving fast-paced or violent imagery) are damaging to young brains. Today's preschoolers spend more than four hours a day facing a screen. And, since 1970, the average age of onset of "regular" screen use has gone from 4 years to just four months.
Some of the newer interactive games kids play on phones or tablets may be more benign than watching TV or YouTube, in that they better mimic children's natural play behaviors. And, of course, many well-functioning adults survived a mind-numbing childhood spent watching a lot of cognitive garbage. (My mother-unusually for her time-prohibited Speed Racer and Gilligan's Island on the grounds of insipidness. That I somehow managed to watch every single episode of each show scores of times has never been explained.) Still, no one really disputes the tremendous opportunity costs to young children who are plugged in to a screen: Time spent on devices is time not spent actively exploring the world and relating to other human beings.
23. The contact between parents and cluldren is poorer because
  • A. parents hardly have spare time
  • B. children are distracted by digital devices
  • C. affective interaction is hardly involved
  • D. parents may be addicted to smartphones
4 单选题 0分
Text 1
Smartphones have by now been implicated in so many crummy outcomes-car fatalities, sleep disturbances, empathy loss, relationship problems, failure to notice a clown on a unicycle-that it almost seems easier to list the things they don't mess up than the things they do. Our society may be reaching peak criticism of digital devices.
Even so. emerging research suggests that a kev Droblem remains underaDDreciated. It involves kids' development, but it's probably not what you think. More than screen-obsessed young children, we should be concerned about tuned-out parents.
Yes, parents now have more face time with their children than did almost any parents in history. Despite a dramatic increase in the percentage of women in the workforce, mothers today astoundingly spend morc time caring for their children than mothers did in the 1960s. But the engagement between parent and child is increasingly Iow-quality, even ersatz. Parents are constantly present in their children's lives physically, but they are less emotionally attuned. To be clear, I'm not unsympathetic to parents in this predicament. My own adult children like to joke that they wouldn't have survived infancy ifl'd had a smartphone in my clutches 25 years ago.
To argue that parents' use of screens is an underappreciated problem isn't to discount the direct risks screens pose to children: Substantial evidence suggests that many types of screen time (especially those involving fast-paced or violent imagery) are damaging to young brains. Today's preschoolers spend more than four hours a day facing a screen. And, since 1970, the average age of onset of "regular" screen use has gone from 4 years to just four months.
Some of the newer interactive games kids play on phones or tablets may be more benign than watching TV or YouTube, in that they better mimic children's natural play behaviors. And, of course, many well-functioning adults survived a mind-numbing childhood spent watching a lot of cognitive garbage. (My mother-unusually for her time-prohibited Speed Racer and Gilligan's Island on the grounds of insipidness. That I somehow managed to watch every single episode of each show scores of times has never been explained.) Still, no one really disputes the tremendous opportunity costs to young children who are plugged in to a screen: Time spent on devices is time not spent actively exploring the world and relating to other human beings.
24. According to Paragraph 4, we can learn that risks of use of screen
  • A. should be viewed correctly
  • B. need more credible evidence
  • C. are higher among parents
  • D. are overestimated among children