Group discussion. Give your views on the problems pertaining to natural environment.

Topic I. What roles does natural environment play in our life?

Talking points:

1) Nature and the man’s love of it.

2) Man as a constituent part of nature,

3) Pets and plants in our life.

Topic II. Is it a vital necessity to protect natural environment from destruction and pollution today?

Talking points:

1) Ill-effects of unrestricted industrialization and the sprawl of large-built areas:

b) foul air;

c) polluted water;

d) noise disturbance;

e) overpopulation;

f) disfigured landscapes and land pollution.

2) Extermination of wildlife – upsetting of the biological balance:

a) destruction of animal habitats;

b) removal and destruction of plants and trees;

c) unprecedented killing of animals for economic, scientific and individual purposes.

Topic III. What do you know about the measures taken to control environmental pollution and to fight destruction of wildlife?

Talking points:

1) International cooperation in environmental protection.

2) Mass media in the fight against pollution and for nature conservation:

a) newspaper comments and reviews;

b) TV programmes;

c) Science-popular films.

3) Ecology – the science of how the living things are related to their environment.

4) Voluntary organizations’ and individuals’ participation in the nature conservation movement.

Role-play.

What Must We Care About to Prevent Disaster?

NOTE: The group of students is divided into two teams, each of which performs the same role-playing game. While discussing the problems pertaining to environmental protection they show different approaches to the issues under discussion, speak about things of mutual interest, disagree with some of the participants or share the others’ point of view. Comments from the class on each team’s performance and estimate of the different arguments are invited.

Situation: A group of tourists is on a river voyage down the Volga. They enjoy excursions to numerous natural attractions and places of interest. Now they are on their way to a new automobile plant that comprises the manufacture of commercial vehicles, and parts and components. Once a beautiful countryside, now it’s a developed industrial area. The conversation centers around the future of the district. Then it takes a more general turn. The subject under discussion is environmental protection. There is some difference of opinion between those who one-sidedly emphasize industrial production and those who insist that rationally balanced approach should be adhered to.

Characters:

1) Professor Pyotr Pavlov, aged 53, a specialist on afforestation, believes that by A. D. 2010 we will have destroyed natural environment because of the sprawl of large cities, reduction of open spaces, extermination of wildlife. Thinks that unrestricted urbanization will let the man down posing a danger to his health, choking him with pollutants. The very existence of human race as a biological species is threatened. Urgent steps should be taken by mankind to rescue the Earth and its inhabitants from a foreseeable disaster.

2) Doctor Oleg Firstov, aged 44, a professional naturalist and a science-fiction writer. Tries to warn people against the threat presented to natural environment by the by-products of industrial development. Says that science and technology progress has reached such a level of development that it endangers all living matters: plants, animals, people. A comprehensive survival programme should be worked out by specialists, engaged in various spheres of science and economy.

3) Helen Strogova, aged 32, a science-popular films producer. Likes animals habitats, inflicting pain and suffering on animals and scientific and medical experiments. In her TV series on animal life raises the problems confronting animals resulting from the nature destruction. Reminds people that lots of species are known to us only by hear-say, others are gradually vanishing. Believes that by the application of rational conservation programme many problems can be solved.

4) Anton Kravtsov, aged 45, a leading specialist in the field of aircraft engineering industry, thinks that people benefit from the advanced technology: new materials have been invented, new industrial technologies have been introduced, and these are helping to improve our daily lives. Seldom goes to the country for a breath of fresh air, doesn’t see beauty in a landscape. Believes that the 21^st century belongs to absolute reason. People should take all the ill-effects of industrialization for granted.

5) Olga Smirniva, aged 28, a postgraduate, a devoted student of medicine. Though a lover of nature doesn’t see any harm in medical experiments in which there’s a great amount of animal lives waste. She is convinced that animal experiments serve a direct scientific purpose and are justified in terms of the gain to human life. She says that people campaigning against vivisection do not seem to realize that the good state of health and freedom of disease is largely due to animal experiments.

6) Igor Timoshin, aged 37, a promising specialist in the field of oil refinery processes, an enthusiastic director of a giant industrial enterprise. Believes that oil exploration should be encouraged with the objective of maximizing economic production for the future. Says that though the natural mineral resources are not likely to enlarge a man should do his best to take the lion’s share of what the land possesses. His primary goal is oil production, and environmental protection comes secondary.

7) Marina Larionova, aged 60, a famous seascape painter, participates in the campaign against the unrestricted sea exploration. Reminds of the very beginning of life on the Earth. Says that man owes much to the Ocean and should preserve its reserves. She doesn’t think that man-made substitutes benefit humanity very much. Besides economic gains there should be moral obligations that any environment-conscious person should observe. It’s very important to make people environment-educated at an early age to reduce the damage inflicted to the environment.

SUPPLEMENT

CONVERSATIONAL EXPRESSIONS

PERSUASION

- (Oh) come oh; - Don’t you think - After all; - What you don’t seem to understand is that; - I’m awfully sorry to ask you…but; - If I’ll do it…I’ll;

- I don’t know, but; - I’ll tell you what - Look; - Why don’t we; - I know you can do it; - It’s crucial for you; - It’s important for you; - It’s necessary for you;

MAKING SUGGESTIONS

- I wonder how; - What do you say - Maybe you could; - I was wondering if you’d ever thought of;

- Why don’t you try; - Don’t you think; - If I were you; - I have an idea; - I think it might be a good idea to;

RESISTING PERSUASION

- I don’t know; - We’ll see; - I know, but; - I don’t see how; - That’s a good idea, but - That’s true, but;

- No way; - Absolutely not; - I don’t care; - That’s all out of the question; - That might be OK, but; - I see what you mean, but;

AGREEING

Neutral	Informal	Formal
- Yes, I agree…; - True enough; - That’s right; - I can’t help thinking the same; - How true; - I couldn’t agree more; - How right that is; - Oh, definitely;	- Well, that’s the thing; - Yes, right; - Dead right; - Too true; - I’d go along with you there; - I’m with you there;	- Oh, I agree entirely; - I agree absolutely with; - My own view/opinion exactly; - I’m of exactly the same opinion; - I don’t think anyone could disagree with…;

DISAGREEING

Neutral	Informal	Formal
- (Oh), I don’t agree; - I’m not at all sure; - No, I don’t think; - I’m afraid, I disagree; - That’s not right, surely; - That’s not the way I see it; - I can’t help thinking…; - Do you really think…?	- (Oh), surely not; - I don’t see why; - I can’t go along with; - (Oh), come off it; - Nonsense! - Rubbish! - No way! - You must be joking; - You can’t mean that;	- I really must take issue with you (there); - I’m afraid, I can’t accept…; - I can’t say that I share your view; - I’m not at all convinced…; - I see things differently myself;