2. 外语
  3. Throughout George Bush’s presidency, the federal government has refused to support any regulation of the greenhouse gases that c

Throughout George Bush’s presidency, the federal government has refused to support any regulation of the greenhouse gases that c

admin2012-11-30  110
问题     Throughout George Bush’s presidency, the federal government has refused to support any regulation of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Whenever the subject comes up, officials tend to mumble(咕哝) about uncertainties. But on April 2nd, the Supreme Court at last settled one of the biggest outstanding questions: whether the government has the authority to curb emissions in the first place.
    The court ruled that the Clean Air Act a law from the 1960s designed to combat smog— gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. It also said the EPA would need an excuse if it decided not to use this power. It dismissed the justifications the EPA had provided for inaction that emissions from American cars were insignificant in the grand scheme of things and that unilateral action by America would undermine efforts to achieve international consensus on global warming—as inadequate. Strictly speaking, the ruling applies only to emissions from vehicles, but a very similar case regarding coal fired power plants is pending(未决的) in federal court. The EPA says it is now examining the ruling.
    The EPA might examine it for some time, of course. Any regulations it comes up with in response might still defer action into the distant future, since the law allows the EPA to delay implementation until appropriate technology can be acquired at a reasonable cost. Even if it proceeds quite swiftly, a new president and Congress with globe-cooling ideas of their own will be in place long before any new rules come into effect.
    That suits the environmental lobby just fine. They hope the ruling will spur Congress to address global warming with proper legislation. After all, it makes little sense for such an important issue to be tackled tangentially(无甚关系的) through a 40-year-old law. And if 2009 sees the inauguration of a greener president, he or she will now have the power, to dictate stricter fuel efficiency, in the form of lower CO2 emissions, without reference to Congress.
    California set an example. In 2002, the state assembly passed a law regulating emissions of CO2from vehicles, based on a provision of the Clean Air Act that allows California to adopt stricter pollution standards than the federal government. Carmakers have challenged the law, in part on the ground that CO2 was not an air pollutant. The car industry quickly declared that the issue of global warming is best handled at the federal level by Congress.
选项 A、It is the government’s obligation to set up stricter regulation.
B、It is disappointing for the public that the government shies away this problem.
C、The government is the only organization that can control greenhouse gases.
D、The government is not the chief organization authorized to control greenhouse gases.
答案D
解析 根据题干中the Supreme Court对于政府在控制温室效应气体这方面所应起的作用的看法，可以定位到第一段的最后一句话。这句提到最高法院澄清了最突出的问题之一，即政府是否首先(in the first place)具有限制排放量的权利。据此，可以推断最高法院认为政府不是具有行使限制温室效应气体权利的机构。文章没有提到建立更加严格的规范是政府的职责，故可排除A；第一段前两句提到布什政府的不支持和官员们对此问题的回避，都是政府对于控制温室效应气体所采取的行为，这是否让公众失望不是最高法院对此事的看法，故排除B；C提到政府是唯一一个可以控制温室效应气体的机构，不是最高法院的看法，从第二段也可以得知这是不对的，而且only用的过于绝对，故可排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/wyb7777K
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)