Google
Câu hỏi: Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 44 to 50
World leaders love to present trees as the answer to our climate change woes. Earth has room for another 0.9 billion hectares of them, which could buy us an extra 20 years to decarbonise our societies by locking up emitted carbon. But many countries are terrible at even holding onto their existing carbon-rich trees. However, this problem isn't caused solely by lower-income countries, as a recent study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution made clear by linking deforestation to international trade. High-income countries, like the UK, Japan and Germany, are driving deforestation abroad with their demand for beef, soya, palm oil and other goods.
Last year's increase in tree cover loss, which includes deforestation as well as natural losses, such as through fire, is especially galling because 2020 was the deadline a host of countries and businesses set for halving deforestation from 2014 levels. The timing also poses a headache for the United Nations and those hoping for a good outcome at this year's COP26 climate summit in November.
Alarming deforestation trends in Brazil under President Jair Bolsonaro saw Norway and Germany halt funds to Brazil for protecting the Amazon rain forest in 2019. The situation is no better today, with Brazil losing 1.7 million hectares in 2020, three times that of the country with the next biggest losses, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Moreover, Brazil's increase in loss was more than twice the global average, at 25 per cent. Boosting climate aid to Brazil in that context poses a tricky conundrum for high income countries.
These rates of tree cover loss have a huge climate impact. Mikaela Weisse at the WRI and her colleagues estimate last year's loss released about 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, roughly on a par with India, the world's fourth biggest emitter. Continuing with such colossal emissions will wipe out the amount of CO2 that tree planting is expected to absorb.
It is time for world leaders to get a grip. If we are to stand any chance of meeting the world's climate goals, governments must take deforestation as seriously as they do transforming their energy systems. Politics can make stopping deforestation hard. The European Commission and UK government are considering using trade deals and regulations to apply pressure on countries such as Brazil to curb deforestation. However, this may not be viewed well by Brazil. Globally, there is hope. Forest loss fell in Indonesia and Malaysia last year – signs that government policies to curb deforestation can work.
A. Forest loss can only be attributable to low-income countries.
B. Two nations have extended funds to Brazil for preservation of the Amazon Rainforest.
C. Trading between different countries partly has made deforestation become worse.
D. Brazil's tree loss was only double the global average in 2020.
World leaders love to present trees as the answer to our climate change woes. Earth has room for another 0.9 billion hectares of them, which could buy us an extra 20 years to decarbonise our societies by locking up emitted carbon. But many countries are terrible at even holding onto their existing carbon-rich trees. However, this problem isn't caused solely by lower-income countries, as a recent study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution made clear by linking deforestation to international trade. High-income countries, like the UK, Japan and Germany, are driving deforestation abroad with their demand for beef, soya, palm oil and other goods.
Last year's increase in tree cover loss, which includes deforestation as well as natural losses, such as through fire, is especially galling because 2020 was the deadline a host of countries and businesses set for halving deforestation from 2014 levels. The timing also poses a headache for the United Nations and those hoping for a good outcome at this year's COP26 climate summit in November.
Alarming deforestation trends in Brazil under President Jair Bolsonaro saw Norway and Germany halt funds to Brazil for protecting the Amazon rain forest in 2019. The situation is no better today, with Brazil losing 1.7 million hectares in 2020, three times that of the country with the next biggest losses, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Moreover, Brazil's increase in loss was more than twice the global average, at 25 per cent. Boosting climate aid to Brazil in that context poses a tricky conundrum for high income countries.
These rates of tree cover loss have a huge climate impact. Mikaela Weisse at the WRI and her colleagues estimate last year's loss released about 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, roughly on a par with India, the world's fourth biggest emitter. Continuing with such colossal emissions will wipe out the amount of CO2 that tree planting is expected to absorb.
It is time for world leaders to get a grip. If we are to stand any chance of meeting the world's climate goals, governments must take deforestation as seriously as they do transforming their energy systems. Politics can make stopping deforestation hard. The European Commission and UK government are considering using trade deals and regulations to apply pressure on countries such as Brazil to curb deforestation. However, this may not be viewed well by Brazil. Globally, there is hope. Forest loss fell in Indonesia and Malaysia last year – signs that government policies to curb deforestation can work.
(Adapted from newscientist.com)
According to the passage, what could be said about the deforestation trend?A. Forest loss can only be attributable to low-income countries.
B. Two nations have extended funds to Brazil for preservation of the Amazon Rainforest.
C. Trading between different countries partly has made deforestation become worse.
D. Brazil's tree loss was only double the global average in 2020.
Theo đoạn văn, có thể nói gì về xu hướng phá rừng?
A. Mất rừng chỉ có thể là do các nước thu nhập thấp.
B. Hai quốc gia đã mở rộng quỹ cho Brazil để bảo tồn Rừng nhiệt đới Amazon.
C. Thương mại giữa các quốc gia khác nhau phần nào đã làm cho nạn phá rừng trở nên trầm trọng hon.
D. Tỷ lệ mất cây của Brazil chỉ gấp đôi mức trung bình toàn cầu vào năm 2020.
Thông tin: However, this problem isn't caused solely by lower-income countries, as a recent study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution made clear by linking deforestation to international trade. High-income countries, like the UK, Japan and Germany, are driving deforestation abroad with their demand for beef, soya, palm oil and other goods.
Tạm dịch: Tuy nhiên, vấn đề này không chỉ do các quốc gia có thu nhập thấp gây ra, như một nghiên cứu gần đây được công bố trên tạp chí Nature Ecology & Evolution đã chỉ rõ bằng cách liên kết việc phá rừng với thương mại quốc tế. Các quốc gia có thu nhập cao như Anh, Nhật Bản và Đức, đang thúc đẩy nạn phá rừng ra nước ngoài do nhu cầu về thịt bò, đậu nành, dầu cọ và các hàng hóa khác của họ\
A. Mất rừng chỉ có thể là do các nước thu nhập thấp.
B. Hai quốc gia đã mở rộng quỹ cho Brazil để bảo tồn Rừng nhiệt đới Amazon.
C. Thương mại giữa các quốc gia khác nhau phần nào đã làm cho nạn phá rừng trở nên trầm trọng hon.
D. Tỷ lệ mất cây của Brazil chỉ gấp đôi mức trung bình toàn cầu vào năm 2020.
Thông tin: However, this problem isn't caused solely by lower-income countries, as a recent study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution made clear by linking deforestation to international trade. High-income countries, like the UK, Japan and Germany, are driving deforestation abroad with their demand for beef, soya, palm oil and other goods.
Tạm dịch: Tuy nhiên, vấn đề này không chỉ do các quốc gia có thu nhập thấp gây ra, như một nghiên cứu gần đây được công bố trên tạp chí Nature Ecology & Evolution đã chỉ rõ bằng cách liên kết việc phá rừng với thương mại quốc tế. Các quốc gia có thu nhập cao như Anh, Nhật Bản và Đức, đang thúc đẩy nạn phá rừng ra nước ngoài do nhu cầu về thịt bò, đậu nành, dầu cọ và các hàng hóa khác của họ\
Đáp án C.