Section B: Paragraph Matching
Directions: In this section. you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the questions by marking the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2.
Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate
A) As the scale and impacts of climate change become increasingly alarming, meat is a popular target for action. Advocates for the protection of the natural environment from destruction or pollution urge the public to eat less meat. Some activists have even called for taxing meat to reduce consumption of it.
B) A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.
C) My recent research focuses on ways in which animal agriculture affects air quality and climate change. In my view, there are many reasons for either choosing animal protein or opting for a vegetarian selection. However, abandoning meat and meat products is not the environmental panacea (万灵药) many would have us believe. And if taken to an extreme, it also could have harmful nutritional consequences.
D) A healthy portion of meat’s negative reputation centers on the assertion that livestock is the largest source of greenhouse gases worldwide. For example, an analysis published in 2009 by the World Watch Institute based in Washington, D.C. asserted that 51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from rearing and processing livestock. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent, but all of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of the total greenhouse emission in the U.S. That is very different from claiming that livestock represents as much as or more than transportation.
E) Why is there such a misconception? In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced a staggering 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The agency drew a startling conclusion that livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined. This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Stenfeld, the report’s senior author.
F) The problem was that analysts from the FAO used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analyzed transportation. For livestock, they considered every factor associated with producing meat. This included emissions from fertilizer production, converting land from forests to pastures, growing feed, and direct emissions from animals (manure as well as expelling of gas from the stomach) from birth to death.
G) However, when they looked at transportation’s carbon footprint, they ignored impacts on the climate from manufacturing vehicle materials and parts, assembling vehicles and maintaining roads, bridges and airports. Instead, they only considered the exhaust smoke emitted by finished cars, trucks, trains and planes. As a result, the FAO’s comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock to those from transportation was greatly distorted.
H) I pointed out this flaw during a speech to fellow scientists in San Francisco on March 22, 2010, which led to a flood of media coverage. To its credit, the FAO immediately owned up to its error. Unfortunately, the agency’s initial claim that livestock was responsible for the lion’s share of world greenhouse gas emissions had already received wide coverage. To this day, we struggle to “unring” the bell. In its most recent assessment report, the FAO estimated that livestock produces 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. There is no comparable full life-cycle assessment for transportation. However, as Stenfeld has pointed out, direct emissions from transportation versus livestock can be compared and amount to 14 versus 5 percent respectively.
I) Many people continue to think that avoiding meat as infrequently as once a week will make a significant difference to the climate. But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent. According to our research at the University of California, Davis, if the practice of Meatless Monday were to be adopted by all Americans, we’d see a reduction of only 0.5 percent.
J) Moreover, technological, genetic and management changes that have taken place in U.S. agriculture over the past 70 years have made livestock production more efficient and less greenhouse gas-intensive. According to the FAO’s statistical database, total direct greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. livestock have declined by 11.3 percent since 1961, while production of livestock meat has more than doubled.
K) Demand for meat is rising in developing and emerging economies, especially in the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia. For example, raising livestock such as goats in Kenya is an important source of food and income for many small-scale farmers and herders. But meat consumption per person in these regions still lags that of developed countries. In 2015, average annual meat consumption per person in developed countries was 92 kilograms, compared to 24 kilograms in the Middle East and North Africa and 18 kilograms in Southeast Asia. Still, given projected population growth in the developing world, there will certainly be an opportunity for countries such as the United States to bring their sustainable livestock rearing practices to the table.
L) Removing animals from U.S. agriculture would lower national greenhouse gas emissions to a small degree, but it would also make it harder to meet people’s nutritional requirements. Many critics of animal agriculture are quick to point out that if farmers raised only plants, they could produce more pounds of food and more calories per person. But humans also need many essential micro- and macro-nutrients for good health. It’s hard to make a compelling argument that the United States has a calorie deficit, given its high national rates of adult and child obesity. Moreover, not all plant parts are edible or desirable. Raising livestock is a way to add nutritional and economic value to plant agriculture.
M) As one example, the energy in plants that livestock consume is most often contained in cellulose (纤维素), which is indigestible for humans and many other mammals. But cows, sheep and other ruminant (反刍的) animals can break cellulose down and release the solar energy contained in this vast resource. According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock.
N) The world population is currently projected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050. Feeding this many people will raise immense challenges. Meat is more calorie-dense per serving than vegetarian options, and ruminant animals largely thrive on feed that is not suitable for humans. Raising livestock also offers much-needed income for small-scale farmers in developing nations. Worldwide livestock provides a livelihood for 1 billion people.
O) Climate change demands urgent attention, and the livestock industry has a large overall environmental footprint that affects air, water and land. These, combined with a rapidly rising world population, give us plenty of compelling reasons to continue to work for greater efficiencies in animal agriculture. I believe the place to start is with science-based facts.
全文翻译
A) 随着气候变化规模和影响的日益令人担忧，肉类成为了一个受欢迎的行动目标。倡导保护自然环境免受破坏或污染的人士敦促公众少吃肉。一些活动人士甚至呼吁对肉类征税以减少其消费。
B) 支撑这些论点的一个关键主张认为，在全球范围内，肉类生产产生的温室气体比整个交通运输部门还多。然而，正如我将展示的，这一主张明显是错误的。而它的持续存在导致了关于肉类与气候变化之间联系的错误假设。
C) 我最近的研究关注畜牧农业影响空气质量和气候变化的方式。在我看来，选择动物蛋白或选择素食都有很多理由。然而，放弃肉类和肉制品并不是许多人让我们相信的环境万灵药。而且如果走向极端，它还可能产生有害的营养后果。
D) 肉类负面声誉的很大一部分集中在牲畜是全球温室气体最大来源这一断言上。例如，总部位于华盛顿特区的世界观察研究所在2009年发表的一项分析断言，全球51%的温室气体排放来自饲养和加工牲畜。根据美国环境保护署的数据，2016年美国温室气体排放的最大来源是电力生产（占总排放的28%）、交通运输（28%）和工业（22%）。整个农业占总排放的9%，但所有畜牧业的贡献不到这个数字的一半，占美国温室气体总排放的3.9%。这与声称畜牧业相当于或超过交通运输的说法大相径庭。
E) 为什么会有这样的误解？2006年，联合国粮食及农业组织（FAO）发表了一份名为《畜牧业的巨大阴影》的研究，该研究获得了广泛的国际关注。该研究指出，畜牧业产生了惊人的18%的全球温室气体排放。该机构得出了一个令人震惊的结论：畜牧业对气候的危害比所有交通方式的组合还要大。后一种说法是错误的，此后已被该报告的高级作者亨宁·斯坦费尔德纠正。
F) 问题在于，FAO的分析师使用了全面的生命周期评估来研究畜牧业的气候影响，但在分析交通运输时却使用了不同的方法。对于畜牧业，他们考虑了与生产肉类相关的每一个因素。这包括肥料生产的排放、将土地从森林转为牧场、种植饲料，以及动物从出生到死亡的直接排放（粪肥以及从胃中排出气体）。
G) 然而，当他们研究交通的碳足迹时，他们忽略了制造车辆材料和零件、组装车辆以及维护道路、桥梁和机场对气候的影响。相反，他们只考虑了成品汽车、卡车、火车和飞机排放的尾气。因此，FAO将畜牧业温室气体排放与交通运输排放进行比较的结果被严重扭曲。
H) 我于2010年3月22日在旧金山对同行科学家的一次演讲中指出了这一缺陷，这引发了大量媒体报道。值得赞扬的是，FAO立即承认了自己的错误。不幸的是，该机构最初声称畜牧业占全球温室气体排放最大份额的说法已经得到了广泛报道。直到今天，我们仍在努力挽回这一影响。在其最新的评估报告中，FAO估计畜牧业产生了人类活动全球温室气体排放的14.5%。对于交通运输，没有可比较的全生命周期评估。然而，正如斯坦费尔德所指出的，交通运输与畜牧业的直接排放可以比较，分别为14%和5%。
I) 许多人仍然认为，即使每周少吃一次肉也会对气候产生重大影响。但根据最近的一项研究，即使美国人从饮食中消除所有动物蛋白，他们也只能将美国温室气体排放减少2.6%。根据我们在加州大学戴维斯分校的研究，如果所有美国人都采纳"无肉星期一"的做法，我们只会看到0.5%的减排。
J) 此外，过去70年来美国农业中发生的技术、基因和管理变革使畜牧业生产更加高效，温室气体密集度更低。根据FAO的统计数据库，自1961年以来，美国畜牧业的直接温室气体总排放量下降了11.3%，而肉类产量却翻了一倍多。
K) 发展中国家和新兴经济体对肉类的需求正在上升，特别是在中东、北非和东南亚。例如，在肯尼亚饲养山羊等牲畜是许多小规模农民和牧民的重要食物和收入来源。但这些地区的人均肉类消费仍然落后于发达国家。2015年，发达国家人均年肉类消费为92千克，而中东和北非为24千克，东南亚为18千克。尽管如此，考虑到发展中国家预计的人口增长，像美国这样的国家肯定有机会将其可持续的畜牧饲养实践带给世界。
L) 将动物从美国农业中移除将在小程度上降低国家温室气体排放，但也会使满足人们的营养需求更加困难。许多畜牧农业的批评者很快指出，如果农民只种植植物，他们可以生产更多磅的食物和更多的人均卡路里。但人类也需要许多必需的微量和大营养素来维持良好的健康。鉴于美国成人和儿童肥胖率高企，很难令人信服地说美国存在卡路里不足。此外，并非所有植物部分都是可食用或理想的。饲养牲畜是为植物农业增加营养和经济价值的一种方式。
M) 举个例子，牲畜消耗的植物中的能量最常包含在纤维素中，而纤维素对人类和许多其他哺乳动物是不可消化的。但奶牛、羊和其他反刍动物可以分解纤维素并释放出这一巨大资源中所含的太阳能。根据FAO的数据，全球多达70%的农业用地是只能用作反刍牲畜放牧地的牧场。
N) 目前世界人口预计到2050年将达到98亿。养活这么多人将带来巨大的挑战。肉类每份比素食选择更富含卡路里，而反刍动物主要靠不适合人类食用的饲料茁壮成长。饲养牲畜也为发展中国家的小规模农民提供了亟需的收入。全球范围内，畜牧业为10亿人提供了生计。
O) 气候变化需要紧急关注，而畜牧产业具有影响空气、水和土地的巨大整体环境足迹。这些，加上快速增长的全球人口，给了我们足够的令人信服的理由来继续努力提高畜牧农业的效率。我相信起点是建立在科学事实基础上的行动。
Answers & Explanations (答案与解析)
Section B: Paragraph Matching
36. E。解析：题干意为“粮农组织(FAO)得出结论，农场动物产生的温室气体比所有交通方式加起来还要多”。定位至段落 E 第三句 "The agency drew a startling conclusion that livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined." (该机构得出了一个令人吃惊的结论，即牲畜对气候造成的危害超过了所有交通方式的总和)。"farm animals" 对应 "livestock"；"producing more greenhouse gases" 对应 "doing more to harm the climate"。
37. K。解析：题干意为“发展中国家人均肉类消费量远低于美国等国家”。定位至段落 K 第三句 "But meat consumption per person in these regions still lags that of developed countries." (但在这些地区（指发展中国家/新兴经济体），人均肉类消费仍然落后于发达国家)。"much less than" 对应 "lags"；"countries like the U.S." 对应 "developed countries"。
38. H。解析：题干意为“粮农组织(FAO)值得赞扬，因为一旦错误被指出，它就承认了”。定位至段落 H 第一句和第二句 "I pointed out this flaw... To its credit, the FAO immediately owned up to its error." (我指出了这个缺陷... 值得赞扬的是，FAO立即承认了它的错误)。"worthy of praise" 对应 "To its credit"；"admitted its mistake" 对应 "owned up to its error"。
39. A。解析：题干意为“环保主义者努力让人们少吃肉，以应对气候变化”。定位至段落 A 第二句 "Advocates for the protection of the natural environment from destruction or pollution urge the public to eat less meat." (保护自然环境免受破坏或污染的倡导者敦促公众少吃肉)。"Environmentalists" (环保主义者) 对应 "Advocates for the protection of the natural environment"；"try hard to make people consume less meat" 对应 "urge the public to eat less meat"。
40. I。解析：题干意为“最近的研究表明，即使美国人完全停止吃肉，由此导致的美国温室气体减排量也是微乎其微的”。定位至段落 I 第二句 "But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent." (但根据最近的一项研究，即使美国人从饮食中消除所有动物蛋白，他们也只能减少美国2.6%的温室气体排放)。"quit eating meat altogether" 对应 "eliminated all animal protein from their diets"；"slight" (轻微的) 对应 "only 2.6 percent"。
41. M。解析：题干意为“世界上超过一半的农田只适合像牛这样的动物吃草”。定位至段落 M 最后一句 "According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock." (根据粮农组织的数据，全球多达70%的农业用地是牧场，只能作为反刍牲畜的放牧地)。"More than half" (超过一半) 对应 "70 percent"；"farmland" 对应 "agricultural land"；"animals like cows" 对应 "ruminant livestock" (反刍牲畜)。
42. D。解析：题干意为“农场动物产生了世界上最大份额的温室气体这种说法，是肉类名声不好的原因”。定位至段落 D 第一句 "A healthy portion of meat’s negative reputation centers on the assertion that livestock is the largest source of greenhouse gases worldwide." (肉类很大一部分的负面名声集中在一种断言上，即牲畜是全球温室气体的最大来源)。"allegation" (说法/指控) 对应 "assertion"；"world’s largest portion" 对应 "largest source... worldwide"；"meat’s bad reputation" 对应 "meat’s negative reputation"。
43. L。解析：题干意为“饲养农场动物使人们更容易满足营养需求”。定位至段落 L 第一句 "Removing animals from U.S. agriculture would lower national greenhouse gas emissions to a small degree, but it would also make it harder to meet people’s nutritional requirements." (把动物从美国农业中移除，会在小程度上降低全国温室气体排放，但也会使满足人们的营养需求变得更加困难)。题干反向表述了这句话，即保留/饲养动物会更容易满足营养需求。
44. C。解析：题干意为“作者不认为放弃肉类和肉制品将是环境问题的万灵药”。定位至段落 C 第三句 "However, abandoning meat and meat products is not the environmental panacea (万灵药) many would have us believe." (然而，放弃肉类和肉类产品并不是许多人让我们相信的解决环境问题的万灵药)。"giving up" 对应 "abandoning"；"cure-all" 对应 "panacea"。
45. J。解析：题干意为“过去几十年美国农业技术和管理的改变提高了肉类生产的效率，减少了温室气体的排放”。定位至段落 J 第一句 "Moreover, technological, genetic and management changes that have taken place in U.S. agriculture over the past 70 years have made livestock production more efficient and less greenhouse gas-intensive." (此外，过去70年来美国农业发生的技术、遗传和管理变革，使得畜牧生产变得更高效，温室气体排放强度更低)。"past decades" (过去几十年) 对应 "past 70 years"；"increased efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions" 对应 "more efficient and less greenhouse gas-intensive"。
【核心同义替换归纳】
farm animals <=> livestock (牲畜，农场动物) [36 - E; 42 - D; 43 - L]
much less than <=> lags (落后于) [37 - K]
worthy of praise <=> To its credit (值得赞扬的) [38 - H]
admitted its mistake <=> owned up to its error (承认错误) [38 - H]
Environmentalists <=> Advocates for the protection of the natural environment (环保主义者) [39 - A]
quit eating meat altogether <=> eliminated all animal protein from their diets (彻底不吃肉) [40 - I]
More than half <=> 70 percent (超过一半) [41 - M]
bad reputation <=> negative reputation (不好的名声) [42 - D]
cure-all <=> panacea (万灵药) [44 - C]
giving up <=> abandoning (放弃) [44 - C]