| TRUE | if the statement agrees with the information |
| FALSE | if the statement contradicts the information |
| NOT GIVEN | if there is no information on this |
Environmental enemy
The Cost of Coal
1. IS ECONOMIC GROWTH bad for the environment? It is certainly fashionable in some quarters to argue that trade and capitalism are choking the planet to death. Yet, there is little evidence to back up such alarmism. On the contrary, there is reason to believe not only that growth can be compatible with environmentalism, but that it often bolsters it.
2. This is not, however, to say that there aren't any environmental problems to worry about. In particular, the needlessly unhealthy and inefficient way in which we use energy is the biggest source of environmental fouling. That is why it makes sense to start a slow shift away from today's filthy use of fossil fuels towards a cleaner, low-carbon future. There are three reasons for calling for such an energy revolution.
3. First, a switch to cleaner energy would make tackling other green concerns a lot easier. That is because dealing with many of these energy concerns, e.g. treating chemical waste, recycling aluminium or burning rubbish, is an energy-intensive task.
4. The second reason is that burning fossil fuels is having a massive effect on climate change. The most sensible way for governments to tackle this problem is to send a powerful signal that the world must move towards a low-carbon future. That would spur all sorts of innovations in clean energy.
5. The third reason is the most pressing of all: human health. In poor countries, where inefficient power stations, sooty coal boilers and bad ventilation are the norm, air pollution is one of the leading but preventable causes of death. It affects the rich world, too: from Athens to Beijing, multitudes are affected by the inhalation of fine carbon particles released by the combustion of fossil fuels.
6. Dethroning King Coal
The dream of cleaner energy will never be realised as long as the balance tips towards dirty technology. For a start, governments must stop subsidies and exemptions that actually encourage the consumption of fossil fuels.
7. Some of these subsidies, such as cash aiven to the coal industry, are blatantly foolhardy. Others are less obvious, but no less damaging. There are currently coal plants using technology over 30 years old, yet they are exempt from the legislation which aims to reduce the harmful emissions they produce. Far from trying to close these plants down, in some cases certain measures have been announced giving these production facilities a new lease of life. This blame can be laid at the door of rich and poor countries alike; many developing countries subsidise electricity heavily in the name of helping poor people, but rich farmers and urban elites guzzle the largest share of cheap, fossil power.
8. A second recommendation is for the rich world to help poorer countries switch to cleaner energy. The International Energy Agency has estimated that there are 1.6 billion people in the world who are unable to use modern energy. They often walk many miles to fetcn wood, or collect cow dung to use as fuel. As the poor world grows richer in the coming decades and builds thousands of power plants, many of these people will get electricity. However, many of these plants will burn coal in a dirty way. The rich world must be ready to pay for the poor to change to low-carbon energy. This should not be regarded as charity, but rather as a form of insurance against global warming.
9. The final and most crucial step is to start pricing energy properly. At the moment, the harm done to human health and the environment from burning fossil fuels is not reflected in the price of non-renewable fuels in most countries. There is no perfect way to do this, but one good idea is for governments to impose a tax based on carbon emissions. Such a tax could be introduced gradually, with the revenues raised returned as reductions in, say, labour tax. That would make it absolutely clear that the time has come to stop burning dirty fuels such as coal.
The dawning of the age of hydrogen
10. None of these changes kill off coal altogether. Rather, they would provide a much-needed boost to the development of low-carbon technologies. Naturally, renewable energy such as solar and wind power will get a boost. But so too would 'sequestration', an innovative way of using fossil fuels without releasing carbon into the air.
11. his is important for two reasons. For a start, there is so much cheap coal, distributed all over the world, that poor countries are bound to burn it. The second reason is that sequestration offers a fine stepping-stone to squeaky-clean hydrogen energy. Once the energy trapped in coal is unleashed and its carbon sequestered, energyladen hydrogen can be used directly in fuel cells. These nifty inventions can power a laptop, car or home without any harmful emissions at all.
12. It will take time to establish this hydrogen age, but there are promising signs. Within a few years, nearly every big car manufacturer plans to have fuel-cell cars on the road. Power plants using this technology are already trickling onto the market. Most big oil companies have active hydrogen and carbon-sequestration efforts under way. Even some green groups opposed to all fossil-fuel burning say they are willing to accept sequestration as a bridge to a renewable-based hydrogen future. But best of all, this approach offers even the staunchest defenders of coal a realistic long-term plan for tackling climate change.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Understanding where the passage says most deaths occur - location comparison
Correct Answer: TRUE
Why this is correct: The passage clearly says that in poor countries air pollution is one of the leading causes of death, while the rich world is also affected but described less strongly. This shows deaths happen mainly in developing countries.
Passage Reference: The third reason is the most pressing of all: human health. In poor countries, where inefficient power stations, sooty coal boilers and bad ventilation are the norm, air pollution is one of the leading but preventable causes of death. It affects the rich world, too: from Athens to Beijing, multitudes are affected by the inhalation of fine carbon particles released by the combustion of fossil fuels.
Common Mistake: Some students choose FALSE because the passage also mentions rich countries. That misses the comparison. Saying it affects the rich world too does not contradict that deaths occur mainly in poorer countries. This is a Partial truth trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'poor countries ... leading ... causes of death' = Statement: 'occur mainly in the developing world'
Tips: When you see words like mainly, look for a comparison showing one side is stronger than the other.
Key Vocabulary:
- preventable = can be avoided
- inhalation = breathing in
Question Focus: Identifying shared responsibility - not only developed countries
Correct Answer: FALSE
Passage Reference: This blame can be laid at the door of rich and poor countries alike; many developing countries subsidise electricity heavily in the name of helping poor people, but rich farmers and urban elites guzzle the largest share of cheap, fossil power.
Why this is correct: The passage says blame lies with rich and poor countries alike, not mainly with developed countries. This directly contradicts the statement.
Common Mistake: Students often focus only on rich countries mentioned earlier and ignore the phrase rich and poor countries alike. This is a clear Contradiction trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'rich and poor countries alike' = Statement: 'developed countries are mainly to blame'
Tips: Watch for phrases that show shared responsibility, such as alike, both, or equally.
Key Vocabulary:
- alike = equally
- subsidise = give financial support
Question Focus: Separating environmental benefits from economic growth claims
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: A second recommendation is for the rich world to help poorer countries switch to cleaner energy. The International Energy Agency has estimated that there are 1.6 billion people in the world who are unable to use modern energy.
Why this is correct: The passage talks about helping poorer countries switch to cleaner energy, but it does not say this will stimulate economic growth. The passage does not discuss whether switching fuels boosts poorer countries' economies.
Common Mistake: Students often assume cleaner energy automatically means economic growth. That idea is not stated in the passage. This is a Not Given trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'help poorer countries switch to cleaner energy' = Statement: 'stimulating economic growth in poorer countries'
Tips: Do not add your own logic. If economic growth is not mentioned, it is NOT GIVEN.
Key Vocabulary:
- stimulate = encourage or boost
- non-carbon fuels = low-carbon energy
Question Focus: Recognising future increase in energy use
Correct Answer: TRUE
Passage Reference: As the poor world grows richer in the coming decades and builds thousands of power plants, many of these people will get electricity. However, many of these plants will burn coal in a dirty way.
Why this is correct: The passage says the poor world will build thousands of power plants and more people will get electricity. This clearly shows global energy needs will increase.
Common Mistake: Some students look for exact words like increase dramatically and miss the idea of building thousands of power plants. This is a Synonym match situation.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'builds thousands of power plants' = Statement: 'energy requirements are set to increase dramatically'
Tips: Look for future plans or predictions, not only numbers or statistics.
Key Vocabulary:
- requirements = needs
- coming decades = future years
Question Focus: Understanding the reason given - insurance, not morality
Correct Answer: FALSE
Passage Reference: The rich world must be ready to pay for the poor to change to low-carbon energy. This should not be regarded as charity, but rather as a form of insurance against global warming.
Why this is correct: The passage explicitly says this help is not charity and describes it as insurance, not a moral duty. That directly contradicts the idea of moral responsibility.
Common Mistake: Students see rich countries helping poor ones and assume morality. The passage clearly rejects that idea. This is a Contradiction trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'not be regarded as charity' = Statement: 'moral responsibility'
Tips: Pay attention when the writer says what something is not. That often signals a FALSE answer.
Key Vocabulary:
- charity = help given out of kindness
- insurance = protection against risk
Question Focus: Tracking how tax revenue is used
Correct Answer: FALSE
Passage Reference: One good idea is for governments to impose a tax based on carbon emissions. Such a tax could be introduced gradually, with the revenues raised returned as reductions in, say, labour tax.
Why this is correct: The passage says the money would be returned as reductions in labour tax, not used to build cleaner power plants. This is the opposite of the statement.
Common Mistake: Students assume tax money funds green projects, but the passage gives a different use. This is a Contradiction trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'returned as reductions ... labour tax' = Statement: 'used to fund the building of cleaner power plants'
Tips: Always follow the money. Check exactly what the passage says the tax will be used for.
Key Vocabulary:
- revenues = money collected
- impose a tax = introduce a tax
Question Focus: Origin of technology - who developed it
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: But so too would 'sequestration', an innovative way of using fossil fuels without releasing carbon into the air. Most big oil companies have active hydrogen and carbon-sequestration efforts under way.
Why this is correct: The passage says oil companies have active efforts under way, but it does not say they first developed the technology. The origin of sequestration is not discussed.
Common Mistake: Students confuse companies using or investing in a technology with inventing it. This is a classic Not Given trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'have active ... efforts under way' = Statement: 'first developed by major oil production companies'
Tips: Using or supporting something is not the same as inventing it. Check for origin words like first or developed.
Key Vocabulary:
- sequestration = trapping carbon
- under way = currently happening
General Tips:
- TFNG statements follow passage order - use the previous answer's location to find the next one.
- Words like mainly, first, or moral responsibility often change the meaning. Check them carefully.
- Do not use your own knowledge about the world. Only trust what is written in the passage.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation