Carbon levels - Marvel Education

Loading question...

You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools

Prev Next

Practice Listening: Highlight Correct Summary ID: #4614 Medium Carbon levels

Instructions ›

Transcript:

Further to our discussion last week on reducing carbon levels in the environment, I'd like to discuss the unintended consequences of trying to address some of these issues. Let's take the UK, for example, which is planning to reduce greenhouse emissions by turning significant amounts of its agricultural land back into forest and peat bog, over the next thirty-five years. It proposes surrendering around 12 per cent of its food-producing area towards this goal. This would provide support for declining wildlife across the country and increase the amount of land given over to conservation and recreation. Increased woodland would also create carbon sinks that would soak up some of the already-dangerous levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So far, so good. However, the land dedicated to agriculture in the UK is already insufficient to meet the needs of its population. Since the 1980s, around 50 per cent of the nation's food has had to be imported, and converting more farmland would only put more pressure on the situation. Higher rates of food imports would displace the ecological burden from the UK onto the producer nations. With the food consumption of the country expected to rise almost 40 per cent by 2050, the question must be asked whether decreasing the amount of land put aside for home-grown food is, realistically, going to make a difference globally. Could it be that by increasing food imports, and the transportation costs implicit in that, the project could well increase greenhouse emissions?

* Click on the correct answer

The UK has increased its woodland cover by almost 20 per cent which has resulted in a significant amount of carbon being soaked up. However, due to its food imports, it will have to decrease this amount of land. Although the UK is attempting to address the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by giving over some of its farmland to non-agricultural use, it may be making things worse due to the amount of food it will have to import to compensate. Food imports to the UK have increased over the past few decades, which has meant more greenhouse gas emissions. The government proposes limiting any more agricultural land to prevent this increasing further. Farmers are unable to produce enough food to meet the needs of the British. Consequently, food imports need to increase despite the harm to the environment this may bring. Increasing forest and peat bog cover might help with this issue.

Result:

A.I. Explanation:

Option 1: "The UK has increased its woodland cover by almost 20 per cent which has resulted in a significant amount of carbon being soaked up. However, due to its food imports, it will have to decrease this amount of land."
Explanation: This option incorrectly states that the UK has increased its woodland cover by almost 20 per cent, which is not mentioned in the text. The text discusses a proposal to convert agricultural land into forest but does not specify any percentage increase in woodland cover. Additionally, it misrepresents the relationship between food imports and land decrease, as the text emphasizes the potential negative impact of increasing food imports rather than a direct decrease in land.
Option 2: "Although the UK is attempting to address the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by giving over some of its farmland to non-agricultural use, it may be making things worse due to the amount of food it will have to import to compensate."
Explanation: This option accurately summarizes the main idea of the text. It captures the UK's intention to reduce carbon levels by converting farmland to non-agricultural use while highlighting the unintended consequence of increased food imports, which could exacerbate the situation. The phrase 'making things worse' reflects the text's concern about the ecological burden shifting to producer nations and the potential increase in greenhouse emissions.
Option 3: "Food imports to the UK have increased over the past few decades, which has meant more greenhouse gas emissions. The government proposes limiting any more agricultural land to prevent this increasing further."
Explanation: This option misrepresents the text by suggesting that the government proposes limiting agricultural land to prevent increased greenhouse gas emissions. The text does not mention any proposal to limit agricultural land; rather, it discusses the conversion of farmland to forest and the implications of increased food imports. Additionally, while food imports have increased, the text emphasizes the future implications rather than stating that they have already led to more emissions.
Option 4: "Farmers are unable to produce enough food to meet the needs of the British. Consequently, food imports need to increase despite the harm to the environment this may bring. Increasing forest and peat bog cover might help with this issue."
Explanation: This option inaccurately presents the situation by stating that farmers are unable to produce enough food, which is not explicitly stated in the text. The text discusses the insufficiency of agricultural land but does not claim that farmers cannot produce enough food. Furthermore, it does not suggest that increasing forest and peat bog cover will help with the food supply issue; instead, it raises concerns about the ecological impact of increased food imports.

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.

Be the first! No community answers here yet — submit yours and help others learn.

Saving...