Lesson #3
Reading Comprehension
There are two reading selections in this lesson.
 Please answer questions on lined paper
 Be sure that your name, date and lesson number are at the top of page 1
 Headings should appear before your answers
 All answers need to make sense on their own (without the questions in
front of me)
Read the following editorial by David Suzuki, from CNEWS Science. It deals with
the "Kyoto Protocol", an ambitious global environmental treaty that has caused
great controversy. Answer the questions that follow.
"Waiting to Fight Climate Change not a Viable Option"
David Suzuki
June 9, 2002
Scientists and environmental groups often paint grim pictures of a world with a
substantially altered climate. One where rising sea levels inundate agricultural
land and low-lying areas, creating millions of "climate refugees;" one where many
species are unable to adapt to rapid warming, causing extinction and loss of
biodiversity; one where air pollution becomes much worse and water becomes
scarce in many regions. The scenarios aren't pretty.
But the fact is, even if we start reducing our emissions today, we can't stop global
warming in its tracks because the warming has already begun and it will take
centuries before some effects, such as sea level rise, stop entirely. This leads to
a common complaint some critics raise against the Kyoto Protocol, the only
international framework set up to reduce the emissions that cause climate
change. Alone, it will do little to curb the problem, so what's the point?
The point is that the immediate goal is not to completely stop or reverse climate
change. That may prove impossible. Instead, the goal, according to the 1992
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is to stabilize
concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels to "avoid dangerous anthropogenic
interference" with the climate - a phrase that's hard to say and even harder to
define. Dangerous according to whom?
Two scientists explore this question in a recent edition of the journal Science.
The researchers, from Brown and Princeton Universities, define "dangerous" as
either warming that puts unique and valuable ecosystems at risk or warming that
risks "large-scale discontinuities in the climate system" - in other words, warming
that severely disrupts our current environment.
The authors look at coral reefs as a good example of a valuable ecosystem
under serious threat from climate change. These reefs are extremely important
for tourism, fishing, and the incredible life diversity they house. But these
ecosystems also exist in a precarious balance, close to their "upper thermal
limits." This means that any increases in water temperature can be fatal, as has
been seen during recent El Nino events, which caused widespread coral
bleaching and death.
Over the past 100 years humans have increased the concentration of carbon
dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, in our atmosphere by about 30 per
cent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 365 ppm. This increase has pushed up
global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized
and reduced.
Looking at coral reefs, the authors say that preventing severe damage will
require a long term target of temperatures no more than 1 degree C above 1990
levels. According to the authors, a realistic goal in terms of carbon dioxide
concentration is 450 ppm, which will still result in temperature increases of
between 1.2 and 2.3 degrees C over the next 100 years. Although this goal will
not fully protect reefs and other ecosystems, the authors point out that it may
prevent whole-scale disruption of the climate system, which could result from the
disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (this alone would raise sea levels
by an astonishing four to six metres), or the shut-down of density-driven ocean
currents such as the Gulf Stream.
How does Kyoto fit into all of this? Well, the authors look at the chances of
meeting a 450 ppm target using both the Kyoto emission reduction scenario and
a delayed scenario, where we wait until better technologies are available to
reduce emissions faster later on. They conclude that waiting a decade before
starting to make significant reductions will make it very difficult and prohibitively
costly to reach a 450 ppm target. In contrast, "the scenario consistent with the
Kyoto targets in 2010 requires challenging, but substantially lower reduction
rates."
Kyoto, it seems, is more than just one choice in an array of possibilities to
"prevent dangerous anthropogentic interference" with our climate. Given the
length of time it takes to create these complex international treaties and the
speed with which emissions continue to increase, it is actually our only realistic
option.
(http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWSScience0206/19_suzuki-can.html)
Investigating the Editorial
Answer the following questions in full sentence/proper answer form. (15 marks)
1. What is the topic of David Suzuki's editorial? (1 mark)
2. What is the author's opinion on the topic? (1 mark)
3. What is the purpose of this editorial? (1 mark)
4a. This editorial relates an opposing point of view or criticism of its claim. What
is that criticism? Quote from the editorial in your answer. (2 marks)
b. How does David Suzuki respond to this criticism? Quote from the editorial in
your answer. (2 marks)
5. Relate two pieces of evidence Suzuki uses to support his arguments. (2
marks)
6. Discuss the effectiveness of Suzuki's concluding paragraph. Is this an
effective conclusion? On the whole, is this an effective editorial? Explain
your answer. (6 marks)
Making Inferences
Read the following short story and then answer the questions, making inferences
based on the story.
“The King of Beasts”
Philip Jose Farmer
The biologist was showing the famous visitor through the zoo and laboratory.
"Our budget," he said, "is too limited to re-create all known extinct species. So
we bring to life only the higher animals, the beautiful ones that were wantonly
exterminated. I'm trying, as it were. to make up for brutality and stupidity. You
might say that man struck life in the face every time he wiped out a branch of the
animal kingdom."
He paused, and they looked across the moats and the force fields. The
quagga wheeled and galloped. Delight and sun flashed off his flanks. The sea
otter poked his humorous whiskers from the water. The gorilla peered from
behind bamboo. Passenger pigeons strutted. A rhinoceros trotted like a dainty
battleship. With gentle eyes, a giraffe looked at them, then resumed eating
leaves.
"There's the dodo. Not beautiful but very droll. And very helpless. Come. I'll
show you the re-creation itself."
In the great building, they passed between rows of tall and wide tanks. They
could see clearly through the windows and the jelly within.
"Those will be African elephants," said the biologist. "We plan to grow a large
herd and then release them on the new government preserve."
"You positively glow," said the distinguished visitor. "You really love animals,
don't you?"
"I love all life."
"Tell me," said the visitor, "where do you get the data for recreation?"
"Mostly, skeletons and skins from the ancient museums. Excavated books
and films that we succeeded in restoring and then translating. Ah, see those
huge eggs? The chicks of the giant moa are growing within them. There, almost
ready to be taken from the tank, are tiger cubs. They'll be dangerous when
grown but will be kept in the preserve."
The visitor stopped before the last of the tanks.
"Just one?" he said. "What is it?"
"Poor little thing." said the biologist. "It will be so alone. But I shall give it all
the love I have."
"Is it so dangerous?" said the visitor. "Worse than elephants, tigers, and
bears?".
"I had to get special permission to grow this one," said the biologist. His voice
quavered.
The visitor stepped sharply back from the tank. He said, "Then it must be . . .
but you wouldn't dare!"
The biologist nodded.
"Yes. It's a man."
The following questions ask you to make inferences about "The King of Beasts".
This exercise is worth 15 marks.
(i)
(ii)
Answer questions 1 to 5, explaining what lead you to reach each answer
(2 marks each).
Answer the follow-up question at the end of this section (5 marks).
1. What was the cause of the extinction of a great many animals?
2. When is this story taking place?
3. According to the biologist, what is more dangerous: tigers or humans?
4. Why is the biologist only allowed to grow one of the last specimens?
5. Are the characters in the story human?
Answer the following question in approximately 150 words. (5 marks)
6. The author of this short story has made an extrapolation from human actions
of our past and present in order to show the future result of these actions.
Discuss what supporting evidence he has to make his prediction. What
message does this short story then hold for the audience of today?
Please complete the following grammar assignment:
Parts of speech continued!
For each of the sentences below do your best to do the following:
 Underline the subject
 Put a squiggly line below the predicate
 Put a double underline below the object (the noun that answers “what” to
the verb/ predicate)
 Put prepositional phrases in brackets
The student shot milk through his nose when he laughed.
English teachers like boring stories.
We traveled through Europe on a train.
I burned the sausage on the BBQ.
It is unwise to walk barefoot in my backyard where my dog
poos.