Environmental English (3)
In this programme, we'll be asking looking at some of the many dangers facing humanity, from climate
change and global pandemics to asteroid impacts and nuclear war. We'll be finding out whether
human civilisation can survive these risks and looking at some of the related vocabulary as well.
Do you really think humans could become extinct and end up as dead as the dodo?
Ah, so of course you've heard of the dodo?
Yes, dodos were large, metre-high birds which died out in the 1600s
after being hunted to extinction by humans.
That's right. Dodos couldn't fly and weren't very clever.
They didn't hide when sailors with hunting dogs landed on their island.
The species was hunted so much that within a century, every single bird had died out.
But do you know which island the dodo was from, Sam? That's my quiz question for today. Was it:
a) The Galapagos
b) Mauritius
c) Fiji
I'll guess the Galapagos, Neil, because I know many exotic animals live there.
By the way, that's also cheered me up a bit because as humans we
are much smarter than the dodo! We're far too clever to die out, aren't we?
I'm not sure I agree, Sam. Lots of the existential risks - the worst
possible things that could happen to humanity, such as nuclear war,
global pandemics or rogue artificial intelligence, are human-made. These
threats could have catastrophic consequences for human survival in the 21st century.
That's true. But existential risks don't only threaten the survival of the human species.
Instead, they could destroy civilisation as we know it,
leaving pockets of survivors to struggle on in a post-apocalyptic world.
And it wouldn't be the first time that has happened,
as the BBC World Service programme The Inquiry found out.
Simon Beard of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge University explains:
The historical record suggests that about once every thousand years an event occurs that wipes
out about a third of the human population – so in the Middle Ages, this was the Black Death - huge
plague that covered Eurasia, while there was also dramatic global cooling at that time which many
people think was related to volcanic eruptions and about a third of the global population died.
So, humanity has been facing these risks throughout history, according to the historical
record – the collection of all written and recorded past events concerning the human race.
Yes. Wars and plagues –infectious, epidemic diseases which spread between countries
can quickly wipe out – or completely destroy, millions of people.
And there's not much we can do to stop disasters like that!
True, Sam, but what about individuals who actively work to bring about the end of the world - like
apocalyptic terrorists, rampage shooters and fundamentalist cults like those who
organised the poisonous gas attack on the Tokyo subway.
Those are people who want to end human life on Earth and bring about
Doomsday - another word for the final, apocalyptic day of the world's existence.
Right. And things got even scarier in modern times with the invention of nuclear weapons.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis between America and the USSR for example, risk experts estimated
a 41% probability that human life would be completely wiped out! Seth Baum of New York's
Global Catastrophic Risk Institute explains how human error almost brought about Doomsday:
There are some ways that you could get to a nuclear war
without really intending to, and probably the biggest example is if you have a false alarm
that is mistaken as a nuclear attack, and there have been a number of,
maybe even very serious false alarms, over the years, in which one side or the other genuinely
believed that they were under nuclear attack, when in fact they were not at all under nuclear attack.
One such false alarm - an incorrect warning given so that people wrongly
believe something dangerous is about to happen, came about in 1995, when the US
sent missiles up into the Earth's atmosphere to study the aurora borealis, the northern lights.
Soviet radars picked up the missiles, thinking they were nuclear warheads and almost retaliated.
Nuclear Armageddon was only averted by the actions of one clear-thinking Russian general
who decided not to push the red button
Phew! A close shave then! Well, Neil, all this doomongering has
made me want to just give it all up and live on a desert island!
Like the dodo eh, Sam? So, which island would that be? If you remember,
today's quiz question asked where the dodo was from.
I said The Galapagos.
And I'm afraid to say it was b) Mauritius. So, to recap, in this programme we've been discussing
Doomsday – the final day of life on Earth and other existential
threats - dangers threatening the survival of humans on the planet.
We looked back throughout the historical record - all recorded human history,
to see examples of threats which have wiped out, or killed millions of people in the past,
including wars and plagues which spread epidemic diseases between populations.
And we've seen how modern dangers, like nuclear war and climate change,
further reduce the probability of human survival. But Sam, it's not all doom and gloom!
The same scientific intelligence which split the atom could also find
solutions to our human-made problems in the 21st century, don't you think?
So, the end of the world might be a false alarm – or unfounded warning – after all!
Let's hope we'll all still be here next time for another edition of 6 Minute English. Bye for now!
Bye.
Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I'm Sam…
And I'm Neil.
In this programme, we're discussing low emission
zones and explaining some useful items of vocabulary along the way.
Well, that's good, Sam. But what exactly is a low emission zone?
Well, the noun emission is an amount of,
usually, gas, that is sent out into the air and harms the environment – it's pollution.
And a low emission zone is an area of a city where the amount of pollution is controlled.
Of course, and cities like London have them - most vehicles, including cars and vans,
need to meet certain emissions standards or their drivers must pay a daily charge
to drive within the zone – or they might even be banned altogether.
Exactly. It's all about making the air we breathe cleaner. And my question today is
about one UK city which recently announced it wants to be the country's first ‘net zero'
city - placing their greenhouse emissions at a neutral level. But which one is it? Is it…
a) Glasgow
b) Manchester
c) Cardiff
Ah yes, I've heard about this and I'm sure it is a) Glasgow.
OK, I'll let you know if that was correct at the end of the programme. Now,
Neil mentioned that London already has an ultra-low emission zone. But this year,
other UK cities, including Bath, Leeds and Birmingham, are also bringing in Clean Air Zones.
And around the world, many other cities, like Beijing, Paris and Madrid have these zones.
Although there are many types of emissions, such as from factories, these zones predominantly
target exhaust fumes from vehicles – poisonous gases called nitrogen dioxide.
Let's hear from an expert on this - Alastair Lewis, who is a Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry
at the University of York. He spoke to BBC Radio 4's Inside Science programme and explained why
we should be trying to reduce these pollutants – a word for the substances that cause pollution…
Most of the evidence we have now on air pollution is that we continue to see
health benefits by reducing pollution, even when you're below the target value. So, just because
the city meets a particular value, there is still an incentive to continue to improve air quality,
because the health benefits continue to build up as you do that. So, targets are very good
at focusing the mind, but they shouldn't be the only thing that we're considering.
Alastair Lewis mentions ‘targets'. These are official levels of something that need to
be achieved. They give us something to aim for – in this case reducing air pollution.
He uses the phrase ‘focusing the mind' – that means to concentrate on one idea or thought.
But, while setting a target to cut air pollution is good – it has health benefits – we shouldn't
just focus on meeting the target. Even if the target is met, we shouldn't stop
trying to improve. The incentive should be that we are improving people's health.
And an incentive is something that encourages someone to do something.
So, I think it's accepted that creating low emission zones is an incentive because it
encourages people to either not drive into cities or to, at least, drive low-polluting vehicles.
And, of course, changing to electric-powered cars
is one way to do this. There's more of an incentive to do this now, at least in the UK,
because the government has said new diesel and petrol cars and vans will be banned from 2040.
But pollution from vehicles is just part of the problem, as Alastair Lewis points out…
One has to accept that air pollution is an enormously complex
problem with a very very large number of contributing sources, and there will never
be any one single action that will cure the problem for us. So, low emission zones are
one way to reduce concentrations, but they are not, in isolation, going to be the solution.
So, Alastair points out that air pollution is a complex problem – it's complicated,
difficult and involves many parts.
Yes, there are many sources – things that create these emissions. So,
it's not possible to solve - or cure – the problem by doing one thing.
Low emission zones are only one part of the solution to the problem.
He said it was one way to reduce concentrations – he means amounts of substances, pollutants,
found in something, which here is the air.
Well, earlier, Neil, you had to concentrate your mind and answer a question about
emissions. I asked which UK city recently announced it wants to be the country's first
‘net zero' city - placing their greenhouse emissions at a neutral level. Was it…
a) Glasgow
b) Manchester, or
c) Cardiff
And, Neil, what did you say?
I said it's Glasgow.
And it is Glasgow! Well done, Neil. It wants to become the UK's first ‘net zero' city. And
later this year it is hosting a major United Nations climate change summit.
OK, Sam, I think we need a recap of the vocabulary we've discussed, starting with emissions…
Emissions are amounts of, usually, gas that is sent out into the air from things like cars.
They harm the environment. And pollutants are the actual substances that cause pollution…
To focus the mind means to concentrate on one idea or thought.
And we mentioned an incentive, which is something that encourages someone to do something.
Complex describes something that is complicated, difficult and involves many parts.
And when talking about pollution, we sometimes talk about concentrations.
These are amounts of substances, or pollutants, within something.
So, in a polluted city, we might find high concentrations of nitrogen
dioxide because of all the traffic – it's not great for our health, Sam.
Indeed, Neil – that's why we need low emission zones!
And that brings us to the end of this 6 Minute English programme. See you soon. Bye.
Goodbye.
Hello and happy Christmas! This is 6 Minute English with me,
Neil. And joining me today is Sam.
Hello.
So, Sam, are you feeling excited about Christmas?
Of course! Time with friends and family, eating lots,
partying, presents – and generally indulging – what's not to like?
Indulging – allowing yourself to have perhaps too much of something you enjoy. Well, it only
happens once a year, Sam. But for those of us who do celebrate Christmas, it comes at a price.
Yes, well buying all those presents can be expensive.
Not just that, Sam. I mean it comes at a cost to the environment, as we'll explain shortly.
