Animals and the places where they live are getting pushed aside as households(家庭)decrease in size and increase in number.
Smaller numbers of people per household on average use more energy and goods per person. Greater numbers of households require more natural resources for construction. The possible result of this double problems may be that there are not enough natural resources to meet consumers’ demand without endangering habitats important to biodiversity.
Personal freedom and social choice may come at a huge environmental cost. Direct costs include visible damage to animal habitats and plant life. Indirect costs include the release of more greenhouse gases.
The effects of such“personal freedom and social choice”have already surfaced in southwest China’s Wolong Nature Reserve. In Wolong, they found that a reduced average household size was directly tied to an increase in homes, and thus an increase in the amount of firewood used for cooking and heating. The rise in wood fuel use has led to the disappearance of forests and to the loss of habitats for giant pandas.
Curious about whether other parts of the world were experiencing a similar situation, they enlisted a team of researchers including Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich, well known for his population studies, to find out the household dynamics in 141 countries—between 1985 and 2000.Their study proved that the Wolong problem is part of a global trend.
In the 76 countries considered biodiversity“hotspots”,such as the United States, Brazil, Australia and Kenya ,the number of households grew yearly by 3.1%,while the population increased just 1.8%.Meanwhile,the number of people per home dropped from 4.7 to 4.0．The decrease in household size has resulted in 155 million additional households in hotspot countries, almost always limiting biodiversity.
In the 65 non-hot-spot countries—those without high-density areas of animals and plant species—similar results were found, though to a lesser degree. Even in countries experiencing population decrease, such as New Zealand, the number of households still increased because of a reduction in household size.
1．What is mainly discussed in the passage?
A．Reduction in household size and increase in household numbers is a danger to nature.
B．Reduced household size leads to an increase in household numbers.
C．Modern homes consume more natural resources.
D．How to meet consumers’ demand without endangering animals and their habitats.
2．It can be learned from the passage that China’s Wolong Nature Reserve________.
A．is a place where giant pandas and their habitats are not affected
B．is a place where animals and their habitats are seriously damaged
C．sets a good example of protecting animals
D．is facing the same threat as many other parts of the world
3．Which of the following is best supported by the last two paragraphs?
A．The threat to nature from reduction in household size is a worldwide problem.
B．Biodiversity is better kept in countries with smaller populations.
C．Biodiversity is better kept in hot-spot countries.
D．Both hot-spot countries and non-hot-spot countries face threat of the same percentage.
4．Which of the following can best describe the feeling of the author?
A．Disappointed． B．Hopeful. C．Worried． D．Angry.