為了方便大家的學(xué)習(xí)，順利通過(guò)雅思考試，為大家精心整理了雅思閱讀模擬題：北京空氣污染，供大家參考！將為大家發(fā)布最新、最專業(yè)的雅思考試機(jī)經(jīng)及解析，歡迎參考閱讀。
ON January 12th of last year, in an article in the print edition of The Economist, we reportedthat the public outcry over Beijing’s atrocious air quality was putting pressure on officials torelease more data about more kinds of pollutants. We also noted that Chinese authorities hadalready embarked on a wide range of strategies to improve air quality, and that they probablydeserve more credit than either foreign or domestic critics tend to give them. But weconcluded with the sad reality that such work takes decades, and that “Beijing residents willneed to wait before seeing improvements.”
On January 12th of this year, Beijing residents got an acrid taste of what that wait might belike, as they suffered a day of astonishingly bad air. Pollution readings went, quite literally, offthe charts. Saturday evening saw a reading of 755 on the Air Quality Index (AQI). That index isbased on the recently revised standards of the American Environmental Protection Agency (theEPA), which nominally maxes out at 500. For more perspective, consider that any readingabove 100 is deemed “unhealthy for sensitive groups” and that anything above 400 is rated“hazardous” for all.
Like many Beijing residents, your correspondent has mobile-phone apps that keep up withthe pollution readings. At an otherwise pleasant Saturday-evening meal with friends, he joinedhis companions in compulsively checking for updates.
Those previously unseen numbers were hard to believe, but they did seem to match upwell enough with the noxious soup we could see, smell and taste outside. We are all far morefamiliar with the specifics of air-quality measurement than we would like to be. Apart from theAQI readings above 700, we were quite struck to see the readings for the smallest and mostdangerous sort of particulate matter, called PM 2.5, which can enter deep into the respiratorysystem. These are named for the size, in microns, of the particles. A reading at a controversialmonitoring station run by the American embassy showed a PM 2.5 level of 886 micrograms percubic metre; Beijing’s own municipal monitoring centre acknowledged readings in excess of 700micrograms.
For perspective on that set of figures, consider that the guideline values set by the WorldHealth Organisation regard any air with more than 25 micrograms of PM 2.5 per cubic metre asbeing of unacceptable quality.
Chinese authorities have complained about the American embassy's insistence onindependently monitoring—and publicly reporting—Beijing’s air quality. And sometimes much ismade of the vast differences between those readings and China’s own official ones, which areoften less dire. Indeed, a key feature of one of those mobile-phone apps is the side-by-sidecomparison of those competing data-sets. (It is of course a bad sign that people here needmore than one app to keep up with all this.)
But on a day like Saturday, the discrepancy between official readings and independentones hardly seemed to matter; you didn't need a weatherman to know which way the ill windblew. Or failed to blow, as the case may have been. One expert quoted by Chinese mediaattributed this spike in pollution to a series of windless days that allowed pollutants toaccumulate.
But wind can be a problem when it does blow, too. In the outlying provinces that are part ofBeijing’s airshed, there is a great deal of heavy industry. Pollution regulations are much harderto enforce there. And, in this colder-than-average winter, people have been burning more coaland wood than usual.
It is likely to be many more Januarys to come before China gets the upper hand on its air-pollution problems. Indeed, as we mentioned last January 12th, after nearly sixty years oftrying and a vast amount of progress, the city of Los Angeles has yet to meet America's federalair-quality standards. If there is any consolation to what Beijing had to endure this January12th, it is that it should lend urgency to the public outcry, and help speed things in the rightdirection.
The other consolation is that readings like the ones showing now on Monday midday (inthe mid 300s, merely “hazardous” and “severely polluted”) feel fine by comparison.
參考譯文：
北京空氣污染——最黑暗的一天
去年1月12日，我們?cè)谟∷娴摹督?jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》中報(bào)道了公眾關(guān)于北京惡劣空氣質(zhì)量的呼吁迫使官方發(fā)布更多種類污染物數(shù)據(jù)一事。我們也注意到中國(guó)政府開始著手于采用多種策略來(lái)提高空氣質(zhì)量，因此他應(yīng)該受到來(lái)自國(guó)外或者國(guó)內(nèi)評(píng)論家更多的信任。但令人沮喪的現(xiàn)實(shí)是，這些工作需要花費(fèi)數(shù)十年來(lái)完成，“在情況有所改觀以前，北京居民還需等待些許時(shí)日?！?BR> 今年1月12日，北京居民的等待換來(lái)的卻是辛辣的感覺(jué)，因?yàn)樗麄兘?jīng)歷了空氣質(zhì)量出奇惡劣的一天。毫不夸張地，污染物讀數(shù)飆升，超過(guò)了記錄。星期六晚上，空氣質(zhì)量指數(shù)為755.這個(gè)指數(shù)是基于美國(guó)環(huán)境保護(hù)署最近修改的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，名義上的值為500.有更多觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，指數(shù)只要高出100就會(huì)“不利于敏感人群的健康”，高出400的話，就會(huì)對(duì)所有人“有危險(xiǎn)”。
像很多北京居民一樣，我們記者的移動(dòng)手機(jī)應(yīng)用程序可以時(shí)刻更新污染指數(shù)。本應(yīng)該是一次和朋友相聚其樂(lè)融融的周六晚餐，他卻與同伴們不斷地檢查著數(shù)據(jù)的更新。
先前沒(méi)有看到的那些數(shù)字有些難以置信，但是從我們看到聞到外面濃厚的毒霧來(lái)判斷，應(yīng)該也差不多。雖然我們不愿承認(rèn)，但我們對(duì)測(cè)量空氣質(zhì)量的細(xì)節(jié)心知肚明。除了空氣質(zhì)量指數(shù)超過(guò)700之外，PM 2.5——空氣中最小但最危險(xiǎn)并可以進(jìn)入呼吸系統(tǒng)的一種懸浮顆?！淖x數(shù)讓我們十分震驚。它們是按照粒子微米下的體積來(lái)命名的。來(lái)自一座有爭(zhēng)議的美國(guó)大使館監(jiān)測(cè)站的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，PM 2.5的水平達(dá)到了886微克每立方米;北京市當(dāng)?shù)貦z測(cè)中心承認(rèn)數(shù)據(jù)超過(guò)了700微克。
基于這一組數(shù)據(jù)，有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，根據(jù)世界衛(wèi)生組織指定的指導(dǎo)值，凡是PM 2.5高于25微克每立方米，即被認(rèn)為是不能接受的空氣質(zhì)量。
中國(guó)官方一直就美國(guó)大使館對(duì)北京空氣質(zhì)量堅(jiān)持獨(dú)自檢測(cè)并發(fā)布表示抱怨。有時(shí)候，美國(guó)的指數(shù)會(huì)與中國(guó)官方的有很大差異，中國(guó)的通常會(huì)相對(duì)緩和一些。的確，移動(dòng)手機(jī)應(yīng)用的主要特征之一就是那些相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的數(shù)據(jù)收集站的平行比較。(當(dāng)然，這里的人們需要不止一個(gè)應(yīng)用程序來(lái)更新這些數(shù)據(jù)，這并不是個(gè)好的現(xiàn)象。)
但是在這樣一個(gè)星期六，官方的數(shù)據(jù)與獨(dú)立監(jiān)測(cè)站之間的差異也顯得不重要了;你也不需要?dú)庀髥T來(lái)告訴你渾濁的氣體是朝哪邊吹的?；蛘哒f(shuō)，事實(shí)上是根本沒(méi)有在流動(dòng)。引用中國(guó)媒體的報(bào)道，一位專家將這次污染指數(shù)爆表歸罪于連續(xù)幾天無(wú)風(fēng)導(dǎo)致的污染物積聚。
但是當(dāng)起風(fēng)的時(shí)候，也會(huì)出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題。在北京氣流區(qū)域的邊遠(yuǎn)省份有很多重工業(yè)。這些地區(qū)的污染管理更難實(shí)施。此外，在這個(gè)比平時(shí)要寒冷的冬季，人們燒了更多的煤和木柴。
看來(lái)，中國(guó)還需要很多年才能在空氣質(zhì)量問(wèn)題上有所成效。確實(shí)，正如我們?cè)谌ツ?月12日提到的那樣，洛杉磯通過(guò)大約六十年的努力和大量進(jìn)展才達(dá)到了美國(guó)聯(lián)邦空氣標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。如果說(shuō)對(duì)北京在這個(gè)1月12日必須承受的壓力有些許安慰的建議，那就是北京應(yīng)該更為緊迫地應(yīng)對(duì)民眾呼吁，并且促進(jìn)事物往正確的方向發(fā)展。
另一個(gè)慰藉就是像星期一中午發(fā)布的指數(shù)(大概300過(guò)半，僅僅是“對(duì)人危險(xiǎn)的”和“嚴(yán)重污染”)在相比之下就容易接受多了。
ON January 12th of last year, in an article in the print edition of The Economist, we reportedthat the public outcry over Beijing’s atrocious air quality was putting pressure on officials torelease more data about more kinds of pollutants. We also noted that Chinese authorities hadalready embarked on a wide range of strategies to improve air quality, and that they probablydeserve more credit than either foreign or domestic critics tend to give them. But weconcluded with the sad reality that such work takes decades, and that “Beijing residents willneed to wait before seeing improvements.”
On January 12th of this year, Beijing residents got an acrid taste of what that wait might belike, as they suffered a day of astonishingly bad air. Pollution readings went, quite literally, offthe charts. Saturday evening saw a reading of 755 on the Air Quality Index (AQI). That index isbased on the recently revised standards of the American Environmental Protection Agency (theEPA), which nominally maxes out at 500. For more perspective, consider that any readingabove 100 is deemed “unhealthy for sensitive groups” and that anything above 400 is rated“hazardous” for all.
Like many Beijing residents, your correspondent has mobile-phone apps that keep up withthe pollution readings. At an otherwise pleasant Saturday-evening meal with friends, he joinedhis companions in compulsively checking for updates.
Those previously unseen numbers were hard to believe, but they did seem to match upwell enough with the noxious soup we could see, smell and taste outside. We are all far morefamiliar with the specifics of air-quality measurement than we would like to be. Apart from theAQI readings above 700, we were quite struck to see the readings for the smallest and mostdangerous sort of particulate matter, called PM 2.5, which can enter deep into the respiratorysystem. These are named for the size, in microns, of the particles. A reading at a controversialmonitoring station run by the American embassy showed a PM 2.5 level of 886 micrograms percubic metre; Beijing’s own municipal monitoring centre acknowledged readings in excess of 700micrograms.
For perspective on that set of figures, consider that the guideline values set by the WorldHealth Organisation regard any air with more than 25 micrograms of PM 2.5 per cubic metre asbeing of unacceptable quality.
Chinese authorities have complained about the American embassy's insistence onindependently monitoring—and publicly reporting—Beijing’s air quality. And sometimes much ismade of the vast differences between those readings and China’s own official ones, which areoften less dire. Indeed, a key feature of one of those mobile-phone apps is the side-by-sidecomparison of those competing data-sets. (It is of course a bad sign that people here needmore than one app to keep up with all this.)
But on a day like Saturday, the discrepancy between official readings and independentones hardly seemed to matter; you didn't need a weatherman to know which way the ill windblew. Or failed to blow, as the case may have been. One expert quoted by Chinese mediaattributed this spike in pollution to a series of windless days that allowed pollutants toaccumulate.
But wind can be a problem when it does blow, too. In the outlying provinces that are part ofBeijing’s airshed, there is a great deal of heavy industry. Pollution regulations are much harderto enforce there. And, in this colder-than-average winter, people have been burning more coaland wood than usual.
It is likely to be many more Januarys to come before China gets the upper hand on its air-pollution problems. Indeed, as we mentioned last January 12th, after nearly sixty years oftrying and a vast amount of progress, the city of Los Angeles has yet to meet America's federalair-quality standards. If there is any consolation to what Beijing had to endure this January12th, it is that it should lend urgency to the public outcry, and help speed things in the rightdirection.
The other consolation is that readings like the ones showing now on Monday midday (inthe mid 300s, merely “hazardous” and “severely polluted”) feel fine by comparison.
參考譯文：
北京空氣污染——最黑暗的一天
去年1月12日，我們?cè)谟∷娴摹督?jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》中報(bào)道了公眾關(guān)于北京惡劣空氣質(zhì)量的呼吁迫使官方發(fā)布更多種類污染物數(shù)據(jù)一事。我們也注意到中國(guó)政府開始著手于采用多種策略來(lái)提高空氣質(zhì)量，因此他應(yīng)該受到來(lái)自國(guó)外或者國(guó)內(nèi)評(píng)論家更多的信任。但令人沮喪的現(xiàn)實(shí)是，這些工作需要花費(fèi)數(shù)十年來(lái)完成，“在情況有所改觀以前，北京居民還需等待些許時(shí)日?！?BR> 今年1月12日，北京居民的等待換來(lái)的卻是辛辣的感覺(jué)，因?yàn)樗麄兘?jīng)歷了空氣質(zhì)量出奇惡劣的一天。毫不夸張地，污染物讀數(shù)飆升，超過(guò)了記錄。星期六晚上，空氣質(zhì)量指數(shù)為755.這個(gè)指數(shù)是基于美國(guó)環(huán)境保護(hù)署最近修改的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，名義上的值為500.有更多觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，指數(shù)只要高出100就會(huì)“不利于敏感人群的健康”，高出400的話，就會(huì)對(duì)所有人“有危險(xiǎn)”。
像很多北京居民一樣，我們記者的移動(dòng)手機(jī)應(yīng)用程序可以時(shí)刻更新污染指數(shù)。本應(yīng)該是一次和朋友相聚其樂(lè)融融的周六晚餐，他卻與同伴們不斷地檢查著數(shù)據(jù)的更新。
先前沒(méi)有看到的那些數(shù)字有些難以置信，但是從我們看到聞到外面濃厚的毒霧來(lái)判斷，應(yīng)該也差不多。雖然我們不愿承認(rèn)，但我們對(duì)測(cè)量空氣質(zhì)量的細(xì)節(jié)心知肚明。除了空氣質(zhì)量指數(shù)超過(guò)700之外，PM 2.5——空氣中最小但最危險(xiǎn)并可以進(jìn)入呼吸系統(tǒng)的一種懸浮顆?！淖x數(shù)讓我們十分震驚。它們是按照粒子微米下的體積來(lái)命名的。來(lái)自一座有爭(zhēng)議的美國(guó)大使館監(jiān)測(cè)站的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，PM 2.5的水平達(dá)到了886微克每立方米;北京市當(dāng)?shù)貦z測(cè)中心承認(rèn)數(shù)據(jù)超過(guò)了700微克。
基于這一組數(shù)據(jù)，有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，根據(jù)世界衛(wèi)生組織指定的指導(dǎo)值，凡是PM 2.5高于25微克每立方米，即被認(rèn)為是不能接受的空氣質(zhì)量。
中國(guó)官方一直就美國(guó)大使館對(duì)北京空氣質(zhì)量堅(jiān)持獨(dú)自檢測(cè)并發(fā)布表示抱怨。有時(shí)候，美國(guó)的指數(shù)會(huì)與中國(guó)官方的有很大差異，中國(guó)的通常會(huì)相對(duì)緩和一些。的確，移動(dòng)手機(jī)應(yīng)用的主要特征之一就是那些相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的數(shù)據(jù)收集站的平行比較。(當(dāng)然，這里的人們需要不止一個(gè)應(yīng)用程序來(lái)更新這些數(shù)據(jù)，這并不是個(gè)好的現(xiàn)象。)
但是在這樣一個(gè)星期六，官方的數(shù)據(jù)與獨(dú)立監(jiān)測(cè)站之間的差異也顯得不重要了;你也不需要?dú)庀髥T來(lái)告訴你渾濁的氣體是朝哪邊吹的?；蛘哒f(shuō)，事實(shí)上是根本沒(méi)有在流動(dòng)。引用中國(guó)媒體的報(bào)道，一位專家將這次污染指數(shù)爆表歸罪于連續(xù)幾天無(wú)風(fēng)導(dǎo)致的污染物積聚。
但是當(dāng)起風(fēng)的時(shí)候，也會(huì)出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題。在北京氣流區(qū)域的邊遠(yuǎn)省份有很多重工業(yè)。這些地區(qū)的污染管理更難實(shí)施。此外，在這個(gè)比平時(shí)要寒冷的冬季，人們燒了更多的煤和木柴。
看來(lái)，中國(guó)還需要很多年才能在空氣質(zhì)量問(wèn)題上有所成效。確實(shí)，正如我們?cè)谌ツ?月12日提到的那樣，洛杉磯通過(guò)大約六十年的努力和大量進(jìn)展才達(dá)到了美國(guó)聯(lián)邦空氣標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。如果說(shuō)對(duì)北京在這個(gè)1月12日必須承受的壓力有些許安慰的建議，那就是北京應(yīng)該更為緊迫地應(yīng)對(duì)民眾呼吁，并且促進(jìn)事物往正確的方向發(fā)展。
另一個(gè)慰藉就是像星期一中午發(fā)布的指數(shù)(大概300過(guò)半，僅僅是“對(duì)人危險(xiǎn)的”和“嚴(yán)重污染”)在相比之下就容易接受多了。