| Scientists studying the impact of climate change on the Arctic need to consider ways to reduce their own carbon footprints(碳排放量), says Ryan Brook, a researcher who regularly flies north to study the health of caribous (驯鹿). He calls on scientists to show leadership by examining and sharing ways to reduce the impact of working in polar regions. "The importance of the research is not at question here. It is important to our understanding of and adapting to climate change. But we need to think about better approaches." says Brook. "This is an issue for all scientists, though polar researchers often travel particularly long distances using commercial air travel. We also rely extensively on small aircraft, icebreakers, and snowmobiles, all of which produce large amounts of carbon. " Brook studies the health of caribous herds in Nunavut and Northwest Territories. He works with northern wildlife managers. This work typically takes him north five or six times per year and when he calculated his own carbon footprint, he was not happy with the result. "My research footprints are about the same as the annual footprints of an average Toronto resident. Basically, I have two footprints-my own personal life, which is moderate, and my research footprint." Climate scientists can rightly argue that Arctic research is a specialized field and the community of scientists who travel north is relatively small. Even if all scientists working in the north reduced their carbon emissions, it would not make a big impact on the global scale. For Brook, it's the option that matters. There are ways researchers can reduce the amount of carbon they use. Some helicopters use less fuel than others. Solar and wind power are alternatives to gasfired generators. And while carbon offsets (抵消) don't reduce the amount of carbon emitted, they are an easy first step. "There aren't necessarily any easy answers, but we need to start talking about it." says Brook. "This is particularly important for the next generation of scientists being trained and I hope to see them become leaders in this issue." |
| 1. The underlined word"It" in Para. 2 refers to________. |
| A. the research of climate change on the Arctic B. the study of the health of caribous C. the impact of working in polar regions D. the reduction of polar scientists' carbon emissions |
| 2. What did Brook find when he calculated his own carbon footprints? |
| A. His carbon footprints are more than the annual footprints of a Toronto resident. B. His personal life footprints are more than the annual footprints of a Toronto resident. C. His research footprints are about the same as his personal life footprints. D. His personal life footprints are more than his research footprints. |
| 3. Brook's opinion is challenged by the statement that____. |
| A. arctic research is very important B. the Arctic is a special environment C. the footprints of Arctic scientists are small D. Brook's situation is not a common phenomenon |
| 4. We can infer from the last paragraph that________. |
| A. we should take actions immediately instead of just talking B. it's easy to start talking about the problem of carbon emissions C. it's necessary now to pay attention to the problem of research footprints D. the next generation of scientists are more interested in research footprints |