Americans don’t like to lose wars．Of course，a lot depends on how you define just what a war is．There are shooting wars—the kind

admin2019-12-28 44

问题 Americans don’t like to lose wars．Of course，a lot depends on how you define just what a war is．There are shooting wars—the kind that test patriotism and courage—and those are the kind at which the U．S．excels．But other struggles test those qualities too．What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads?If American indulge in a bit of nag—whenthe job is done，they earned it．
Now there is a similar challengewglobal wanning．The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order，and by any measure，the U．S．is losing．Indeed，if America is fighting at all，it’s fighting on the wrong side．The U．S．produces nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn’t intend to do a whole lot about it．Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels，the U．S．walked away from them．There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen．But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values，the U．S．is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all．It’s hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country’s coasts and farms，the health of its people and stability of its economy．
The rub is，if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency，there’s far less agreement on how to fix it．Industry offers its plans，which too often would fix little．Environmentalists offer theirs，which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America’s growth．But let’s assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed．What would an aggressive，ambitious，effective plan look like一one that would leave the U．S．both environmentally safe and economically sound?
Halting climate change will be far harder．One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years．And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition，the U．S．can，without major damage to the economy，help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations．Money will do some of the work．but what’s needed most is will．“I’m not saying the challenge isn’t almost overwhelming，”says Fred Krupp．“But this is America，and America has risen to these challenges before．”
请回答下列问题。
What is the author’s attitude towards America’s policies on global warming?

选项 A、Critical．
B、Indifferent．
C、Supportive．
D、Compromising．

答案A

解析态度题。在阅读查找时我们会注意到文章多处表达了对美国在环境政策上的不满，最明显的一处是第二段第二句和第三句“The steady deterioration ofthe vety climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the fist order，and by any measure，the U．S．is losing．Indeed，if America is fighting at all，it’s fighting on the wrong side．”在这两句中作者评论其行动时说其“losing失败”、“如果参战，也是站在错误的一方”。由此可以确定本题答案为A项“批评的”。其他三项“漠不关心的”“支持的”“妥协的”均不符合题意。故本题选A。

转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/F2jY777K

本试题收录于：银保监财会类题库国家公务员分类