Based on the text below, answer the six questions that follow it. The paragraphs of the text are numbered.

If children lose contact with nature they won't fight for it

[1] According to recent research, even if the present rate of global decarbonisation were to double, we would still be on course for 6°C of warming by the end of the century. Limiting the rise to 2°C, which is the target of current policies, requires a six-time reduction in carbon intensity.

[2] A new report shows that the UK has lost 20% of its breeding birds since 1966: once common species such as willow tits, lesser spotted woodpeckers and turtle doves have all but collapsed; even house sparrows have fallen by two thirds. Ash dieback is just one of many terrifying plant diseases, mostly spread by trade. They now threaten our oaks, pines and chestnuts.

[3] While the surveys show that the great majority of people would like to see the living planet protected, few are prepared to take action. This, I think, reflects a second environmental crisis: the removal of children from the natural world. The young people we might have expected to lead the defence of nature have less and less to do with it.

[4] We don't have to undervalue the indoor world, which has its own rich ecosystem, to lament children's disconnection from the outdoor world. But the experiences the two spheres offer are entirely different. There is no substitute for what takes place outdoors, mostly because the greatest joys of nature are unplanned. The thought that most of our children will never swim among phosphorescent plankton at night, will never be startled by a salmon leaping, or a dolphin breaching is almost as sad as the thought that their children might not have the opportunity.

[5] The remarkable collapse of children's engagement with nature - which is even faster than the collapse of the natural world - is recorded in Richard Louv's book Last Child in the Woods, and in a report published recently by the National Trust. Since the 1970s the area in which children may roam without supervision has decreased by almost 90%. In one generation the proportion of children regularly playing in wild places in the UK has fallen from more than half to fewer than one in 10. In the US, in just six years (1997-2003) children with particular outdoor hobbies fell by half. Eleven- to 15-year-olds in Britain now spend, on average, half their waking day in front of a screen.

[6] There are several reasons for this collapse: parents' irrational fear of strangers and rational fear of traffic, the destruction of the fortifying lands where previous generations played, the quality of indoor entertainment, the structuring of children's time, the criminalisation of natural play. The great indoors, as a result, has become a far more dangerous place than the diminished world beyond.

[7] The rise of obesity and asthma and the decline in cardio-respiratory fitness are well documented. Louv also links the indoor life to an increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other mental ill health. Research conducted at the University of Illinois suggests that playing among trees and grass is associated with a markedreduction in indications of ADHD, while playing indoors appears to increase them. The disorder, Louv suggests, "may be a set of symptoms aggravated by lack of exposure to nature". Perhaps it's the environment, not the child, that has gone wrong.

[8] In her famous essay the Ecology of Imagination in Childhood, Edith Cobb proposed that contact with nature stimulates creativity. Reviewing the biographies of 300 "geniuses", she exposed a common theme: intense experiences of the natural world in the middle age of childhood (between five and 12). Animals and plants, she argued, are among "the figures of speech in the rhetoric of play... which the genius, in particular of later life, seems to remember".

[9] Studies in several nations show that children's games are more creative in green places than in concrete playgrounds. Natural spaces encourage fantasy and roleplay, reasoning and observation. The social standing of children there depends less on physical dominance, more on inventiveness and language skills.

[10] And here we meet the other great loss. Most of those I know who fight for nature are people who spent their childhoods immersed in it. Without a feel for the texture and function of the natural world, without an intensity of engagement almost impossible in the absence of early experience, people will not devote their lives to its protection.

[11] Forest Schools, Outward Bound, Woodcraft Folk, the John Muir Award, the Campaign for Adventure, Natural Connections, family nature clubs and many others are trying to bring children and the natural world back together. But all of them are fighting forces which, if they cannot be changed, will deprive the living planet of the wonder and delight that for millennia have attracted children to the wilds.

(Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/children-lose-contact-with-nature)

Based on the text below, answer the six questions that follow it. The paragraphs of the text are numbered.

If children lose contact with nature they won't fight for it

[1] According to recent research, even if the present rate of global decarbonisation were to double, we would still be on course for 6°C of warming by the end of the century. Limiting the rise to 2°C, which is the target of current policies, requires a six-time reduction in carbon intensity.

[2] A new report shows that the UK has lost 20% of its breeding birds since 1966: once common species such as willow tits, lesser spotted woodpeckers and turtle doves have all but collapsed; even house sparrows have fallen by two thirds. Ash dieback is just one of many terrifying plant diseases, mostly spread by trade. They now threaten our oaks, pines and chestnuts.

[3] While the surveys show that the great majority of people would like to see the living planet protected, few are prepared to take action. This, I think, reflects a second environmental crisis: the removal of children from the natural world. The young people we might have expected to lead the defence of nature have less and less to do with it.

[4] We don't have to undervalue the indoor world, which has its own rich ecosystem, to lament children's disconnection from the outdoor world. But the experiences the two spheres offer are entirely different. There is no substitute for what takes place outdoors, mostly because the greatest joys of nature are unplanned. The thought that most of our children will never swim among phosphorescent plankton at night, will never be startled by a salmon leaping, or a dolphin breaching is almost as sad as the thought that their children might not have the opportunity.

[5] The remarkable collapse of children's engagement with nature - which is even faster than the collapse of the natural world - is recorded in Richard Louv's book Last Child in the Woods, and in a report published recently by the National Trust. Since the 1970s the area in which children may roam without supervision has decreased by almost 90%. In one generation the proportion of children regularly playing in wild places in the UK has fallen from more than half to fewer than one in 10. In the US, in just six years (1997-2003) children with particular outdoor hobbies fell by half. Eleven- to 15-year-olds in Britain now spend, on average, half their waking day in front of a screen.

[6] There are several reasons for this collapse: parents' irrational fear of strangers and rational fear of traffic, the destruction of the fortifying lands where previous generations played, the quality of indoor entertainment, the structuring of children's time, the criminalisation of natural play. The great indoors, as a result, has become a far more dangerous place than the diminished world beyond.

[7] The rise of obesity and asthma and the decline in cardio-respiratory fitness are well documented. Louv also links the indoor life to an increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other mental ill health. Research conducted at the University of Illinois suggests that playing among trees and grass is associated with a markedreduction in indications of ADHD, while playing indoors appears to increase them. The disorder, Louv suggests, "may be a set of symptoms aggravated by lack of exposure to nature". Perhaps it's the environment, not the child, that has gone wrong.

[8] In her famous essay the Ecology of Imagination in Childhood, Edith Cobb proposed that contact with nature stimulates creativity. Reviewing the biographies of 300 "geniuses", she exposed a common theme: intense experiences of the natural world in the middle age of childhood (between five and 12). Animals and plants, she argued, are among "the figures of speech in the rhetoric of play... which the genius, in particular of later life, seems to remember".

[9] Studies in several nations show that children's games are more creative in green places than in concrete playgrounds. Natural spaces encourage fantasy and roleplay, reasoning and observation. The social standing of children there depends less on physical dominance, more on inventiveness and language skills.

[10] And here we meet the other great loss. Most of those I know who fight for nature are people who spent their childhoods immersed in it. Without a feel for the texture and function of the natural world, without an intensity of engagement almost impossible in the absence of early experience, people will not devote their lives to its protection.

[11] Forest Schools, Outward Bound, Woodcraft Folk, the John Muir Award, the Campaign for Adventure, Natural Connections, family nature clubs and many others are trying to bring children and the natural world back together. But all of them are fighting forces which, if they cannot be changed, will deprive the living planet of the wonder and delight that for millennia have attracted children to the wilds.

(Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/children-lose-contact-with-nature)

Read the text below and answer question.

Time to envision legal recourse for climate refugees

As gradually worsening climate patterns and severe weather events prompt an increase in human mobility, people who choose to move will do so with little legal protection. The current system of international law is not equipped to protect climate migrants, as there are no legally binding agreements obliging countries to support climate migrants.

While climate migrants who flee unbearable conditions resemble refugees, the legal protections afforded to refugees do not extend to them. In the aftermath of World War Il, the United Nations established a system to protect civilians who had been forced from their home countries by political violence. Today, there are almost 20.4 million officially designated refugees under the protection of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), but there is an additional group of 21.5 million people who flee their homes as a result of sudden onset weather hazards every year.

The UNHCR has refused to grant these people refugee status, instead designating them as “environmental migrants,” in large part because it lacks the resources to address their needs. But with no organized effort to supervise the migrant population, these desperate individuals go where they can, not necessarily where they should. As their numbers grow, it will become increasingly difficult for the international community to ignore this challenge. As severe climate change displaces more people, the international community may be forced to either redefine “refugees” to include climate migrants or create a new legal category and accompanying institutional framework to protect climate migrants. However, opening that debate in the current context would be very difficult. Currently, the atmosphere in Europe and the U.S. would most likely lead to limiting refugee protections rather than expanding them.

(Adapted from https://www.brookings.edu)

Read the text below and answer question.

U.K. hospitals are overburdened. But the British love their universal health care

March 7, 2018

When Erich McElroy takes the stage at comedy clubs in London, his routine includes a joke about the first time he went to see a doctor in Britain.

Originally from Seattle, McElroy, 45, has lived in London for almost 20 years. A stand-up comedian, he's made a career out of poking fun at the differences in the ways Americans versus Britons see the world - and one of the biggest differences is their outlook on health care.

"| saw a doctor, who gave me a couple pills and sent me on my way. But | still hadn't really done any paperwork. | was like, 'This isn't right! " McElroy says onstage, to giggles from the crowd. "So | went back to the same woman, and | said, 'What do | do now?! And she said, You go home! "

The mostly British audience erupts into laughter.

McElroy acknowledges it doesn't sound like much of a joke. He's just recounting his first experience at a UK. public hospital. But Britons find it hilarious, he says, that an American would be searching for a cash register, trying to find how to pay for treatment at a doctor's office or hospital. Itis a foreign concept here, McElroy explains.

Onstage, McElroy recounts how, when the hospital receptionist instructed him to go home, he turned to her and exclaimed, "This is amazing!"

Amazing, he says, because he did not have to pay - at least not at the point of service. In Britain, there is a state-funded system called the National Health Service, or NHS, which guarantees care for all. That means everything from ambulance rides and emergency room visits to long hospital stays, complex surgery, radiation and chemotherapy - are all free. They are paid for with payroll taxes. In addition, any medication you get during a hospital visit is free, and the cost of most prescription drugs at a pharmacy are cheap - a few dollars. (Private health care also exists in the U.K., paid out-of-pocket or through private insurance coverage, but only a small minority of residents opt for it.)

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the U.K., like many countries, has been taking in less tax revenue - so it has had to cut spending. Its expenditure on the National Health Service has still grown, but at a slower pace than before. [...] Wait times at the emergency room are up, says Richard Murray, policy director at the King's Fund, a health care think tank.

"If the ER is really busy, it makes the ambulances queue outside the front door - not great," Murray says. "And in some cases, the hospital is simply full."

(Adapted from https://www.npr.org)