Bài Tập Trắc Nghiệm Chuyên Đề: Đọc hiểu: suy luận (Tiếng Anh Lớp 10, 11, 12)

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. [I] Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash “carbon-neutral” or “net-zero” across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell “carbon-neutral” flights, filling stations boast about “net-zero” fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. [II] Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. [III] No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for “green” paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. [IV] Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash "carbon-neutral" or "net-zero" across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell "carbon-neutral" flights, filling stations boast about "net-zero" fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for "green" paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

We are living through a boom in greenwashing – the strategic use of comforting environmental claims to disguise business-as-usual pollution. Picture a chief executive whose company emits millions of tonnes of CO₂. Genuine decarbonisation would require bruising boardroom discussions, huge capital outlays, and a complete redesign of the firm’s model. Far easier is to hire a creative agency to plaster products with labels such as “carbon-neutral” or “ret-zero,” calming critics, investors; and even eco-conscious children while emissions continue unsolved. This tactic meets consumers at every turn. Airline websites promise guilt-free flights, petrol pumps boast zero-impact fuel, and even supermarket bacon is marketed as net-zero. Advertising trickery is ancient, yet today’s greenwashing – the practice of deliberately covering ongoing pollution in eco-friendly language – has flourished only recently. The expression surfaced in the 1980s amid oil spills and growing climate science, but the real explosion has come as public anxiety over global heating and biodiversity loss has intensified. Faced with mounting scrutiny, many boards prefer glossy PR to structural reform. Such corporate sleight of hand has become so pervasive that regulators in Europe and the United States are scrambling to tighten rules on environmental claims, yet enforcement still lags behind marketing creativity. The fossil-fuel sector exemplifies the issue. After decades covertly sowing doubt about climate science, oil and gas giants have grasped that direct denial is reputationally toxic. They have therefore swapped their denial tactics for a “green” paint-sprayer, trumpeting token investments in renewables while expanding drilling. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the emission cuts urgently required to avert climate breakdown. Whereas denial invites opposition, greenwashing kills the public into believing problems are already solved. Under this collective illusion, pressure on high-emitting firms evaporates and the radical decisions needed to transform energy, transport, and food systems are delayed indefinitely. Greenwashing thus acts as a soothing lullaby, leading society toward ecological ruin with a tune of comforting half-truths. Exposing this deception is essential if clichés are to be replaced by real, measurable emission cuts.

We often have stereotypical images of rockers as rebellious, classical music fans as quiet and modest, and lovers of rap as loquacious and outgoing. But is it really true that our musical tastes reveal our personality? According to a recent research from a university in Edinburgh, it is. Professor North, one of the researchers, says that people often express their identity through the kind of music they listen to, the kind of clothes they wear and their hobbies and interests. So, it is not surprising that people’s taste in music says something about their personality. The researchers interviewed more than 36,000 participants from around the world, asked them about their musical tastes, and gave them personality tests. But did the research prove that our stereotypical images are right? Here are some of the results: (1) lovers of indie music are not very confident, gentle or hard-working, but they are very creative; (2) country and western fans are hard-working and not shy; (3) rap fans are outgoing and confident; (4) fans of pop songs are not creative, but are hard-working, gentle and outgoing; and (5) the best fans to be are soul fans, because they are creative, confident, outgoing and gentle. Perhaps the most surprising result was that classical music fans and heavy metal fans have very similar personalities. People think of heavy metal fans as being very sad and unhappy. But like classical fans, they are in fact easy-going and creative, and not very outgoing. Professor North also says that the results explain why so many people are good friends with people who like the same music. Heavy metal fans in Sweden have more in common with heavy metal fans in Brazil than with, say, Swedish fans of pop. The results also explain that, since music is likely to be closely connected to our personalities, some of us are very passionate about what we listen to. However, the research does not say what people who listen to lots of different types of music are like. Perhaps they are perfectly balanced. So, what does your music say about you?

“Have smartphones destroyed a generation?” Jean Twenge - a psychology professor at San Diego State University - asked in her controversial book, Gen. In the book, she argues that those born after 1995 are facing “a mental-health crisis”, and she believes it can be linked to growing up with their noses pressed against a screen. Her newest study provides more support for that connection, showing that teens who spent more than an hour or two a day interacting with their gadgets were less happy on average than those who had more face time with others. Twenge’s conclusions have come up against criticism in the past. Some have accused her work of oversimplifying or overlooking data that may tell a slightly different story. Twenge recognises that her study suggests only a link between screen use and psychological well-being. A possible explanation is that kids are running to their screens to escape from the things in life that are making them unhappy. However, the surveys can’t say whether screen time directly changes teens’ mental health, the research states. Philanthropist Melinda Gates, whose three children were also born after 1995, wrote in The Washington Post, “phones and apps aren’t good or bad by themselves, but for adolescents who don’t yet have the emotional tools to overcome life’s problems, they can aggravate the difficulties of growing up.” At the same time, she said, kids are learning on their devices and connecting in novel ways. Other studies have explored the connection between social media and isolation and how “likes” activate the brain’s reward centre. Some analyses have found that moderate use of these technologies is not harmful in itself and can even improve children’s social skills and build emotional strength. There is no doubt that people are spending more time on these devices and that technology is having a major impact on kids and adults alike. “These are really important devices that have changed our lives in so many ways, not just for the worse but for the better,” said Amanda Lenhart, deputy director of the Better Life Lab at New America. But the latest research “is looking straight at technology and wanting it to be the scapegoat.”

Action movies are exciting and a lot of fun to watch, but they also involve scenes of great risk and danger. In the language of filmmaking, dangerous actions are called stunts. Who performs these stunts? This work is too dangerous for regular actors. Movie companies usually hire special stunt people to stand in for the actors in scenes that are unsafe. Movie producers don't like to let actors do their own stunt work. If the actors injure themselves, it can delay the production schedule. Using stunt people also saves time. Most stunt people have years of experience, which enables them to perform their stunts with a minimum of risk. It would take too long to train the actors to perform dangerous scenes safely. Some people who love the thrill of dangerous sports such as skydiving or rock climbing think it would be easy to work as a stunt person. But it isn’t enough to be a risk-taker. Stunt performers also have to know what to do if anything goes wrong. In addition to risk-taking and meticulous attention to detail and planning, stunt work requires being in top physical condition. Although there are a few training programmes for stunt performers, most provide only an overview of the profession. Normally, the people who attend these programmes already have experience in dangerous sports, rescue work, or the military. So the best way to prepare for a career in stunt work is to train in an area that involves strong physical conditioning and has an element of physical danger. Modern filmmaking techniques have changed the way some dangerous scenes are filmed. For example, computer-generated images make it possible to show stunts that would be too dangerous or expensive for real stunt people to perform. Computer-generated images are often used today to create big fight scenes, car crashes, and explosions. However, they are not always the best choice. Many audiences want to see real people perform actual stunts. Also, the rising popularity of made-for-TV movies around the world ensures that there is still plenty for stunt people in the film industry.

A recent survey into how teenagers in a Southeast Asian country spend their free time has come up with what some people regard as a surprising finding: many of those surveyed reported that they would rather stay at home and do things indoors than go out and experience real-life adventures. One in four teenagers surveyed believed that online experiences were as fulfilling as real life, and more than half were actually afraid of trying new experiences. When asked about their most memorable experience over the previous ten months, nearly 30% of boys said “playing a new video game”, while 10% of all teenagers said it was watching a new TV series. On asking for more detailed information, researchers found that 20% of boys and 22% of girls said they had never had a real-life adventure. It would be easy to blame technological advances for these findings. After all, today’s teenagers have many more indoor activities to choose from than did their parents. About half a century ago, children were expected to spend more of their free time outside. But researchers do not put the blame wholly on technology. To members of older generations, these findings are worrying, because it means that young people increasingly rely on virtual reality and are consequently missing out on real outdoor activities such as mountain climbing, kayaking, etc., which have always been regarded as both enjoyable and character-building. The surveyed adults said they thought today’s youth were more protected than they had been when they were growing up. Giving examples of this protection, more than half said they would not let their teenage children hitchhike or go on holiday without an adult. Seven in ten said they would not even allow teenagers to get into a taxi on their own. It is not clear whether adults believe the world is more dangerous than it used to be or whether they do not trust today’s youngsters to look after themselves.

Action movies are exciting and a lot of fun to watch, but they also involve scenes of great risk and danger. In the language of filmmaking, dangerous actions are called stunts. Who performs these stunts? This work is too dangerous for regular actors. Movie companies usually hire special stunt people to stand in for the actors in scenes that are unsafe. Movie producers don't like to let actors do their own stunt work. If the actors injure themselves, it can delay the production schedule. Using stunt people also saves time. Most stunt people have years of experience, which enables them to perform their stunts with a minimum of risk. It would take too long to train the actors to perform dangerous scenes safely. Some people who love the thrill of dangerous sports such as skydiving or rock climbing think it would be easy to work as a stunt person. But it isn’t enough to be a risk-taker. Stunt performers also have to know what to do if anything goes wrong. In addition to risk-taking and meticulous attention to detail and planning, stunt work requires being in top physical condition. Although there are a few training programmes for stunt performers, most provide only an overview of the profession. Normally, the people who attend these programmes already have experience in dangerous sports, rescue work, or the military. So the best way to prepare for a career in stunt work is to train in an area that involves strong physical conditioning and has an element of physical danger. Modern filmmaking techniques have changed the way some dangerous scenes are filmed. For example, computer-generated images make it possible to show stunts that would be too dangerous or expensive for real stunt people to perform. Computer-generated images are often used today to create big fight scenes, car crashes, and explosions. However, they are not always the best choice. Many audiences want to see real people perform actual stunts. Also, the rising popularity of made-for-TV movies around the world ensures that there is still plenty for stunt people in the film industry.

A recent survey into how teenagers in a Southeast Asian country spend their free time has come up with what some people regard as a surprising finding: many of those surveyed reported that they would rather stay at home and do things indoors than go out and experience real-life adventures. One in four teenagers surveyed believed that online experiences were as fulfilling as real life, and more than half were actually afraid of trying new experiences. When asked about their most memorable experience over the previous ten months, nearly 30% of boys said “playing a new video game”, while 10% of all teenagers said it was watching a new TV series. On asking for more detailed information, researchers found that 20% of boys and 22% of girls said they had never had a real-life adventure. It would be easy to blame technological advances for these findings. After all, today’s teenagers have many more indoor activities to choose from than did their parents. About half a century ago, children were expected to spend more of their free time outside. But researchers do not put the blame wholly on technology. To members of older generations, these findings are worrying, because it means that young people increasingly rely on virtual reality and are consequently missing out on real outdoor activities such as mountain climbing, kayaking, etc., which have always been regarded as both enjoyable and character-building. The surveyed adults said they thought today’s youth were more protected than they had been when they were growing up. Giving examples of this protection, more than half said they would not let their teenage children hitchhike or go on holiday without an adult. Seven in ten said they would not even allow teenagers to get into a taxi on their own. It is not clear whether adults believe the world is more dangerous than it used to be or whether they do not trust today’s youngsters to look after themselves.

Machines already perform a lot of tasks that were usually done by humans, such as building cars, doing complex calculations, and even marking exam papers. But now it seems that ever more intelligent machines are straying into areas where we never envisaged they would go. We have always taken pride in having a unique kind of intelligence that machines could never match, one which allows us to think of new ideas and produce creative and artistic works. But it seems that even here, computers are lining up to compete with us. Machines can easily be trained to do the physical work of producing art. About ten years ago, a painting robot known as e-David was created at a university in Germany. And recently in New York, the painting ‘Portrait of Edmond de Belamy’ has been auctioned for nearly half a million dollars. What made it a bit unusual was that the idea, and the image itself, was produced entirely by a computer. A group of young French artists gave instructions to the computer, aiming simply to show that computers can be creative. Some artists are now working with computers to produce a new kind of art. Computer-generated works of art are certainly interesting, and make us think about the limits of what machines can and cannot do. But not everyone would accept that they qualify as art. Some enthusiasts would argue they do, and the collectors willing to pay high prices for these works would suggest there is definitely a market for computer art. Others, however, would disagree. Many ‘real’ artists would claim that art is an expression of human intelligence and human emotions. More importantly, it is about a desire to communicate with other people. These things, they argue, are part of being human and can never be produced by a machine.

When I saw her name on the screen, it took me right back to the moment she had moved away with her family ten years before. We had been such close friends at primary school. To begin with, she and I had not hit it off, perhaps because we were both timid. We had quickly got over that, though, and as time went on, we had become really good friends, until you almost never saw one of us without the other. And now after so much time apart, there was her name. She had sent me a friend request. I knew she had been living abroad, and her profile picture showed her on the beach. I had been expecting her to look different after ten years. The girl in the photo was the same old Lauren, though. Nowadays, it is easy to find old friends thanks to social networking sites. There are lots of stories about long lost friends getting back in touch after years apart. It was odd because I had been thinking about our friendship too and now here she was! She told me about the place where she had been living for the past ten years, and I told her about things that had happened to me. Before long, the years melted away and we were the same two girls who had spent so much time together. Of course, true friends are loyal and listen to you when you are down. And they are the people you have fun with. But deep down, I realised that the truest friends are those you are most yourself with. And that is something that never changes. That is what Lauren and I learned that day, the day we realised our friendship was so precious and had never really ended in the first place.

When I saw her name on the screen, it took me right back to the moment she had moved away with her family ten years before. We had been such close friends at primary school. To begin with, she and I had not hit it off, perhaps because we were both timid. We had quickly got over that, though, and as time went on, we had become really good friends, until you almost never saw one of us without the other. And now after so much time apart, there was her name. She had sent me a friend request. I knew she had been living abroad, and her profile picture showed her on the beach. I had been expecting her to look different after ten years. The girl in the photo was the same old Lauren, though. Nowadays, it is easy to find old friends thanks to social networking sites. There are lots of stories about long lost friends getting back in touch after years apart. It was odd because I had been thinking about our friendship too and now here she was! She told me about the place where she had been living for the past ten years, and I told her about things that had happened to me. Before long, the years melted away and we were the same two girls who had spent so much time together. Of course, true friends are loyal and listen to you when you are down. And they are the people you have fun with. But deep down, I realised that the truest friends are those you are most yourself with. And that is something that never changes. That is what Lauren and I learned that day, the day we realised our friendship was so precious and had never really ended in the first place.

Machines already perform a lot of tasks that were usually done by humans, such as building cars, doing complex calculations, and even marking exam papers. But now it seems that ever more intelligent machines are straying into areas where we never envisaged they would go. We have always taken pride in having a unique kind of intelligence that machines could never match, one which allows us to think of new ideas and produce creative and artistic works. But it seems that even here, computers are lining up to compete with us. Machines can easily be trained to do the physical work of producing art. About ten years ago, a painting robot known as e-David was created at a university in Germany. And recently in New York, the painting ‘Portrait of Edmond de Belamy’ has been auctioned for nearly half a million dollars. What made it a bit unusual was that the idea, and the image itself, was produced entirely by a computer. A group of young French artists gave instructions to the computer, aiming simply to show that computers can be creative. Some artists are now working with computers to produce a new kind of art. Computer-generated works of art are certainly interesting, and make us think about the limits of what machines can and cannot do. But not everyone would accept that they qualify as art. Some enthusiasts would argue they do, and the collectors willing to pay high prices for these works would suggest there is definitely a market for computer art. Others, however, would disagree. Many ‘real’ artists would claim that art is an expression of human intelligence and human emotions. More importantly, it is about a desire to communicate with other people. These things, they argue, are part of being human and can never be produced by a machine.

When it comes to ambition, no two people are alike. Every class has its outstanding students, every company has its wonderful employees, and every family has its successful members. Then there is someone who is happy with whatever life brings. So what makes us different? A person’s desire to succeed depends on so many factors. He or she may have goals, but without the ambition to get started, they never take the first steps to achieve them. Similarly, those with an ambition but no clear goals tend to begin many projects, but do not ever follow them till the end. Although there are not any strict rules about how to ‘teach’ ambition or what decides it, many successful people do share some things. Most scientists agree that it helps to have parents who encourage their children to try new experiences, praise their successes, and accept their failures. In those families, kids often have much higher confidence levels. They know how to set goals and keep trying until they achieve them. Money also plays an important role. Those who are not very rich often want to earn money. It forces them to work hard all the time to improve their life. However, the desire for success can create its own stress. Working too hard to achieve success can lead to illnesses. These days, even teens and young adults are feeling the stress. Trying to get into good colleges and find good jobs has forced high school students to study harder than ever. For many, it is difficult to find the balance. One solution may be to get together with family and friends, and do the things we enjoy. Most would agree that those values are far more important than any wealth or success.

When it comes to ambition, no two people are alike. Every class has its outstanding students, every company has its wonderful employees, and every family has its successful members. Then there is someone who is happy with whatever life brings. So what makes us different? A person's desire to succeed depends on so many factors. He or she may have goals, but without the ambition to get started, they never take the first steps to achieve them. Similarly, those with an ambition but no clear goals tend to begin many projects, but do not ever follow them till the end. Although there are not any strict rules about how to teach 'ambition' or what decides it, many successful people do share some things. Most scientists agree that it helps to have parents who encourage the children to try new experiences, praise their successes, and accept their failures. In those families, kids often have much higher confidence levels. They know how to set goals and keep trying until they achieve them. Money also plays an important role. Those who are not very rich often want to earn money. It forces them to work hard all the time and improve their life. However, the desire for success can create its own stress. Working too hard to achieve success can lead to illnesses. These days, even teens and young adults are feeling the stress. Trying to get into good colleges and find good jobs have forced high school students to study harder than ever. For many, it is difficult to find the balance. One solution may be to get together with family and friends, and do the things we enjoy. Most would agree that those values are far more important than any wealth or success.

Today, text-messaging has probably become young people’s most common form of communication. Some teachers think that because of this, young people are not writing correctly at school. They fear that once students get used to it, they will find it hard to switch back to using correct grammar and spelling. How did things begin this way? It all began with e-mail, online chat-rooms, and games. Then step by step young people made sentences, phrases and words shorter. As text-messaging continued to become popular, people invented more and more words. Today, it is like a real language with its own grammar and vocabulary. The growth of text-messaging has raised an important question: As students become fluent in text-messaging, do their writing skills suffer? People have different ideas about the effects of text-messaging on students’ writing skills. Some say that students are losing the ability to write long, correct sentences. Others say that text-messaging is having a good effect on the language students use in their schoolwork. It shows that they are creative and good at expressing themselves. And if students can keep the two systems separate - one for text-messaging and one for school - this will help students appreciate reading and writing more. Some people suggest that one way to reduce the bad effects of text-messaging is to find ways to use technology as a positive learning tool. For example, students can be allowed to type their assignments in a cell phone message and send them to their teachers, but they must type correctly. In this way, students are using the technology that they are familiar with to communicate in a form of language suitable for schoolwork. It shows students that text-messaging is fine for social communication, but correct grammar and spelling are necessary for communication in school.

Today, text-messaging has probably become young people’s most common form of communication. Some teachers think that because of this, young people are not writing correctly at school. They fear that once students get used to it, they will find it hard to switch back to using correct grammar and spelling. How did things begin this way?

It all began with e-mail, online chat rooms, and games. Then step by step young people made sentences, phrases and words shorter. As text-messaging continued to become popular, people invented more and more words. Today, it is like a real language with its own grammar and vocabulary. The growth of text-messaging has raised an important question: As students become fluent in text-messaging, do their writing skills suffer?

People have different ideas about the effects of text-messaging on students’ writing skills. Some say that students are losing the ability to write long, correct sentences. Others say that text-messaging is having a good effect on the language students use in their schoolwork. It shows that they are creative and good at expressing themselves. And if students can keep the two systems separate - one for text-messaging and one for school - this will help students appreciate reading and writing more.

Some people suggest that one way to reduce the bad effects of text-messaging is to find ways to use technology as a positive learning tool. For example, students can be allowed to type their assignments in a cell phone message and send them to their teachers, but they must type correctly. In this way, students are using the technology that they are familiar with to communicate in a form of language suitable for schoolwork. It shows students that text-messaging is fine for social communication, but correct grammar and spelling are necessary for communication in school.

“I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970,” says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives “off-grid” – unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. “There are times when the grid blacks out,” he says. “I really like the security of having my own electricity company.” Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. “It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels,” says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. “And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves.” Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydropower. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21st century lifestyle: “I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it,” says Perez. “There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity.” Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

One day, a middle-aged man asked a taxi to take him to see Chelsea play Arsenal at football. He told the driver 'Stamford Bridge', the name of Chelsea's stadium, but he was delivered instead to the village of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. Of course, he missed the match. What had happened? With the Sat-Nay system in place, the driver in this story felt he did not need to know where he was going. He confidently outsourced the job of knowing this information to the Sat-Nav. Using an Internet search engine takes a broadband user less than a second. And with smartphones at hand, people will be online almost all of the time. The same could be true of university education. Today, the average student seems not to value general knowledge. If asked a factual question, they will usually click on a search engine without a second thought. Actually knowing the fact and committing it to memory does not seem to be an issue, it's the ease with which we can look it up. However, general knowledge has never been something that you acquire formally. Instead, we pick it up from all sorts of sources as we go along, often absorbing facts without realising. The question remains, then: is the Internet threatening general knowledge? When I put that to Moira Jones, expert in designing IQ tests, she referred me to the story of the Egyptian god Thoth. It goes like this: Thoth offers writing as a gift to the king of Egypt, declaring it an 'elixir of memory and wisdom.' But the king is horrified, and tells him: 'This invention will induce forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learned it, because they will not need to exercise their memories, being able to rely on what is written.' Who wants to be a millionaire finalist David Swift, responding to the same question, recognises that there was a problem of young people saying: 'I don't need to know that', but he is far more excited about the educational potential of the Internet. 'There is so much more information out there, giving people opportunities to boost their general knowledge.' After all, the Internet might just help us to forget more and more. But meanwhile, the continuing popularity of quizzes and game-shows shows us that general knowledge is strong enough to remain.