网友您好， 请在下方输入框内输入要搜索的题目：
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
According to Harry Morrison, businesses .
A．will benefit from cutting carbon emissions
B．should buy carbon allowances for shoppers
C．are required to make up for their carbon emissions
D．have encouraged shoppers to take their custom elsewhere
参考答案
更多 “According to Harry Morrison, businesses .A．will benefit from cutting carbon emissionsB．should buy carbon allowances for shoppersC．are required to make up for their carbon emissionsD．have encouraged shoppers to take their custom elsewhere” 相关考题
考题
Theoretical perfect combustion in a diesel engine yields by-products of_____.A.aldehydes and carbon dioxideB.water vapor and carbon monoxideC.nitrogen and carbon monoxideD.water vapor and carbon dioxide
考题
CBusinesses are witnessing a difficult time, which has in turn produced influence on consumers’ edsire to go green . However, shoppers are still laying stress on environmental concerns. Two thirds of customers say that environmental considerations inform. their purchases to the same degree as they did a year ago, while more than a quarter say that they are now even better aware of the environmental effect on what they buy. This may help to influence how shops store goods on their shelves. And the companies should still make efforts to become more envitonmentally friendly. Two out of three people think it is important to buy from environmentally responsible companies,with about one in seven saying that they had even decided to take their custom elsewhere if they felt a company’s environmental reputation was not good enough. Harry Morrison, chief executive（主管）of the Carbon Trust, sympathizes：“I understand this situation where survival is very important now. But from environmental considerations, the clocd is ticking—we don’t have much time. In addition, cutting carbon has an immediate effect as costs drop and a mediun-term benefit for the brand.” Larger companies have an extra motivation to look at reducing their carbon footprint, as new rules next year will require businesses bo buy carbon allowances to make up for their emissions（排放）. Those that have taken early action will hav e a head start. More than two thirds of consumers are not clear about which companies are environmentally responsible. This suggests that firms that are able to relay clearly their message to the public will be in a pole position to attract shoppers. The Carbon Trust believ es that it can help by informing customers about the good work companies are doing.“When companies are granted（授予）the standard, they can use a logo（标识）in all their marketing which makes it clear that they are working towards cutting emissions,”Mr.Morrison said.64．What’s the main idea of the passage?A．Businesses are finding ways to send their message to the shoppers.B．Companies will soon get information about cutting carbon emissions.C．Firms are making efforts to encourage customers to keep goods at home.D．Firms are urged to cut carbon emissions by shoppers’environmental awareness.
考题
The most effective way of applying carbon dioxide from a portable extinguisher to a fire is by ______．A.Forming a cloud cover over the flamesB.Directing the gas at the base of the flames in a slow sweeping motionC.Discharging the carbon dioxide into the heart of the flamesD.Bouncing the discharge off an adjacent bulkhead just above the burning surface
考题
______, as the chemical extinguisher agent, should be used for an electric fire.A.dry chemical or foamB.foam or soda acidC.carbon dioxide or foamD.carbon dioxide or dry chemical
考题
Forests give us shade,quiet and one of the larder callenges in the fight against climate change.Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce,we are threatening their ability to do so.The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.Thankfully,there is a way out of this trap-but it involves striking a subtle balance.Helping forests flourish as valuable“carbon sinks”long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now.California is leading the way,as it does on so many climate efforts,in figuring out the details.The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest.This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity.But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture,so they grow and thrive,restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air.Healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects.The landscape is rendered less easily burnable.Even in the event of a fine,fewer trees are consumed.The need for such planning is increasingly urgent.Already,since 2010,drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in California,most of them in 2016 alone,and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.California plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020,and 60,000 by 2030-financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions.That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit,about half a million acres in all,so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels.New research on transportation biofuels is already under way.State governments are well accustomed to managing forests,but traditionally they’ve focused on wildlife,watersheds and opportunities for recreation.Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon.California’s plan,which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year,should serve as a model.To maintain forests as valuable“carbon sinks,”we may need to_______.《》（）A.preserve the diversity of species in them
B.accelerate the growth of young trees
C.strike a balance among different plants
D.lower their present carbon-absorbing capacity
考题
Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program Known as the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act of D.C.,the plan would place a new tax on all fossil fuels bought or sold,with the hope of ultimately discouraging the use of these polluting energy sources.The big-picture goal of this campaign is admirable:to address the everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is inherently flawed.Simply put,carbon pricing is a false solution to climate change and a distraction from real,effective climate solutions we must urgently pursue.To date,there is scant evidence to indicate that carbon taxes lower greenhouse gas emissions.In fact,the opposite is true.Recently Food&Water Watch reviewed the British Columbia carbon tax program,often cited by advocates as an example of success.From 2009（the first full year of the tax）t0 2014,emissions from taxed sources grew by 4.3 percent.And in the seven years after the carbon tax took effect,total gasoline sales increased by 7.37 percent.Supporters of such plans like to focus on a deceivingly simple notion that increasing the price of a consumer good will automatically reduce its use.But this just isn't the case when it comes to the purchase of necessities.People must heat their homes in winter,and they must commute to work,regardless of the cost.Those backing the D.C.carbon pricing plan like to note that revenue from the new tax would go toward investment in clean energy sources.But only 20 percent of the generated funds would be allocated in this manner.The rest would be shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates for consumers,another factor undercutting the notion that increased costs up front would change consumer behavior in the long run.Meanwhile,fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil are increasingly coming out in support of carbon pricing.This should be cause for alarm for anyone concerned with stamping out the use of the dirty energy sources these corporations profit from.Exxon knows that carbon taxes will do little to change the business-as-usual dependence on oil and gas that it relies on to continue operating and enriching shareholders.Furthermore,corporations such as Exxon rightly view carbon pricing schemes as a means of diverting energy and interest from tougher regulations that might actually encroach on their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious climate condition.There is only the hard truth that we must tackle the problem at its source:We must stop using fossil fuels,and soon.The latest science indicates that in order to avoid the worst effects of deepening climate chaos,society must transition completely to clean,renewable energy by 2035.
Which of the following is true,according to Paragraphs 4 and 5?A.Consumers will use less of a good when its price increases.
B.Carbon taxes will benefit the development of clean energy.
C.Increased cost will do little to change the use of necessities.
D.The dependence on fossil fuels will decrease automatically.
考题
Forests give us shade,quiet and one of the larder callenges in the fight against climate change.Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce,we are threatening their ability to do so.The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.Thankfully,there is a way out of this trap-but it involves striking a subtle balance.Helping forests flourish as valuable“carbon sinks”long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now.California is leading the way,as it does on so many climate efforts,in figuring out the details.The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest.This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity.But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture,so they grow and thrive,restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air.Healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects.The landscape is rendered less easily burnable.Even in the event of a fine,fewer trees are consumed.The need for such planning is increasingly urgent.Already,since 2010,drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in California,most of them in 2016 alone,and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.California plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020,and 60,000 by 2030-financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions.That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit,about half a million acres in all,so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels.New research on transportation biofuels is already under way.State governments are well accustomed to managing forests,but traditionally they’ve focused on wildlife,watersheds and opportunities for recreation.Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon.California’s plan,which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year,should serve as a model.California’s Forest Carbon Plan endeavors to_______.《》（）A.cultivate more drought-resistant trees
B.reduce the density of some of its forests
C.find more effective ways to kill insects
D.restore its forests quickly after wildfires
考题
Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program Known as the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act of D.C.,the plan would place a new tax on all fossil fuels bought or sold,with the hope of ultimately discouraging the use of these polluting energy sources.The big-picture goal of this campaign is admirable:to address the everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is inherently flawed.Simply put,carbon pricing is a false solution to climate change and a distraction from real,effective climate solutions we must urgently pursue.To date,there is scant evidence to indicate that carbon taxes lower greenhouse gas emissions.In fact,the opposite is true.Recently Food&Water Watch reviewed the British Columbia carbon tax program,often cited by advocates as an example of success.From 2009（the first full year of the tax）t0 2014,emissions from taxed sources grew by 4.3 percent.And in the seven years after the carbon tax took effect,total gasoline sales increased by 7.37 percent.Supporters of such plans like to focus on a deceivingly simple notion that increasing the price of a consumer good will automatically reduce its use.But this just isn't the case when it comes to the purchase of necessities.People must heat their homes in winter,and they must commute to work,regardless of the cost.Those backing the D.C.carbon pricing plan like to note that revenue from the new tax would go toward investment in clean energy sources.But only 20 percent of the generated funds would be allocated in this manner.The rest would be shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates for consumers,another factor undercutting the notion that increased costs up front would change consumer behavior in the long run.Meanwhile,fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil are increasingly coming out in support of carbon pricing.This should be cause for alarm for anyone concerned with stamping out the use of the dirty energy sources these corporations profit from.Exxon knows that carbon taxes will do little to change the business-as-usual dependence on oil and gas that it relies on to continue operating and enriching shareholders.Furthermore,corporations such as Exxon rightly view carbon pricing schemes as a means of diverting energy and interest from tougher regulations that might actually encroach on their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious climate condition.There is only the hard truth that we must tackle the problem at its source:We must stop using fossil fuels,and soon.The latest science indicates that in order to avoid the worst effects of deepening climate chaos,society must transition completely to clean,renewable energy by 2035.
Food&Water Watch found that_____.A.carbon taxes could limit greenhouse gas emissions
B.taxing carbon emissions did not reduce pollution
C.carbon emissions grew at a lower rate than gasoline sales
D.British Columbia carbon tax program achieved lasting effect
考题
Forests give us shade,quiet and one of the larder callenges in the fight against climate change.Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce,we are threatening their ability to do so.The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.Thankfully,there is a way out of this trap-but it involves striking a subtle balance.Helping forests flourish as valuable“carbon sinks”long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now.California is leading the way,as it does on so many climate efforts,in figuring out the details.The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest.This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity.But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture,so they grow and thrive,restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air.Healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects.The landscape is rendered less easily burnable.Even in the event of a fine,fewer trees are consumed.The need for such planning is increasingly urgent.Already,since 2010,drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in California,most of them in 2016 alone,and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.California plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020,and 60,000 by 2030-financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions.That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit,about half a million acres in all,so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels.New research on transportation biofuels is already under way.State governments are well accustomed to managing forests,but traditionally they’ve focused on wildlife,watersheds and opportunities for recreation.Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon.California’s plan,which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year,should serve as a model.
What is essential to California’s plan according to Paragraph 5?《》（）A.To handle the areas in serious danger first.
B.To carry it out before the year of 2020.
C.To perfect the emissions-permit auctions.
D.To obtain enough financial support.
考题
Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program Known as the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act of D.C.,the plan would place a new tax on all fossil fuels bought or sold,with the hope of ultimately discouraging the use of these polluting energy sources.The big-picture goal of this campaign is admirable:to address the everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is inherently flawed.Simply put,carbon pricing is a false solution to climate change and a distraction from real,effective climate solutions we must urgently pursue.To date,there is scant evidence to indicate that carbon taxes lower greenhouse gas emissions.In fact,the opposite is true.Recently Food&Water Watch reviewed the British Columbia carbon tax program,often cited by advocates as an example of success.From 2009（the first full year of the tax）t0 2014,emissions from taxed sources grew by 4.3 percent.And in the seven years after the carbon tax took effect,total gasoline sales increased by 7.37 percent.Supporters of such plans like to focus on a deceivingly simple notion that increasing the price of a consumer good will automatically reduce its use.But this just isn't the case when it comes to the purchase of necessities.People must heat their homes in winter,and they must commute to work,regardless of the cost.Those backing the D.C.carbon pricing plan like to note that revenue from the new tax would go toward investment in clean energy sources.But only 20 percent of the generated funds would be allocated in this manner.The rest would be shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates for consumers,another factor undercutting the notion that increased costs up front would change consumer behavior in the long run.Meanwhile,fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil are increasingly coming out in support of carbon pricing.This should be cause for alarm for anyone concerned with stamping out the use of the dirty energy sources these corporations profit from.Exxon knows that carbon taxes will do little to change the business-as-usual dependence on oil and gas that it relies on to continue operating and enriching shareholders.Furthermore,corporations such as Exxon rightly view carbon pricing schemes as a means of diverting energy and interest from tougher regulations that might actually encroach on their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious climate condition.There is only the hard truth that we must tackle the problem at its source:We must stop using fossil fuels,and soon.The latest science indicates that in order to avoid the worst effects of deepening climate chaos,society must transition completely to clean,renewable energy by 2035.
The author views the carbon pricing campaign with______.A.sincere admiration
B.strong skepticism
C.reserved approval
D.slight uncertainty
考题
Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program Known as the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act of D.C.,the plan would place a new tax on all fossil fuels bought or sold,with the hope of ultimately discouraging the use of these polluting energy sources.The big-picture goal of this campaign is admirable:to address the everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is inherently flawed.Simply put,carbon pricing is a false solution to climate change and a distraction from real,effective climate solutions we must urgently pursue.To date,there is scant evidence to indicate that carbon taxes lower greenhouse gas emissions.In fact,the opposite is true.Recently Food&Water Watch reviewed the British Columbia carbon tax program,often cited by advocates as an example of success.From 2009（the first full year of the tax）t0 2014,emissions from taxed sources grew by 4.3 percent.And in the seven years after the carbon tax took effect,total gasoline sales increased by 7.37 percent.Supporters of such plans like to focus on a deceivingly simple notion that increasing the price of a consumer good will automatically reduce its use.But this just isn't the case when it comes to the purchase of necessities.People must heat their homes in winter,and they must commute to work,regardless of the cost.Those backing the D.C.carbon pricing plan like to note that revenue from the new tax would go toward investment in clean energy sources.But only 20 percent of the generated funds would be allocated in this manner.The rest would be shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates for consumers,another factor undercutting the notion that increased costs up front would change consumer behavior in the long run.Meanwhile,fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil are increasingly coming out in support of carbon pricing.This should be cause for alarm for anyone concerned with stamping out the use of the dirty energy sources these corporations profit from.Exxon knows that carbon taxes will do little to change the business-as-usual dependence on oil and gas that it relies on to continue operating and enriching shareholders.Furthermore,corporations such as Exxon rightly view carbon pricing schemes as a means of diverting energy and interest from tougher regulations that might actually encroach on their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious climate condition.There is only the hard truth that we must tackle the problem at its source:We must stop using fossil fuels,and soon.The latest science indicates that in order to avoid the worst effects of deepening climate chaos,society must transition completely to clean,renewable energy by 2035
Fossil fuel giants____.A.are expressing dissatisfaction with carbon pricing schemes
B.are reducing their dependence on dirty energy sources
C.view clean renewable energy as their future source of profits
D.see carbon pricing as distraction from tough rules against them
考题
共用题干
第一篇Carbon FootprintHow often do you travel by plane?How much electricity do you use?These days everyone is worried about the size of their carbon footprint.In order to reduce global warming we need to make our carbon footprints smaller. But how much CO2 are we responsible for?A new book might be able to help.The Carbon Footprint of Everything looks at the different things we do and buy,and calculates the amount of CO2 all of the following created:the ingredients, the electricity used in the brewery，the equipment,the travel and commuting of the beer,and the packaging. It's amazing how many different things need to be included in each calculation.And it's frightening how much carbon dioxide everything produces.But all of this can help us decide which beer to drink.From Berners-Lee's calculations,it's clear that a pint(568ml)of locally-brewed beer has a smaller carbon footprint than a bottle of imported beer. This is because the imported beer has been transported from far away,and it uses more packaging. The local beer only produces 300g of CO2,but the imported beer produces 900g! So, one pint of local beer is better for the environment than three cans of cheap foreign lager from the supermarket.Berners-Lee has even calculated the carbon footprint of cycling to work.Nothing is more environmentally-friendly than riding a bike,surely?Well,it depends on what you've had to eat before. To ride a bike we need energy and for energy we need food.So if we eat a banana and then ride a kilometer and a half,our footprint is 65g of CO2.However,if we eat bacon before the bike ride,it's 200g. In fact,bananas are good in general because they don't need packaging,they can be transported by boat and they grow in natural sunlight.So,does this mean that cycling is bad for the environment?Absolutely not,for a start,if you cycle,you don't use your car,and the fewer cars on the road,the fewer traffic jams.And cars in traffic jams produce three times more CO2 than cars traveling at speed.Cycling also makes you healthy and less likely to go to a hospital. And hospitals have very big carbon footprints!So maybe it's time for us all to start making some changes.Pass me a banana and a pint of local beer,please.To make our carbon footprints smaller,we should often________.A:cycle to workB:drink more local beerC:calculate the amount of CO2D:buy cheap things from the supermarkets
考题
共用题干
第一篇Carbon FootprintHow often do you travel by plane?How much electricity do you use?These days everyone is worried about the size of their carbon footprint.In order to reduce global warming we need to make our carbon footprints smaller. But how much CO2 are we responsible for?A new book might be able to help.The Carbon Footprint of Everything looks at the different things we do and buy,and calculates the amount of CO2 all of the following created:the ingredients, the electricity used in the brewery，the equipment,the travel and commuting of the beer,and the packaging. It's amazing how many different things need to be included in each calculation.And it's frightening how much carbon dioxide everything produces.But all of this can help us decide which beer to drink.From Berners-Lee's calculations,it's clear that a pint(568ml)of locally-brewed beer has a smaller carbon footprint than a bottle of imported beer. This is because the imported beer has been transported from far away,and it uses more packaging. The local beer only produces 300g of CO2,but the imported beer produces 900g! So, one pint of local beer is better for the environment than three cans of cheap foreign lager from the supermarket.Berners-Lee has even calculated the carbon footprint of cycling to work.Nothing is more environmentally-friendly than riding a bike,surely?Well,it depends on what you've had to eat before. To ride a bike we need energy and for energy we need food.So if we eat a banana and then ride a kilometer and a half,our footprint is 65g of CO2.However,if we eat bacon before the bike ride,it's 200g. In fact,bananas are good in general because they don't need packaging,they can be transported by boat and they grow in natural sunlight.So,does this mean that cycling is bad for the environment?Absolutely not,for a start,if you cycle,you don't use your car,and the fewer cars on the road,the fewer traffic jams.And cars in traffic jams produce three times more CO2 than cars traveling at speed.Cycling also makes you healthy and less likely to go to a hospital. And hospitals have very big carbon footprints!So maybe it's time for us all to start making some changes.Pass me a banana and a pint of local beer,please.According to Berners-Lee,which of the following produces the most carbon dioxide?A:A pint of local beer we drink.B:A pint of imported beer we drink.C:A banana we eat before a bike ride.D:The bacon we eat before a bike ride.
考题
共用题干
第一篇Carbon FootprintHow often do you travel by plane?How much electricity do you use?These days everyone is worried about the size of their carbon footprint.In order to reduce global warming we need to make our carbon footprints smaller. But how much CO2 are we responsible for?A new book might be able to help.The Carbon Footprint of Everything looks at the different things we do and buy,and calculates the amount of CO2 all of the following created:the ingredients, the electricity used in the brewery，the equipment,the travel and commuting of the beer,and the packaging. It's amazing how many different things need to be included in each calculation.And it's frightening how much carbon dioxide everything produces.But all of this can help us decide which beer to drink.From Berners-Lee's calculations,it's clear that a pint(568ml)of locally-brewed beer has a smaller carbon footprint than a bottle of imported beer. This is because the imported beer has been transported from far away,and it uses more packaging. The local beer only produces 300g of CO2,but the imported beer produces 900g! So, one pint of local beer is better for the environment than three cans of cheap foreign lager from the supermarket.Berners-Lee has even calculated the carbon footprint of cycling to work.Nothing is more environmentally-friendly than riding a bike,surely?Well,it depends on what you've had to eat before. To ride a bike we need energy and for energy we need food.So if we eat a banana and then ride a kilometer and a half,our footprint is 65g of CO2.However,if we eat bacon before the bike ride,it's 200g. In fact,bananas are good in general because they don't need packaging,they can be transported by boat and they grow in natural sunlight.So,does this mean that cycling is bad for the environment?Absolutely not,for a start,if you cycle,you don't use your car,and the fewer cars on the road,the fewer traffic jams.And cars in traffic jams produce three times more CO2 than cars traveling at speed.Cycling also makes you healthy and less likely to go to a hospital. And hospitals have very big carbon footprints!So maybe it's time for us all to start making some changes.Pass me a banana and a pint of local beer,please.We CANNOT infer from this passage that________.A:many different things need to be included in carbon footprint calculationB:everything produces carbon dioxideC:bananas are good in general because they are healthy foodD:cycling is good for the environment
考题
Which of the following，according to the passage，is a list of three natural sources of radiation？( ) A.Radioactive potassium in bone，strontium 90，uranium ore.
B.Carbon 14 in tissues，cosmic rays，X rays.
C.Cosmic rays，radioactive potassium in bones，radioactive carbon in tissues.
D.X rays，carbon 14，plutonium.
考题
单选题When required to work where there may be explosive gases, you should use tools which are （）A
approved by the Coast GuardB
high carbon steelC
fixed with a ferrous coverD
nonsparking
考题
单选题According to the passage, atmospheric carbon dioxide performs all of the following functions EXCEPT: _____.A
absorbing radiation at visible wavelengthsB
absorbing infrared radiationC
absorbing outgoing radiation from the EarthD
helping to retain heat near the Earth’s surface
考题
单选题In order to remove the carbon deposit from the threaded recess, we can use（）A
a driverB
a scraperC
a tapD
a file
考题
单选题According to the Chemical Data Guide，when burning，the grade B flammable liquid，carbon disulfide produces（）.A
phosgene gasB
sulfuric acid gasC
sulfur dioxide gasD
carbon tetrachloride
考题
单选题Any carbon built up on surfaces must be washed away by （） additives and held in suspension by a （） additive.A
dispersant；detergentB
detergent；dispersantC
dispersant；dispersantD
detergent；detergent
考题
单选题The combustion of larger molecules,（）have multiple carbon-carbon bonds involves a more complex series of reactions.A
whatB
whichC
thatD
who
考题
单选题Theoretical perfect combustion in a diesel engine yields by-products of （）.A
aldehydes and carbon dioxideB
water vapor and carbon monoxideC
nitrogen and carbon monoxideD
water vapor and carbon dioxide
考题
单选题A carbon dioxide fire extinguisher should be recharged（）.A
at least annuallyB
whenever it is below its required weightC
only if the extinguisher has been usedD
before every safety inspection
考题
判断题Natural systems can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by carbon emissions.A
对B
错
考题
单选题Why should you wear a self-contained breathing apparatus before entering the engine room after the fixed CO2 system has been discharged to combat a major fire?（）A
Because carbon dioxide dilutes the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere and may cause asphyxiationB
Because carbon dioxide breaks down in a fire into carbon monoxide which may cause blood poisoning in the person breathing this gasC
Because carbon dioxide is a colorless and odorless gas that becomes highly toxic in the presence of high temperatures and will quickly incapacitate a person exposed to this gasD
This action is unnecessary as carbon dioxide is not poisonous nor toxic but is a relatively harmless gas
热门标签
最新试卷
