单选题
All big ideas start life on the fringes of debate. Very often it takes a shocking: event to move them into the mainstream. Until last year interest in climate change was espoused mainly by scientists and green lobbyists -and the few politicians they had badgered into paying attention. But since Hurricane Katrina, something seems to have changed, particularly in America. There are plenty of anecdotal signs of change: Britain's pro business Tories have turned green; AI Gore is back in fashion in America. Companies are beginning to take action and encouraging governments to do the same. Europe already has an emissions trading system (ETS) for its five dirtiest industries. In America, although the Bush administration still resists federal legislation, more and more states do not. So far the political rows about global warming have centered on two polluters, smoggy factories and dirty cars. Next month the European Parliament will vote on whether to extend its emissions trading system to airlines. If it decides in favor, the whole industry will feel the impact, for it will affect not just European airlines but all those that fly into and out of the EU. Talk about this prospect soured the International Air Transport Association's annual meeting this week in Paris. But whatever happens in the EU, the airlines look set to face vociferous demands that they should pay for their emissions. In. some ways, the airlines are an odd target for greens. They produce only around 3% of the world's manmade carbon emissions. Surface transport, by contrast, produces 22%. Europe'.,, merchant ships spew out around a third more carbon than aircrafts do, and nobody is going after them. And unlike cars -potent symbols of individualism -airlines are public transport, jamming in as many people as they can into each plane. What's more, many air travelers cannot easily switch. Car drivers can hop on the train or the bus, but transatlantic travelers can't row from London to New York. Nor can aircraft fuel be swapped for a green alternative. Car drivers can buy electro petrol hybrids but aircrafts are, for now, stuck with kerosene, because its energy density makes it the only practical fuel to carry around in the air. Yet in other ways, airlines are a fine target. They pay no tax on fuel for international flights, and therefore escape the "polluter pays" principle even more niftily than other forms of transport. Their emissions are especially damaging, too -partly because the nitrogen oxides from jet engine exhausts help create ozone, a potent greenhouse gas, and partly because the pretty trails that aircrafts leave behind them help make the clouds that can intensify the greenhouse effect. Slowly, businessmen and politicians are coining to agree with scientists. If this generation does not tackle climate change, its descendants will not think much of it. That means raising costs for all sources of pollution. Even those deceptively cheap weekend breaks cannot be exempt.
单选题
Which of the following is tree according to the first two paragraphs?
单选题
The text suggests that the extension of ETS to airlines will affect
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】[题眼] 条件状语从句处设题 [解析] 事实细节题。根据题干关键词the extension of ETS to airlines将答案定位于第三段第三句。该句讲到把航空业纳入排放交易方案将对整个航空业造成影响，故答案为[A]。其余选项是在具体分析为何会对整个航空业造成影响，没有[A]概括性强，故均排除。
单选题
The author says that airlines are a good target because
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】[题眼] 因果关系处设题 [解析] 事实细节题。根据题干关键词airlines are a good target把答案定位于倒数第二段。该段没有提到乘客为国际飞行中的燃料付税，[A]错误；该段第三句提到飞机排放物对环境的破坏作用，这就是航空公司作为攻击目标的原因，故答案为[B]。之所以破坏环境就是因为促成臭氧的形成，而不是消除臭氧，故[C]错误；该段没有提到尾烟能引起很多关注，排除[D]。
单选题
To which of the following is the author likely to agree?