单选题 There is no more fashionable answer to the woes of the global recession than "green jobs." Leaders of great nations have all gotten behind what Ban Ki-moon has called a "green New Deal"—pinning their hopes for future growth and new jobs on creating clean-technology industries. It all sounds like the ultimate win-win deal: beat the worst recession in decades and save the planet from global warming, all in one spending plan. So who cares how much it costs? And since the financial crisis and recession began, governments, environmental nonprofits, and even labor unions have been busy spinning out reports on just how many new jobs might be created from these new industries—estimates that range from the tens of thousands to the millions. The problem is that history doesn't bear out the optimism. As a new study from McKinsey consulting points out, clean energy is less like old manufacturing industries that required a lot of workers than it is like new manufacturing and service industries that don't. The best parallel is the semiconductor industry, which was expected to create a boom in high-paid high-tech jobs but today employs mainly robots. Clean-technology workers now make up only 0.6 percent of the American workforce, despite the government subsidies, tax incentives, and other supports that already exists. The McKinsey study, which examined how countries should compete in the post-crisis world, figures that clean energy won't command much more of the total job market in the years ahead. "The bottom line is that these 'clean' industries are too small to create the millions of jobs that are needed right away," says James Manyika, a director at the McKinsey Global Institute. Although they might not create those jobs, yet they could help other industries do just that: they did create a lot of jobs, indirectly, by making other industries more efficient. McKinsey and others say that the same could be true today if governments focus not on building a "green economy," but on greening every part of the economy using cutting-edge green products and services. Stop betting government money on particular green technologies that may or may not pan out, and start thinking more broadly. As McKinsey makes clear, countries don't become more competitive by slightly changing their "mix" of industries but by outperforming in each individual sector. Taking care of the environment at the broadest levels is often portrayed as a political red herring that will weaken competitiveness in the global economy. In fact, the future of growth and job creation may depend on it.
单选题 The author introduces his topic by_____.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:本题询问作者引入主题的方法,引入主题通常是在文章开头,故本题应定位在文章开头。作者在第二段开始论述观点,根据题意定位到第二段首句。由history doesn't bear out the optimism可以看出作者对第一段提到的目前普遍接受的观点的质疑,故选C项。
单选题 According to McKinsey consulting, clean-technology industries _____.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的McKinsey consulting和clean-technology industries可定位到第二段。该段末指出“清洁科技行业有政府的补贴、税收鼓励和来自其他方面的支持”,D项与之相符,故为正确答案。
单选题 James Manyika believes that "clean" industries _____.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的James Manyika可定位到第三段。由该段末的they did creat...efficient“因使其他行业更高效而间接地创造了很多工作岗位”可以推断D项“可以成为间接的职位创造者”是正确选项,同时可排除B项。
单选题 McKinsey suggests governments improve their competitiveness by_____.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的governments及competitiveness可定位到第四段。由该段第一句中的but on greening...services可知,McKinsey赞成将绿色经济与其他产业融合,即B项所说内容。
单选题 It can be inferred from the last paragraph that protecting environment at the broadest levels _____.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:根据题干可直接定位到最后一段。该段是要求政府拓宽思路,摆脱大众专注于单单清洁技术工业发展的思维限制,这也说明作者的观点是小众的,尚未被大众接受的,故选A项。