爱华网人类赖以生存的地球环境由于遭受到人类的破坏而日趋恶化，环境问题已成为全球关注的热点问题。下面是小编带来的关于环境的英语文章阅读，欢迎阅读!
关于环境的英语文章阅读篇一
牛肉生产破坏环境
A new study says beef production is very damaging to the environment. It damages the environment around ten times more than the production of pork, lamb, chicken or other farm animals. Scientists said cows need 28 times more land and 11 times more water than pigs, sheep or chickens. They also produce a lot of greenhouse gas after they eat. Compared to food like potatoes, wheat, and rice, beef production needs 160 times more land and produces 11 times more greenhouse gases. The scientists said farming (of livestock and crops) is a major cause of global warming. It causes 15 per cent of all greenhouse gases. About half of this is from livestock.
一项新的研究表明，牛肉生产会严重破坏环境。生产牛肉对环境造成的破坏程度是生产猪肉、羊肉、鸡肉等家畜所造成的破坏程度的十几倍。科学家称，饲养牛肉与饲养猪、羊、鸡相比，需要28倍多的土地，需要11倍多的水。牛在进食之后，也会产生大量温室气体。与土豆、小麦和水稻相比，牛肉生产需要160倍多的土地，并且会产生11倍多的温室气体。科学家称，农业(饲养家畜和种植粮食)是全球变暖的主要原因之一。农业产生的温室气体约为所有温室气体的15%。其中一半来自于家畜。
One scientist said we could all reduce our carbon footprint by eating less beef. Professor Mark Sutton from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in the UK said cutting down on the amount of beef we eat is better for the environment than using the car less. He also said that if we ate less beef, we could use the wheat that farmers give to cows to feed starving people. He said this sounds simple, but many governments would not try to do it. Professor Sutton said: "Governments should consider these messages carefully if they want to improve overall production." He added: "The message for the consumer is even stronger. Avoiding excessive meat consumption, especially beef, is good for the environment."
一位科学家说，我们可以通过减少牛肉的食用量来降低二氧化碳排放量。来自于英国生态与水文中心的马克.萨顿教授，称降低牛肉食用量对环境的好处，比降低使用汽车频率的好处还要大。他还说，如果我们少吃牛肉，我们就可以把农民喂给牛的那些小麦救济那些挨饿的穷人。他说，这听起来很简单。但是，大多数政府不会这样做。萨顿教授说，如果政府想要提高总产量，那就应该考虑一下这些信息。他还说，消费者的信息更加有效。避免过度吃肉，尤其是牛肉，对于环境有好处。
关于环境的英语文章阅读篇二
Environmental hazards are often too great for particular countries or individuals to tackle.We have arrived at a point in time where the only way to lessen environmental problems is atan international level.
Environmental problems have reached such proportions that people feel internationalorganizations must be set up to intervene in world affairs to resolve these problems. Whetherthis will resolve the problem is very unlikely as international organizations are just anextension of human behavior. That is, if human conflicts cannot be resolved at home, thenthey are unlikely to be resolved at the international level. Nevertheless, internationalorganizations do attract attention to the growing problem of aims of the internationalcommunity to resolve the issue of environmental pollution and support their cause, I do notbelieve it is the best or only way to protect the environment; in fact, it is only a small part ofwhat is needed in a global initiative.
All world problems, whether it is environmental pollution, war, energy insufficiency, orfamine, arise from the abusive behavior of all individuals. Therefore, the solution to all theseproblems is the need for a collective consciousness. What is meant by this is that eachindividual must be aware of the impact he or she has on the world and their unique part toplay in this world. After all, if one is happy with his life, he will surely not endeavor to harm theenvironment or anyone else. His behavior will be that of a responsible individual.
What is needed, therefore, is education. Education is the key to all problems and it startsfrom pregnancy all the way to adulthood and beyond. Furthermore, education means thatchildren all over the world should be allowed to go to schools with good teachers and whereteaching materials and methods can be adapted to each individual. Education means raisingchildren to be responsible individuals.
This may sound like utopia, but it is not: if a country had important problems in itseducational system, then it should realize that it is contributing to the world's problems. Theseare perhaps long term solutions, but they are more realistic solutions than setting up yetanother international organization.
关于环境的英语文章阅读篇三
People call the city or the small town home for a wealth of reasons, each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Primarily, the small-town people espouse familiarity. In contrast, the city dwellers hide amidst the anonymity. These statements require further scrutiny.
In a small town or in the country, the citizens become acquainted rather quickly. This acquaintance has several subtopics to it. First, families become friends for many generations, and that has a profound impact on lives. The families sometimes intermarry. Consequently, if people do relocate, often they later return to their original home, because both sets of parents live there. Next, land is often involved. Therefore, a kinship is made to the area and not only the people. It is difficult to walk away from an inheritance involving land. Finally, people work together on community projects, bonding them together by the process of building something. If a new Wal-Mart comes to town, everyone feels the spirit of progress together. This stands in direct contrast to life in the city.
The city has many attractive features that lure, just like the small town. The idea of not being readily recognized may appeal to some. With several million people in a metropolis and its surrounding areas, one could go for years and never run into an acquaintance. The probably usually have no desire to return someplace after they leave. There is nothing to keep them stationary. In addition, in that there is no kinship to land, city dwellers like the freedom of mobility. They could move every several months and always have something new. As the city consistently experiences growth, one may look for the best spot to live, replete with post office, and array of restaurants, diversity of culture, and any number of conveniences. The only link a city dweller has in a lot of cases to anything is his own desire to be free. Additional comments follow.
The city and the small town have many benefits to consider. What is right to start out life could change as one gets older. People are lucky at times that they do not have to choose, at least not forever, but can move at will. Maybe this is why some richer people have homes both in the small town and in the city.
