There is nothing inevitable about choices that are environmentally destructive. In 1800, there were indeed 550 steam engines in Europe but there were over 500,000 water mills. Coal was more expensive than hydro power and many industrialists were not persuaded of its added value. It was the economic recession of 1825–1848 with increasing agitation by textile workers over salaries and conditions which made the use of coal-powered, steam-driven spinning machines a much more attractive proposition. More machines meant fewer workers and fewer workers meant fewer demands, notably for wage rises. Therefore, the substantial increase in CO2 emissions in Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century, which through economic competition, war and imperial domination would start a worldwide trend, was not the blind outcome of the machinery of ‘progress’ but the cumulative consequence of a set of very specific decisions taken by identifiable socio-economic actors.
Similarly, the notion that ecological awareness is only a very recent phenomenon where “humanity” finally woke up to the environmental consequences of its economic activities does not stand up to scrutiny. In the period from the beginnings of the industrial revolution to the decade when the movement towards fossil fuels use becomes more marked, awareness of the relationships between humans and their environment or the “natural world” was widespread. Environmental risks have been clearly and repeatedly signalled from the time of the industrial revolution onwards. The notion of an unthinking humanity bringing destruction upon itself does not bear up to examination.
🔗 Texto adaptado de: Cronin, M. Eco-Translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. New York: Routledge, 2017, p. 11–12.
141. In the second paragraph, the author claims that the use of fossil fuels marked the relationship between humans and their environment.
🔎 Gabarito: ERRADO
🧭 1️⃣ Leitura orientada do item
O item atribui ao segundo parágrafo a afirmação de que o uso de combustíveis fósseis teria marcado a relação entre seres humanos e o meio ambiente.
Trata-se de verificar se o autor estabelece uma relação causal ou definidora entre fossil fuels e essa relação.
📝 2️⃣ Análise técnica do item
No segundo parágrafo, o autor afirma que a ideia de que a consciência ecológica seja um fenômeno recente “does not stand up to scrutiny”.
Em seguida, ele observa que, desde o início da Revolução Industrial até o período em que o uso de combustíveis fósseis se intensifica, a consciência da relação entre humanos e o mundo natural já era ampla.
Assim, o uso de fossil fuels aparece apenas como um marco temporal, não como o elemento que passou a definir ou “marcar” essa relação.
O argumento central é que os riscos ambientais foram claramente sinalizados desde cedo, o que contradiz a ideia de uma mudança qualitativa provocada apenas pelos combustíveis fósseis.
⚠️ 3️⃣ Armadilhas clássicas da banca
• Ler “movement towards fossil fuels use” como causa definidora.
• Confundir referência temporal com afirmação causal.
• Ignorar o foco do parágrafo na existência prévia de consciência ambiental.
🧠 4️⃣ Resumo B3GE™ Master
✖ O texto não diz que os combustíveis fósseis “marcaram” a relação homem–natureza.
✔ A consciência ambiental já existia e foi reiteradamente expressa.
✔ O item extrapola o argumento do autor.
Gabarito confirmado: ERRADO.