Day 4: Env&Traffic

TASK I: Integrated Writing

Reading: Env

• The dodo was a large, flightless bird native to the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. Mauritius was colonized by Dutch settlers in the late sixteenth century, and, fewer than one hundred years later, the last dodo disappeared. There is much speculation as to why the dodo disappeared, but experts have narrowed the reasons down to the actions of humans.

• There were no humans on Mauritius prior to the Dutch’s arrival, so the dodos had no fear of humans and thus were easily hunted. The Dutch also brought other animals, such as cats, dogs, pigs, and various farm animals, and there were many instances where these animals hunted dodos or destroyed their eggs and nests. The dodo, being flightless, built its nests on the ground in forested areas and laid its eggs in these nests. The eggs and young dodos therefore had no protection against predators.

• When the Dutch colonized Mauritius, they began rapidly altering the land for farming. They cleared forests, which destroyed the dodos’ natural habitats. The dodos soon had fewer places to make their nests and lay their eggs. Also, since the dodos fed on the tropical fruits native to the island, when the Dutch chopped down the trees, a large part of the dodos’ food supply was destroyed.

• Some also speculate that the outsiders introduced a disease which proceeded to wipe out the dodos. Some diseases may pass from humans to animals or, more commonly, from animal to animal. This would account for the virtually overnight disappearance of the dodos. The introduction of a new species often wreaks havoc on the natives. For example, when the European settlers arrived in America, many Native Americans died due to a lack of immunity to new diseases. The same could easily have happened to the dodo.

  colonize(v) to take control of; to conquer speculation (n) an assumption; a theory prior to: (phr) before; preceding predator:(n) a killer; a hunter; an enemy alter:(v) to change chop down:(phr) to fell; to cut down wipe out:(phr) to eliminate; to kill entirely account for:(phr) to explain virtually:(ad) practically; almost overnight:(a) very quick; rapid wreak havoc:(phr) to destroy; to cause many problems immunity:(n) resistance

Transcript:

• One of history’s great mysteries is the sudden extinction of the dodo bird. It was last spotted in the late seventeenth century on the island of Mauritius, the only place it ever existed. The cause of its extinction isn’t precisely known, but it’s certain that humans didn’t cause it.

• Now, the dodo couldn’t fly, nor was it very fast. It developed this way for ages because, well, it had no enemies on the island… At least not until humans arrived. Yet despite the ease with which they could catch it, the Dutch settlers were disgusted by it. Actually, the Dutch name for the dodo was walgvogel, meaning “disgusting bird.” Since the meat was tough and bad tasting, people didn’t hunt the dodo or try to kill it at all.

• Some experts claim that the clearing of trees helped kill off the dodos, which built their nests in forested areas. While the Dutch deforested some areas for farmland, large parts of the island remained intact. Even when the last dodo was spotted in 1662, much land was free from deforestation. Additionally, many other species of birds have survived on the island since humans arrived. Besides, the dodo, which couldn’t fly, didn’t make its nests in trees. It made them on the ground. So, it’s obvious that tree clearing wasn’t a reason for the loss of this bird.

• Strangely, it may have been nature itself, not humans, which eliminated the dodos. There is evidence that they were already in decline when humans arrived. Massive cyclones struck the island many times in the past, and their high winds may have been responsible for destroying the dodos’ nests and eggs while they lay unprotected by the Dutch were the last remnants of a once populous species that was already on its way to dying out.

Answer:

• The reading states that human were responsible for the dodo’s extinction. The lecturer, however, disagrees and claims it was not humans who killed the dodo bird.

• The first point the reading mentions is that the flightless dodo was unafraid of humans, so they could easily hunt it. It also maintains that many animals brought by the Dutch hunted dodos and their eggs. On the contrary, the professor asserts that the Dutch did not hunt the dodo because they despised the taste of its meat.

• The next point brought up is that deforestation by the Dutch destroyed the dodos’ natural habitats. However, the professor first claims that deforestation did not cover the entire island nor did it kill many other bird species. He next declares that dodos did not nest in trees, so their disappearance should not have bothered the dodo.

• Finally, in contrast to the reading’s argument that a disease brought by the Dutch may have killed the dodos, the professor says the dodo population may already have been declining. He then blames the extinction of the dodo on massive cyclones that destroyed their nests and eggs.

• All in all, while the reading brings up several reasons to blame humans for the dodo’s extinction, the professor provides refutations and his own theory about the dodo’s extinction.

Task1 cont.

TASK II: Independent Writing

Sample 1:

• Humans are responsible for a variety of environmental problems, but we can also take steps to reduce the damage that we are causing to the planet. This essay will discuss environmental problems and the measures that governments and individuals can take to address these problems.

• Two of the biggest threats to the environment are air pollution and waste. Gas emissions from factories and exhaust fumes from vehicles lead to global warming, which may have a devastating effect on the planet in the future. As the human population increases, we are also producing ever greater quantities of waste, which contaminates the earth and pollutes rivers and oceans.

• Governments could certainly make more effort to reduce air pollution. They could introduce laws to limit emissions from factories or to force companies to use renewable energy from solar, wind or water power. They could also impose ¡®green taxes¡¯ on drivers and airline companies. In this way, people would be encouraged to use public transport and to take fewer flights abroad, therefore reducing emissions.

• Individuals should also take responsibility for the impact they have on the environment. They can take public transport rather than driving, choose products with less packaging, and recycle as much as possible. Most supermarkets now provide reusable bags for shoppers as well as ¡®banks¡¯ for recycling glass, plastic and paper in their car parks. By reusing and recycling, we can help to reduce waste.

• In conclusion, both national governments and individuals must play their part in looking after the environment.

Sample 2: improving road safety by strict punishments for driving offences

• People have differing views with regard to the question of how to make our roads safer. In my view, both punishments and a range of other measures can be used together to promote better driving habits.

• On the one hand, strict punishments can certainly help to encourage people to drive more safely. Penalties for dangerous drivers can act as a deterrent, meaning that people avoid repeating the same offence. There are various types of driving penalty, such as small fines, licence suspension, driver awareness courses, and even prison sentences. The aim of these punishments is to show dangerous drivers that their actions have negative consequences. As a result, we would hope that drivers become more disciplined and alert, and that they follow the rules more carefully.

• On the other hand, I believe that safe driving can be promoted in several different ways that do not punish drivers. Firstly, it is vitally important to educate people properly before they start to drive, and this could be done in schools or even as part of an extended or more difficult driving test. Secondly, more attention could be paid to safe road design. For example, signs can be used to warn people, speed bumps and road bends can be added to calm traffic, and speed cameras can help to deter people from driving too quickly. Finally, governments or local councils could reduce road accidents by investing in better public transport, which would mean that fewer people would need to travel by car.

• In conclusion, while punishments can help to prevent bad driving, I believe that other road safety measures should also be introduced.

Sample 3: Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.

• In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.

• I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilize the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

• In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them.

Sample 4: > A company is going to give some money either to support the arts or to protect the environment. Which do you think the company should choose? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

• In today’s turbulent economic situation, it is difficult for governments to decide which areas to spend money on. Some people believe that it is important to fund the arts, while others feel that it is preferable to prioritize environmental issues. In my opinion, protecting the environment is more important than funding the arts. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay.

• To begin with, environmental problems are a more urgent concern than issues surrounding the arts. While we are certainly living in a society where the arts are more severely under-funded, the environment is a matter of life and death for many people. The consequences of environmental degradation not only hit close to home, but also affect human beings all over the world. For example, I recently read a report in a major newspaper which pointed out that within three decades certain countries in South Asia will suffer from catastrophic flooding as a result of global warming. One country that was mentioned was Bangladesh, which just happens to be the poorest nation in the region. As a result of the poverty that currently affects that country, public officials there are wholly unable to tackle the problem on their own. This means that nations in the developed world need to fund programs that will help them deal with the looming crisis.

• Moreover, while arts funding is a wonderful idea, it is entirely possible for artistic and cultural programs to be privately funded. Many businesses and individuals are more than willing to make donations to artists in exchange for promotional considerations. Not only that, but the Internet has made it possible for artists to fund their work through online “crowdfunding” promoted through social networking sites. For example, there is a community theatre group in my hometown which recently lost a significant portion of its public funding following recent budget cuts by the municipal government. While the situation looked dire at first, the group was able to attract financial support from companies who wished to have their logo displayed on theatre programs and assorted paraphernalia. In addition, the company took to the Internet and raised money from individual donors who wanted nothing more than to help their favorite theatre group. These examples demonstrate some of the methods that artistic groups can use to attract funding to replace government support in times of economic trouble. The amounts of money needed to solve environmental programs, in contrast, cannot be raised using such methods.

• In conclusion, I feel that if the government is forced to make a choice, it should choose to fund environmental programs rather than the arts. I feel this way because environmental problems are a more pressing concern and because the arts can often be privately funded.

Is a zoo useful?

• Every city has one or more zoos. For a while, people think that a zoo is no useful purpose. If I were faced with this issue, I would think that zoos are useful. In the fol- lowing discussion, I would like to reason and provide evidence to support my viewpoint.

• The first reason is that zoos are often used as places to preserve the endangered species, such as the giant pandas and tigers. It is the conservation of animals that is the most important function of a zoo. With the advances in reproductive technologies, which assist in breeding captive animals, the zoo has become the most important place for animal conservation. Thanks to zoos, certain species of animals have been saved from extinction. Such animals are bred in captivity and when they are ready to survive in the wild, are reintroduced to their original habitat - in the rain forests of Brazil, for instance.

• In the second place, children can obtain direct knowledge about a variety of animals by visiting zoos. They can see what a tiger is like, hear various sounds of birds and tell one animal from another. If there is no such a place, how can they make contact with animals? They may never have a chance to see various animals even though they learn many from books. When I was a little girl, I liked animals very much, especially birds. But I could not feed them for myself, so the zoo which was located near my home was the place I went to most frequent. And I really love these places.

• Finally, a zoo is a place for fun. In fact, this is why it is so good at educating the public about the importance of conserving wildlife and the environment: it puts fun into education. Seeing pictures is not the same as seeing animals at close up. What makes visiting a zoo so enjoyable is our close contact with them. Therefore a zoo not only attracts many tourists from other countries, it also allows us to see, without having to leave home, big cats and exotic animals of distant countries.

• In summary, I believe that a zoo has some useful purposes to serve: to preserve the endangered species, to educate the public about wildlife, and for its visitors to have fun. So a zoo of course is a useful place for us and we should have them.

Environment

 

Environment 

Global warming 
Gases such as carbon dioxide trap heat from the sun 
This causes global temperatures to rise 
This process is known as the greenhouse effect 
Human activity is a major factor in the rise of the greenhouse gases 
Factories and vehicles produce emissions and exhaust fumes 
Many developing countries are becoming industrialized 
The number of cars on our streets is growing 
Cheap air travel is allowing more people to fly 

Effects of Global Warming 
Global warming will have a significant impact on our planet 
Rising temperature will cause melting of the polar ice caps 
Sea levels will rise 
We can expect more extreme weather conditions 
Flooding and droughts may become more common

Impacts of humans on the environment 
The increasing world population is putting pressure on natural resources 
Fossil fuels like oil and gas are running out 
We are destroying wildlife habitats 
We have cut down enormous areas of rainforest 
This has led to the extinction of many species of animals and plants 
Solutions to environment problems 
Governments could introduce laws to limit emissions from factories 
They should invest in renewable energy from solar, wind or water power 
They could impose “green taxes” on drivers and airlines companies 
Government campaigns should promote recycling 
Natural areas and wild animals should be protected Individuals should also try to be greener 
We should take fewer flights abroad for holidays 
We should take public transport rather than driving 
We should choose products with less packaging We should recycle as much as possible 

Waste/rubbish 
The amount of waster we produce has increased 
This problem is a result of our consumer culture 
Products are not made to last If something breaks, we throw it way and buy a new one 
Advertisers encourage is to buy the newest fashions 
Packaging is an important part of selling 
Most foods are sold in non-biodegradable plastics packaging
The amount of household waste is growing This waste ends up in landfill sites 

Litter 
People do not think about the consequences of dropping rubbish 
They assume that somebody is pad to clean the streest 
Plastic packaging does not break down easily 
Most of the litter seen on streets is fast food packaging 

Recycling and other solutions 
Companies should make goods that last longer 
They should not use so much packaging 
Governments should be stricter, about waster produced by companies 
They should put legal limits on packaging 
Consumers should avoid buying over-packaged products 
We should recycle and reuse useful materials. 
There are collection banks for glass, paper and plastic bottles 
Households can use several rubbish bins to separate waste 
Recycling saves energy and raw materials. 

Nuclear Power: Positives 
There are several benefits to build more nuclear power stations 
Fossil fuel like oil and gas are running out 
Nuclear power is a sustainable energy source 
It can be used to produce electricity without wasting natural resources 
It could be replace the use of natural resources like coal, oil or gas 
Nuclear power stations are cleaner than fossil fuel power stations 
They could help to reduce carbon emissions that cause global warming
The risks of accidents are being reduced 

Nuclear Power: negatives 
Opponents of nuclear power worry about the safety of power stations 
The building of new nuclear power stations is unpopular Nobody wants to live near one 
Nuclear waste disposal is a significant problem 
There is currently no way to decontaminate radioactive material 
People worry that terrorists could steal radioactive materials 
It is safer to produce energy from solar, wind or water power.

[TOC]

Cheat Paper