There are several advantages in planting trees：they firm the soil，soak(滲透) up extra water and take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. However，it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming. We all know that tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind's power. The problem is that some of the dust clouds play an important part in soaking up carbon dioxide.

Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from  dry parts of North Africa and Central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface.

Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree­planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the net result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.

Andy，an environmental scientist has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work shows clearly the complexity of the system. For this reason the need is to focus on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than doing anything else.

Robert, an American scientist, has  shown that when native grassland areas are invaded by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears，but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grass, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees.” said Robert.

In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground.

Countries that plan to fight against global warming by planting trees may have to think again. Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear，and understanding the Earth's climate is a very great challenge.

60．People usually hold the opinion that ________.

A. huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide

B. planting trees could reduce global warming

C. huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the Earth

D. planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms

61．Andy, an  environmental  scientist, believes  that________.

A. environmental problems are more complex than expected                 

B. trees shouldn't have been planted in dry places

C. dust plays a more important part than trees

D. carbon dioxide is harmful to everything

62．Robert's experiment proves that ________.

A. trees absorb more carbon than grass

B. carbon can turn grass into dust

C. less carbon can make trees grow faster

D. grassland areas should be covered by forests

63．The best title for this passage is “________”．

A. The importance of planting trees

B. The dust clouds soak up carbon dioxide

C. Is it really useful to plant trees to reduce global warming?

D. Why the soil carbon disappears

LONDON: What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The benefits are obvious; they  firm the soil, soak up (攝取) extra water and take carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) out of the atmosphere.

However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.

Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind’s power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in taking in carbon dioxide.

Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.

Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the final result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.

Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work “shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not tinkering(粗劣地修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason the need is to focus(集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying (瞎弄) about with the land surface.”

An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded(侵入) by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees, ” says Jackson.

In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed(超過) by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground. Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again.

Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth’s climate is a very great challenge.

1.People usually hold the opinion that_____________.

    A. huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide

    B. huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth

    C. huge dust storms can’t do anything beneficial for man

    D. planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms

2. Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that_____________.

    A. dust plays a more important part than trees

    B. trees shouldn’t have been planted in dry places

    C. carbon dioxide is harmful to everything on the earth

    D. environmental problems are more complex than expected

3. Robert Jackson’s experiment proves that_____________.

    A. grassland areas should be covered by forests

    B. trees hold more carbon than grasses

    C. carbon can turn grass into dust

    D. less carbon can make trees grow faster

London: What could possibly he wrong with planting trees? The benefits are obvious: they firm the soil, absorb extra water and take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming. Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind's power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in taking in carbon dioxide.
Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface.
Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting program there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the final result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.
Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not working uselessly with it without understanding the results. For this reason the need is to focus on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than dealing with the land surface aimlessly.
An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are occupied by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. "We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees. " said Jackson.
In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground.
Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again. Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth's climate is a very great challenge.
64. People usually hold the opinion that _______.
A. huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide
B. huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth
C. planting trees could reduce global warming
D. planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms
65. Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that _______.
A. environmental problems are more complex than expected
B. trees shouldn't have been planted in dry places
C. dust plays a more important part than trees
D. carbon dioxide is harmful to everything
66. Robert Jackson's experiment proves that _______.
A. carbon can turn grass into dust
B. trees hold more carbon than grass
C. less carbon can make trees grow faster
D. grassland areas should be covered by forests
67. The underlined word "combat" in the last paragraph means _______.
A. learn about        B. give up              C. live with          D. fight against

LONDON: What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The benefits are obvious; they  firm the soil, soak up (攝取) extra water and take carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) out of the atmosphere.
However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.
Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind’s power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in taking in carbon dioxide.
Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.
Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the final result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.
Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work “shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not tinkering(粗劣地修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason the need is to focus(集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying (瞎弄) about with the land surface.”
An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded(侵入) by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees, ” says Jackson.
In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed(超過) by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground. Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again.
Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth’s climate is a very great challenge.
【小題1】People usually hold the opinion that_____________.

C
LONDON: What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The benefits are obvious; they  firm the soil, soak up (攝取) extra water and take carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) our of the atmosphere.
However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.
Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind’s power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in soaking up carbon dioxide.
Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.
Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the net result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.
Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work “shows clearly that the complexity of the system and the importance of not tinkering(粗劣地修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason the need is to focus(集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying (瞎弄) about with the land surface.”
An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded(侵入) by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees, ” says Jackson.
In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed(超過) by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground. Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again.
Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth’s climate is a very great challenge.
63．People usually hold the opinion that       .
A．huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide
B．huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth
C．huge dust storms can’t do anything beneficial for man
D．planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms
64．Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that       .
A．dust plays a more important part than trees
B．trees should’t have been planted in dry places
C．carbon dioxide is harmful to everything on the earth
D．environmental problems are more complex than expected
65．Robert Jackson’s experiment proves that         .
A．grassland areas should be covered by forests
B．trees hold more carbon than grasses
C．carbon can turn grass into dust
D．less carbon can make trees grow faster
66．The underlined word “combat” in the last paragraph means      .
A．learn about      B．fight against     C．live with   D．give up

Britain and France are separated by the English Channel, a body of water that can be crossed in as few as 20 minutes. But the cultures of the two countries sometimes seem to be miles apart.
　　Last Thursday Britain and France celebrated the 100th anniversary(周年紀(jì)念) of the signing of a friendship agreement called the Entente Cordiality. The agreement—signed in London on April 8, 1904—marked a new beginning for the countries following centuries of wars and love-hate partnership.
　　But their relationship has been ups and downs over the past century. Just last year, there were fierce disagreements over the Iraq war—which British Prime Minister Tony Blair supported despite(不管, 盡管) French President Jacques Chirac speaking out against it. This discomfort is expressed in Blair and Chirac's body language at international meetings. While the French leader often greets German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder with a hug (擁抱), Blair just receives a handshake.
However, some political experts say the war in Iraq could in fact have helped ties. “The British population was against war, ” said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research(戰(zhàn)略基金研究會(huì)). “So it could have actually helped bring the two sides closer. ”
　　The history of divisions(分割, 區(qū)分) may well be because of the very different ways in which the two sides see the world. “The French think Britain is not doing its best to become part of Europe by not introducing the single European currency(貨幣), ” said Geoff Hare, a former lecturer in French politics and language at Newcastle University in Britain. “France has spent the past 15 to 20 years making itself seen as part of the European Union. ”
　 But this doesn't stop 12 million Britons taking holidays in France each year. However,only 3 million French come in the opposite direction. Surveys show that most French people feel closer to the Germans than they do to the British. And the research carried out in Britain has found that only a third of the population believes the French can be trusted.Perhaps this bad feeling comes because the British dislike France's close relationship with Germany. Or because the French are not happy with Britain's close links with the US.
　　Whatever the answer is, as both sides celebrate 100 years of “doubtful friendship”, they are at least able to make jokes about each other. Here's one:What's the best thing about Britain's relationship with France? The English Channel.
1. For centuries, the relationship between England and France is______.
A. friendly
B. impolite
C. brotherly
D. a mixture of love and hate
2. The war in Iraq does ______ to the relationship between France and England.
A. good
B. harm
C. neither good nor harm
D. both good and harm
3. The British are not so friendly to ______ and the French are not so friendly to ______.
A. Germany;America
B. America;Germany
C. Germany;Germany too
D. America;America too
4. What does the last sentence mean?
A. As long as the English Channel exists, no further disagreement will form between France and Britain.
B. The English Channel can prevent anything unfriendly happening in both France and Britain.
C. France and Britain are near neighbors, and this will help balance the relationship between them.
D. The English Channel is the largest enemy between France and Britain.
5. What is the main idea of this passage?
A. The British differ greatly from the French in culture, origin and custom.
B. The British and The French are against each other because of the very different ways in which they see the world.
C. The celebration of the 100th anniversary of the signing of a friendship agreement mark-ed the mixture feeling of love and hatred over the last century between Britain and Franc-e.
D. The British dislike France's close relationship with Germany, while the French are not happy with Britain's close links with the US.     

LONDON: What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The advantages are obvious; they  firm the soil, soak up (攝取) extra water and take carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) out of the atmosphere.
However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.
Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind’s power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in soaking up carbon dioxide.
Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.
Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the net result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.
Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work “shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not tinkering(粗劣地修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason there is the need to focus(集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying (瞎弄) about with the land surface.”
An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded(侵入) by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees, ” says Jackson.
In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed(超過) by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground. Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again.
Solutions(解決辦法) to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth’s climate is a very great challenge.
60．People usually hold the opinion that________
A．huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide
B．huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth
C．huge dust storms can’t do anything beneficial for man
D．planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms
61．Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that ________ .
A．dust plays a more important part than trees
B．trees shouldn’t have been planted in dry places
C．carbon dioxide is harmful to everything on the earth
D．environmental problems are more complex than expected
62．Robert Jackson’s experiment proves that________   .
A．grassland areas should be covered by forests
B．trees hold more carbon than grass
C．carbon can turn grass into dust
D．less carbon can make trees grow faster
63．The underlined word “combat” in the last paragraph means_______ .
A．learn about      B．fight against     C．live with   D．give up 

LONDON: What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The advantages are obvious; they  firm the soil, soak up (攝取) extra water and take carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) out of the atmosphere.
However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.
Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind’s power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in soaking up carbon dioxide.
Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.
Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the net result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.
Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work “shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not tinkering(粗劣地修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason there is the need to focus(集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying (瞎弄) about with the land surface.”
An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded(侵入) by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees, ” says Jackson.
In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed(超過) by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground. Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again. Solutions(解決辦法) to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth’s climate is a very great challenge.
【小題1】People usually hold the opinion that    

Britain and France are separated by the English Channel, a body of water that can be crossed in as few as 20 minutes. But the cultures of the two countries sometimes seem to be miles apart.

　　Last Thursday Britain and France celebrated the 100th anniversary(周年紀(jì)念) of the signing of a friendship agreement called the Entente Cordiality. The agreement—signed in London on April 8, 1904—marked a new beginning for the countries following centuries of wars and love-hate partnership.

　　But their relationship has been ups and downs over the past century. Just last year, there were fierce disagreements over the Iraq war—which British Prime Minister Tony Blair supported despite(不管, 盡管) French President Jacques Chirac speaking out against it. This discomfort is expressed in Blair and Chirac's body language at international meetings. While the French leader often greets German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder with a hug (擁抱), Blair just receives a handshake.

However, some political experts say the war in Iraq could in fact have helped ties. “The British population was against war, ” said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research(戰(zhàn)略基金研究會(huì)). “So it could have actually helped bring the two sides closer. ”

　　The history of divisions(分割, 區(qū)分) may well be because of the very different ways in which the two sides see the world. “The French think Britain is not doing its best to become part of Europe by not introducing the single European currency(貨幣), ” said Geoff Hare, a former lecturer in French politics and language at Newcastle University in Britain. “France has spent the past 15 to 20 years making itself seen as part of the European Union. ”

　 But this doesn't stop 12 million Britons taking holidays in France each year. However,only 3 million French come in the opposite direction. Surveys show that most French people feel closer to the Germans than they do to the British. And the research carried out in Britain has found that only a third of the population believes the French can be trusted.Perhaps this bad feeling comes because the British dislike France's close relationship with Germany. Or because the French are not happy with Britain's close links with the US.

　　Whatever the answer is, as both sides celebrate 100 years of “doubtful friendship”, they are at least able to make jokes about each other. Here's one:What's the best thing about Britain's relationship with France? The English Channel.

1. For centuries, the relationship between England and France is______.

A. friendly

B. impolite

C. brotherly

D. a mixture of love and hate

2. The war in Iraq does ______ to the relationship between France and England.

A. good

B. harm

C. neither good nor harm

D. both good and harm

3. The British are not so friendly to ______ and the French are not so friendly to ______.

A. Germany;America

B. America;Germany

C. Germany;Germany too

D. America;America too

4. What does the last sentence mean?

A. As long as the English Channel exists, no further disagreement will form between France and Britain.

B. The English Channel can prevent anything unfriendly happening in both France and Britain.

C. France and Britain are near neighbors, and this will help balance the relationship between them.

D. The English Channel is the largest enemy between France and Britain.

5. What is the main idea of this passage?

A. The British differ greatly from the French in culture, origin and custom.

B. The British and The French are against each other because of the very different ways in which they see the world.

C. The celebration of the 100th anniversary of the signing of a friendship agreement mark-ed the mixture feeling of love and hatred over the last century between Britain and Franc-e.

D. The British dislike France's close relationship with Germany, while the French are not happy with Britain's close links with the US.     

Britain and France are separated by the English Channel, a body of water that can be crossed in as few as 20 minutes. But the cultures of the two countries sometimes seem to be miles apart.

　　Last Thursday Britain and France celebrated the 100th anniversary(周年紀(jì)念) of the signing of a friendship agreement called the Entente Cordiality. The agreement—signed in London on April 8, 1904—marked a new beginning for the countries following centuries of wars and love-hate partnership.

　　But their relationship has been ups and downs over the past century. Just last year, there were fierce disagreements over the Iraq war—which British Prime Minister Tony Blair supported despite(不管, 盡管) French President Jacques Chirac speaking out against it. This discomfort is expressed in Blair and Chirac's body language at international meetings. While the French leader often greets German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder with a hug (擁抱), Blair just receives a handshake.

However, some political experts say the war in Iraq could in fact have helped ties. “The British population was against war, ” said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research(戰(zhàn)略基金研究會(huì)). “So it could have actually helped bring the two sides closer. ”

　　The history of divisions(分割, 區(qū)分) may well be because of the very different ways in which the two sides see the world. “The French think Britain is not doing its best to become part of Europe by not introducing the single European currency(貨幣), ” said Geoff Hare, a former lecturer in French politics and language at Newcastle University in Britain. “France has spent the past 15 to 20 years making itself seen as part of the European Union. ”

　 But this doesn't stop 12 million Britons taking holidays in France each year. However,only 3 million French come in the opposite direction. Surveys show that most French people feel closer to the Germans than they do to the British. And the research carried out in Britain has found that only a third of the population believes the French can be trusted.Perhaps this bad feeling comes because the British dislike France's close relationship with Germany. Or because the French are not happy with Britain's close links with the US.

　　Whatever the answer is, as both sides celebrate 100 years of “doubtful friendship”, they are at least able to make jokes about each other. Here's one:What's the best thing about Britain's relationship with France? The English Channel.

1. For centuries, the relationship between England and France is______.

A. friendly

B. impolite

C. brotherly

D. a mixture of love and hate

2. The war in Iraq does ______ to the relationship between France and England.

A. good

B. harm

C. neither good nor harm

D. both good and harm

3. The British are not so friendly to ______ and the French are not so friendly to ______.

A. Germany;America

B. America;Germany

C. Germany;Germany too

D. America;America too

4. What does the last sentence mean?

A. As long as the English Channel exists, no further disagreement will form between France and Britain.

B. The English Channel can prevent anything unfriendly happening in both France and Britain.

C. France and Britain are near neighbors, and this will help balance the relationship between them.

D. The English Channel is the largest enemy between France and Britain.

5. What is the main idea of this passage?

A. The British differ greatly from the French in culture, origin and custom.

B. The British and The French are against each other because of the very different ways in which they see the world.

C. The celebration of the 100th anniversary of the signing of a friendship agreement mark-ed the mixture feeling of love and hatred over the last century between Britain and Franc-e.

D. The British dislike France's close relationship with Germany, while the French are not happy with Britain's close links with the US.     

閱讀理解

　　London—What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The benefits(益處) are obvious: they firm the soil, soak up extra water and take carbon dioxide(二氧化碳) out of the atmosphere.

　　However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.

　　Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind's power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in soaking up carbon dioxide.

　　Huge dust storms, which is generally believed to have done nothing favorable for man, blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and Central Asia. Tons of dusts are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.

　　Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the next result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.

　　Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few yeas studying dust and says his work “shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of rat tinkering(修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason the need to focus (集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying(瞎擺弄) about with the land surface. ”

　　An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees. ” says Jackson.

　　In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground.

　　Countries that plan to combat global warming by Planting trees may have to think again. Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth's climate is a very great challenge.

1．People usually hold the opinion that huge dust storms ________.

[　　]

A．cannot do anything favourable to human

B．can destroy the ocean life

C．can absorb carbon dioxide

D．can be controlled only by planting trees

2．Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that ________.

[　　]

A．dust plays a more important part than trees

B．trees shouldn't have been planted in dry places

C．environmental problems are more complex than realized

D．carbon dioxide is harmful to everything

3．Robert Jackson's experiment proves that ________.

[　　]

A．grassland areas should be coveted by forests

B．trees hold more carbon than grass

C．less carbon can make trees grow faster

D．carbon can make grass into dust

4．The underlined word “combat” in the text probably means ________.

[　　]

LONDON: What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The advantages are obvious; they  firm the soil, soak up (攝取) extra water and take carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) out of the atmosphere.

However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.

Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind’s power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in soaking up carbon dioxide.

Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.

Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the net result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.

Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work “shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not tinkering(粗劣地修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason there is the need to focus(集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying (瞎弄) about with the land surface.”

An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded(侵入) by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees, ” says Jackson.

In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed(超過) by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground. Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again.

Solutions(解決辦法) to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth’s climate is a very great challenge.

60．People usually hold the opinion that________

       A．huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide

       B．huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth

       C．huge dust storms can’t do anything beneficial for man

       D．planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms

61．Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that ________ .

       A．dust plays a more important part than trees

       B．trees shouldn’t have been planted in dry places

       C．carbon dioxide is harmful to everything on the earth

       D．environmental problems are more complex than expected

62．Robert Jackson’s experiment proves that________   .

       A．grassland areas should be covered by forests

       B．trees hold more carbon than grass

       C．carbon can turn grass into dust

       D．less carbon can make trees grow faster

63．The underlined word “combat” in the last paragraph means_______ .

       A．learn about      B．fight against     C．live with   D．give up 

LONDON: What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The advantages are obvious; they  firm the soil, soak up (攝取) extra water and take carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) out of the atmosphere.

However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.

Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind’s power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in soaking up carbon dioxide.

Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.

Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the net result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.

Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work “shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not tinkering(粗劣地修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason there is the need to focus(集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying (瞎弄) about with the land surface.”

An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded(侵入) by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees, ” says Jackson.

In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed(超過) by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground. Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again.

Solutions(解決辦法) to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth’s climate is a very great challenge.

1.People usually hold the opinion that       .

    A．huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide

    B．huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth

    C．huge dust storms can’t do anything beneficial for man

    D．planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms

2.Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that       .

    A．dust plays a more important part than trees

    B．trees shouldn’t have been planted in dry places

    C．carbon dioxide is harmful to everything on the earth

    D．environmental problems are more complex than expected

3.Robert Jackson’s experiment proves that         .

    A．grassland areas should be covered by forests

    B．trees hold more carbon than grass

    C．carbon can turn grass into dust

    D．less carbon can make trees grow faster

4.The underlined word “combat” in the last paragraph means      .

    A．learn about  B．fight against    C．live with    D．give up 

LONDON: What could possibly be wrong with planting trees? The benefits are obvious; they  firm the soil, soak up (攝取) extra water and take carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) out of the atmosphere.
However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming.
Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind’s power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in taking in carbon dioxide.
Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface. The dust fuels oceanic life.
Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting programme there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the final result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.
Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work “shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not tinkering(粗劣地修補(bǔ)) with it without understanding the results. For this reason the need is to focus(集中) on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than monkeying (瞎弄) about with the land surface.”
An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are invaded(侵入) by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. “We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees, ” says Jackson.
In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed(超過) by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground. Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again.
Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth’s climate is a very great challenge

1. 1.

   People usually hold the opinion that_____________

   1. A.
      huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide
   2. B.
      huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth
   3. C.
      huge dust storms can’t do anything beneficial for man
   4. D.
      planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms
2. 2.

   Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that_____________

   1. A.
      dust plays a more important part than trees
   2. B.
      trees shouldn’t have been planted in dry places
   3. C.
      carbon dioxide is harmful to everything on the earth
   4. D.
      environmental problems are more complex than expected
3. 3.

   Robert Jackson’s experiment proves that_____________

   1. A.
      grassland areas should be covered by forests
   2. B.
      trees hold more carbon than grasses
   3. C.
      carbon can turn grass into dust
   4. D.
      less carbon can make trees grow faster

London: What could possibly he wrong with planting trees? The benefits are obvious: they firm the soil, absorb extra water and take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming. Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind's power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in taking in carbon dioxide.

Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface.

Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting program there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the final result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.

Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not working uselessly with it without understanding the results. For this reason the need is to focus on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than dealing with the land surface aimlessly.

An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are occupied by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. "We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees. " said Jackson.

In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground.

Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again. Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth's climate is a very great challenge.

64. People usually hold the opinion that _______.

A. huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide

B. huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth

C. planting trees could reduce global warming

D. planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms

65. Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that _______.

A. environmental problems are more complex than expected

B. trees shouldn't have been planted in dry places

C. dust plays a more important part than trees

D. carbon dioxide is harmful to everything

66. Robert Jackson's experiment proves that _______.

A. carbon can turn grass into dust

B. trees hold more carbon than grass

C. less carbon can make trees grow faster

D. grassland areas should be covered by forests

67. The underlined word "combat" in the last paragraph means _______.

A. learn about        B. give up               C. live with           D. fight against

London: What could possibly he wrong with planting trees? The benefits are obvious: they firm the soil, absorb extra water and take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

However, it now turns out that planting trees could add to global warming. Tree roots do a great job of keeping soil firmly on the ground and out of the wind's power. The problem is that some of those dust clouds play an important part in taking in carbon dioxide.

Huge dust storms blow out over the oceans from dry parts of North Africa and central Asia. Tons of dust are lifted and left as a thin film over the ocean surface.

Dust from China is carried east and left in the Pacific Ocean. If a tree-planting program there is successful and the dust supply reduced, the final result may be that less carbon dioxide gets locked away in the ocean.

Andy Ridgwell, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, has spent the past few years studying dust and says his work shows clearly the complexity of the system and the importance of not working uselessly with it without understanding the results. For this reason the need is to focus on cutting carbon dioxide giving off rather than dealing with the land surface aimlessly.

An American scientist, Robert Jackson, has shown that when native grassland areas are occupied by trees, carbon is lost from the soil. "We are studying why the soil carbon disappears, but one theory is that trees do a lot more of their growing above ground compared to grasses, so less carbon goes directly into the soil from trees. " said Jackson.

In wet areas of the world, the gain from trees absorbing carbon dioxide above ground seems to be outweighed by the loss of carbon from the soil below ground.

Countries that plan to combat global warming by planting trees may have to think again. Solutions to environmental problems are often more complex than they first appear, and understanding the Earth's climate is a very great challenge.

64. People usually hold the opinion that _______.

A. huge dust storms can destroy carbon dioxide

B. huge dust storms can destroy the oceans on the earth

C. planting trees could reduce global warming

D. planting trees is the only way to control huge dust storms

65. Andy Ridgwell, the environmental scientist, believes that _______.

A. environmental problems are more complex than expected

B. trees shouldn't have been planted in dry places

C. dust plays a more important part than trees

D. carbon dioxide is harmful to everything

66. Robert Jackson's experiment proves that _______.

A. carbon can turn grass into dust

B. trees hold more carbon than grass

C. less carbon can make trees grow faster

D. grassland areas should be covered by forests

67. The underlined word "combat" in the last paragraph means _______.

A. learn about        B. give up             C. live with        D. fight against