阅读理解
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 suggests 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 of Commerce 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 climate—steps 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.
Just ask the United States Chamber of Commerce. That's not the message the Chamber of Commerce 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 climate—steps 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.
单选题
6.According to Paragraph 1, anti-environmental groups intend to_____.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】细节题。根据题干关键词定位到第一段。由首段中anti-environmental 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。
单选题
7.The author mentions $50.2 billion and $17 trillion to indicate that
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】推断题。根据题干关键词定位到第三、四段。第三段讲的是减碳计划的成本将达每年502亿美元，这让人觉得是大手笔。接着作者话锋一转，指出倘若读者对美国经济稍有了解，就不会觉得这是多大的数目。第四段指出目前美国的经济规模为17万亿，而且还会继续增长，进而得出结论：美国可以采取激进的、可以彻底改变国际谈判格局的气候举措。因此，作者通过两个数据的对比是想说明，美国有雄厚的经济基础来实行减碳计划，故C项符合题意，为正确答案。
单选题
8.We can learn from Paragraph 5 that global warming is
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】推断题。根据题干关键词定位到第五段。由The Pentagon has warned that…a significant threat to national security可知，全球变暖会对国家安全造成威胁，故A项“不仅仅是个经济问题”符合题意，为正确答案。
单选题
9.Which of the following is NOT true according to the last paragraph?
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】细节题。此题适用于排除法。D项是对文章末尾“商会是在迎合共和党内与日俱增的反科学情绪”的曲解，描述错误，故D项为正确答案。
单选题
10.In this text, the author mainly discusses
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】主旨题。文章第一、二段通过介绍反环保组织反对遏制全球变暖新规定引出主题，即美国可以在不让经济付出多少代价的情况下大幅减排温室气体。接下来四段对美国可以在低成本的条件下减少温室气体进行了详细解释。最后一段指出在低成本的情况下，美国商会反对遏制全球变暖行动的原因。因此，全文仅仅围绕“低成本可遏制全球变暖”这一主题进行阐述，故A项符合题意，为正确答案。