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

admin2012-04-09  36
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 (含糊地说) 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 1960 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 (单方面的) 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 regulation 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 rule 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 (无关 地) through a 40-year-old law. And if a greener president takes office, 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 CO2 from 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.
What did the court think of the EPA’s excuses for its inaction?
选项 A、The court denied the EPA’s excuses as sufficient for its inaction.
B、It remained undecided whether the court accepted the excuses or not.
C、The court thought the excuses were similar to that of coal-fired power plants.
D、The court would examine the EPA’s excuses further.
答案A
解析 推理判断题。由定位句可知，环保局有两个不作为的理由：一是从宏观上看美国的汽车排放量是微不足道的；二是美国单方面的行动会对在全球变暖问题上达成国际共识所做的努力不利。但法院否认这是充分的理由。根据inadequate判断法院否认了其理由的充分性。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/t5vFFFFM
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)