Academic Reading sample task – Multiple choice

Academic Reading sample task – Multiple choice

[Note: This is an extract from an Academic Reading passage on the subject of government subsidies(ˈsəbsədē) to farmers. The text preceding this extract explained how subsidies can lead to activities which cause uneconomical(ˌənˌekəˈnämik(ə)l) and irreversible(ˌi(r)rəˈvərsəb(ə)l) changes to the environment.]

All these activities may have damaging environmental impacts. For example, land clearing for agriculture(ˈaɡrəˌkəlCHər) is the largest single cause of deforestation(dēˌfôrəˈstāSHən); chemical(ˈkemək(ə)l) fertilisers(ˈfərdlˌīzər) and pesticides(ˈpestəˌsīd) may contaminate(kənˈtaməˌnāt) water supplies; more intensive(inˈtensiv) farming and the abandonment of fallow(ˈfalō) periods tend to exacerbate(iɡˈzasərˌbāt) soil erosion(əˈrōZHən); and the spread(spred) of monoculture(ˈmänəˌkəlCHər) and use of highyielding(ˈyēldiNG) varieties of crops have been accompanied by the disappearance of old varieties of food plants which might have provided some insurance against pests(pest) or diseases(dəˈzēz) in future. Soil erosion threatens the productivity of land in both rich and poor countries. The United States, where the most careful measurements have been done, discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish(dəˈminiSH) the soil’s productivity. The country subsequently(ˈsəbsəkwəntlē) embarked(əmˈbärk) upon a program to convert 11 per cent of its cropped land to meadow(ˈmedō) or forest. Topsoil in India and China is vanishing(ˈvaniSH) much faster than in America.

Government policies have frequently compounded(ˈkämˌpound) the environmental damage that farming can cause. In the rich countries, subsidies for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of land. The annual value of these subsidies is immense(iˈmens): about $250 billion, or more than all World Bank lending in the 1980s. To increase the output of crops per acre(ˈākər), a farmer’s easiest option is to use more of the most readily(ˈredəlē) available inputs: fertilisers and pesticides. Fertiliser use doubled in Denmark in the period 1960-1985 and increased in The Netherlands by 150 per cent. The quantity(ˈkwän(t)ədē) of pesticides applied has risen too: by 69 per cent in 1975-1984 in Denmark, for example, with a rise of 115 per cent in the frequency(ˈfrēkwənsē) of application in the three years from 1981.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s some efforts were made to reduce farm subsidies. The most dramatic(drəˈmadik) example was that of New Zealand, which scrapped(skrap) most farm support in 1984. A study of the environmental effects, conducted in 1993, found that the end of fertiliser subsidies had been followed by a fall in fertiliser use (a fall compounded by the decline in world commodity(kəˈmädədē) prices, which cut farm incomes). The removal(rəˈmo͞ovəl) of subsidies also stopped land-clearing and over-stocking, which in the past had been the principal causes of erosion. Farms began to diversify(dəˈvərsəˌfī, dīˈvərsəˌfī). The one kind of subsidy whose removal appeared to have been bad for the environment was the subsidy to manage soil erosion.

In less enlightened(inˈlītnd) countries, and in the European Union, the trend has been to reduce rather than eliminate(əˈliməˌnāt) subsidies, and to introduce new payments to encourage farmers to treat their land in environmentally friendlier ways, or to leave it fallow. It may sound strange but such payments need to be higher than the existing incentives(inˈsen(t)iv) for farmers to grow food crops. Farmers, however, dislike being paid to do nothing. In several countries they have become interested in the possibility of using fuel(ˈfyo͞o(ə)l) produced from crop residues either as a replacement for petrol(ˈpetrəl) (as ethanol(ˈeTHənōl)) or as fuel for power stations (as biomass(ˈbīōˌmas)). Such fuels produce far less carbon dioxide(dīˈäkˌsīd) than coal(kōl) or oil, and absorb(əbˈzôrb) carbon dioxide as they grow.

They are therefore less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. But they are rarely competitive(kəmˈpedədiv) with fossil(ˈfäsəl) fuels unless subsidised - and growing them does no less environmental harm than other crops.