Skip to main contentSkip to solution

It's a tough time to be a glacier. Scientists expected Venezuela's Humboldt Glacier to last another decade, but in 2024 it melted into an ice field, shrinking to under two hectares. This marks the loss of the country's last glacier and signals a grim future for others. Scientists warn that glaciers in countries like Germany and Mexico will also disappear as fossil fuel consumption accelerates global warming. Communities depending on glaciers for fresh water face challenges, as glaciers in mountain ranges like the Andes provide vital drinking and irrigation water for millions of people.

However, about 80% of global glaciers, excluding polar ice sheets, could survive if countries rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Tropical glaciers in regions such as the Andes, East Africa, and Indonesia, however, are unlikely to recover due to higher temperatures. Despite pledges in the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, current projections suggest a rise of 3°C, potentially raising sea levels by nearly 10 feet by 2100, threatening island nations like Fiji and the Maldives with destruction.

A proposal to protect ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland involves a 62-mile-long removable underwater curtain, but experts like James Kirkham from the International Cryosphere Initiative caution that such measures are distractions from the real issue: halting global heating. Without decisive action, glaciers will continue to melt, and more countries will lose their ice. The urgency of addressing climate change has never been clearer, and the world's glaciers can't afford any more delays.

Why might the proposal to build a removable underwater curtain be viewed with skepticism by experts like James Kirkham?

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 3

Option 1 -> The passage doesn't present the curtain as one of several viable solutions; rather, it's characterized as a distraction from the actual problem.

Option 2 -> While true that a physical barrier wouldn't reduce emissions, this doesn't capture the expert's main concern as stated in the passage.

Option 3 -> This directly aligns with James Kirkham's warning that such measures are "distractions from the real issue: halting global heating" - the curtain diverts focus from addressing the root cause.

Option 4 -> The passage specifically describes the curtain as "removable," contradicting the claim that it's irreversible, and this isn't the expert's stated concern.


Hence, Option 3 -> James Kirkham explicitly cautions that technological interventions like the underwater curtain distract from tackling the fundamental problem of global heating through greenhouse gas emission reductions. Such solutions address symptoms rather than the disease itself, potentially delaying the urgent climate action needed to preserve glaciers worldwide. -> correct

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question