Question

    If you buy a washing machine, a fridge or a television in Europe, it comes with a sticker. Thanks to a 1992 EU rule, all appliances must be labelled (贴标签) with their energy efficiency.  So why has our food system-which threatens 10,000 species with extinction, produces about 30% of greenhouse gases, and drives 800/o of our air pollution-only ever had voluntary eco-labels?

The appliances ruling had a huge impact; initially, 75% of fridges and freezers were rated G to D(low efficiency) , but today 98% are classed A++ or A+++.  Worldwide, the energy efficiency of labelled appliances has increased three times faster than appliances without labels.  Introducing an equal system for food could have an even bigger impact.

Mandatory environmental labels would change how we produce and consume in far-reaching ways. First, producers would have to measure their impacts in a uniform way and be accountable for the results.  This would not be expensive: it is free to monitor environmental impacts using digital tools such as Field print and the Cool Farm Tool. Second, they support sustainable consumption. Our research found that products that look, taste and cost the same can have dramatically different environmental impacts. High-impact beef producers use 5,7000% more land and create l,000% more greenhouse gases than low-impact producers. Labels would allow consumers to tell these products apart.

They would highlight both high-and low-impact producers, in the same way, across multiple products. This would encourage more people to think about their choices by exposing them to the facts every time they are in the shops.  We can also use labels to turn smaller consumer changes into large environmental benefits: because a small number of producers create a large share of the impact, simply avoiding high-impact producers can make a huge contribution to pollution reductions.

1.Why does the author mention the appliances in Paragraph 1 ？

A. To applaud the 1992 EU rule.

B. To bring up the topic of labelling food.

C. To point out the pollution they caused.

D. To compare their energy consumption rates.

2.What do the figures in Paragraph 2 show?

A. The importance of saving energy.

B. The debate about eco-labelled appliances.

C. The effectiveness of the appliances ruling.

D. The problem caused by appliances of low efficiency.

3.What does the word “Mandatory” in Paragraph 3 mean?

A. Compulsory. B. Effective. C. Different. D. Independent.

4.What can be learned about eco-labels?

A. They will increase the profits of low-impact producers.

B. They can show producers' environmental impacts.

C. They will guide consumers to buy healthier food.

D. They can expose consumers to more products.

Answer

1.B

2.C

3.A

4.B

【解析】

本文是议论文。自欧盟出台家电强制环保规定以来，家电的能耗逐年下降。作者认为也应在食品上加上强制环保标识，以降低食品零售业的能耗。

1.推理判断题。第一段中作者先预设了“在欧洲购买家电”的情景，由此引出1992年欧盟出台的针对家电的强制环保标识，随即设问“为何不在食品上也加上类似的环保标识”。由此可知，作者在第一段中提到洗衣机、冰箱、电视机这些家电是为了引出“给食品加环保标识”的话题。故选B。

2.细节理解题。根据第二段中的75% of fridges and freezers were rated G to D (low efficiency), but today 98% are classed A++ or A+++. Worldwide, the energy efficiency of labelled appliances has increased three times faster than appliances without labels.可知，作者在第二段中将未使用环保标识前家电的能耗与使用环保标识后家电的能耗作了对比，用真实的数据证实了“环保标识”的有效性。故选C。

3.词义猜测题。根据第一段中的all appliances must be labelled (贴标签) with their energy efficiency. So why has our food system...had voluntary eco-labels及第二段的末句Introducing an equal system for food could have an even bigger impact.可知，家电上的环保标识是强制性的，作者在文中建议在食品上加上与家电上类似的环保标识，由此可知，Mandatory意为“强制性的”。must be, voluntary及equal是解题的关键词。故选A。

4.细节理解题。根据最后一段中的They would highlight both high-and low-impact producers, in the same way, across multiple products.可知，环保标识能够将高能耗与低能耗的食品生产者区别开来。也就是说，环保标识能指示食品生产者的能耗。故选B。