2. 公务员
  3. Next week the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)is expected to announce new rules designed to limit global warming．Although we

Next week the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)is expected to announce new rules designed to limit global warming．Although we

admin2019-12-28  34
问题 Next week the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)is expected to announce new rules designed to limit global warming．Although we don’t know the details yet，anti-environmental groups are already predicting vast costs and economic doom．Don’t believe them．Everything we know sug．gests that we can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy．
    Just ask the United States Chamber of Commerce．That’s not the message the Chamber ofCommerce was trying to deliver in the report it put out Wednesday．It clearly meant to convey the impression that the EPA’s new rules would wreak havoc．But if you focus on the report’s content rather than its rhetoric，you discover that despite the chamber’s best efforts to spin things，the report almost surely overstates the real cost of climate protection—the numbers are remarkably small．
    Specifically，the report considers a carbon-reduction program that’s probably considerably more ambitious than we’re actually going to see，and it concludes that between now and 2030 the program would cost $50．2 billion in constant dollars per year．That’s supposed to sound like a big deal．Instead，if you know anything about the U．S．economy，it’s just not a lot of money．
    Remember，we have a $17 trillion economy right now，and it’s going to grow over time．So what the Chamber of Commerce is actually saying is that we can take dramatic steps on climatesteps that would transform international negotiations，setting the stage for global action while reducing our incomes by only one—fifth of 1 percent．That’s cheap!
    One more useful comparison：The Pentagon has warned that global warming and its consequences pose a significant threat to national security．(Republicans in the House responded with a legislative amendment that would forbid the military from even thinking about the issue．)Currently，we’re spending $600 billion a year on defense．Is it really extravagant to spend another 8 percent of that budget to reduce a serious threat?
    You might ask why the Chamber of Commerce is SO fiercely opposed to action against global warming，if the cost of action is so small．The answer，of course，is that the chamber is serving special interests，notably the coal industry--what’s good for America isn’t good for the Koch brothers，and vice versa—and also catering to the ever more powerful anti-science sentiments of the Republican Party．
    请回答下列问题。
According to Paragraph 1，anti-environmental groups intend to___________．
选项 A、develop the economy in a sustainable way
B、express EPA’s new rules are greatly harmful to the economy
C、protect the environment from being destroyed
D、predict vast costs and economic loss
答案B
解析 细节题。根据题干关键词定位到第一段。由首段中“anti-envirvnmental groups are already predicting vast costs and economic doom．”可知，B项“表达环境保护局的新规定会对经济造成重大损害”符合题意，为正确答案。A项“以可持续发展的方式发展经济”和C项“保护环境免受破坏”属于反向干扰，与题意相反。D项“预测巨大成本和经济损失”是对第三句的曲解，反环保组织的这一预测是为了阻止新规定服务的，并不是最终的意图，不符合题意，故排除。故本题选B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/WrWpFFFM
本试题收录于： 银保监财会类题库国家公务员分类
0

银保监财会类

国家公务员

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)