Module 1: SPEAKING. Tips

📚 EOI ORAL EXAM: Environment & Sustainability

LEVEL C1 (Advanced)

1. EXAM INSTRUCTIONS

PART 1: MONOLOGUE (Long Turn)

• Time: 3-4 minutes speaking time. (Preparation: 10-15 mins).

• Task: Discuss the statement below. Structure your ideas logically (Intro, Pros/Cons, Conclusion).

Topic: The "Plastic Footprint""Recycling is no longer enough; we must move to a zero-waste society." Despite decades of campaigns, plastic pollution remains a crisis.You may mention:The failure of recycling: Why do landfills remain full?Responsibility: Is it the consumer's fault or the corporation's?The "Convenience Culture": Can we really give up single-use packaging?Real Alternatives: Bamboo, bulk buying, or simply consuming less?

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

• Time: 5-6 minutes.

• Goal: Reach a consensus / Negotiation.

• Scenario: You are city councillors with a €500,000 grant to make your city "Greener." You must agree on ONE priority project.

Candidate A: The Renewable Energy Advocate You want to install Solar Panels on all public buildings and schools.Argument: Leading by example, long-term savings on electricity bills, reducing carbon emissions.Candidate B: The Waste Management Advocate You want to implement a High-Tech Composting & Recycling System (Smart Bins).Argument: The city is dirty, landfills release methane (dangerous), and citizens need to learn new habits via infrastructure.

2. TIPS FOR C1 SUCCESS

• Vocabulary: Carbon footprint, biodegradable, single-use plastics, landfill, fossil fuels, circular economy, renewable resources, potent greenhouse gas.

• Grammar: Use Conditional III for regrets ("If we had acted sooner...") and Passive Voice to sound objective ("Plastic is being dumped...").

• Dialogue Strategy: Don't just say "I disagree." Use phrases like: "I see your point, but consider the logistics..."or "Let's play devil's advocate..."

  
  

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C1 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: The Plastic Footprint

"Good afternoon. Today I’d like to talk about the 'Plastic Predicament' facing our planet. We have grown up with the mantra 'Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,' but looking at the state of our oceans, it is clear that this strategy is failing. It is shocking to think that a piece of plastic used for 5 minutes takes 500 years to decompose. In my opinion, recycling is merely a band-aid on a gaping wound, and we need a much more radical approach.

To begin with, let’s address the failure of the current system. We diligently wash our yogurt pots and put them in the yellow bin, believing they will be turned into new products. The sad reality is that a huge percentage of this 'recycled' waste is actually shipped to developing nations or ends up in landfills due to contamination. Plastic degrades in quality every time it is recycled, unlike glass or metal. We have been sold a lie that we can simply consume our way out of this crisis without changing our habits.

Regarding the question of responsibility, this is a contentious issue. Is it the consumer's fault for buying apples wrapped in plastic, or the supermarket's fault for selling them? I believe corporations are the main culprits. It is unfair to blame the working-class consumer for choosing the cheapest option when there are no affordable, plastic-free alternatives. Companies prioritize profit over the planet because virgin plastic is cheaper than recycled material. Until governments tax virgin plastic heavily, companies will not change.

However, we cannot ignore our own role in this 'Convenience Culture.' We are addicted to single-use items. We prioritize saving five seconds of our time over the health of the planet. We grab a takeaway coffee cup instead of bringing a reusable one. To solve this, we don't just need bamboo straws or paper bags; we need a fundamental shift in mindset. We need to move towards a circular economy where 'waste' as a concept doesn't exist.

In conclusion, while recycling is better than nothing, a zero-waste approach is the only real solution. We must stop producing the waste in the first place, force corporations to take responsibility for their packaging, and relearn the lost art of repairing and reusing items."

C1 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Solar vs. Waste

(A meeting between two city councillors)

Candidate A (Solar): "So, looking at this grant, I’m convinced that installing solar panels on public buildings—specifically schools and the town hall—is the way to go. It’s about leading by example. If the City Hall runs on clean energy, we save taxpayers money in the long run and reduce emissions. Plus, it's a very visible statement of our commitment to the environment."

Candidate B (Waste): "I understand the appeal of solar; it certainly looks good on a brochure. But have you walked around the city center lately? The streets are filthy, and the bins are overflowing. It’s a health hazard. I feel strongly that a high-tech composting and recycling system is more urgent. Rotting food in landfills releases methane, which is far more potent than CO2. We need to tackle that immediate mess first."

Candidate A: "I admit the streets could be cleaner. However, cleaning up trash is a maintenance issue, not a structural change. Solar panels are an investment. Once installed, they generate free energy for 25 years. We could even use the money saved from electricity bills to hire more street cleaners in the future. Isn't it better to fix the energy source rather than just tidying up?"

Candidate B: "That’s a valid point about the savings, but consider the logistics. Solar panels require maintenance, and our city isn't exactly the sunniest place in the country. If we spend half a million euros on panels that operate at 50% efficiency during winter, is that wise? Whereas waste is a daily reality. If we install 'Smart Bins' that weigh waste and charge people less if they recycle more, we educate the citizens. We create a circular economy mindset. You can’t teach children about sustainability if their school playground is full of litter."

Candidate A: "I see what you mean. You're arguing that the waste project has an educational component that solar panels lack. But let me play devil’s advocate: Smart bins require microchips and maintenance, too. What if people vandalize them? Solar panels are on the roof, safe from vandalism. It’s a safer bet for the budget."

Candidate B: "True, vandalism is a risk. But we can't design our city based on fear. Look, we need to reach a decision. I am worried that solar panels are a 'flashy' purchase that doesn't solve the fact that our landfill is nearly full. If the landfill closes, our taxes will double. That’s an economic crisis waiting to happen."

Candidate A: "Okay, that is a compelling argument. I didn't realize the landfill situation was that critical. Let's try to find a middle ground. What if we scale back the solar project? Instead of doing all public buildings, we put panels only on the three largest high schools."

Candidate B: "And with the remaining funds?"

Candidate A: "With the remaining funds, we launch a pilot program for your organic composting scheme in the city center. That way, we get the energy savings from the schools to impress the voters, but we also address the urgent waste crisis in the most populated area."

Candidate B: "I think I can get on board with that. It covers both the long-term energy goals and the immediate hygiene needs. Shall we draft the proposal based on a 60/40 split of the funds?"

Candidate A: "Agreed. 60% for Solar, 40% for Waste. Let's do it."

LEVEL C2 (Mastery)

1. EXAM INSTRUCTIONS

PART 1: MONOLOGUE (Long Turn)

• Time: 4-5 minutes speaking time.

• Task: Deliver a monologue analyzing the nuance and complexity of the topic.

Topic: The Ethics of Geoengineering & "Greenwashing"As the climate crisis worsens, desperate measures are being proposed.Discuss:The "Net Zero" Trap: Is buying carbon offsets just a way for corporations to pay to keep polluting?Geoengineering: Should we artificially manipulate the weather (e.g., dimming the sun)? What are the risks?Energy Equity: Is it fair to ask developing nations to stop using cheap fossil fuels when the West built its wealth on them?Technological Optimism vs. Degrowth: Can technology save us, or must we simply consume less?

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

• Time: 6-7 minutes.

• Goal: Debate a controversial policy.

• Scenario: An EU Summit to classify energy sources.

Candidate A: The Pragmatist (Pro-Nuclear) You argue that Nuclear Energy must be classified as "Green" to provide baseload power.Stance: We are in a climate emergency; we need emission-free power now. Worrying about waste is a luxury.Candidate B: The Purist (Pro-Renewables) You argue Nuclear is dangerous, slow to build, and intergenerational theft (waste).Stance: We should focus entirely on storage technology (batteries/hydrogen) and wind/solar.

2. TIPS FOR C2 SUCCESS

• Vocabulary: Anthropogenic climate change, planned obsolescence, geothermal, radioactive waste, intermittent energy, carbon sequestration, tipping point, sunk cost fallacy.

• Style: Use rhetorical questions ("Is this not hubris?") and hedge your assertions ("One might argue that...", "It is arguably the most pressing issue...").

• Dialogue Strategy: Acknowledge complexity. Don't just fight; concede small points to win the big argument.

  
  

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C2 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: Greenwashing & Geoengineering

"The climate crisis has moved from a scientific warning to an existential threat, and with it, we have seen the rise of dubious solutions. Today, I would like to delve into the murky waters of corporate ethics and the terrifying potential of technological interventionism, specifically focusing on the deception of 'Net Zero' targets and the ethical quagmire of geoengineering.

Firstly, we must address the pervasive issue of greenwashing. Walk into any airport or supermarket, and you will see claims of 'carbon neutrality.' Yet, many major fossil fuel companies claiming they will be 'Net Zero' by 2050 are relying almost entirely on 'carbon offsetting.' This essentially means paying someone else to plant trees in the Amazon while they continue to extract and burn oil in the North Sea. It is a mathematical trick, a fallacy that allows business as usual under the guise of sustainability. It assuages consumer guilt without addressing the root cause: the combustion of fossil fuels.

Secondly, this desperation leads us to even more radical proposals, such as geoengineering. We are seeing serious scientific proposals to spray sulfur particles into the stratosphere to dim the sun and cool the Earth. This terrifies me. It is technological hubris at its finest. We broke the climate with technology, and now we think we can fix it with more invasive technology? The unintended consequences could be catastrophic. Who decides the thermostat of the Earth? If dimming the sun causes a drought in India but saves crops in America, is that ethically justifiable?

Furthermore, we cannot discuss climate change without discussing equity. The West built its immense wealth on two centuries of unrestricted coal and oil burning. Now, we turn to developing nations—who are just beginning to industrialize—and tell them they cannot use the same cheap energy we did. While scientifically necessary, it is morally complicated. We have a historical debt that must be paid, perhaps through massive technology transfers, rather than just preaching abstinence.

To conclude, I believe we are leaning too heavily on technological optimism. We hope for a miracle machine that sucks CO2 out of the air so we don't have to change our lifestyle. But there is no silver bullet. Technology helps, but without a philosophy of degrowth and a drastic reduction in consumption, we are merely rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic."

C2 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Nuclear vs. Renewables

(A heated debate at an EU Summit)

Candidate A (Pragmatist): "We need to look at the hard data, not just the ideology. We are facing a dual crisis: a climate emergency and a geopolitical energy shortage. If we want to decarbonize the grid by 2040, we must classify nuclear as a green investment. It provides baseload power—consistent, reliable energy—that wind and solar simply cannot provide yet. When the wind doesn't blow in November, do you want to burn Russian gas, or do you want emissions-free nuclear?"

Candidate B (Purist): "I find the term 'emissions-free' highly misleading when you take into account the entire lifecycle of the plant. We are creating radioactive waste that remains lethal for 100,000 years. That isn't 'green'; that is intergenerational theft. We are solving one problem—CO2—by creating another—toxicity. Furthermore, from an economic standpoint, nuclear is a disaster. It takes 15 years to build a plant. We don't have 15 years. We need solutions now."

Candidate A: "I concede that the waste issue is an ethical burden, but it is a contained, manageable burden. Climate change, conversely, is uncontained and existential. We are approaching a tipping point. If the ice caps melt, it won't matter if we have clean waste storage. You mention speed, but renewables have a hidden cost: land use. To power a city with solar, you need acres of land and massive batteries that rely on lithium mining, which is also environmentally destructive. Nuclear is incredibly dense energy."

Candidate B: "Lithium mining is problematic, yes, but the technology for green hydrogen and sodium-ion batteries is advancing exponentially. If we funnel the billions of euros that a single nuclear plant costs into grid storage research, we could render nuclear obsolete within a decade. By classifying nuclear as 'green' now, you are diverting critical funding away from true renewables. You are locking us into a sunk cost fallacy."

Candidate A: "That is technological optimism, not policy. We cannot gamble the stability of our entire industrial sector on battery technology that might be ready in ten years. Look at Germany—they shut down their nuclear plants and ended up burning coal again to keep the lights on during winter. Is that the environmental victory you want? We need a safety net."

Candidate B: "Germany's mistake was reliance on imported gas, not the rejection of nuclear. But let’s look at the political reality. If we don't agree on a text today, the whole climate package fails. I am willing to compromise, but not on the definition of 'green'."

Candidate A: "What if we create a tiered system? We label Solar and Wind as 'Category A: Sovereign Green,' and Nuclear as 'Category B: Transitional Sustainable.' This would allow countries to invest in nuclear to get off coal, but it signals that the long-term goal is still renewables."

Candidate B: "A 'Transitional' label... It’s a bitter pill to swallow. I would only agree to that if it comes with a strict sunset clause. For example, no new nuclear permits after 2040, and a tax on nuclear profits that goes directly into renewable storage research."

Candidate A: "A sunset clause is risky, but a tax on profits to fund storage... that is an elegant solution. It satisfies the industry's need for current stability and your need for future innovation. I think we have a framework there."

Candidate B: "Very well. Let's draft the manifesto. Nuclear is 'Transitional,' subject to a 'Future Innovation Tax.' It’s not perfect, but it prevents the grid from collapsing while we build the battery infrastructure."