Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Climate change, energy and resources — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions use the topic “Climate change, energy and resources” from the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025). The topic list in section 3 is for all components. Questions 1-9 practise the source-based skills of Component 1 Written Exam (section 4), and Questions 10-11 practise planning for Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. Topic knowledge is not assessed: every answer below uses the sources, not outside facts about climate change. All people, places, organisations and data are fictional.

Read the study guide for this topic and the revision notes. For more exam practice, see the Written Exam practice set. Hub: Global Perspectives · 0457 checklist.

Questions

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. A letter to a newspaper in the fictional country of Velandia, from the director of SunFirst, a fictional company that installs solar panels.

“Rooftop solar panels cost less today than they did five years ago. Every family that installs them is doing the right thing for the planet. Critics who want the government subsidy cut are short-sighted and selfish. If the subsidy stays, within ten years Velandia will no longer need to import coal for electricity.”

1. Identify one fact and one opinion in Source A. [2]

2. Identify the writer’s vested interest and explain how it could affect the reliability of Source A. [3]

3. Identify the prediction in Source A and explain why it is weaker support for the writer’s argument than a fact. [2]

4. Analyse how the writer uses language in Source A to persuade the reader. [4]

5. Source B – original data written for Marlbridge. A survey of households with rooftop solar panels in three districts of Port Alder, the fictional capital of Velandia.

District	Households surveyed (each year)	With solar, 2020	With solar, 2025
North Ridge (higher-income)	150	12	45
Riverside	150	9	21
Old Market (lower-income)	100	2	4
Total	400	23	70

A fictional government minister says: “Rooftop solar has tripled across Velandia. Our subsidy is working for everyone.”

(a) Describe how solar uptake changed in North Ridge and in Old Market between 2020 and 2025. [2] (b) Explain two ways the data in Source B do not fully support the minister’s claim. [4]

6. Source C – original text written for Marlbridge. How the Source B survey was carried out.

“The survey was run by the Velandia Solar Installers’ Association. Volunteers knocked on doors on weekday afternoons in the same three districts in 2020 and 2025. They asked one question: ‘Does your home have solar panels?’ Homes where nobody answered were skipped. The results were published on the association’s website.”

(a) Evaluate the research described in Source C. [8] (b) Suggest how you could research the claim that the solar subsidy “is working for everyone” more reliably. [6]

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge. Two views on a proposed lithium mine in the fictional Kessa Valley, Velandia.

View 1, a fictional regional mining minister: “The world needs lithium for electric-car batteries to cut emissions. The Kessa mine will create 900 jobs in a valley where young people leave to find work. Other countries already mine lithium safely, so we can too.”

View 2, a fictional farmers’ cooperative: “Lithium extraction uses a lot of water. Our valley has had two droughts in the last five years. If the river runs low, 3,000 farming families will lose their living. Most mine jobs will go to engineers from outside the valley.”

7. Using Source D, explain one cause and one consequence of the mine proposal, each at a different level (local, national or global). [4]

8. Evaluate the two views in Source D. Which view is better supported? [12]

9. The fictional Velandian government is considering three courses of action for household energy:

• Action 1: keep the rooftop solar subsidy as it is.
• Action 2: move the subsidy to lower-income districts and pay a larger grant per home.
• Action 3: fund community solar panels on schools and public buildings, sharing the electricity with nearby homes.

Using all the sources, evaluate which course of action is most likely to be effective. [16]

10. You are planning a Component 2 Individual Report on this topic. A classmate suggests the title “Energy”.

(a) Explain why this title is unsuitable and write a better global research question on the same topic. [3] (b) Identify one local or national perspective and one global perspective you would research for your question. [2] (c) Suggest one type of source you would use and explain how you would judge its reliability. [3]

11. A team of four students plans a Component 3 Team Project on energy waste at their school. In week 1 they find lights or fans left on at lunchtime in 15 of the school’s 24 classrooms.

(a) Suggest a course of action the team could take. [2] (b) Explain how the team could measure the success of the action. [3] (c) Identify three things the team’s Explanation of Research and Planning should include as the project progresses. [3]

Answers

In the real exam, extended answers are marked with levels of response, not point by point. The [1] points below show the kind of content that earns credit.

1. Fact: “Rooftop solar panels cost less today than they did five years ago” (it can be checked) [1]. Opinion: “doing the right thing for the planet” or “short-sighted and selfish” [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Quote the exact words from the source; a paraphrase of the whole letter does not show which part is the fact.

2. The writer runs a company that installs solar panels [1], so it gains more business if the subsidy stays [1]. This may lead the writer to stress benefits and leave out costs, so the letter should be checked against an independent source [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Naming the vested interest earns only one mark; the rest comes from explaining how it could shape what the source says.

3. Prediction: Velandia “will no longer need to import coal” within ten years [1]. It is about the future, so it cannot yet be checked and gives no evidence that the subsidy works now [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Explain why a prediction is weaker, not just that it is a prediction.

4. Emotive, insulting words (“short-sighted and selfish”) [1] attack the critics rather than their reasons, pushing the reader to reject them without weighing their case [1]. Sweeping, inclusive phrases (“every family”, “the planet”) [1] make installing panels sound like a moral duty for everyone, which is a generalisation [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Each language point needs a quotation and its effect on the reader; quotations alone earn half the marks at most.

5. (a) North Ridge rose from 12 to 45 households (8% to 30%) [1]. Old Market rose only from 2 to 4 (2% to 4%) [1]. [2] (b) Overall uptake did roughly triple (23 to 70), but most of the rise came from North Ridge (33 of the 47 extra homes), while Old Market only doubled from a very low base, so it is not “working for everyone” [1] [1]. The survey covers only three districts of the capital, so it cannot show what happened “across Velandia”, for example in rural areas [1] [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Use the figures from the table; “the data are uneven” without numbers stays in the lower marks.

6. (a) Strengths: the same districts were surveyed in both years, so the change over time can be compared [1]; the single factual question is simple and hard to misunderstand [1]. Limitations: the Association represents installers, so it has a vested interest in showing growth [1]; weekday-afternoon visits miss people who work, so the sample may not be typical [1]; skipping homes with no answer means the sample is not random [1]; 400 homes in one city is too small to support a national claim [1]; the results were published only on the association’s own website, with no independent check [1]. Judgement: the data are useful for comparing districts but too limited to prove a national claim [1]. [8] (b) Use a larger random sample across urban and rural areas of Velandia [1], carried out by an independent body such as a university [1]. Compare uptake by household income, since “everyone” means all income groups [1]. Check official subsidy application records by district [1]. Interview lower-income households about why they did or did not install panels [1]. Compare with a period or area without the subsidy to see whether the subsidy caused the change [1]. [6] Examiner insight: In (a), every limitation must be tied to a detail in Source C; in (b), each suggestion should say what it would show.

7. Cause (global): world demand for batteries to cut emissions from cars creates demand for lithium [1], which makes mining in Kessa Valley profitable [1]. Consequence (local): water use by the mine may reduce river flow during droughts [1], threatening the income of farming families in the valley [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Label the level and link cause to effect; two separate unlinked statements earn half the marks.

8. View 1 strengths: its reasoning links a global need (cutting emissions) to a local benefit (jobs), which is a logical chain [1]; the jobs figure is specific [1]. View 1 weaknesses: no source is given for the 900 jobs, and the minister has a vested interest in approving the mine [1]; “other countries mine safely, so we can too” is a generalisation that ignores Kessa’s droughts [1]; it does not respond to the water concern at all [1]. View 2 strengths: it uses local evidence (two droughts in five years) [1] and its reasoning chain from water use to lost income is clear [1]. View 2 weaknesses: “3,000 families will lose their living” is a prediction based on “if the river runs low”, which is not certain [1]; the claim that jobs will go to outsiders has no evidence [1]; the cooperative also has a vested interest [1]. Judgement: View 2 is better supported because its key evidence is specific to the valley, while View 1 relies on an unsupported comparison [1]; both would be stronger with independent data on water use [1]. [12] Examiner insight: Judge the quality of each view’s evidence and reasoning; summarising each view is not evaluation.

9. Criteria: effectiveness at cutting emissions, fairness, and cost [1]. Action 1: Source B shows uptake roughly tripled overall, so the subsidy does increase solar use [1], but most growth was in higher-income North Ridge [1], so it does little for Old Market families and may widen inequality [1]. Source A’s claim that it will end coal imports is only a prediction from someone with a vested interest [1]. Action 2: targets the group the data show is left behind [1] and is fairer [1]; but a larger grant per home costs more, so fewer homes may be covered [1], and Source C’s weak survey means we do not know why lower-income homes did not install, so money alone may not solve it [1]. Action 3: renters and poorer homes that cannot install panels still benefit [1]; schools and public buildings already exist, so no household needs to pay up front [1]; but it may take years to build and needs agreement from many public bodies [1]. Comparison: Actions 2 and 3 both address fairness, but Action 3 reaches homes without suitable roofs, which Action 2 cannot [1]. Judgement: Action 3 is likely to be most effective [1] because it combines lower emissions with fairer access [1]; it would work best alongside better research into why uptake is low in districts such as Old Market [1]. [16] Examiner insight: Use every source and compare the actions directly; describing each action with no final judgement cannot reach the top level.

10. (a) “Energy” is a broad topic, not a question [1], so it does not name an issue that divides opinion [1]. Better: “Should countries keep building coal power stations to meet rising electricity demand?” [1] [3] (b) Local or national: for example, a national government that wants cheap, reliable power for growing industry [1]. Global: for example, international groups pressing for faster cuts in emissions [1]. [2] (c) A report from an international energy organisation [1]. Judge it by checking the author’s expertise and whether it explains its methods [1], and by comparing its figures with another independent source [1]. [3] Examiner insight: A research question earns credit when it shows more than one possible answer; “What is energy?” or “How does coal work?” would not.

11. (a) A switch-off campaign [1] with student monitors who check classrooms at lunch and posters by each light switch [1]. [2] (b) Repeat the week 1 count after the campaign, using the same 24 classrooms at the same time of day [1]. Compare the results: for example, a fall from 15 rooms (62.5%) to 6 rooms (25%) would show improvement [1]. Check on several matched days, so one unusual day does not distort the result [1]. [3] (c) Any three of: the plan of action [1]; the roles and responsibilities of team members [1]; how the action will be evidenced [1]. How its success will be measured is also creditable in place of any of these. [3] Examiner insight: Success needs a measure set before the action starts; “everyone liked it” is not a measure.

Where marks are usually lost

• Adding outside facts about climate change instead of working from the sources; Component 1 does not credit prior knowledge.
• Identifying a fact or opinion without quoting the exact words.
• Treating a vested interest as proof the source is false, rather than a reason to check it.
• Quoting language without explaining its effect on the reader.
• Listing weaknesses of research without tying each to a detail of how it was carried out.
• Describing three courses of action and stopping, with no comparison or final judgement.
• Writing an Individual Report title that is a topic rather than a question that divides opinion.
• Planning a Team Project action with no before-and-after measure.

Next steps

• Check your weaker skills with a free diagnostic.
• Revise the exam structure with the Written Exam study guide.
• Practise coursework planning with the Individual Report practice and Team Project practice.
• Want feedback on your answers? Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025). Topic list in section 3; Component 1 Written Exam, Component 2 Individual Report, Component 3 Team Project and command words in section 4.