2. 考研
  3. There is a new service from Expedia, Travelocity and other travel websites: environmental expiation. If you wish, when you buy a

There is a new service from Expedia, Travelocity and other travel websites: environmental expiation. If you wish, when you buy a

admin2015-04-10  96
问题     There is a new service from Expedia, Travelocity and other travel websites: environmental expiation. If you wish, when you buy a plane ticket, they will figure out how much carbon your trip will be adding to the atmosphere and charge you to make up for it. The money goes to nonprofit groups that either plant trees to absorb the carbon or produce an equal amount of energy in an eco-friendly way. You are still increasing the carbon in the air, but someone else, thanks to you, is reducing it by an equal amount. The net effect: no additional carbon in the atmosphere. Of course, this is all strictly voluntary. If you want to destroy the earth for future generations and face your kids, who’ve learned all about global warming in second grade, that’s your privilege.
    Similar deals are available for other eco-embarrassments. Some commentators have uncharitably compared carbon credits to the indulgences sold by the medieval Catholic Church. But indulgences are apparently misunderstood. The Catholic Encyclopedia, in an eye-rolling, "Here we go again" tone, scolds that an indulgence "is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin. " No doubt environmentalists would insist the same about carbon credits: they are not a gift certificate or get-out-of-jail-free card for would-be polluters. But they sure do play one on TV.
    Such is the magic of capitalism. The magic works best in a world of dramatic inequalities. Fortunately, that is just the world we are living in. The greater the gap between rich and poor, both domestically and globally, the more a rich person will pay and the less a poor person will require.
    The usual objections can be made to all of this: Why should rich people be able to buy their way out of environmental guilt when poor people can’t? The usual answer is that the deal doesn’t create the inequality and forbidding the deal doesn’t reduce it. If you tell a rich person this is one thing he or she cannot buy, you are also telling a poor person that this is one thing he or she cannot sell. We can argue all day about where to draw the line and say to rich and poor: You cannot make this deal, even if it benefits both of you. It is too inappropriate. Or here’s a thought: We can create a market in winning the argument. The rich person can purchase the right not to be challenged, and the poor person, for a fee, can agree to shut up. Everybody’s happy.  
Which statement is true according to the passage?
选项 A、Carbon credits are contradictory with Capitalism.
B、Forbidding the service can decrease inequality.
C、The author believes the gap between rich and poor facilitates carbon credits.
D、The last sentence in the last paragraph indicates the harmony between the rich and the poor.
答案C
解析 根据本文，下列哪项表述正确?[A]碳排放额度和资本主义相矛盾。[B]禁止这项服务可以缓解不平等状况。[C]作者认为贫富差距促进碳排放额度的实施。[D]最后一段的最后一句话表明了穷人和富人之间的和谐。可以从文章第三段第二句的The magic works…dramatic inequalities．以及文章末尾的Everybody’s happy．看出，作者认为贫富差距在某种程度上能够促进碳排放额度的实施；[A]、[B]、[D]三项是对作者态度和意图的错误理解，故选[C]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/1P74777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)