Reading Comprehension || RC PRACTICE SET - 10 || CAT 2021 || 27 April

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.

A glacial lake burst, a cloud burst or an avalanche, the impact of climate change or “development” — scientists are not sure what triggered the sudden surge of water near Chamoli in Uttarakhand Sunday morning that briefly raised fears of a repeat of the 2013 disaster in the state.

By evening, the prospect of largescale flooding and destruction had receded. And, as scientists prepared to travel to the site in the high mountains north of Chamoli to ascertain the cause of the incident, the scenario being most talked about was what glaciologists like to call a GLOF, or glacial lake outburst flood. It is a reference to flooding caused downstream due to a breach in a glacial lake.

Retreating glaciers (formed when backward melting at the front of a glacier takes place at a rate exceeding forward motion), like several in the Himalayas, usually result in the formation of lakes at their tips, called proglacial lakes, often bound only by sediments and boulders. If the boundaries of these lakes are breached, it can lead to large amounts of water rushing down to nearby streams and rivers, gathering momentum on the way by picking up sediments, rocks and other material, and resulting in flooding downstream.

GLOF events are not unusual, but their impact depends on the size of the proglacial lake that burst, and location. The breach can be caused by several reasons — in this particular case, for instance, an avalanche was reported in the region two days ago.

But while GLOF is being considered to be the most likely trigger for Sunday’s event, there are questions surrounding this possibility. “We don’t know of any big glacial lakes in this region. An avalanche is quite common, and there could have been one, but an avalanche on its own would not result in an increase in the flow of water in the river. The water has to come from a source, and as of now, we do not know what this source is,” said Professor H C Nainwal, a glaciologist at the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Srinagar, Uttarakhand.

“We would have to visit the area to find out what exactly happened. Till then, we can only speculate,” he said.

Argha Banerjee, a glaciologist who works at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, said it was possible that a glacier lake was present in the area but not known to scientists.

But there are other possibilities, as Banerjee suggested.

“Climate change can be one of the reasons of the formation of proglacial lakes. It is also possible that an avalanche or a landslide created an obstruction in the flow of the river or streams in the upper mountains, resulting in a makeshift dam-like situation. When the pressure of the flowing water became large, the dam probably gave away, leading to a sudden gush of water. These are just the possible scenarios. We would know the exact reason only after reaching the site. It might take a day or two,” Banerjee said.

Then there are also issues to consider, like climate change or disproportionate construction in a fragile ecosystem, which were supposed to have contributed significantly to the 2013 disaster as well.

As of now, the incident does not seem to have any direct linkage with construction-related activities, or the presence of big dams, but climate change as a factor is not something that can be ignored, particularly in the formation of proglacial lakes. A majority of the glaciers in the Himalayas are known to be receding, all leading to the formation of several proglacial lakes.

What scientists are almost certain of is that the incident was not a result of any glacier ‘breaking off’. In fact, glaciers are not known to break in a manner that ice-sheets in the polar regions do. Some chunks of snow from near the tip of the glacier can indeed slide down. These chunks do not result in huge amounts of water like those seen in incidents like these.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/uttarakhand-glacier-break-flash-flood-rishiganga-7179003/

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.

A glacial lake burst, a cloud burst or an avalanche, the impact of climate change or “development” — scientists are not sure what triggered the sudden surge of water near Chamoli in Uttarakhand Sunday morning that briefly raised fears of a repeat of the 2013 disaster in the state.

By evening, the prospect of largescale flooding and destruction had receded. And, as scientists prepared to travel to the site in the high mountains north of Chamoli to ascertain the cause of the incident, the scenario being most talked about was what glaciologists like to call a GLOF, or glacial lake outburst flood. It is a reference to flooding caused downstream due to a breach in a glacial lake.

Retreating glaciers (formed when backward melting at the front of a glacier takes place at a rate exceeding forward motion), like several in the Himalayas, usually result in the formation of lakes at their tips, called proglacial lakes, often bound only by sediments and boulders. If the boundaries of these lakes are breached, it can lead to large amounts of water rushing down to nearby streams and rivers, gathering momentum on the way by picking up sediments, rocks and other material, and resulting in flooding downstream.

GLOF events are not unusual, but their impact depends on the size of the proglacial lake that burst, and location. The breach can be caused by several reasons — in this particular case, for instance, an avalanche was reported in the region two days ago.

But while GLOF is being considered to be the most likely trigger for Sunday’s event, there are questions surrounding this possibility. “We don’t know of any big glacial lakes in this region. An avalanche is quite common, and there could have been one, but an avalanche on its own would not result in an increase in the flow of water in the river. The water has to come from a source, and as of now, we do not know what this source is,” said Professor H C Nainwal, a glaciologist at the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Srinagar, Uttarakhand.

“We would have to visit the area to find out what exactly happened. Till then, we can only speculate,” he said.

Argha Banerjee, a glaciologist who works at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, said it was possible that a glacier lake was present in the area but not known to scientists.

But there are other possibilities, as Banerjee suggested.

“Climate change can be one of the reasons of the formation of proglacial lakes. It is also possible that an avalanche or a landslide created an obstruction in the flow of the river or streams in the upper mountains, resulting in a makeshift dam-like situation. When the pressure of the flowing water became large, the dam probably gave away, leading to a sudden gush of water. These are just the possible scenarios. We would know the exact reason only after reaching the site. It might take a day or two,” Banerjee said.

Then there are also issues to consider, like climate change or disproportionate construction in a fragile ecosystem, which were supposed to have contributed significantly to the 2013 disaster as well.

As of now, the incident does not seem to have any direct linkage with construction-related activities, or the presence of big dams, but climate change as a factor is not something that can be ignored, particularly in the formation of proglacial lakes. A majority of the glaciers in the Himalayas are known to be receding, all leading to the formation of several proglacial lakes.

What scientists are almost certain of is that the incident was not a result of any glacier ‘breaking off’. In fact, glaciers are not known to break in a manner that ice-sheets in the polar regions do. Some chunks of snow from near the tip of the glacier can indeed slide down. These chunks do not result in huge amounts of water like those seen in incidents like these.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/uttarakhand-glacier-break-flash-flood-rishiganga-7179003/

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.

A glacial lake burst, a cloud burst or an avalanche, the impact of climate change or “development” — scientists are not sure what triggered the sudden surge of water near Chamoli in Uttarakhand Sunday morning that briefly raised fears of a repeat of the 2013 disaster in the state.

By evening, the prospect of largescale flooding and destruction had receded. And, as scientists prepared to travel to the site in the high mountains north of Chamoli to ascertain the cause of the incident, the scenario being most talked about was what glaciologists like to call a GLOF, or glacial lake outburst flood. It is a reference to flooding caused downstream due to a breach in a glacial lake.

Retreating glaciers (formed when backward melting at the front of a glacier takes place at a rate exceeding forward motion), like several in the Himalayas, usually result in the formation of lakes at their tips, called proglacial lakes, often bound only by sediments and boulders. If the boundaries of these lakes are breached, it can lead to large amounts of water rushing down to nearby streams and rivers, gathering momentum on the way by picking up sediments, rocks and other material, and resulting in flooding downstream.

GLOF events are not unusual, but their impact depends on the size of the proglacial lake that burst, and location. The breach can be caused by several reasons — in this particular case, for instance, an avalanche was reported in the region two days ago.

But while GLOF is being considered to be the most likely trigger for Sunday’s event, there are questions surrounding this possibility. “We don’t know of any big glacial lakes in this region. An avalanche is quite common, and there could have been one, but an avalanche on its own would not result in an increase in the flow of water in the river. The water has to come from a source, and as of now, we do not know what this source is,” said Professor H C Nainwal, a glaciologist at the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Srinagar, Uttarakhand.

“We would have to visit the area to find out what exactly happened. Till then, we can only speculate,” he said.

Argha Banerjee, a glaciologist who works at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, said it was possible that a glacier lake was present in the area but not known to scientists.

But there are other possibilities, as Banerjee suggested.

“Climate change can be one of the reasons of the formation of proglacial lakes. It is also possible that an avalanche or a landslide created an obstruction in the flow of the river or streams in the upper mountains, resulting in a makeshift dam-like situation. When the pressure of the flowing water became large, the dam probably gave away, leading to a sudden gush of water. These are just the possible scenarios. We would know the exact reason only after reaching the site. It might take a day or two,” Banerjee said.

Then there are also issues to consider, like climate change or disproportionate construction in a fragile ecosystem, which were supposed to have contributed significantly to the 2013 disaster as well.

As of now, the incident does not seem to have any direct linkage with construction-related activities, or the presence of big dams, but climate change as a factor is not something that can be ignored, particularly in the formation of proglacial lakes. A majority of the glaciers in the Himalayas are known to be receding, all leading to the formation of several proglacial lakes.

What scientists are almost certain of is that the incident was not a result of any glacier ‘breaking off’. In fact, glaciers are not known to break in a manner that ice-sheets in the polar regions do. Some chunks of snow from near the tip of the glacier can indeed slide down. These chunks do not result in huge amounts of water like those seen in incidents like these.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/uttarakhand-glacier-break-flash-flood-rishiganga-7179003/

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.

A glacial lake burst, a cloud burst or an avalanche, the impact of climate change or “development” — scientists are not sure what triggered the sudden surge of water near Chamoli in Uttarakhand Sunday morning that briefly raised fears of a repeat of the 2013 disaster in the state.

By evening, the prospect of largescale flooding and destruction had receded. And, as scientists prepared to travel to the site in the high mountains north of Chamoli to ascertain the cause of the incident, the scenario being most talked about was what glaciologists like to call a GLOF, or glacial lake outburst flood. It is a reference to flooding caused downstream due to a breach in a glacial lake.

Retreating glaciers (formed when backward melting at the front of a glacier takes place at a rate exceeding forward motion), like several in the Himalayas, usually result in the formation of lakes at their tips, called proglacial lakes, often bound only by sediments and boulders. If the boundaries of these lakes are breached, it can lead to large amounts of water rushing down to nearby streams and rivers, gathering momentum on the way by picking up sediments, rocks and other material, and resulting in flooding downstream.

GLOF events are not unusual, but their impact depends on the size of the proglacial lake that burst, and location. The breach can be caused by several reasons — in this particular case, for instance, an avalanche was reported in the region two days ago.

But while GLOF is being considered to be the most likely trigger for Sunday’s event, there are questions surrounding this possibility. “We don’t know of any big glacial lakes in this region. An avalanche is quite common, and there could have been one, but an avalanche on its own would not result in an increase in the flow of water in the river. The water has to come from a source, and as of now, we do not know what this source is,” said Professor H C Nainwal, a glaciologist at the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Srinagar, Uttarakhand.

“We would have to visit the area to find out what exactly happened. Till then, we can only speculate,” he said.

Argha Banerjee, a glaciologist who works at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, said it was possible that a glacier lake was present in the area but not known to scientists.

But there are other possibilities, as Banerjee suggested.

“Climate change can be one of the reasons of the formation of proglacial lakes. It is also possible that an avalanche or a landslide created an obstruction in the flow of the river or streams in the upper mountains, resulting in a makeshift dam-like situation. When the pressure of the flowing water became large, the dam probably gave away, leading to a sudden gush of water. These are just the possible scenarios. We would know the exact reason only after reaching the site. It might take a day or two,” Banerjee said.

Then there are also issues to consider, like climate change or disproportionate construction in a fragile ecosystem, which were supposed to have contributed significantly to the 2013 disaster as well.

As of now, the incident does not seem to have any direct linkage with construction-related activities, or the presence of big dams, but climate change as a factor is not something that can be ignored, particularly in the formation of proglacial lakes. A majority of the glaciers in the Himalayas are known to be receding, all leading to the formation of several proglacial lakes.

What scientists are almost certain of is that the incident was not a result of any glacier ‘breaking off’. In fact, glaciers are not known to break in a manner that ice-sheets in the polar regions do. Some chunks of snow from near the tip of the glacier can indeed slide down. These chunks do not result in huge amounts of water like those seen in incidents like these.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/uttarakhand-glacier-break-flash-flood-rishiganga-7179003/

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.

A glacial lake burst, a cloud burst or an avalanche, the impact of climate change or “development” — scientists are not sure what triggered the sudden surge of water near Chamoli in Uttarakhand Sunday morning that briefly raised fears of a repeat of the 2013 disaster in the state.

By evening, the prospect of largescale flooding and destruction had receded. And, as scientists prepared to travel to the site in the high mountains north of Chamoli to ascertain the cause of the incident, the scenario being most talked about was what glaciologists like to call a GLOF, or glacial lake outburst flood. It is a reference to flooding caused downstream due to a breach in a glacial lake.

Retreating glaciers (formed when backward melting at the front of a glacier takes place at a rate exceeding forward motion), like several in the Himalayas, usually result in the formation of lakes at their tips, called proglacial lakes, often bound only by sediments and boulders. If the boundaries of these lakes are breached, it can lead to large amounts of water rushing down to nearby streams and rivers, gathering momentum on the way by picking up sediments, rocks and other material, and resulting in flooding downstream.

GLOF events are not unusual, but their impact depends on the size of the proglacial lake that burst, and location. The breach can be caused by several reasons — in this particular case, for instance, an avalanche was reported in the region two days ago.

But while GLOF is being considered to be the most likely trigger for Sunday’s event, there are questions surrounding this possibility. “We don’t know of any big glacial lakes in this region. An avalanche is quite common, and there could have been one, but an avalanche on its own would not result in an increase in the flow of water in the river. The water has to come from a source, and as of now, we do not know what this source is,” said Professor H C Nainwal, a glaciologist at the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Srinagar, Uttarakhand.

“We would have to visit the area to find out what exactly happened. Till then, we can only speculate,” he said.

Argha Banerjee, a glaciologist who works at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, said it was possible that a glacier lake was present in the area but not known to scientists.

But there are other possibilities, as Banerjee suggested.

“Climate change can be one of the reasons of the formation of proglacial lakes. It is also possible that an avalanche or a landslide created an obstruction in the flow of the river or streams in the upper mountains, resulting in a makeshift dam-like situation. When the pressure of the flowing water became large, the dam probably gave away, leading to a sudden gush of water. These are just the possible scenarios. We would know the exact reason only after reaching the site. It might take a day or two,” Banerjee said.

Then there are also issues to consider, like climate change or disproportionate construction in a fragile ecosystem, which were supposed to have contributed significantly to the 2013 disaster as well.

As of now, the incident does not seem to have any direct linkage with construction-related activities, or the presence of big dams, but climate change as a factor is not something that can be ignored, particularly in the formation of proglacial lakes. A majority of the glaciers in the Himalayas are known to be receding, all leading to the formation of several proglacial lakes.

What scientists are almost certain of is that the incident was not a result of any glacier ‘breaking off’. In fact, glaciers are not known to break in a manner that ice-sheets in the polar regions do. Some chunks of snow from near the tip of the glacier can indeed slide down. These chunks do not result in huge amounts of water like those seen in incidents like these.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/uttarakhand-glacier-break-flash-flood-rishiganga-7179003/

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.

A glacial lake burst, a cloud burst or an avalanche, the impact of climate change or “development” — scientists are not sure what triggered the sudden surge of water near Chamoli in Uttarakhand Sunday morning that briefly raised fears of a repeat of the 2013 disaster in the state.

By evening, the prospect of largescale flooding and destruction had receded. And, as scientists prepared to travel to the site in the high mountains north of Chamoli to ascertain the cause of the incident, the scenario being most talked about was what glaciologists like to call a GLOF, or glacial lake outburst flood. It is a reference to flooding caused downstream due to a breach in a glacial lake.

Retreating glaciers (formed when backward melting at the front of a glacier takes place at a rate exceeding forward motion), like several in the Himalayas, usually result in the formation of lakes at their tips, called proglacial lakes, often bound only by sediments and boulders. If the boundaries of these lakes are breached, it can lead to large amounts of water rushing down to nearby streams and rivers, gathering momentum on the way by picking up sediments, rocks and other material, and resulting in flooding downstream.

GLOF events are not unusual, but their impact depends on the size of the proglacial lake that burst, and location. The breach can be caused by several reasons — in this particular case, for instance, an avalanche was reported in the region two days ago.

But while GLOF is being considered to be the most likely trigger for Sunday’s event, there are questions surrounding this possibility. “We don’t know of any big glacial lakes in this region. An avalanche is quite common, and there could have been one, but an avalanche on its own would not result in an increase in the flow of water in the river. The water has to come from a source, and as of now, we do not know what this source is,” said Professor H C Nainwal, a glaciologist at the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Srinagar, Uttarakhand.

“We would have to visit the area to find out what exactly happened. Till then, we can only speculate,” he said.

Argha Banerjee, a glaciologist who works at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, said it was possible that a glacier lake was present in the area but not known to scientists.

But there are other possibilities, as Banerjee suggested.

“Climate change can be one of the reasons of the formation of proglacial lakes. It is also possible that an avalanche or a landslide created an obstruction in the flow of the river or streams in the upper mountains, resulting in a makeshift dam-like situation. When the pressure of the flowing water became large, the dam probably gave away, leading to a sudden gush of water. These are just the possible scenarios. We would know the exact reason only after reaching the site. It might take a day or two,” Banerjee said.

Then there are also issues to consider, like climate change or disproportionate construction in a fragile ecosystem, which were supposed to have contributed significantly to the 2013 disaster as well.

As of now, the incident does not seem to have any direct linkage with construction-related activities, or the presence of big dams, but climate change as a factor is not something that can be ignored, particularly in the formation of proglacial lakes. A majority of the glaciers in the Himalayas are known to be receding, all leading to the formation of several proglacial lakes.

What scientists are almost certain of is that the incident was not a result of any glacier ‘breaking off’. In fact, glaciers are not known to break in a manner that ice-sheets in the polar regions do. Some chunks of snow from near the tip of the glacier can indeed slide down. These chunks do not result in huge amounts of water like those seen in incidents like these.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/uttarakhand-glacier-break-flash-flood-rishiganga-7179003/

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

One of the most important things about this week’s landmark review into the value of nature may appear to be a footling detail: its publisher. The 600-page report was commissioned by the Treasury, rather than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The difference appears to be tiny – the two ministries are a mere 10-minute walk apart – but it represents a huge paradigm shift. For this is the first time any country’s finance ministry has put out a comprehensive study into the economic importance of maintaining a variety of life on Earth. Its author is Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, a Cambridge economist. His argument is both needed and subversive: our economic models and our models for how to run an economy both require an urgent overhaul if humanity is to survive and prosper.

For so long, government ministers have treated biodiversity as way down the to-do list, beneath winning the next election and ensuring asset markets and public services are not in meltdown. Plurality and integrity of natural life, of everything from parasites to parakeets, is no more objectionable to a politician than the latest Attenborough documentary. But doing much about it has never seemed a high enough priority.

Until now, maybe. While the world is following every twist and turn in the battle against Covid-19, environmental experts from the UN to the World Health Organization have been busy pointing out that this pandemic’s root cause is humanity’s slow ___________ of nature. Annihilating forests to create farms and build roads, bringing wildlife into contact with people and their livestock, is fundamentally how this lethal virus spilled from wildlife into humankind. The result is 2.2 million deaths and rising fast. As Prof Dasgupta observes, the destruction of nature means that there will be another pandemic – and another, with all the devastation to life and economic value they could bring.

No wonder, then, that his report begins with the assertion: “Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend on our most precious asset: nature.” He is, admittedly, not the first economist to point this out. Think of Karl Marx arguing: “Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values … as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature”. But mainstream economists both in academia and in policymaking have still to embed such ideas in their thinking.

Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/05/the-guardian-view-on-valuing-nature-priceless-things-sold-cheap

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

One of the most important things about this week’s landmark review into the value of nature may appear to be a footling detail: its publisher. The 600-page report was commissioned by the Treasury, rather than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The difference appears to be tiny – the two ministries are a mere 10-minute walk apart – but it represents a huge paradigm shift. For this is the first time any country’s finance ministry has put out a comprehensive study into the economic importance of maintaining a variety of life on Earth. Its author is Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, a Cambridge economist. His argument is both needed and subversive: our economic models and our models for how to run an economy both require an urgent overhaul if humanity is to survive and prosper.

For so long, government ministers have treated biodiversity as way down the to-do list, beneath winning the next election and ensuring asset markets and public services are not in meltdown. Plurality and integrity of natural life, of everything from parasites to parakeets, is no more objectionable to a politician than the latest Attenborough documentary. But doing much about it has never seemed a high enough priority.

Until now, maybe. While the world is following every twist and turn in the battle against Covid-19, environmental experts from the UN to the World Health Organization have been busy pointing out that this pandemic’s root cause is humanity’s slow ___________ of nature. Annihilating forests to create farms and build roads, bringing wildlife into contact with people and their livestock, is fundamentally how this lethal virus spilled from wildlife into humankind. The result is 2.2 million deaths and rising fast. As Prof Dasgupta observes, the destruction of nature means that there will be another pandemic – and another, with all the devastation to life and economic value they could bring.

No wonder, then, that his report begins with the assertion: “Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend on our most precious asset: nature.” He is, admittedly, not the first economist to point this out. Think of Karl Marx arguing: “Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values … as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature”. But mainstream economists both in academia and in policymaking have still to embed such ideas in their thinking.

Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/05/the-guardian-view-on-valuing-nature-priceless-things-sold-cheap

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

One of the most important things about this week’s landmark review into the value of nature may appear to be a footling detail: its publisher. The 600-page report was commissioned by the Treasury, rather than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The difference appears to be tiny – the two ministries are a mere 10-minute walk apart – but it represents a huge paradigm shift. For this is the first time any country’s finance ministry has put out a comprehensive study into the economic importance of maintaining a variety of life on Earth. Its author is Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, a Cambridge economist. His argument is both needed and subversive: our economic models and our models for how to run an economy both require an urgent overhaul if humanity is to survive and prosper.

For so long, government ministers have treated biodiversity as way down the to-do list, beneath winning the next election and ensuring asset markets and public services are not in meltdown. Plurality and integrity of natural life, of everything from parasites to parakeets, is no more objectionable to a politician than the latest Attenborough documentary. But doing much about it has never seemed a high enough priority.

Until now, maybe. While the world is following every twist and turn in the battle against Covid-19, environmental experts from the UN to the World Health Organization have been busy pointing out that this pandemic’s root cause is humanity’s slow ___________ of nature. Annihilating forests to create farms and build roads, bringing wildlife into contact with people and their livestock, is fundamentally how this lethal virus spilled from wildlife into humankind. The result is 2.2 million deaths and rising fast. As Prof Dasgupta observes, the destruction of nature means that there will be another pandemic – and another, with all the devastation to life and economic value they could bring.

No wonder, then, that his report begins with the assertion: “Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend on our most precious asset: nature.” He is, admittedly, not the first economist to point this out. Think of Karl Marx arguing: “Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values … as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature”. But mainstream economists both in academia and in policymaking have still to embed such ideas in their thinking.

Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/05/the-guardian-view-on-valuing-nature-priceless-things-sold-cheap

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

One of the most important things about this week’s landmark review into the value of nature may appear to be a footling detail: its publisher. The 600-page report was commissioned by the Treasury, rather than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The difference appears to be tiny – the two ministries are a mere 10-minute walk apart – but it represents a huge paradigm shift. For this is the first time any country’s finance ministry has put out a comprehensive study into the economic importance of maintaining a variety of life on Earth. Its author is Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, a Cambridge economist. His argument is both needed and subversive: our economic models and our models for how to run an economy both require an urgent overhaul if humanity is to survive and prosper.

For so long, government ministers have treated biodiversity as way down the to-do list, beneath winning the next election and ensuring asset markets and public services are not in meltdown. Plurality and integrity of natural life, of everything from parasites to parakeets, is no more objectionable to a politician than the latest Attenborough documentary. But doing much about it has never seemed a high enough priority.

Until now, maybe. While the world is following every twist and turn in the battle against Covid-19, environmental experts from the UN to the World Health Organization have been busy pointing out that this pandemic’s root cause is humanity’s slow ___________ of nature. Annihilating forests to create farms and build roads, bringing wildlife into contact with people and their livestock, is fundamentally how this lethal virus spilled from wildlife into humankind. The result is 2.2 million deaths and rising fast. As Prof Dasgupta observes, the destruction of nature means that there will be another pandemic – and another, with all the devastation to life and economic value they could bring.

No wonder, then, that his report begins with the assertion: “Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend on our most precious asset: nature.” He is, admittedly, not the first economist to point this out. Think of Karl Marx arguing: “Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values … as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature”. But mainstream economists both in academia and in policymaking have still to embed such ideas in their thinking.

Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/05/the-guardian-view-on-valuing-nature-priceless-things-sold-cheap