L1 能引用相關線索但未能歸納出合理的形式。 [最多2分] L2 能引用相關線索並能歸納出合理的形式。 [最多4分]
形式 & 線索：
- 發起運動- 反對美國（1971年）和法國（1985年）進行核試；反對捕殺鯨魚（1975年）。
- 支持環保呼籲- 支持全球禁止在食水加入氯氣（1986）
- 推廣自然遺產- 讓俄羅斯的科米森林成為世界自然遺產（1995）
- 生產環保物品- 與雷諾合作生產環保汽車（1996）
第一，綠色和平通過發起運動來推動全球環保。 參考資料F，綠色和平為杜絕「玩具含有聚氯乙烯（PVC）」而策劃「全球運動」要求玩具製造商正視問題，最終迫使「玩具反斗城決定不售賣含聚氯乙烯的玩具」，以上反映綠色和平發起運動引起國際關注，藉此推廣環保訊息。 第二，綠色和平與生產商合作來處理環境問題。 參考資料F，為減少二氧化碳排放量，紓緩全球增溫的情況，綠色和平跟「汽車製造商雷諾合作」，共同合作「一個生產環保汽車的計劃」，藉此改善汽車污染問題，為環保出一分力。
- 政府干預 - 缺乏足夠力量實行有關宗旨 線索（2分）： 例：
- 1985年，綠色和平船隻「彩虹戰士」號遭法國特工炸毀。 - 雖然多次抗議，核擴散仍是有待解決的問題。
綠色和平遭遇政府反對的困難。 參考資料F，當綠色和平抗議「法國進行地下核試」活動中，其宣傳船隻「彩虹戰士」慘遭法國特工「炸毀」，以示警戒。這都反映綠色和平推行環境工作並不容易，因其遭政府反對，造成嚴重阻礙。 更甚，資料F指綠色和平另一抗議「荷蘭輸入基因改造大豆」活動時，其另一宣傳船隻「天狼星」遭警方「扣留」，運動一度受阻，顯示政府干預及打壓為綠和平色帶來重大困難。
(c) 自成立之始，綠色和平即採取不接受政府及企業金錢贊助的政策。試參考資料F，解釋 (i) 它為什麼採取該政策；（2分）
L1 能運用相關線索，但沒有恰當的解釋。 [最多1分] L2 能運用相關線索，但作恰當解釋。 [最多2分]
L1 能引用相關線索，但沒有恰當的解釋。 [最多2分] L2 能引用相關線索，並作恰當解釋。 [最多3分]
(a) Identify two forms of environmental protection efforts made by Greenpeace. For each form, cite one clue from Source F as illustration. (2+2 marks)
Performance was fair. Performance of candidates who attempted the Chinese version of this paper was better than those who attempted the English version. Many candidates who attempted the English version could not understand the key word ‘form’. Weak candidates merely copied from the Source.
L1 Able to cite relevant clues but unable to conclude forms logically. [max. 2] L2 Able to cite relevant clues and conclude legitimate forms logically. [max. 4]
Forms & Clues:
- Conducting campaigns- against US (1971) and French (1985) nuclear tests; against whaling (1975)
- Supporting initiatives- support a universal ban on chlorine in drinking water (1986)
- Promoting natural heritages- make Russia’s Komi Forest a world natural heritage (1995)
- Producing environmental-friendly products- produce environmental-friendly cars in a joint project with Renault (1996)
First, Greenpeace started global campaigns to promote environmental protection. According to source F, Greenpeace started a global campaign “against toys containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC)” and demanded manufacturers to resolve the problem, eventually the “retailer Toys”R”Us decided not to sell toys containing PVC”. This shows that Green Peace successfully raised international awareness which helped to promote environmental protection. Second, Greenpeace cooperated with manufacturers to resolve environmental problems. According to source F, in order to reduce carbon dioxide emission and relieve global warming, Greenpeace cooperated with “Renault a French car manufacturer” in a project to “produce environmentally-friendly cars” so as to reduce air pollution from vehicles.
(b) What difficulty did Greenpeace encounter? Cite two clues from Source F to support your answer. (3 marks)
Performance was fair. Many candidates who attempted the English version of this paper failed to tackle the key word ‘difficulty’.
Difficulty [1 mark] : e.g.
- Government intervention - Lack of the necessary power to realize its aim Clues [2 marks] : e.g.
- Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior was bombed by French secret agents in 1985. - Nuclear proliferation was still an issue despite repeated protests.
The Greenpeace encountered oppositions from governments. According to source F, when Greenpeace protest against “French underground nuclear tests”, “Greenpeace’s ship Rainbow Warrior” was bombed by French agencies as a warning. This reflects that it was hard work for Green Peace to advocate environmental protection as they encountered government opposition which caused obstruction. Furthermore, source F states that when Greenpeace protest against “the import of genetically modified soybeans” in the Netherlands, their ship Sirius was detained by the police, the campaign was stopped, showing that oppression from the government brought about difficulties to their actions.
(c) Greenpeace has adopted the policy of not accepting government and corporation money ever since it was set up. With reference to Source F, explain (i) Why it adopted this policy; (2 marks)
Performance was good. Many candidates could explain why Greenpeace adopted the policy of not accepting government and corporation money.
L1 Able to use relevant clues without due explanation. [max. 1] L2 Able to use relevant clues with due explanation. [max. 2]
- It was to avoid conflict of interest, as Greenpeace sometimes conducted campaigns against the interest of governments and corporations.
The Greenpeace adopted such policy to avoid conflicts of interest. According to source F, Greenpeace always planned campaigns against governments and corporations, including the campaign “against a nuclear test by the USA” (1971), the protest against “French underground nuclear tests” (1995) and against “toys containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC)”. If they accepted donations from governments or corporations, on one hand they might be unable to resist government’s problematic policies in the future; on the other hand, the operation of Greenpeace might be affected once the government stop the funding. Therefore, Greenpeace refused to accept money from governments or corporations.
(ii) Whether this policy has affected the operations of Greenpeace (3 marks)
Performance was fair. Some candidates did not understand the question well; they claimed that the policy of not accepting government and corporation money affected the operations of Greenpeace, but provided clues that proved otherwise. It was probably because they misinterpreted ‘stable financial position’ as ‘financially unsound’.
L1 Able to cite relevant clues without due explanation. [max. 2] L2 Able to cite relevant clues with due explanation. [max. 3]
- Greenpeace could adopt effective initiatives such as campaigning, ever since it was set up - Greenpeace was in a sound financial position.
The policy of “not accepting government and corporation money” did not affect the operation of Greenpeace. According to source F, from 1971, when Greenpeace started to operate, until 1998, the operation of Greenpeace remained stable, the source even states that Greenpeace “reached a stable financial position” and its net income reached 101 million US dollars. It had sufficient funding to continue its campaigns in environmental protection, hence the policy did not affect its operation.