单选题 Wherever people have been, they have left waste behind, which can cause all sorts of problems. Waste often stinks, attracts vermin and creates eyesores. More seriously, it can release harmful chemicals into the soil and water when dumped, or into the air when burned. And then there are some really nasty forms of industrial waste, such as spent nuclear fuel, for which no universally accepted disposal methods’ have thus far been developed.
Yet many also see waste as an opportunity. Getting rid of it all has become a huge global business. Rich countries spend some $120 billion a year disposing of their municipal waste alone and another $150 billion on industrial waste. The amount of waste that countries produce tends to grow in tandem with their economies, and especially with the rate of urbanization. So waste firms see a rich future in places such as China, India and Brazil, which at present spend only about $5 billion a year collecting and treating their municipal waste.
Waste also presents an opportunity in a grander sense: as a potential resource. Much of it is already burned to generate energy. Clever new technologies to turn it into fertiliser or chemicals or fuel are being developed all the time. Visionaries see a world without waste, with rubbish being routinely recycled.
Until last summer such views were spreading quickly. But since then plummeting prices for virgin paper, plastic and fuels, and hence also for the waste that substitutes for them, have put an end to such visions. Many of the recycling firms that had argued rubbish was on the way out now say that unless they are given financial help, they themselves will disappear.
Subsidies are a bad idea. Governments have a role to play in the business of waste management, but it is a regulatory and supervisory one. They should oblige people who create waste to clean up after themselves and ideally ensure that the price of any product reflects the cost of disposing of it safely. That would help to signal which items are hardest to get rid of, giving consumers an incentive to buy goods that create less waste in the first place.
That may sound simple enough, but governments seldom get the rules right. In poorer countries they often have no rules at all, or if they have them they fail to enforce them. In rich countries they are often inconsistent: too strict about some sorts of waste and worryingly lax about others. They are also prone to imposing arbitrary targets and taxes. California, for example, wants to recycle all its trash not because it necessarily makes environmental or economic sense but because the goal of “zero waste” sounds politically attractive.

单选题 What’s the main idea of the first paragraph?
[A] Waste is everywhere. [B] Waste is very harmful.
[C] Waste should be treated universally. [D] Waste can be an opportunity.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[设题点] 首段
[解析] 主旨大意题。在英文文章中，首句往往是段落的中心句。第一段首句便提出，垃圾引发各种的问题；接着，二、三句介绍了垃圾的具体害处；最后一句谈到，一些非常危险的工业垃圾还没有通行的处理办法。由此可见，该段主要谈论的是垃圾的harm，故[B]正确。首段并没有详细介绍到处都是垃圾的情景，只是提到有人到的地方，垃圾就会产生，故排除[A]；[C]是对首段尾句的错误理解，最后一句只提到还没有通行的处理办法，而并非是对全文的总结；[D]是第二、三段的内容，故不选。
单选题 Waste firms expect a great development in China, India and Brazil because
[A] those economies have a large amount of waste to be treated.
[B] those economies develop fast but spend little on waste business.
[C] those economies welcome waste firms to run business there.
[D] those economies pay more attention to environmental protection.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[设题点] 因果关系处
[解析] 事实细节题。由题干关键词将信息定位于第二段尾句。从该句可知，中国、印度等每年花在收集、处理城市垃圾的资金很少；再由so前一句可知，一国垃圾的数量和该国经济增长和城市化的速度可以说成正比。根据常识，中国、印度、巴西都是发展较好的发展中国家，它们经济增长和城市化速度都快，花在垃圾处理上的钱少，故垃圾处理公司看到了大好前景，选[B]，同时排除理由不全面的[A]。[C]、[D]是主观臆断，找不到依据。
单选题 Many recycling firms are disappointed now for the reason that
[A] clever new technologies are updating too quickly to bring any profit.
[B] they will have no resources to use in a world without waste in the future.
[C] low prices for recycling products leave little margin to make money.
[D] governments are reluctant to give financial help to survive the crisis.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[设题点] 因果关系处
[解析] 推理判断题。第四段末提到，垃圾公司宣称如果没有政府的援助，它们也要走向绝路了。为何先前还夸耀能让垃圾消失的这些公司需要政府援助呢?究其原因，乃前面提到的由回收的垃圾所生产出来的纸张、塑料等价格下跌。这样一来，它们能赚的钱自然就少了，故选[C]。[A]“具有独创性的新技术更新太快，以致无利可图”、[B]“未来世界没有垃圾，他们也就没有了资源”是对第三段最后两句的错误理解，可以较容易排除；文章并未提出政府“拒绝”给予垃圾公司财政支助，排除[D]。
单选题 According to the author’s ideal, products with high prices
[A] would be hard to be disposed of. [B] should be really valuable.
[C] would create less waste. [D] should be in strict regulation.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[设题点] 复杂句处
[解析] 推理判断题。由products with high prices将信息定位于第五段第三句。该句结构较复杂，由and后的内容可知，作者认为从理论上讲，任何商品的价格都应该能反映出要安全处理该产品(成为垃圾时)的成本；也就是说，商品的价格越高，反映出要安全处理掉它的成本就越高，换句话说就是越难处理掉。故[A]正确。[B]属于人们的常规思维，文中找不到依据；[C]项表述与[A]相反；[D]项所述是对第五段第二句的误解。第二句中的regulatory在第三句中已有解释，其所指的并不是对价格的regulation。
单选题 Which of the following is true according to the last paragraph?
[A] Rich countries might help poor countries to treat the waste.
[B] California’s “zero waste” program makes no environmental sense.
[C] More taxes are needed to collect and treat the waste efficiently.
[D] Governments’ policies on waste industry are largely incoherent.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[设题点] 尾段。
[解析] 推理判断题。尾段二、三句说：穷国要么没有处理垃圾的相关政策，要么执行不力；而富国的政策往往又前后不一。故[D]正确。[A]“富国可能会帮助穷国处理垃圾”，尾段未提及；该段尾句提到，加州的“零垃圾”计划并不是基于对环境和经济有好处的考虑，而是带有政治目的；该句话只能说明“零垃圾”计划的动机不纯，并不能说它就对环境没有好处，故[B]不正确；[C]“需要征收更多的税来更有效地处理垃圾”，尾段也未提到。