IELTSwithJurabek

PASSAGE 2

Read the text and answer questions 14–26

Solving the problem of waste disposal

With the amount of rubbish being produced around the world increasing, Mark Rowe asks whether a new generation of incineration plants can help to solve the problem.

14A For many years, burning rubbish has been portrayed as the lazy option when it comes to dealing with the problem of waste disposal, since it sends toxic fumes into the air and appears to support a consumerist, throwaway society. Norway, however, appears to be burning its way through a sizeable chunk of Europe's municipal waste, using the heat created by this process to warm and power homes in many of its cities. Norway isn't alone: Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands all burn significant quantities of rubbish, and across Europe there are 420 plants burning municipal waste. With Europe dumping 150 million tonnes of rubbish into landfill every year, there would seem to be a limitless supply.

15B Those who support burning waste say that a new generation of incinerators has made it a more attractive option. Filters and scrubbing mechanisms now capture harmful substances such as mercury, hydrochloric acid and heavy metals. According to Ted Michaels, president of the US-based Energy Recovery Centre, 'There has been constant evolution in combustion engineering and emissions-control technology, and the output from these facilities is now minuscule.' Above all, however, supporters say that incineration is the only way of preventing the long-term impacts of landfill. In ten years' time, says the World Bank, humans will be generating 2.2 billion tonnes of solid waste per year. Advocates see incineration as a practical way to deal swiftly with an immediate problem.

16C Levels of waste generation vary hugely around the world. 'It's a problem for the developed nations,' says Joergen Fenhann, a senior scientist working with the UN Environment Programme in Denmark. 'The more you develop, the more you produce, buy and throw away.' But the growth of incineration hasn't been universally welcomed. Lars Haltbrekken, chairman of Friends of the Earth in Norway, is concerned that incineration plants appear to generate demand for their services. 'The problem in Norway,' he explains, 'is that we have built too many waste-burning factories. So we've ended up importing waste from other countries. If you look at this in a very small perspective, it is, of course, better for the climate to burn rubbish from the UK rather than leave it in landfill there,' he continues. 'But in a broader perspective, it's a lazy way of getting rid of waste; you don't stimulate the goals of reducing, reusing and recycling.'

17D Incineration is also at odds with EU policy, which promotes a 'recycling hierarchy': ideally, we simply produce less waste in the first place; failing that, we reuse objects more; the next step is recycling; only then should we consider incineration, while dumping in landfill is the last resort. Dealing with the problem of waste disposal involves tracing the whole process that took the material from its inception to landfill. We used to call this the 'cradle to grave' life cycle; now, the talk is of 'cradle to cradle' and an even more comprehensive concept known as 'zero waste'. 'The philosophy of cradle to cradle is about designing products that are actually good for the environment at the end of their life,' says Joan Marc Simon, European spokesman for the environmental movement GAIA. 'You design a bottle that contains no toxins, is fully recyclable and requires the minimum amount of energy to be produced.' As Simon points out, however, without the right mechanisms in place 'nothing guarantees that this bottle will end up being properly collected and treated in the appropriate recycling facility'.

18E Tim Burns, policy manager at Keep Britain Tidy, says, 'In the UK alone, people waste £10 billion of food every year. You can argue about composting that, or not buying it in the first place – if you do that, then that's money the retailers don't get, so it's not always clear-cut.' The implications of zero waste are that we're going to have to take a good long look at those well-stocked supermarket shelves, too. 'Supermarkets keep their shelves stocked even when demand isn't there, which means they have to pay to dispose of a lot of food,' says Burns. 'But that cost is less to them than the cost in brand damage of having empty shelves.'

19F Recent history and changes in trends in recycling suggest that we should be prepared for unexpected developments. 'If someone back in the 1980s had suggested what waste would be like now, they would be completely wrong,' says Richard Fisher, a PhD researcher at Cranfield University. 'Consumerism has developed at a pace we never expected. Nobody would have said there would be so much electronic waste. But recycling has grown, too – ten years ago nobody would have predicted today's levels of recycling.' But he points out that the need to reduce waste is still a difficult message to sell to consumers. He suggests that what people are really concerned about is their loved ones and the future they face. 'Perhaps we can align the environmental message to these deep-seated values,' he says. 'We need to look at whether it's business that drives consumers or the other way around. You need government to play a leadership role, whereas countries such as the UK seem to be stepping away from the environment in pursuit of short-term economic goals.'

landfill: a method of disposing of waste material by burying it

PASSAGE 3

Read the text and answer questions 30–46

Video Games

Video games are one of the most misunderstood forms of entertainment. In one sense, it's easy to see why: if you haven't had much interaction with them, watching someone play one can be a pretty unsettling experience. Gamers can often give the impression that they're glued to the screen, absorbed in the digital equivalent of junk food. However the reality is somewhat more complex.

For example, a long-standing claim is that violent games can cause players to become more aggressive in the real world. Video games often take centre stage in the constant media analysis of acts of aggression, with claims that not only do violent people play violent games, but that they were driven to some act of aggression because they play games.

Such accusations often fall flat in the face of subsequent forensic analysis. In one recent study participants were asked to play a violent game, a non-violent game, or no game at all, every day for two months. The study's authors found that playing the violent video game had no significant negative effects. One study doesn't give the whole story, of course. However, the emerging picture from the research literature is that video games certainly aren't the root cause of mass acts of societal violence.

Another claim relates to addiction. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) formally included 'gaming disorder' in its diagnostic manual, the International Classification of Diseases, for the first time. It was a decision that ignited a furious debate in the academic community. One group of scholars argued that such a diagnostic label would provide greater access to treatment and financial help for those experiencing genuine harm from playing video games. Others argued that the scientific evidence for gaming addiction simply wasn't accurate or meaningful enough.

Part of the problem lies in the checklists used by the WHO to determine whether a disorder exists. The criteria for gaming addiction are derived from those used for other sorts of addiction. While that might be a reasonable place to start, it might not tell us the whole story about what the unique aspects of gaming addiction look like. For example, one of the standard criteria is that people become preoccupied with games, or start playing them exclusively, instead of engaging in other hobbies. However, this criterion doesn't sit very well as a benchmark for what you might consider to be 'harmful' engagement, because unlike many other addictions, games are not in themselves harmful. Also, using this as a criterion has the potential to exaggerate how widespread addiction is. While there will be people out there for whom gaming can become problematic, the chances are that this is a small group.

Moreover, results from a recent research project suggest that gaming addiction is fairly short-lived. Data looking at players over a six-month period has shown that not one of those who initially exhibited the diagnostic criteria for addiction did so by the end of the study.

Another issue is social isolation. The stereotypical view of a gamer is a heavy-eyed, pale-faced teenager playing alone in their bedroom. It's understandable that something about that situation seems unhealthy or unnatural. But this view usually comes from a misunderstanding of what video games really are. From their initial inception, the aim of video games was to provide social experiences. Whereas in the first 30 or so years of their existence this was restricted to people playing multiplayer games in person, the advent of high-speed internet access means increasingly that these interactions are moving online. Rather than isolating people, online gaming has the potential to unite people in many new ways and to form close-knit communities based around common interests and hobbies.

Another criticism aimed at video games is that they're a meaningless waste of time. There's a certain illogicality to the notion, in a way: somehow, we are able simultaneously to worry that games are the root cause of many societal ills, yet also consider them to be pointless. Why play them when you could go outside, or engage in more culturally fulfilling art forms? But this comes from a misunderstanding about the creative power that games possess.

As novelist and games designer Naomi Alderman outlined in a 2013 radio essay: 'While all art forms can elicit powerful emotions, only games can make their audience feel the emotion of agency. A novel can make you feel sad, but only a game can make you feel guilty for your actions.' Video games place you at the centre of the story as an active participant. Games help us explore what it means to be human, allow us to travel to far-off incredible places, to become incredible people – all from the comfort of our own home.

Finally, video games are more than purely entertainment. Now, in part because of their power to draw us in, video games are actually being utilised in the course of scientific study. The best examples achieve two things: they act as fertile ground for gathering valuable scientific information, while at the same time providing an exciting gaming adventure.

An example of this is the recent mobile game Sea Hero Quest. Players are tasked with memorising a map, and then navigating a fishing boat around a series of waterways, visiting a set of buoys in a specific order. The information gleaned from this is being used by scientists to understand how spatial navigation abilities change between childhood and old age. The research can also be used to examine differences across the globe. This sort of knowledge is crucial in developing a deeper understanding of how such abilities start to decline in neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's disease. The hope is that this information will help inform innovative methods in diagnosing and treating dementia.