DAY 1 – NAPLAN Year 5 Group 1 Reading

Read the articles below then answer the questions that follow.

Saving Natural Habitats

In 1962, a book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. It was about the damage pesticides were doing to the natural environment and human health. The book became a best-seller and helped the environmental movement grow and become part of the social revolution of the 1960s. More people were also joining organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or starting new organisations like Greenpeace. Meanwhile, government departments like the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were being established in countries all around the world.

Despite all the work that people in organisations like these have done since the 1960s, and despite all the protests and street marches that have been held, things have only gotten worse. Habitat destruction has increased enormously, so much so that by 2020 only 3% of the world’s wilderness remains undamaged by human activity. Wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 68% since 1970 according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2020, and over 37,400 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and plants are now threatened with extinction.

What went wrong? Why have things become so much worse since the 1960s? The WWF Living Planet Report cited above notes that “Since 1970, total gross domestic product (GDP) has increased four times, the extraction of living materials from nature has tripled, and human population has doubled (p. 52)”. The report concludes that rising populations and increasing GDPs have led to more and more people being able to afford a high standard of living, and that this is the main reason for both habitat loss and the climate change emergency.

Many other reports have reached the same conclusion. In 2019, a study commissioned by The United Nations concluded that “High consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.”

If high levels of consumption are so damaging, why do we still want to consume so much? One reason is that companies use advertising to increase sales and profits, and advertising promotes consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that consuming makes us happy, and that buying expensive designer clothes and luxury goods, living in a big house, owning an expensive car, eating gourmet foods, travelling the world, etc is the best way to live. But living this way is directly related to environmental destruction and habitat loss.

A good example of how consumerism and higher standards of living cause habitat loss is the fact that more of us can now afford to eat expensive meats like steak. To satisfy the growing demand for steak, more and more forests in areas like the Amazon Basin are being destroyed to make way for farms that raise beef cattle. So one way to help save natural habitats is to eat less steak and beef. Doing something simple like this can really help, maybe even more than protesting on the streets or debating online.

The problems we have created have become so serious that we’re now facing a life-or-death global emergency. To survive this emergency, we’ll have to change our entire way of life and start putting nature at the centre of our decision-making.

Answer the following questions by choosing the letter of the best answer.

A person who purchases goods and services for personal use is called

Read the articles below then answer the questions that follow.

Saving Natural Habitats

In 1962, a book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. It was about the damage pesticides were doing to the natural environment and human health. The book became a best-seller and helped the environmental movement grow and become part of the social revolution of the 1960s. More people were also joining organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or starting new organisations like Greenpeace. Meanwhile, government departments like the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were being established in countries all around the world.

Despite all the work that people in organisations like these have done since the 1960s, and despite all the protests and street marches that have been held, things have only gotten worse. Habitat destruction has increased enormously, so much so that by 2020 only 3% of the world’s wilderness remains undamaged by human activity. Wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 68% since 1970 according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2020, and over 37,400 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and plants are now threatened with extinction.

What went wrong? Why have things become so much worse since the 1960s? The WWF Living Planet Report cited above notes that “Since 1970, total gross domestic product (GDP) has increased four times, the extraction of living materials from nature has tripled, and human population has doubled (p. 52)”. The report concludes that rising populations and increasing GDPs have led to more and more people being able to afford a high standard of living, and that this is the main reason for both habitat loss and the climate change emergency.

Many other reports have reached the same conclusion. In 2019, a study commissioned by The United Nations concluded that “High consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.”

If high levels of consumption are so damaging, why do we still want to consume so much? One reason is that companies use advertising to increase sales and profits, and advertising promotes consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that consuming makes us happy, and that buying expensive designer clothes and luxury goods, living in a big house, owning an expensive car, eating gourmet foods, travelling the world, etc is the best way to live. But living this way is directly related to environmental destruction and habitat loss.

A good example of how consumerism and higher standards of living cause habitat loss is the fact that more of us can now afford to eat expensive meats like steak. To satisfy the growing demand for steak, more and more forests in areas like the Amazon Basin are being destroyed to make way for farms that raise beef cattle. So one way to help save natural habitats is to eat less steak and beef. Doing something simple like this can really help, maybe even more than protesting on the streets or debating online.

The problems we have created have become so serious that we’re now facing a life-or-death global emergency. To survive this emergency, we’ll have to change our entire way of life and start putting nature at the centre of our decision-making.

Reducing production and consumption to sustainable levels is part of a policy of

Read the articles below then answer the questions that follow.

Saving Natural Habitats

In 1962, a book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. It was about the damage pesticides were doing to the natural environment and human health. The book became a best-seller and helped the environmental movement grow and become part of the social revolution of the 1960s. More people were also joining organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or starting new organisations like Greenpeace. Meanwhile, government departments like the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were being established in countries all around the world.

Despite all the work that people in organisations like these have done since the 1960s, and despite all the protests and street marches that have been held, things have only gotten worse. Habitat destruction has increased enormously, so much so that by 2020 only 3% of the world’s wilderness remains undamaged by human activity. Wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 68% since 1970 according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2020, and over 37,400 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and plants are now threatened with extinction.

What went wrong? Why have things become so much worse since the 1960s? The WWF Living Planet Report cited above notes that “Since 1970, total gross domestic product (GDP) has increased four times, the extraction of living materials from nature has tripled, and human population has doubled (p. 52)”. The report concludes that rising populations and increasing GDPs have led to more and more people being able to afford a high standard of living, and that this is the main reason for both habitat loss and the climate change emergency.

Many other reports have reached the same conclusion. In 2019, a study commissioned by The United Nations concluded that “High consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.”

If high levels of consumption are so damaging, why do we still want to consume so much? One reason is that companies use advertising to increase sales and profits, and advertising promotes consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that consuming makes us happy, and that buying expensive designer clothes and luxury goods, living in a big house, owning an expensive car, eating gourmet foods, travelling the world, etc is the best way to live. But living this way is directly related to environmental destruction and habitat loss.

A good example of how consumerism and higher standards of living cause habitat loss is the fact that more of us can now afford to eat expensive meats like steak. To satisfy the growing demand for steak, more and more forests in areas like the Amazon Basin are being destroyed to make way for farms that raise beef cattle. So one way to help save natural habitats is to eat less steak and beef. Doing something simple like this can really help, maybe even more than protesting on the streets or debating online.

The problems we have created have become so serious that we’re now facing a life-or-death global emergency. To survive this emergency, we’ll have to change our entire way of life and start putting nature at the centre of our decision-making.

The article’s purpose is

Read the articles below then answer the questions that follow.

Saving Natural Habitats

In 1962, a book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. It was about the damage pesticides were doing to the natural environment and human health. The book became a best-seller and helped the environmental movement grow and become part of the social revolution of the 1960s. More people were also joining organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or starting new organisations like Greenpeace. Meanwhile, government departments like the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were being established in countries all around the world.

Despite all the work that people in organisations like these have done since the 1960s, and despite all the protests and street marches that have been held, things have only gotten worse. Habitat destruction has increased enormously, so much so that by 2020 only 3% of the world’s wilderness remains undamaged by human activity. Wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 68% since 1970 according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2020, and over 37,400 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and plants are now threatened with extinction.

What went wrong? Why have things become so much worse since the 1960s? The WWF Living Planet Report cited above notes that “Since 1970, total gross domestic product (GDP) has increased four times, the extraction of living materials from nature has tripled, and human population has doubled (p. 52)”. The report concludes that rising populations and increasing GDPs have led to more and more people being able to afford a high standard of living, and that this is the main reason for both habitat loss and the climate change emergency.

Many other reports have reached the same conclusion. In 2019, a study commissioned by The United Nations concluded that “High consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.”

If high levels of consumption are so damaging, why do we still want to consume so much? One reason is that companies use advertising to increase sales and profits, and advertising promotes consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that consuming makes us happy, and that buying expensive designer clothes and luxury goods, living in a big house, owning an expensive car, eating gourmet foods, travelling the world, etc is the best way to live. But living this way is directly related to environmental destruction and habitat loss.

A good example of how consumerism and higher standards of living cause habitat loss is the fact that more of us can now afford to eat expensive meats like steak. To satisfy the growing demand for steak, more and more forests in areas like the Amazon Basin are being destroyed to make way for farms that raise beef cattle. So one way to help save natural habitats is to eat less steak and beef. Doing something simple like this can really help, maybe even more than protesting on the streets or debating online.

The problems we have created have become so serious that we’re now facing a life-or-death global emergency. To survive this emergency, we’ll have to change our entire way of life and start putting nature at the centre of our decision-making.

A more environmentally sustainable way of life can include

Read the articles below then answer the questions that follow.

Saving Natural Habitats

In 1962, a book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. It was about the damage pesticides were doing to the natural environment and human health. The book became a best-seller and helped the environmental movement grow and become part of the social revolution of the 1960s. More people were also joining organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or starting new organisations like Greenpeace. Meanwhile, government departments like the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were being established in countries all around the world.

Despite all the work that people in organisations like these have done since the 1960s, and despite all the protests and street marches that have been held, things have only gotten worse. Habitat destruction has increased enormously, so much so that by 2020 only 3% of the world’s wilderness remains undamaged by human activity. Wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 68% since 1970 according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2020, and over 37,400 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and plants are now threatened with extinction.

What went wrong? Why have things become so much worse since the 1960s? The WWF Living Planet Report cited above notes that “Since 1970, total gross domestic product (GDP) has increased four times, the extraction of living materials from nature has tripled, and human population has doubled (p. 52)”. The report concludes that rising populations and increasing GDPs have led to more and more people being able to afford a high standard of living, and that this is the main reason for both habitat loss and the climate change emergency.

Many other reports have reached the same conclusion. In 2019, a study commissioned by The United Nations concluded that “High consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.”

If high levels of consumption are so damaging, why do we still want to consume so much? One reason is that companies use advertising to increase sales and profits, and advertising promotes consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that consuming makes us happy, and that buying expensive designer clothes and luxury goods, living in a big house, owning an expensive car, eating gourmet foods, travelling the world, etc is the best way to live. But living this way is directly related to environmental destruction and habitat loss.

A good example of how consumerism and higher standards of living cause habitat loss is the fact that more of us can now afford to eat expensive meats like steak. To satisfy the growing demand for steak, more and more forests in areas like the Amazon Basin are being destroyed to make way for farms that raise beef cattle. So one way to help save natural habitats is to eat less steak and beef. Doing something simple like this can really help, maybe even more than protesting on the streets or debating online.

The problems we have created have become so serious that we’re now facing a life-or-death global emergency. To survive this emergency, we’ll have to change our entire way of life and start putting nature at the centre of our decision-making.

If a country’s GDP increases, more people can afford a

Read the articles below then answer the questions that follow.

Saving Natural Habitats

In 1962, a book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. It was about the damage pesticides were doing to the natural environment and human health. The book became a best-seller and helped the environmental movement grow and become part of the social revolution of the 1960s. More people were also joining organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or starting new organisations like Greenpeace. Meanwhile, government departments like the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were being established in countries all around the world.

Despite all the work that people in organisations like these have done since the 1960s, and despite all the protests and street marches that have been held, things have only gotten worse. Habitat destruction has increased enormously, so much so that by 2020 only 3% of the world’s wilderness remains undamaged by human activity. Wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 68% since 1970 according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2020, and over 37,400 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and plants are now threatened with extinction.

What went wrong? Why have things become so much worse since the 1960s? The WWF Living Planet Report cited above notes that “Since 1970, total gross domestic product (GDP) has increased four times, the extraction of living materials from nature has tripled, and human population has doubled (p. 52)”. The report concludes that rising populations and increasing GDPs have led to more and more people being able to afford a high standard of living, and that this is the main reason for both habitat loss and the climate change emergency.

Many other reports have reached the same conclusion. In 2019, a study commissioned by The United Nations concluded that “High consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.”

If high levels of consumption are so damaging, why do we still want to consume so much? One reason is that companies use advertising to increase sales and profits, and advertising promotes consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that consuming makes us happy, and that buying expensive designer clothes and luxury goods, living in a big house, owning an expensive car, eating gourmet foods, travelling the world, etc is the best way to live. But living this way is directly related to environmental destruction and habitat loss.

A good example of how consumerism and higher standards of living cause habitat loss is the fact that more of us can now afford to eat expensive meats like steak. To satisfy the growing demand for steak, more and more forests in areas like the Amazon Basin are being destroyed to make way for farms that raise beef cattle. So one way to help save natural habitats is to eat less steak and beef. Doing something simple like this can really help, maybe even more than protesting on the streets or debating online.

The problems we have created have become so serious that we’re now facing a life-or-death global emergency. To survive this emergency, we’ll have to change our entire way of life and start putting nature at the centre of our decision-making.

One of the main causes of habitat loss is our

Read the articles below then answer the questions that follow.

Saving Natural Habitats

In 1962, a book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. It was about the damage pesticides were doing to the natural environment and human health. The book became a best-seller and helped the environmental movement grow and become part of the social revolution of the 1960s. More people were also joining organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or starting new organisations like Greenpeace. Meanwhile, government departments like the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were being established in countries all around the world.

Despite all the work that people in organisations like these have done since the 1960s, and despite all the protests and street marches that have been held, things have only gotten worse. Habitat destruction has increased enormously, so much so that by 2020 only 3% of the world’s wilderness remains undamaged by human activity. Wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 68% since 1970 according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2020, and over 37,400 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and plants are now threatened with extinction.

What went wrong? Why have things become so much worse since the 1960s? The WWF Living Planet Report cited above notes that “Since 1970, total gross domestic product (GDP) has increased four times, the extraction of living materials from nature has tripled, and human population has doubled (p. 52)”. The report concludes that rising populations and increasing GDPs have led to more and more people being able to afford a high standard of living, and that this is the main reason for both habitat loss and the climate change emergency.

Many other reports have reached the same conclusion. In 2019, a study commissioned by The United Nations concluded that “High consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.”

If high levels of consumption are so damaging, why do we still want to consume so much? One reason is that companies use advertising to increase sales and profits, and advertising promotes consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that consuming makes us happy, and that buying expensive designer clothes and luxury goods, living in a big house, owning an expensive car, eating gourmet foods, travelling the world, etc is the best way to live. But living this way is directly related to environmental destruction and habitat loss.

A good example of how consumerism and higher standards of living cause habitat loss is the fact that more of us can now afford to eat expensive meats like steak. To satisfy the growing demand for steak, more and more forests in areas like the Amazon Basin are being destroyed to make way for farms that raise beef cattle. So one way to help save natural habitats is to eat less steak and beef. Doing something simple like this can really help, maybe even more than protesting on the streets or debating online.

The problems we have created have become so serious that we’re now facing a life-or-death global emergency. To survive this emergency, we’ll have to change our entire way of life and start putting nature at the centre of our decision-making.

In context to the passage on consumerism, buying goods without planning to do so in advance, as a result of a sudden whim is called

Read the articles below then answer the questions that follow.

Saving Natural Habitats

In 1962, a book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. It was about the damage pesticides were doing to the natural environment and human health. The book became a best-seller and helped the environmental movement grow and become part of the social revolution of the 1960s. More people were also joining organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or starting new organisations like Greenpeace. Meanwhile, government departments like the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were being established in countries all around the world.

Despite all the work that people in organisations like these have done since the 1960s, and despite all the protests and street marches that have been held, things have only gotten worse. Habitat destruction has increased enormously, so much so that by 2020 only 3% of the world’s wilderness remains undamaged by human activity. Wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 68% since 1970 according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2020, and over 37,400 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and plants are now threatened with extinction.

What went wrong? Why have things become so much worse since the 1960s? The WWF Living Planet Report cited above notes that “Since 1970, total gross domestic product (GDP) has increased four times, the extraction of living materials from nature has tripled, and human population has doubled (p. 52)”. The report concludes that rising populations and increasing GDPs have led to more and more people being able to afford a high standard of living, and that this is the main reason for both habitat loss and the climate change emergency.

Many other reports have reached the same conclusion. In 2019, a study commissioned by The United Nations concluded that “High consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.”

If high levels of consumption are so damaging, why do we still want to consume so much? One reason is that companies use advertising to increase sales and profits, and advertising promotes consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that consuming makes us happy, and that buying expensive designer clothes and luxury goods, living in a big house, owning an expensive car, eating gourmet foods, travelling the world, etc is the best way to live. But living this way is directly related to environmental destruction and habitat loss.

A good example of how consumerism and higher standards of living cause habitat loss is the fact that more of us can now afford to eat expensive meats like steak. To satisfy the growing demand for steak, more and more forests in areas like the Amazon Basin are being destroyed to make way for farms that raise beef cattle. So one way to help save natural habitats is to eat less steak and beef. Doing something simple like this can really help, maybe even more than protesting on the streets or debating online.

The problems we have created have become so serious that we’re now facing a life-or-death global emergency. To survive this emergency, we’ll have to change our entire way of life and start putting nature at the centre of our decision-making.

An announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event is called a/an

Eco-Communities

The green movement is catching on in many pockets of the world. This is especially true in the construction industry. Today’s buzzwords, which include global warming and zero emissions, are causing everyday people (not just celebrities) to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Purchasing an environmentally-friendly home is a good investment for those who are concerned about their own health and the well-being of our planet. Based on this trend, entire districts, known as eco-communities, are being designed with green initiatives in mind. One of these communities is Dockside Green in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Its goal is to become the world’s first zero-emission neighbourhood.

Dockside Green is a mostly self-sufficient community along the harbour front of Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. The community is home to around 2,500 people and includes residential, office, and retail space. It includes a variety of environmental features, some of which are unprecedented.

The planners and builders of Dockside Green have the environment in mind with every choice they make. They ensure proper ventilation and guarantee residents clean air indoors. Interior and exterior building materials, such as paints and wood, are natural and non-toxic. One of these is bamboo which is used because it’s very durable and can be grown without the use of dangerous pesticides.

Energy efficiency is one of the top priorities in eco-communities like Dockside Green. Not only do energy-efficient appliances and light fixtures reduce the environmental impact of heating, cooking and lighting, they also save residents money. Dockside Green claims that homeowners use 55% less energy than the average Canadian. Though many residents are sharing space by investing in condo-style living, they have their own individual utility metres for electricity and gas. Studies show that people use around 20% less energy when they are billed for exactly what they use.

Eco-communities also take the future into account by recycling waste and reducing carbon emissions. At Dockside Green, wastewater is treated and reused on-site for flushing toilets, and a biomass gas plant converts waste wood into a renewable form of gas for hot water systems, stoves and gas heaters. The community also reduces carbon emissions by using local suppliers for all their transport and maintenance needs, and residents are encouraged to use a mini transit system and join the community’s car share program.

The first two stages of development at Dockside Green were completed in 2011, and additional plans to increase sustainability are in the works. Similar green communities are now found all over the world, especially smaller ones known as ecovillages or “intentional communities”. Most have 50 to 150 residents, all of whom are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and create a model for sustainable living in the future.

Answer the following questions by choosing the letter of the best answer.

By reducing your carbon footprint, you are helping to

Eco-Communities

The green movement is catching on in many pockets of the world. This is especially true in the construction industry. Today’s buzzwords, which include global warming and zero emissions, are causing everyday people (not just celebrities) to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Purchasing an environmentally-friendly home is a good investment for those who are concerned about their own health and the well-being of our planet. Based on this trend, entire districts, known as eco-communities, are being designed with green initiatives in mind. One of these communities is Dockside Green in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Its goal is to become the world’s first zero-emission neighbourhood.

Dockside Green is a mostly self-sufficient community along the harbour front of Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. The community is home to around 2,500 people and includes residential, office, and retail space. It includes a variety of environmental features, some of which are unprecedented.

The planners and builders of Dockside Green have the environment in mind with every choice they make. They ensure proper ventilation and guarantee residents clean air indoors. Interior and exterior building materials, such as paints and wood, are natural and non-toxic. One of these is bamboo which is used because it’s very durable and can be grown without the use of dangerous pesticides.

Energy efficiency is one of the top priorities in eco-communities like Dockside Green. Not only do energy-efficient appliances and light fixtures reduce the environmental impact of heating, cooking and lighting, they also save residents money. Dockside Green claims that homeowners use 55% less energy than the average Canadian. Though many residents are sharing space by investing in condo-style living, they have their own individual utility metres for electricity and gas. Studies show that people use around 20% less energy when they are billed for exactly what they use.

Eco-communities also take the future into account by recycling waste and reducing carbon emissions. At Dockside Green, wastewater is treated and reused on-site for flushing toilets, and a biomass gas plant converts waste wood into a renewable form of gas for hot water systems, stoves and gas heaters. The community also reduces carbon emissions by using local suppliers for all their transport and maintenance needs, and residents are encouraged to use a mini transit system and join the community’s car share program.

The first two stages of development at Dockside Green were completed in 2011, and additional plans to increase sustainability are in the works. Similar green communities are now found all over the world, especially smaller ones known as ecovillages or “intentional communities”. Most have 50 to 150 residents, all of whom are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and create a model for sustainable living in the future.

People live in eco-communities because they’re concerned about

Eco-Communities

The green movement is catching on in many pockets of the world. This is especially true in the construction industry. Today’s buzzwords, which include global warming and zero emissions, are causing everyday people (not just celebrities) to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Purchasing an environmentally-friendly home is a good investment for those who are concerned about their own health and the well-being of our planet. Based on this trend, entire districts, known as eco-communities, are being designed with green initiatives in mind. One of these communities is Dockside Green in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Its goal is to become the world’s first zero-emission neighbourhood.

Dockside Green is a mostly self-sufficient community along the harbour front of Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. The community is home to around 2,500 people and includes residential, office, and retail space. It includes a variety of environmental features, some of which are unprecedented.

The planners and builders of Dockside Green have the environment in mind with every choice they make. They ensure proper ventilation and guarantee residents clean air indoors. Interior and exterior building materials, such as paints and wood, are natural and non-toxic. One of these is bamboo which is used because it’s very durable and can be grown without the use of dangerous pesticides.

Energy efficiency is one of the top priorities in eco-communities like Dockside Green. Not only do energy-efficient appliances and light fixtures reduce the environmental impact of heating, cooking and lighting, they also save residents money. Dockside Green claims that homeowners use 55% less energy than the average Canadian. Though many residents are sharing space by investing in condo-style living, they have their own individual utility metres for electricity and gas. Studies show that people use around 20% less energy when they are billed for exactly what they use.

Eco-communities also take the future into account by recycling waste and reducing carbon emissions. At Dockside Green, wastewater is treated and reused on-site for flushing toilets, and a biomass gas plant converts waste wood into a renewable form of gas for hot water systems, stoves and gas heaters. The community also reduces carbon emissions by using local suppliers for all their transport and maintenance needs, and residents are encouraged to use a mini transit system and join the community’s car share program.

The first two stages of development at Dockside Green were completed in 2011, and additional plans to increase sustainability are in the works. Similar green communities are now found all over the world, especially smaller ones known as ecovillages or “intentional communities”. Most have 50 to 150 residents, all of whom are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and create a model for sustainable living in the future.

The following would be most likely to support the development of eco-communities are

Eco-Communities

The green movement is catching on in many pockets of the world. This is especially true in the construction industry. Today’s buzzwords, which include global warming and zero emissions, are causing everyday people (not just celebrities) to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Purchasing an environmentally-friendly home is a good investment for those who are concerned about their own health and the well-being of our planet. Based on this trend, entire districts, known as eco-communities, are being designed with green initiatives in mind. One of these communities is Dockside Green in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Its goal is to become the world’s first zero-emission neighbourhood.

Dockside Green is a mostly self-sufficient community along the harbour front of Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. The community is home to around 2,500 people and includes residential, office, and retail space. It includes a variety of environmental features, some of which are unprecedented.

The planners and builders of Dockside Green have the environment in mind with every choice they make. They ensure proper ventilation and guarantee residents clean air indoors. Interior and exterior building materials, such as paints and wood, are natural and non-toxic. One of these is bamboo which is used because it’s very durable and can be grown without the use of dangerous pesticides.

Energy efficiency is one of the top priorities in eco-communities like Dockside Green. Not only do energy-efficient appliances and light fixtures reduce the environmental impact of heating, cooking and lighting, they also save residents money. Dockside Green claims that homeowners use 55% less energy than the average Canadian. Though many residents are sharing space by investing in condo-style living, they have their own individual utility metres for electricity and gas. Studies show that people use around 20% less energy when they are billed for exactly what they use.

Eco-communities also take the future into account by recycling waste and reducing carbon emissions. At Dockside Green, wastewater is treated and reused on-site for flushing toilets, and a biomass gas plant converts waste wood into a renewable form of gas for hot water systems, stoves and gas heaters. The community also reduces carbon emissions by using local suppliers for all their transport and maintenance needs, and residents are encouraged to use a mini transit system and join the community’s car share program.

The first two stages of development at Dockside Green were completed in 2011, and additional plans to increase sustainability are in the works. Similar green communities are now found all over the world, especially smaller ones known as ecovillages or “intentional communities”. Most have 50 to 150 residents, all of whom are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and create a model for sustainable living in the future.

The following are a component of sustainable communities EXCEPT

Eco-Communities

The green movement is catching on in many pockets of the world. This is especially true in the construction industry. Today’s buzzwords, which include global warming and zero emissions, are causing everyday people (not just celebrities) to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Purchasing an environmentally-friendly home is a good investment for those who are concerned about their own health and the well-being of our planet. Based on this trend, entire districts, known as eco-communities, are being designed with green initiatives in mind. One of these communities is Dockside Green in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Its goal is to become the world’s first zero-emission neighbourhood.

Dockside Green is a mostly self-sufficient community along the harbour front of Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. The community is home to around 2,500 people and includes residential, office, and retail space. It includes a variety of environmental features, some of which are unprecedented.

The planners and builders of Dockside Green have the environment in mind with every choice they make. They ensure proper ventilation and guarantee residents clean air indoors. Interior and exterior building materials, such as paints and wood, are natural and non-toxic. One of these is bamboo which is used because it’s very durable and can be grown without the use of dangerous pesticides.

Energy efficiency is one of the top priorities in eco-communities like Dockside Green. Not only do energy-efficient appliances and light fixtures reduce the environmental impact of heating, cooking and lighting, they also save residents money. Dockside Green claims that homeowners use 55% less energy than the average Canadian. Though many residents are sharing space by investing in condo-style living, they have their own individual utility metres for electricity and gas. Studies show that people use around 20% less energy when they are billed for exactly what they use.

Eco-communities also take the future into account by recycling waste and reducing carbon emissions. At Dockside Green, wastewater is treated and reused on-site for flushing toilets, and a biomass gas plant converts waste wood into a renewable form of gas for hot water systems, stoves and gas heaters. The community also reduces carbon emissions by using local suppliers for all their transport and maintenance needs, and residents are encouraged to use a mini transit system and join the community’s car share program.

The first two stages of development at Dockside Green were completed in 2011, and additional plans to increase sustainability are in the works. Similar green communities are now found all over the world, especially smaller ones known as ecovillages or “intentional communities”. Most have 50 to 150 residents, all of whom are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and create a model for sustainable living in the future.

The term that defines the quality of the natural and built environment in a community is called

Eco-Communities

The green movement is catching on in many pockets of the world. This is especially true in the construction industry. Today’s buzzwords, which include global warming and zero emissions, are causing everyday people (not just celebrities) to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Purchasing an environmentally-friendly home is a good investment for those who are concerned about their own health and the well-being of our planet. Based on this trend, entire districts, known as eco-communities, are being designed with green initiatives in mind. One of these communities is Dockside Green in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Its goal is to become the world’s first zero-emission neighbourhood.

Dockside Green is a mostly self-sufficient community along the harbour front of Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. The community is home to around 2,500 people and includes residential, office, and retail space. It includes a variety of environmental features, some of which are unprecedented.

The planners and builders of Dockside Green have the environment in mind with every choice they make. They ensure proper ventilation and guarantee residents clean air indoors. Interior and exterior building materials, such as paints and wood, are natural and non-toxic. One of these is bamboo which is used because it’s very durable and can be grown without the use of dangerous pesticides.

Energy efficiency is one of the top priorities in eco-communities like Dockside Green. Not only do energy-efficient appliances and light fixtures reduce the environmental impact of heating, cooking and lighting, they also save residents money. Dockside Green claims that homeowners use 55% less energy than the average Canadian. Though many residents are sharing space by investing in condo-style living, they have their own individual utility metres for electricity and gas. Studies show that people use around 20% less energy when they are billed for exactly what they use.

Eco-communities also take the future into account by recycling waste and reducing carbon emissions. At Dockside Green, wastewater is treated and reused on-site for flushing toilets, and a biomass gas plant converts waste wood into a renewable form of gas for hot water systems, stoves and gas heaters. The community also reduces carbon emissions by using local suppliers for all their transport and maintenance needs, and residents are encouraged to use a mini transit system and join the community’s car share program.

The first two stages of development at Dockside Green were completed in 2011, and additional plans to increase sustainability are in the works. Similar green communities are now found all over the world, especially smaller ones known as ecovillages or “intentional communities”. Most have 50 to 150 residents, all of whom are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and create a model for sustainable living in the future.

Smaller eco-communities are sometimes called ecovillages or

Eco-Communities

The green movement is catching on in many pockets of the world. This is especially true in the construction industry. Today’s buzzwords, which include global warming and zero emissions, are causing everyday people (not just celebrities) to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Purchasing an environmentally-friendly home is a good investment for those who are concerned about their own health and the well-being of our planet. Based on this trend, entire districts, known as eco-communities, are being designed with green initiatives in mind. One of these communities is Dockside Green in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Its goal is to become the world’s first zero-emission neighbourhood.

Dockside Green is a mostly self-sufficient community along the harbour front of Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. The community is home to around 2,500 people and includes residential, office, and retail space. It includes a variety of environmental features, some of which are unprecedented.

The planners and builders of Dockside Green have the environment in mind with every choice they make. They ensure proper ventilation and guarantee residents clean air indoors. Interior and exterior building materials, such as paints and wood, are natural and non-toxic. One of these is bamboo which is used because it’s very durable and can be grown without the use of dangerous pesticides.

Energy efficiency is one of the top priorities in eco-communities like Dockside Green. Not only do energy-efficient appliances and light fixtures reduce the environmental impact of heating, cooking and lighting, they also save residents money. Dockside Green claims that homeowners use 55% less energy than the average Canadian. Though many residents are sharing space by investing in condo-style living, they have their own individual utility metres for electricity and gas. Studies show that people use around 20% less energy when they are billed for exactly what they use.

Eco-communities also take the future into account by recycling waste and reducing carbon emissions. At Dockside Green, wastewater is treated and reused on-site for flushing toilets, and a biomass gas plant converts waste wood into a renewable form of gas for hot water systems, stoves and gas heaters. The community also reduces carbon emissions by using local suppliers for all their transport and maintenance needs, and residents are encouraged to use a mini transit system and join the community’s car share program.

The first two stages of development at Dockside Green were completed in 2011, and additional plans to increase sustainability are in the works. Similar green communities are now found all over the world, especially smaller ones known as ecovillages or “intentional communities”. Most have 50 to 150 residents, all of whom are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and create a model for sustainable living in the future.

In context to the passage, going green in the future may require some sacrifices on our part in order to save the environment. Which choice below is NOT a potential sacrifice we might have to make in order to ‘go green’?

Eco-Communities

The green movement is catching on in many pockets of the world. This is especially true in the construction industry. Today’s buzzwords, which include global warming and zero emissions, are causing everyday people (not just celebrities) to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Purchasing an environmentally-friendly home is a good investment for those who are concerned about their own health and the well-being of our planet. Based on this trend, entire districts, known as eco-communities, are being designed with green initiatives in mind. One of these communities is Dockside Green in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Its goal is to become the world’s first zero-emission neighbourhood.

Dockside Green is a mostly self-sufficient community along the harbour front of Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. The community is home to around 2,500 people and includes residential, office, and retail space. It includes a variety of environmental features, some of which are unprecedented.

The planners and builders of Dockside Green have the environment in mind with every choice they make. They ensure proper ventilation and guarantee residents clean air indoors. Interior and exterior building materials, such as paints and wood, are natural and non-toxic. One of these is bamboo which is used because it’s very durable and can be grown without the use of dangerous pesticides.

Energy efficiency is one of the top priorities in eco-communities like Dockside Green. Not only do energy-efficient appliances and light fixtures reduce the environmental impact of heating, cooking and lighting, they also save residents money. Dockside Green claims that homeowners use 55% less energy than the average Canadian. Though many residents are sharing space by investing in condo-style living, they have their own individual utility metres for electricity and gas. Studies show that people use around 20% less energy when they are billed for exactly what they use.

Eco-communities also take the future into account by recycling waste and reducing carbon emissions. At Dockside Green, wastewater is treated and reused on-site for flushing toilets, and a biomass gas plant converts waste wood into a renewable form of gas for hot water systems, stoves and gas heaters. The community also reduces carbon emissions by using local suppliers for all their transport and maintenance needs, and residents are encouraged to use a mini transit system and join the community’s car share program.

The first two stages of development at Dockside Green were completed in 2011, and additional plans to increase sustainability are in the works. Similar green communities are now found all over the world, especially smaller ones known as ecovillages or “intentional communities”. Most have 50 to 150 residents, all of whom are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and create a model for sustainable living in the future.

In context to the passage, in order to reduce our ecological footprint we should assess the use we get from a product versus how much waste it creates and how difficult it is to recycle that waste. Which product listed below would have the worst impact on our environment?

Greenpeace

In early August 1945, near the end of World War II, the USA dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. At least 200,000 people died. After the war ended, a nuclear arms race began when the Soviet Union started developing nuclear weapons of its own. By the 1950s, many people feared the arms race between the world’s two superpowers could result in a nuclear war and planetary destruction. This led to many people joining peace protests in the 1960s, including a group of environmentalists and peace activists who often met in Vancouver, a city on Canada’s west coast.

In 1970, they met to discuss nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out by the US military on Amchitka Island in nearby Alaska. They knew it would take more than protest marches to stop these tests, so they decided to carry out direct action campaigns instead. They also decided to create a new organisation to plan and publicise these campaigns, but they didn’t know what to call it. They needed a name that worked for both environmental “green” campaigns and anti-nuclear “peace” campaigns, and when someone suggested “Greenpeace” they knew they’d found it.

With their new organisation formed and named, they were ready for action. They knew the Amchitka Island nuclear test could not go ahead if a manned ship was in the area around the island, so they chartered an old fishing boat and set sail on September 15, 1971. But after 42 days, the U.S. coastguard forced them to turn back. Even though they didn’t stop the test, their action got a lot of publicity and a few months later the US stopped testing their bombs on Amchitka Island. Greenpeace’s first campaign had proved that direct action could work.

Greenpeace’s next campaign was in 1972 against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Once again Greenpeace activists sailed towards the test site on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. This time their boat was rammed by a French warship and the crew were arrested, and once again they got the publicity they were seeking. Next came a campaign to stop the slaughter of baby fur seals in Canada and the slaughter of seals in Scotland. Then in 1975 they began the first of many direct action campaigns to stop the slaughter of whales. After locating a fleet of Russian whaling ships, activists on Greenpeace motorboats got between the whaling ships and the whales they wanted to slaughter. This sort of action was very dangerous, and rarely worked, but again it got the kind of publicity that eventually led to the banning of commercial whaling in 1986.

In 1977, Greenpeace bought a large fishing trawler and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior. They used the ship in a series of direct action campaigns against whaling, seal hunting, nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. Then in 1985, after leading a fleet of yachts from New Zealand on another campaign against French nuclear testing, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret police. They sank the ship and a Portuguese-Dutch photographer on board at the time was killed.

Greenpeace has bought a number of other ships since the tragic bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and used them in more recent campaigns against nuclear testing and Japan’s so-called “scientific whaling”. They have also campaigned against environmentally-destructive fishing, logging and farming, and against the use of fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have taken action to protect forests and endangered species and carried out many campaigns related to global warming and climate change.

Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s biggest and most powerful non-governmental organisations. It’s now made up of independent organisations in over 50 countries that work together under Greenpeace International. As well as carrying out non-violent direct action campaigns, Greenpeace also works with governments, corporations, schools and other NGOs on a wide range of environmental and social issues.

In 2016, Greenpeace held a “Big Listening” exercise in which over 300,000 people shared their ideas on the organisation’s future direction. This led to the release of a new mission statement titled The Framework: A Summary. The statement says, “The struggle for a green and peaceful future requires fundamental changes in the way we relate to nature and to each other. From climate change to inequity, armed conflict to social injustice, the great challenges of our time are not only urgent, they are intimately linked. From the power structures that make them possible to the mindsets that make them acceptable, they are interwoven and must be changed together.”

The statement goes on to say that, “Today’s economic and cultural systems set us apart from nature. They reward environmental destruction, promote excessive consumption … prioritise short-term profit over sustainability and well-being. Let us be bold. Let us join forces with our allies. Let us build the new systems for that green and peaceful world that we all know in our heads and in our hearts is possible.”

Answer the following questions by choosing the letter of the best answer.

The original purpose of Greenpeace coming together is

Greenpeace

In early August 1945, near the end of World War II, the USA dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. At least 200,000 people died. After the war ended, a nuclear arms race began when the Soviet Union started developing nuclear weapons of its own. By the 1950s, many people feared the arms race between the world’s two superpowers could result in a nuclear war and planetary destruction. This led to many people joining peace protests in the 1960s, including a group of environmentalists and peace activists who often met in Vancouver, a city on Canada’s west coast.

In 1970, they met to discuss nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out by the US military on Amchitka Island in nearby Alaska. They knew it would take more than protest marches to stop these tests, so they decided to carry out direct action campaigns instead. They also decided to create a new organisation to plan and publicise these campaigns, but they didn’t know what to call it. They needed a name that worked for both environmental “green” campaigns and anti-nuclear “peace” campaigns, and when someone suggested “Greenpeace” they knew they’d found it.

With their new organisation formed and named, they were ready for action. They knew the Amchitka Island nuclear test could not go ahead if a manned ship was in the area around the island, so they chartered an old fishing boat and set sail on September 15, 1971. But after 42 days, the U.S. coastguard forced them to turn back. Even though they didn’t stop the test, their action got a lot of publicity and a few months later the US stopped testing their bombs on Amchitka Island. Greenpeace’s first campaign had proved that direct action could work.

Greenpeace’s next campaign was in 1972 against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Once again Greenpeace activists sailed towards the test site on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. This time their boat was rammed by a French warship and the crew were arrested, and once again they got the publicity they were seeking. Next came a campaign to stop the slaughter of baby fur seals in Canada and the slaughter of seals in Scotland. Then in 1975 they began the first of many direct action campaigns to stop the slaughter of whales. After locating a fleet of Russian whaling ships, activists on Greenpeace motorboats got between the whaling ships and the whales they wanted to slaughter. This sort of action was very dangerous, and rarely worked, but again it got the kind of publicity that eventually led to the banning of commercial whaling in 1986.

In 1977, Greenpeace bought a large fishing trawler and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior. They used the ship in a series of direct action campaigns against whaling, seal hunting, nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. Then in 1985, after leading a fleet of yachts from New Zealand on another campaign against French nuclear testing, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret police. They sank the ship and a Portuguese-Dutch photographer on board at the time was killed.

Greenpeace has bought a number of other ships since the tragic bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and used them in more recent campaigns against nuclear testing and Japan’s so-called “scientific whaling”. They have also campaigned against environmentally-destructive fishing, logging and farming, and against the use of fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have taken action to protect forests and endangered species and carried out many campaigns related to global warming and climate change.

Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s biggest and most powerful non-governmental organisations. It’s now made up of independent organisations in over 50 countries that work together under Greenpeace International. As well as carrying out non-violent direct action campaigns, Greenpeace also works with governments, corporations, schools and other NGOs on a wide range of environmental and social issues.

In 2016, Greenpeace held a “Big Listening” exercise in which over 300,000 people shared their ideas on the organisation’s future direction. This led to the release of a new mission statement titled The Framework: A Summary. The statement says, “The struggle for a green and peaceful future requires fundamental changes in the way we relate to nature and to each other. From climate change to inequity, armed conflict to social injustice, the great challenges of our time are not only urgent, they are intimately linked. From the power structures that make them possible to the mindsets that make them acceptable, they are interwoven and must be changed together.”

The statement goes on to say that, “Today’s economic and cultural systems set us apart from nature. They reward environmental destruction, promote excessive consumption … prioritise short-term profit over sustainability and well-being. Let us be bold. Let us join forces with our allies. Let us build the new systems for that green and peaceful world that we all know in our heads and in our hearts is possible.”

Which of the following would the readers expect Greenpeace to support?

Greenpeace

In early August 1945, near the end of World War II, the USA dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. At least 200,000 people died. After the war ended, a nuclear arms race began when the Soviet Union started developing nuclear weapons of its own. By the 1950s, many people feared the arms race between the world’s two superpowers could result in a nuclear war and planetary destruction. This led to many people joining peace protests in the 1960s, including a group of environmentalists and peace activists who often met in Vancouver, a city on Canada’s west coast.

In 1970, they met to discuss nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out by the US military on Amchitka Island in nearby Alaska. They knew it would take more than protest marches to stop these tests, so they decided to carry out direct action campaigns instead. They also decided to create a new organisation to plan and publicise these campaigns, but they didn’t know what to call it. They needed a name that worked for both environmental “green” campaigns and anti-nuclear “peace” campaigns, and when someone suggested “Greenpeace” they knew they’d found it.

With their new organisation formed and named, they were ready for action. They knew the Amchitka Island nuclear test could not go ahead if a manned ship was in the area around the island, so they chartered an old fishing boat and set sail on September 15, 1971. But after 42 days, the U.S. coastguard forced them to turn back. Even though they didn’t stop the test, their action got a lot of publicity and a few months later the US stopped testing their bombs on Amchitka Island. Greenpeace’s first campaign had proved that direct action could work.

Greenpeace’s next campaign was in 1972 against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Once again Greenpeace activists sailed towards the test site on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. This time their boat was rammed by a French warship and the crew were arrested, and once again they got the publicity they were seeking. Next came a campaign to stop the slaughter of baby fur seals in Canada and the slaughter of seals in Scotland. Then in 1975 they began the first of many direct action campaigns to stop the slaughter of whales. After locating a fleet of Russian whaling ships, activists on Greenpeace motorboats got between the whaling ships and the whales they wanted to slaughter. This sort of action was very dangerous, and rarely worked, but again it got the kind of publicity that eventually led to the banning of commercial whaling in 1986.

In 1977, Greenpeace bought a large fishing trawler and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior. They used the ship in a series of direct action campaigns against whaling, seal hunting, nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. Then in 1985, after leading a fleet of yachts from New Zealand on another campaign against French nuclear testing, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret police. They sank the ship and a Portuguese-Dutch photographer on board at the time was killed.

Greenpeace has bought a number of other ships since the tragic bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and used them in more recent campaigns against nuclear testing and Japan’s so-called “scientific whaling”. They have also campaigned against environmentally-destructive fishing, logging and farming, and against the use of fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have taken action to protect forests and endangered species and carried out many campaigns related to global warming and climate change.

Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s biggest and most powerful non-governmental organisations. It’s now made up of independent organisations in over 50 countries that work together under Greenpeace International. As well as carrying out non-violent direct action campaigns, Greenpeace also works with governments, corporations, schools and other NGOs on a wide range of environmental and social issues.

In 2016, Greenpeace held a “Big Listening” exercise in which over 300,000 people shared their ideas on the organisation’s future direction. This led to the release of a new mission statement titled The Framework: A Summary. The statement says, “The struggle for a green and peaceful future requires fundamental changes in the way we relate to nature and to each other. From climate change to inequity, armed conflict to social injustice, the great challenges of our time are not only urgent, they are intimately linked. From the power structures that make them possible to the mindsets that make them acceptable, they are interwoven and must be changed together.”

The statement goes on to say that, “Today’s economic and cultural systems set us apart from nature. They reward environmental destruction, promote excessive consumption … prioritise short-term profit over sustainability and well-being. Let us be bold. Let us join forces with our allies. Let us build the new systems for that green and peaceful world that we all know in our heads and in our hearts is possible.”

The original Rainbow Warrior is no longer on active duty with Greenpeace. What has happened to the vessel?

Greenpeace

In early August 1945, near the end of World War II, the USA dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. At least 200,000 people died. After the war ended, a nuclear arms race began when the Soviet Union started developing nuclear weapons of its own. By the 1950s, many people feared the arms race between the world’s two superpowers could result in a nuclear war and planetary destruction. This led to many people joining peace protests in the 1960s, including a group of environmentalists and peace activists who often met in Vancouver, a city on Canada’s west coast.

In 1970, they met to discuss nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out by the US military on Amchitka Island in nearby Alaska. They knew it would take more than protest marches to stop these tests, so they decided to carry out direct action campaigns instead. They also decided to create a new organisation to plan and publicise these campaigns, but they didn’t know what to call it. They needed a name that worked for both environmental “green” campaigns and anti-nuclear “peace” campaigns, and when someone suggested “Greenpeace” they knew they’d found it.

With their new organisation formed and named, they were ready for action. They knew the Amchitka Island nuclear test could not go ahead if a manned ship was in the area around the island, so they chartered an old fishing boat and set sail on September 15, 1971. But after 42 days, the U.S. coastguard forced them to turn back. Even though they didn’t stop the test, their action got a lot of publicity and a few months later the US stopped testing their bombs on Amchitka Island. Greenpeace’s first campaign had proved that direct action could work.

Greenpeace’s next campaign was in 1972 against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Once again Greenpeace activists sailed towards the test site on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. This time their boat was rammed by a French warship and the crew were arrested, and once again they got the publicity they were seeking. Next came a campaign to stop the slaughter of baby fur seals in Canada and the slaughter of seals in Scotland. Then in 1975 they began the first of many direct action campaigns to stop the slaughter of whales. After locating a fleet of Russian whaling ships, activists on Greenpeace motorboats got between the whaling ships and the whales they wanted to slaughter. This sort of action was very dangerous, and rarely worked, but again it got the kind of publicity that eventually led to the banning of commercial whaling in 1986.

In 1977, Greenpeace bought a large fishing trawler and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior. They used the ship in a series of direct action campaigns against whaling, seal hunting, nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. Then in 1985, after leading a fleet of yachts from New Zealand on another campaign against French nuclear testing, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret police. They sank the ship and a Portuguese-Dutch photographer on board at the time was killed.

Greenpeace has bought a number of other ships since the tragic bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and used them in more recent campaigns against nuclear testing and Japan’s so-called “scientific whaling”. They have also campaigned against environmentally-destructive fishing, logging and farming, and against the use of fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have taken action to protect forests and endangered species and carried out many campaigns related to global warming and climate change.

Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s biggest and most powerful non-governmental organisations. It’s now made up of independent organisations in over 50 countries that work together under Greenpeace International. As well as carrying out non-violent direct action campaigns, Greenpeace also works with governments, corporations, schools and other NGOs on a wide range of environmental and social issues.

In 2016, Greenpeace held a “Big Listening” exercise in which over 300,000 people shared their ideas on the organisation’s future direction. This led to the release of a new mission statement titled The Framework: A Summary. The statement says, “The struggle for a green and peaceful future requires fundamental changes in the way we relate to nature and to each other. From climate change to inequity, armed conflict to social injustice, the great challenges of our time are not only urgent, they are intimately linked. From the power structures that make them possible to the mindsets that make them acceptable, they are interwoven and must be changed together.”

The statement goes on to say that, “Today’s economic and cultural systems set us apart from nature. They reward environmental destruction, promote excessive consumption … prioritise short-term profit over sustainability and well-being. Let us be bold. Let us join forces with our allies. Let us build the new systems for that green and peaceful world that we all know in our heads and in our hearts is possible.”

Greenpeace is a type of

Greenpeace

In early August 1945, near the end of World War II, the USA dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. At least 200,000 people died. After the war ended, a nuclear arms race began when the Soviet Union started developing nuclear weapons of its own. By the 1950s, many people feared the arms race between the world’s two superpowers could result in a nuclear war and planetary destruction. This led to many people joining peace protests in the 1960s, including a group of environmentalists and peace activists who often met in Vancouver, a city on Canada’s west coast.

In 1970, they met to discuss nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out by the US military on Amchitka Island in nearby Alaska. They knew it would take more than protest marches to stop these tests, so they decided to carry out direct action campaigns instead. They also decided to create a new organisation to plan and publicise these campaigns, but they didn’t know what to call it. They needed a name that worked for both environmental “green” campaigns and anti-nuclear “peace” campaigns, and when someone suggested “Greenpeace” they knew they’d found it.

With their new organisation formed and named, they were ready for action. They knew the Amchitka Island nuclear test could not go ahead if a manned ship was in the area around the island, so they chartered an old fishing boat and set sail on September 15, 1971. But after 42 days, the U.S. coastguard forced them to turn back. Even though they didn’t stop the test, their action got a lot of publicity and a few months later the US stopped testing their bombs on Amchitka Island. Greenpeace’s first campaign had proved that direct action could work.

Greenpeace’s next campaign was in 1972 against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Once again Greenpeace activists sailed towards the test site on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. This time their boat was rammed by a French warship and the crew were arrested, and once again they got the publicity they were seeking. Next came a campaign to stop the slaughter of baby fur seals in Canada and the slaughter of seals in Scotland. Then in 1975 they began the first of many direct action campaigns to stop the slaughter of whales. After locating a fleet of Russian whaling ships, activists on Greenpeace motorboats got between the whaling ships and the whales they wanted to slaughter. This sort of action was very dangerous, and rarely worked, but again it got the kind of publicity that eventually led to the banning of commercial whaling in 1986.

In 1977, Greenpeace bought a large fishing trawler and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior. They used the ship in a series of direct action campaigns against whaling, seal hunting, nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. Then in 1985, after leading a fleet of yachts from New Zealand on another campaign against French nuclear testing, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret police. They sank the ship and a Portuguese-Dutch photographer on board at the time was killed.

Greenpeace has bought a number of other ships since the tragic bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and used them in more recent campaigns against nuclear testing and Japan’s so-called “scientific whaling”. They have also campaigned against environmentally-destructive fishing, logging and farming, and against the use of fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have taken action to protect forests and endangered species and carried out many campaigns related to global warming and climate change.

Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s biggest and most powerful non-governmental organisations. It’s now made up of independent organisations in over 50 countries that work together under Greenpeace International. As well as carrying out non-violent direct action campaigns, Greenpeace also works with governments, corporations, schools and other NGOs on a wide range of environmental and social issues.

In 2016, Greenpeace held a “Big Listening” exercise in which over 300,000 people shared their ideas on the organisation’s future direction. This led to the release of a new mission statement titled The Framework: A Summary. The statement says, “The struggle for a green and peaceful future requires fundamental changes in the way we relate to nature and to each other. From climate change to inequity, armed conflict to social injustice, the great challenges of our time are not only urgent, they are intimately linked. From the power structures that make them possible to the mindsets that make them acceptable, they are interwoven and must be changed together.”

The statement goes on to say that, “Today’s economic and cultural systems set us apart from nature. They reward environmental destruction, promote excessive consumption … prioritise short-term profit over sustainability and well-being. Let us be bold. Let us join forces with our allies. Let us build the new systems for that green and peaceful world that we all know in our heads and in our hearts is possible.”

Realists contend that international organisations

Greenpeace

In early August 1945, near the end of World War II, the USA dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. At least 200,000 people died. After the war ended, a nuclear arms race began when the Soviet Union started developing nuclear weapons of its own. By the 1950s, many people feared the arms race between the world’s two superpowers could result in a nuclear war and planetary destruction. This led to many people joining peace protests in the 1960s, including a group of environmentalists and peace activists who often met in Vancouver, a city on Canada’s west coast.

In 1970, they met to discuss nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out by the US military on Amchitka Island in nearby Alaska. They knew it would take more than protest marches to stop these tests, so they decided to carry out direct action campaigns instead. They also decided to create a new organisation to plan and publicise these campaigns, but they didn’t know what to call it. They needed a name that worked for both environmental “green” campaigns and anti-nuclear “peace” campaigns, and when someone suggested “Greenpeace” they knew they’d found it.

With their new organisation formed and named, they were ready for action. They knew the Amchitka Island nuclear test could not go ahead if a manned ship was in the area around the island, so they chartered an old fishing boat and set sail on September 15, 1971. But after 42 days, the U.S. coastguard forced them to turn back. Even though they didn’t stop the test, their action got a lot of publicity and a few months later the US stopped testing their bombs on Amchitka Island. Greenpeace’s first campaign had proved that direct action could work.

Greenpeace’s next campaign was in 1972 against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Once again Greenpeace activists sailed towards the test site on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. This time their boat was rammed by a French warship and the crew were arrested, and once again they got the publicity they were seeking. Next came a campaign to stop the slaughter of baby fur seals in Canada and the slaughter of seals in Scotland. Then in 1975 they began the first of many direct action campaigns to stop the slaughter of whales. After locating a fleet of Russian whaling ships, activists on Greenpeace motorboats got between the whaling ships and the whales they wanted to slaughter. This sort of action was very dangerous, and rarely worked, but again it got the kind of publicity that eventually led to the banning of commercial whaling in 1986.

In 1977, Greenpeace bought a large fishing trawler and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior. They used the ship in a series of direct action campaigns against whaling, seal hunting, nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. Then in 1985, after leading a fleet of yachts from New Zealand on another campaign against French nuclear testing, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret police. They sank the ship and a Portuguese-Dutch photographer on board at the time was killed.

Greenpeace has bought a number of other ships since the tragic bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and used them in more recent campaigns against nuclear testing and Japan’s so-called “scientific whaling”. They have also campaigned against environmentally-destructive fishing, logging and farming, and against the use of fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have taken action to protect forests and endangered species and carried out many campaigns related to global warming and climate change.

Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s biggest and most powerful non-governmental organisations. It’s now made up of independent organisations in over 50 countries that work together under Greenpeace International. As well as carrying out non-violent direct action campaigns, Greenpeace also works with governments, corporations, schools and other NGOs on a wide range of environmental and social issues.

In 2016, Greenpeace held a “Big Listening” exercise in which over 300,000 people shared their ideas on the organisation’s future direction. This led to the release of a new mission statement titled The Framework: A Summary. The statement says, “The struggle for a green and peaceful future requires fundamental changes in the way we relate to nature and to each other. From climate change to inequity, armed conflict to social injustice, the great challenges of our time are not only urgent, they are intimately linked. From the power structures that make them possible to the mindsets that make them acceptable, they are interwoven and must be changed together.”

The statement goes on to say that, “Today’s economic and cultural systems set us apart from nature. They reward environmental destruction, promote excessive consumption … prioritise short-term profit over sustainability and well-being. Let us be bold. Let us join forces with our allies. Let us build the new systems for that green and peaceful world that we all know in our heads and in our hearts is possible.”

In context to the passage, which of the following is the best explanation of a nongovernmental organisation?

Greenpeace

In early August 1945, near the end of World War II, the USA dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. At least 200,000 people died. After the war ended, a nuclear arms race began when the Soviet Union started developing nuclear weapons of its own. By the 1950s, many people feared the arms race between the world’s two superpowers could result in a nuclear war and planetary destruction. This led to many people joining peace protests in the 1960s, including a group of environmentalists and peace activists who often met in Vancouver, a city on Canada’s west coast.

In 1970, they met to discuss nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out by the US military on Amchitka Island in nearby Alaska. They knew it would take more than protest marches to stop these tests, so they decided to carry out direct action campaigns instead. They also decided to create a new organisation to plan and publicise these campaigns, but they didn’t know what to call it. They needed a name that worked for both environmental “green” campaigns and anti-nuclear “peace” campaigns, and when someone suggested “Greenpeace” they knew they’d found it.

With their new organisation formed and named, they were ready for action. They knew the Amchitka Island nuclear test could not go ahead if a manned ship was in the area around the island, so they chartered an old fishing boat and set sail on September 15, 1971. But after 42 days, the U.S. coastguard forced them to turn back. Even though they didn’t stop the test, their action got a lot of publicity and a few months later the US stopped testing their bombs on Amchitka Island. Greenpeace’s first campaign had proved that direct action could work.

Greenpeace’s next campaign was in 1972 against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Once again Greenpeace activists sailed towards the test site on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. This time their boat was rammed by a French warship and the crew were arrested, and once again they got the publicity they were seeking. Next came a campaign to stop the slaughter of baby fur seals in Canada and the slaughter of seals in Scotland. Then in 1975 they began the first of many direct action campaigns to stop the slaughter of whales. After locating a fleet of Russian whaling ships, activists on Greenpeace motorboats got between the whaling ships and the whales they wanted to slaughter. This sort of action was very dangerous, and rarely worked, but again it got the kind of publicity that eventually led to the banning of commercial whaling in 1986.

In 1977, Greenpeace bought a large fishing trawler and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior. They used the ship in a series of direct action campaigns against whaling, seal hunting, nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. Then in 1985, after leading a fleet of yachts from New Zealand on another campaign against French nuclear testing, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret police. They sank the ship and a Portuguese-Dutch photographer on board at the time was killed.

Greenpeace has bought a number of other ships since the tragic bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and used them in more recent campaigns against nuclear testing and Japan’s so-called “scientific whaling”. They have also campaigned against environmentally-destructive fishing, logging and farming, and against the use of fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have taken action to protect forests and endangered species and carried out many campaigns related to global warming and climate change.

Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s biggest and most powerful non-governmental organisations. It’s now made up of independent organisations in over 50 countries that work together under Greenpeace International. As well as carrying out non-violent direct action campaigns, Greenpeace also works with governments, corporations, schools and other NGOs on a wide range of environmental and social issues.

In 2016, Greenpeace held a “Big Listening” exercise in which over 300,000 people shared their ideas on the organisation’s future direction. This led to the release of a new mission statement titled The Framework: A Summary. The statement says, “The struggle for a green and peaceful future requires fundamental changes in the way we relate to nature and to each other. From climate change to inequity, armed conflict to social injustice, the great challenges of our time are not only urgent, they are intimately linked. From the power structures that make them possible to the mindsets that make them acceptable, they are interwoven and must be changed together.”

The statement goes on to say that, “Today’s economic and cultural systems set us apart from nature. They reward environmental destruction, promote excessive consumption … prioritise short-term profit over sustainability and well-being. Let us be bold. Let us join forces with our allies. Let us build the new systems for that green and peaceful world that we all know in our heads and in our hearts is possible.”

The role of nongovernmental organisations is to

Greenpeace

In early August 1945, near the end of World War II, the USA dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. At least 200,000 people died. After the war ended, a nuclear arms race began when the Soviet Union started developing nuclear weapons of its own. By the 1950s, many people feared the arms race between the world’s two superpowers could result in a nuclear war and planetary destruction. This led to many people joining peace protests in the 1960s, including a group of environmentalists and peace activists who often met in Vancouver, a city on Canada’s west coast.

In 1970, they met to discuss nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out by the US military on Amchitka Island in nearby Alaska. They knew it would take more than protest marches to stop these tests, so they decided to carry out direct action campaigns instead. They also decided to create a new organisation to plan and publicise these campaigns, but they didn’t know what to call it. They needed a name that worked for both environmental “green” campaigns and anti-nuclear “peace” campaigns, and when someone suggested “Greenpeace” they knew they’d found it.

With their new organisation formed and named, they were ready for action. They knew the Amchitka Island nuclear test could not go ahead if a manned ship was in the area around the island, so they chartered an old fishing boat and set sail on September 15, 1971. But after 42 days, the U.S. coastguard forced them to turn back. Even though they didn’t stop the test, their action got a lot of publicity and a few months later the US stopped testing their bombs on Amchitka Island. Greenpeace’s first campaign had proved that direct action could work.

Greenpeace’s next campaign was in 1972 against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Once again Greenpeace activists sailed towards the test site on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. This time their boat was rammed by a French warship and the crew were arrested, and once again they got the publicity they were seeking. Next came a campaign to stop the slaughter of baby fur seals in Canada and the slaughter of seals in Scotland. Then in 1975 they began the first of many direct action campaigns to stop the slaughter of whales. After locating a fleet of Russian whaling ships, activists on Greenpeace motorboats got between the whaling ships and the whales they wanted to slaughter. This sort of action was very dangerous, and rarely worked, but again it got the kind of publicity that eventually led to the banning of commercial whaling in 1986.

In 1977, Greenpeace bought a large fishing trawler and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior. They used the ship in a series of direct action campaigns against whaling, seal hunting, nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. Then in 1985, after leading a fleet of yachts from New Zealand on another campaign against French nuclear testing, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret police. They sank the ship and a Portuguese-Dutch photographer on board at the time was killed.

Greenpeace has bought a number of other ships since the tragic bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and used them in more recent campaigns against nuclear testing and Japan’s so-called “scientific whaling”. They have also campaigned against environmentally-destructive fishing, logging and farming, and against the use of fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have taken action to protect forests and endangered species and carried out many campaigns related to global warming and climate change.

Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s biggest and most powerful non-governmental organisations. It’s now made up of independent organisations in over 50 countries that work together under Greenpeace International. As well as carrying out non-violent direct action campaigns, Greenpeace also works with governments, corporations, schools and other NGOs on a wide range of environmental and social issues.

In 2016, Greenpeace held a “Big Listening” exercise in which over 300,000 people shared their ideas on the organisation’s future direction. This led to the release of a new mission statement titled The Framework: A Summary. The statement says, “The struggle for a green and peaceful future requires fundamental changes in the way we relate to nature and to each other. From climate change to inequity, armed conflict to social injustice, the great challenges of our time are not only urgent, they are intimately linked. From the power structures that make them possible to the mindsets that make them acceptable, they are interwoven and must be changed together.”

The statement goes on to say that, “Today’s economic and cultural systems set us apart from nature. They reward environmental destruction, promote excessive consumption … prioritise short-term profit over sustainability and well-being. Let us be bold. Let us join forces with our allies. Let us build the new systems for that green and peaceful world that we all know in our heads and in our hearts is possible.”

Greenpeace says the power structures and mindsets that cause environmental problems must

Fitness Pill

These days there are pills for just about everything. If you can’t sleep, take a pill. If you’re sad, take a pill. If you’re in pain, take a pill. But what about people who are overweight or lack fitness? The best solution for these people is to exercise, but many people don’t want to exercise or are unable to exercise. Drug companies are always looking for new pills to sell, and many have spent lots of money on developing a pill for these people too. In the 1990s, scientists working for one of these companies found a new drug that gave mice some of the same benefits as exercise. Newspapers began reporting on this new drug, calling it the “fitness pill” or “exercise pill”. They said it could “build muscle, increase stamina, and even burn fat.”

The reports said that mice with no previous fitness training could run much longer distances after being given the drug. They said there was evidence that the drug could also help humans by improving fitness and building up muscles. Many people who read these articles wanted to try the pills, but reports about problems with the drug soon began appearing. Researchers found that mice had an increased chance of developing cancer after taking it. This meant the drug would never be approved for human use and the drug company stopped developing it.

Medical researchers are still looking for a drug similar to the one found in the 90s. They’re trying to find a new drug with the same benefits that doesn’t also cause cancer. They believe such a drug would have many uses, including important medical uses. It could benefit people who can’t get out of bed due to ill health. It could also benefit people with diabetes and those with diseases that cause muscle-wasting. Medical researchers also believe such a drug could benefit the average adult as well. Most adults say they don’t have enough spare time to do the 40 minutes of daily exercise that doctors recommend. For these people, a so-called fitness pill or exercise pill could be the best solution. But others might say they’re cheating by taking a pill instead of exercising. Would you take such a pill if it meant you no longer had to jog, swim or use a treadmill to stay fit?

Many people in the world of sports are concerned about a pill like this. They fear that some athletes might use it as a performance-enhancing drug. Even though the drug discovered in the 90s was never approved for human use, some athletes may have used it to cheat. Top athletes already go

through extensive drug testing before national and international events, but until sports authorities know about a new drug, it won’t be tested for. Some people think top athletes who pass drug tests might still be cheating, and in some cases this has been shown to be true. The world-famous swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps knew this, so he offered to go through extra drug testing before the 2008 Olympics. He knew that many people would suspect his amazing strength and stamina came from using performance-enhancing drugs, so he felt he had to prove that it came from hard work and training alone.

Answer the following questions by choosing the letter of the best answer.

The pill mentioned in the passage could help people become

Fitness Pill

These days there are pills for just about everything. If you can’t sleep, take a pill. If you’re sad, take a pill. If you’re in pain, take a pill. But what about people who are overweight or lack fitness? The best solution for these people is to exercise, but many people don’t want to exercise or are unable to exercise. Drug companies are always looking for new pills to sell, and many have spent lots of money on developing a pill for these people too. In the 1990s, scientists working for one of these companies found a new drug that gave mice some of the same benefits as exercise. Newspapers began reporting on this new drug, calling it the “fitness pill” or “exercise pill”. They said it could “build muscle, increase stamina, and even burn fat.”

The reports said that mice with no previous fitness training could run much longer distances after being given the drug. They said there was evidence that the drug could also help humans by improving fitness and building up muscles. Many people who read these articles wanted to try the pills, but reports about problems with the drug soon began appearing. Researchers found that mice had an increased chance of developing cancer after taking it. This meant the drug would never be approved for human use and the drug company stopped developing it.

Medical researchers are still looking for a drug similar to the one found in the 90s. They’re trying to find a new drug with the same benefits that doesn’t also cause cancer. They believe such a drug would have many uses, including important medical uses. It could benefit people who can’t get out of bed due to ill health. It could also benefit people with diabetes and those with diseases that cause muscle-wasting. Medical researchers also believe such a drug could benefit the average adult as well. Most adults say they don’t have enough spare time to do the 40 minutes of daily exercise that doctors recommend. For these people, a so-called fitness pill or exercise pill could be the best solution. But others might say they’re cheating by taking a pill instead of exercising. Would you take such a pill if it meant you no longer had to jog, swim or use a treadmill to stay fit?

Many people in the world of sports are concerned about a pill like this. They fear that some athletes might use it as a performance-enhancing drug. Even though the drug discovered in the 90s was never approved for human use, some athletes may have used it to cheat. Top athletes already go

through extensive drug testing before national and international events, but until sports authorities know about a new drug, it won’t be tested for. Some people think top athletes who pass drug tests might still be cheating, and in some cases this has been shown to be true. The world-famous swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps knew this, so he offered to go through extra drug testing before the 2008 Olympics. He knew that many people would suspect his amazing strength and stamina came from using performance-enhancing drugs, so he felt he had to prove that it came from hard work and training alone.

According to the article, why do athletes undergo drug testing?

Fitness Pill

These days there are pills for just about everything. If you can’t sleep, take a pill. If you’re sad, take a pill. If you’re in pain, take a pill. But what about people who are overweight or lack fitness? The best solution for these people is to exercise, but many people don’t want to exercise or are unable to exercise. Drug companies are always looking for new pills to sell, and many have spent lots of money on developing a pill for these people too. In the 1990s, scientists working for one of these companies found a new drug that gave mice some of the same benefits as exercise. Newspapers began reporting on this new drug, calling it the “fitness pill” or “exercise pill”. They said it could “build muscle, increase stamina, and even burn fat.”

The reports said that mice with no previous fitness training could run much longer distances after being given the drug. They said there was evidence that the drug could also help humans by improving fitness and building up muscles. Many people who read these articles wanted to try the pills, but reports about problems with the drug soon began appearing. Researchers found that mice had an increased chance of developing cancer after taking it. This meant the drug would never be approved for human use and the drug company stopped developing it.

Medical researchers are still looking for a drug similar to the one found in the 90s. They’re trying to find a new drug with the same benefits that doesn’t also cause cancer. They believe such a drug would have many uses, including important medical uses. It could benefit people who can’t get out of bed due to ill health. It could also benefit people with diabetes and those with diseases that cause muscle-wasting. Medical researchers also believe such a drug could benefit the average adult as well. Most adults say they don’t have enough spare time to do the 40 minutes of daily exercise that doctors recommend. For these people, a so-called fitness pill or exercise pill could be the best solution. But others might say they’re cheating by taking a pill instead of exercising. Would you take such a pill if it meant you no longer had to jog, swim or use a treadmill to stay fit?

Many people in the world of sports are concerned about a pill like this. They fear that some athletes might use it as a performance-enhancing drug. Even though the drug discovered in the 90s was never approved for human use, some athletes may have used it to cheat. Top athletes already go

through extensive drug testing before national and international events, but until sports authorities know about a new drug, it won’t be tested for. Some people think top athletes who pass drug tests might still be cheating, and in some cases this has been shown to be true. The world-famous swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps knew this, so he offered to go through extra drug testing before the 2008 Olympics. He knew that many people would suspect his amazing strength and stamina came from using performance-enhancing drugs, so he felt he had to prove that it came from hard work and training alone.

Many people fear athletes might use fitness pills to enhance their

Fitness Pill

These days there are pills for just about everything. If you can’t sleep, take a pill. If you’re sad, take a pill. If you’re in pain, take a pill. But what about people who are overweight or lack fitness? The best solution for these people is to exercise, but many people don’t want to exercise or are unable to exercise. Drug companies are always looking for new pills to sell, and many have spent lots of money on developing a pill for these people too. In the 1990s, scientists working for one of these companies found a new drug that gave mice some of the same benefits as exercise. Newspapers began reporting on this new drug, calling it the “fitness pill” or “exercise pill”. They said it could “build muscle, increase stamina, and even burn fat.”

The reports said that mice with no previous fitness training could run much longer distances after being given the drug. They said there was evidence that the drug could also help humans by improving fitness and building up muscles. Many people who read these articles wanted to try the pills, but reports about problems with the drug soon began appearing. Researchers found that mice had an increased chance of developing cancer after taking it. This meant the drug would never be approved for human use and the drug company stopped developing it.

Medical researchers are still looking for a drug similar to the one found in the 90s. They’re trying to find a new drug with the same benefits that doesn’t also cause cancer. They believe such a drug would have many uses, including important medical uses. It could benefit people who can’t get out of bed due to ill health. It could also benefit people with diabetes and those with diseases that cause muscle-wasting. Medical researchers also believe such a drug could benefit the average adult as well. Most adults say they don’t have enough spare time to do the 40 minutes of daily exercise that doctors recommend. For these people, a so-called fitness pill or exercise pill could be the best solution. But others might say they’re cheating by taking a pill instead of exercising. Would you take such a pill if it meant you no longer had to jog, swim or use a treadmill to stay fit?

Many people in the world of sports are concerned about a pill like this. They fear that some athletes might use it as a performance-enhancing drug. Even though the drug discovered in the 90s was never approved for human use, some athletes may have used it to cheat. Top athletes already go

through extensive drug testing before national and international events, but until sports authorities know about a new drug, it won’t be tested for. Some people think top athletes who pass drug tests might still be cheating, and in some cases this has been shown to be true. The world-famous swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps knew this, so he offered to go through extra drug testing before the 2008 Olympics. He knew that many people would suspect his amazing strength and stamina came from using performance-enhancing drugs, so he felt he had to prove that it came from hard work and training alone.

Drugs that still haven’t been approved for humans use shouldn’t be

Fitness Pill

These days there are pills for just about everything. If you can’t sleep, take a pill. If you’re sad, take a pill. If you’re in pain, take a pill. But what about people who are overweight or lack fitness? The best solution for these people is to exercise, but many people don’t want to exercise or are unable to exercise. Drug companies are always looking for new pills to sell, and many have spent lots of money on developing a pill for these people too. In the 1990s, scientists working for one of these companies found a new drug that gave mice some of the same benefits as exercise. Newspapers began reporting on this new drug, calling it the “fitness pill” or “exercise pill”. They said it could “build muscle, increase stamina, and even burn fat.”

The reports said that mice with no previous fitness training could run much longer distances after being given the drug. They said there was evidence that the drug could also help humans by improving fitness and building up muscles. Many people who read these articles wanted to try the pills, but reports about problems with the drug soon began appearing. Researchers found that mice had an increased chance of developing cancer after taking it. This meant the drug would never be approved for human use and the drug company stopped developing it.

Medical researchers are still looking for a drug similar to the one found in the 90s. They’re trying to find a new drug with the same benefits that doesn’t also cause cancer. They believe such a drug would have many uses, including important medical uses. It could benefit people who can’t get out of bed due to ill health. It could also benefit people with diabetes and those with diseases that cause muscle-wasting. Medical researchers also believe such a drug could benefit the average adult as well. Most adults say they don’t have enough spare time to do the 40 minutes of daily exercise that doctors recommend. For these people, a so-called fitness pill or exercise pill could be the best solution. But others might say they’re cheating by taking a pill instead of exercising. Would you take such a pill if it meant you no longer had to jog, swim or use a treadmill to stay fit?

Many people in the world of sports are concerned about a pill like this. They fear that some athletes might use it as a performance-enhancing drug. Even though the drug discovered in the 90s was never approved for human use, some athletes may have used it to cheat. Top athletes already go

through extensive drug testing before national and international events, but until sports authorities know about a new drug, it won’t be tested for. Some people think top athletes who pass drug tests might still be cheating, and in some cases this has been shown to be true. The world-famous swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps knew this, so he offered to go through extra drug testing before the 2008 Olympics. He knew that many people would suspect his amazing strength and stamina came from using performance-enhancing drugs, so he felt he had to prove that it came from hard work and training alone.

The main idea why scientists are working on a pill that just might replace exercise is

Fitness Pill

These days there are pills for just about everything. If you can’t sleep, take a pill. If you’re sad, take a pill. If you’re in pain, take a pill. But what about people who are overweight or lack fitness? The best solution for these people is to exercise, but many people don’t want to exercise or are unable to exercise. Drug companies are always looking for new pills to sell, and many have spent lots of money on developing a pill for these people too. In the 1990s, scientists working for one of these companies found a new drug that gave mice some of the same benefits as exercise. Newspapers began reporting on this new drug, calling it the “fitness pill” or “exercise pill”. They said it could “build muscle, increase stamina, and even burn fat.”

The reports said that mice with no previous fitness training could run much longer distances after being given the drug. They said there was evidence that the drug could also help humans by improving fitness and building up muscles. Many people who read these articles wanted to try the pills, but reports about problems with the drug soon began appearing. Researchers found that mice had an increased chance of developing cancer after taking it. This meant the drug would never be approved for human use and the drug company stopped developing it.

Medical researchers are still looking for a drug similar to the one found in the 90s. They’re trying to find a new drug with the same benefits that doesn’t also cause cancer. They believe such a drug would have many uses, including important medical uses. It could benefit people who can’t get out of bed due to ill health. It could also benefit people with diabetes and those with diseases that cause muscle-wasting. Medical researchers also believe such a drug could benefit the average adult as well. Most adults say they don’t have enough spare time to do the 40 minutes of daily exercise that doctors recommend. For these people, a so-called fitness pill or exercise pill could be the best solution. But others might say they’re cheating by taking a pill instead of exercising. Would you take such a pill if it meant you no longer had to jog, swim or use a treadmill to stay fit?

Many people in the world of sports are concerned about a pill like this. They fear that some athletes might use it as a performance-enhancing drug. Even though the drug discovered in the 90s was never approved for human use, some athletes may have used it to cheat. Top athletes already go

through extensive drug testing before national and international events, but until sports authorities know about a new drug, it won’t be tested for. Some people think top athletes who pass drug tests might still be cheating, and in some cases this has been shown to be true. The world-famous swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps knew this, so he offered to go through extra drug testing before the 2008 Olympics. He knew that many people would suspect his amazing strength and stamina came from using performance-enhancing drugs, so he felt he had to prove that it came from hard work and training alone.

In context to the passage, there are numerous workout and dietary supplements approved by the Food and Drug Administration, but it is wise to be cautious and know what you are ingesting into your body. The best way to do that is to

Fitness Pill

These days there are pills for just about everything. If you can’t sleep, take a pill. If you’re sad, take a pill. If you’re in pain, take a pill. But what about people who are overweight or lack fitness? The best solution for these people is to exercise, but many people don’t want to exercise or are unable to exercise. Drug companies are always looking for new pills to sell, and many have spent lots of money on developing a pill for these people too. In the 1990s, scientists working for one of these companies found a new drug that gave mice some of the same benefits as exercise. Newspapers began reporting on this new drug, calling it the “fitness pill” or “exercise pill”. They said it could “build muscle, increase stamina, and even burn fat.”

The reports said that mice with no previous fitness training could run much longer distances after being given the drug. They said there was evidence that the drug could also help humans by improving fitness and building up muscles. Many people who read these articles wanted to try the pills, but reports about problems with the drug soon began appearing. Researchers found that mice had an increased chance of developing cancer after taking it. This meant the drug would never be approved for human use and the drug company stopped developing it.

Medical researchers are still looking for a drug similar to the one found in the 90s. They’re trying to find a new drug with the same benefits that doesn’t also cause cancer. They believe such a drug would have many uses, including important medical uses. It could benefit people who can’t get out of bed due to ill health. It could also benefit people with diabetes and those with diseases that cause muscle-wasting. Medical researchers also believe such a drug could benefit the average adult as well. Most adults say they don’t have enough spare time to do the 40 minutes of daily exercise that doctors recommend. For these people, a so-called fitness pill or exercise pill could be the best solution. But others might say they’re cheating by taking a pill instead of exercising. Would you take such a pill if it meant you no longer had to jog, swim or use a treadmill to stay fit?

Many people in the world of sports are concerned about a pill like this. They fear that some athletes might use it as a performance-enhancing drug. Even though the drug discovered in the 90s was never approved for human use, some athletes may have used it to cheat. Top athletes already go

through extensive drug testing before national and international events, but until sports authorities know about a new drug, it won’t be tested for. Some people think top athletes who pass drug tests might still be cheating, and in some cases this has been shown to be true. The world-famous swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps knew this, so he offered to go through extra drug testing before the 2008 Olympics. He knew that many people would suspect his amazing strength and stamina came from using performance-enhancing drugs, so he felt he had to prove that it came from hard work and training alone.

In context to the passage, when taking a workout supplement, the main goal is to

Fitness Pill

These days there are pills for just about everything. If you can’t sleep, take a pill. If you’re sad, take a pill. If you’re in pain, take a pill. But what about people who are overweight or lack fitness? The best solution for these people is to exercise, but many people don’t want to exercise or are unable to exercise. Drug companies are always looking for new pills to sell, and many have spent lots of money on developing a pill for these people too. In the 1990s, scientists working for one of these companies found a new drug that gave mice some of the same benefits as exercise. Newspapers began reporting on this new drug, calling it the “fitness pill” or “exercise pill”. They said it could “build muscle, increase stamina, and even burn fat.”

The reports said that mice with no previous fitness training could run much longer distances after being given the drug. They said there was evidence that the drug could also help humans by improving fitness and building up muscles. Many people who read these articles wanted to try the pills, but reports about problems with the drug soon began appearing. Researchers found that mice had an increased chance of developing cancer after taking it. This meant the drug would never be approved for human use and the drug company stopped developing it.

Medical researchers are still looking for a drug similar to the one found in the 90s. They’re trying to find a new drug with the same benefits that doesn’t also cause cancer. They believe such a drug would have many uses, including important medical uses. It could benefit people who can’t get out of bed due to ill health. It could also benefit people with diabetes and those with diseases that cause muscle-wasting. Medical researchers also believe such a drug could benefit the average adult as well. Most adults say they don’t have enough spare time to do the 40 minutes of daily exercise that doctors recommend. For these people, a so-called fitness pill or exercise pill could be the best solution. But others might say they’re cheating by taking a pill instead of exercising. Would you take such a pill if it meant you no longer had to jog, swim or use a treadmill to stay fit?

Many people in the world of sports are concerned about a pill like this. They fear that some athletes might use it as a performance-enhancing drug. Even though the drug discovered in the 90s was never approved for human use, some athletes may have used it to cheat. Top athletes already go

through extensive drug testing before national and international events, but until sports authorities know about a new drug, it won’t be tested for. Some people think top athletes who pass drug tests might still be cheating, and in some cases this has been shown to be true. The world-famous swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps knew this, so he offered to go through extra drug testing before the 2008 Olympics. He knew that many people would suspect his amazing strength and stamina came from using performance-enhancing drugs, so he felt he had to prove that it came from hard work and training alone.

In context to the passage, pre-workouts are an energy boost and help with endurance to make your workouts last longer. Where is the energy coming from?