单选题 The Rise of the Sharing Economy A. Last night 40,000 people rented accommodation from a service that offers 250,000 rooms in 30,000 cities in 192 countries. They chose their rooms and paid for everything online. But their beds were provided by private individuals, rather than a hotel chain. Hosts and guests were matched up by Airbnb, a firm based in San Francisco. Since its launch in 2008 more than 4 million people have used it—2.5 million of them in 2012 alone. It is the most prominent example of a huge new 'sharing economy', in which people rent beds, cars, boats and other assets directly from each other, coordinated via the Internet. B. You might think this is no different from running a bed-and-breakfast. Owning a time share or participating in a car pool. But technology has reduced transaction costs, making sharing assets cheaper and easier than ever—and therefore possible on a much larger scale. The big change is the availability of more data about people and things, which allows physical assets to be divided and consumed as services. Before the interact, renting a surfboard, a power tool or a parking space from someone else was feasible, but was usually more trouble than it was worth. Now websites such as Airbnb, Relay Rides and Snap Goods match up owners and renters; smart phones with GPS let people see where the nearest rentable car is parked; social networks provide a way to check up on people and build trust; and online payment systems handle the billing. What's mine is yours, for a fee C. Just as peer-to-peer businesses like eBay allow anyone to become a retailer, sharing sites let individuals act as an ad hoc (临时的) taxi service, car-hire firm or boutique hotel (精品酒店) as and when it suits them. Just go online or download an app. The model works for items that are expensive to buy and are widely owned by people who do not make full use of them. Bedrooms and cars are the most obvious examples, but you can also rent camping spaces in Sweden, fields in Australia and washing machines in France. As advocates of the sharing economy like to put it, access trumps (胜过) ownership. D. Rachel Botsman, the author of a book on the subject, says the consumer peer-to-peer rental market alone is worth $26 billion. Broader definitions of the sharing economy include peer-to-peer lending or putting a solar panel on your roof and selling power back to the grid (电网). And it is not just individuals: the web makes it easier for companies to rent out spare offices and idle machines, too. But the core of the sharing economy is people renting things from each other. E. Such 'collaborative (合作的) consumption' is a good thing for several reasons. Owners make money from underused assets. Airbnb says hosts in San Francisco who rent out their homes do so for an average of 58 nights a year, making $9,300. Car owners who rent their vehicles to others using Relay Rides make an average of $250 a month; some make more than $1,000. Renters, meanwhile, pay less than they would if they bought the item themselves, or turned to a traditional provider such as a hotel or car-hire firm. And there are environmental benefits, too: renting a car when you need it, rather than owning one, means fewer cars are required and fewer resources must be devoted to making them. F. For sociable souls, meeting new people by staying in their homes is part of the charm. Curmudgeons (脾气倔的人) who imagine that every renter is a murderer can still stay at conventional hotels. For others, the web fosters trust. As well as the background checks carried out by platform owners, online reviews and ratings are usually posted by both parties to each transaction, which makes it easy to spot bad drivers, bathrobe-thieves and surfboard-wreckers. By using Facebook and other social networks, participants can check each other out and identify friends (or friends of friends) in common. An Airbnb user had her apartment trashed in 2011. But the remarkable thing is how well the system usually works. Peering into the future G. The sharing economy is a little like online shopping, which started in America 15 years ago. At first, people were worried about security. But having made a successful purchase from, say, Amazon, they felt safe buying elsewhere. Similarly, using Airbnb or a car-hire service for the first time encourages people to try other offerings. Next, consider eBay. Having started out as a peer-to-peer marketplace, it is now dominated by professional 'power sellers' (many of whom started out as ordinary eBay users). The same may happen with the sharing economy, which also provides new opportunities for enterprise; Some people have bought cars solely to rent them out, for example. H. Existing rental businesses are getting involved too. Avis, a car-hire firm, has a share in a sharing rival. So do GM and Dalmler, two carmakers. In future, companies may develop hybrid (混合的) models, listing excess capacity (whether vehicles, equipment or office, space) on peer-to-peer rental sites. In the past, new ways of doing things online have not displaced the old ways entirely. But they have often changed them. Just as internet shopping forced Wal-mart and Tesco to adapt, so online sharing will shake up transport, tourism, equipment-hire and more. I. The main worry is regulatory uncertainty. Will room-renters be subject to hotel taxes, for example? In Amsterdam officials are using Airbnb listings to track down unlicensed hotels. In some American cities, peer-to-peer taxi services have been banned after lobbying by traditional taxi firms. The danger is that although some rules need to be updated to protect consumers from harm, existing rental businesses will try to destroy competition. People who rent out rooms should pay tax, of course, but they should not be regulated like a Ritz-Carlton hotel. The lighter rules that typically govern bed-and-breakfasts are more than adequate. J. The sharing economy is the latest example of the internet's value to consumers. This emerging model is now big and disruptive (颠覆性的) enough for regulators and companies to have woken up to it. That is a sign of its immense potential. It is time to start caring about sharing.

单选题 There are few more sobering online activities than entering data into college-tuition calculators and gasping as the Web spits back a six-figure sum. But economists say families about to go into debt to fund four years of partying, as well as studying, can console themselves with the knowledge that college is an investment that, unlike many bank stocks, should yield huge dividends. A 2008 study by two Harvard economists notes that the 'labor-market premium to skill'—or the amount college graduates earned that's greater than what high-school graduate earned—decreased for much of the 20th century, but has come back with a vengeance (报复性地) since the 1980s. In 2005, the typical full-time year-round U.S. worker with a four-year college degree earned $50,900, 62% more than the $31,500 earned by a worker with only a high-school diploma. There's no question that going to college is a smart economic choice. But a look at the strange variations in tuition reveals that the choice about which college to attend doesn't come down merely to dollars and cents. Does going to Columbia University (tuition, room and board $49,260 in 2007～08) yield a 40% greater return than attending the University of Colorado at Boulder as an out-of-state student ($35,542)? Probably not. Does being an out-of-state student at the University of Colorado at Boulder yield twice the amount of income as being an in-state student ($17,380) there? Not likely. No, in this consumerist age, most buyers aren't evaluating college as an investment, but rather as a consumer product—like a car or clothes or a house. And with such purchases, price is only one of many crucial factors to consider. As with automobiles, consumers in today's college marketplace have vast choices, and people search for the one that gives them the most comfort and satisfaction in line with their budgets. This accounts for the willingness of people to pay more for different types of experiences (such as attending a private liberal-arts college or going to an out-of-state public school that has a great marine-biology program). And just as two auto purchasers might spend an equal amount of money on very different cars, college students (or, more accurately, their parents) often show a willingness to pay essentially the same price for vastly different products. So which is it? Is college an investment product like a stock or a consumer product like a car? In keeping with the automotive world's hottest consumer trend, maybe it's best to characterize it as a hybrid (混合动力汽车) :an expensive consumer product that, over time, will pay rich dividends.

单选题 A Battle is Looming over Renewable Energy, and Fossil Fuel Interests are Losing A. In state capitals across the country, legislators are debating proposals to roll back environmental rules, prodded by industry and advocacy groups eager to curtail (缩减) regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases. B. The measures, which have been introduced in about 18 states, lie at the heart of an effort to expand to the state level the battle over fossil fuel and renewable energy. The new rules would trim or abolish climate mandates—including those that require utilities to use solar and wind energy, as well as proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules that would reduce carbon emissions from power plants. C. But the campaign—despite its backing from powerful groups such as Americans for Prosperity—has run into a surprising roadblock: the growing political clout of renewable-energy interests, even in rock-ribbed Republican states such as Kansas. D. The stage has been set for what one lobbyist called 'trench warfare' as moneyed interests on both sides wrestle over some of the strongest regulations for promoting renewable energy. And the issues are likely to surface this fall in the midterm elections, as well, with California billionaire Tom Steyer pouring money into various gubernatorial (州长的) and state and federal legislative races to back candidates who support tough rules curbing pollution. E. The multi-pronged conservative effort to roll back regulations, begun more than a year ago, is supported by a loose, well-funded confederation that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and conservative activist groups such as Americans for Prosperity, a politically active nonprofit organization founded in part by brothers David and Charles Koch. These groups argue that existing government rules violate free-market principles and will ultimately drive up costs for consumers. F. The proposed measures are similar from state to state. In some cases, the legislative language matches or closely resembles model bills and resolutions offered by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a free-market-oriented group of state lawmakers underwritten in part by Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Duke Energy and Peabody Energy. 'Now more than ever is the time for states to lead the way,' ALEC's top officials told its members at a meeting in December. G. The coalition campaigns have achieved only symbolic victories in a few states. Nonbinding resolutions critical of the EPA power plant proposals have been approved in Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska, West Virginia and Wyoming. Three other states—Louisiana, Missouri and Ohio—are weighing legislation similar to the ALEC model. H. Only one of the 18 state legislatures has approved a more substantive measure that would replace the EPA's power plant rules. And even that bill, in Kentucky, could backfire by giving up a chance for the state to design its own program and forcing it to accept a federal compliance program. I. 'Clean energy is beginning to become mainstream,' said Gabe Elsner, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a clean-energy think tank in Washington. 'Renewable energy is popular and has increased political power now,' but, he added, 'that power is still eclipsed by the resources of the fossil fuel industry.' A surprisingly tough fight J. Kansas might be the best place to see how these dynamics are unfolding. K. The state was a promising choice for a foray (攻击) against rules known as renewable-energy standards, which set minimum levels of renewable-energy use by electric utilities. Variations of these rules have been adopted in about 30 states, even though Congress did not pass a federal version of the requirement. In Kansas, a law passed in 2009 requires utilities to use wind and solar power to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity by 2016 and 20 percent by 2020. L. The coalition seeking the repeal of the renewable mandate had all the ingredients for success. Financial muscle came from the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, which lobbied heavily for repeal. In addition, the state is home to Koch Industries, the Koch brothers' Wichita-based energy conglomerate (集团). The state representative for Wichita, Republican Dennis Hedke, has called the company 'one of the greatest success stories in the world' and said 'they are making very positive contributions.' Hedke chairs the state House's Energy and Environment Committee. M. Koch Industries, along with the utility industry's Edison Electric Institute and the nation's biggest coal company, Peabody Energy, have supported ALEC, which advised state lawmakers on repeal strategy. N. 'Koch has consistently opposed all subsidies and mandates across the board, especially as it relates to energy policy,' Philip Ellender, president and chief operating officer of Koch Companies Public Sector, said in a statement, citing the company's opposition to the renewable fuel standard, wind production tax credit and ethanol (乙醇) mandate. 'Government should not mandate the allocation or use of natural resources and raw materials in the production of goods.' O. The ideological case was supported by conservative think tanks. Kansans for Liberty supported repeal, and the state branch of Americans for Prosperity told supporters that 'green energy mandates replace the free-market with bureaucratic government oversight, driving up costs for hard-working Kansas families.' The national group has spent $300,000 in the state pushing for the rollback of renewable standards. P. Connections to key Kansas politicians also were strong. Both the Kansas state Senate's president, Susan Wagle, and the speaker of the state House, Ray Merrick, are members of the ALEC board and backed repeal. 'The repeal of the RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standards] fits in line with the goals of the organization,' said Wagle, who said she joined ALEC in the 1990s in connection with her opposition to health-care reform led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the first lady. Q. Moreover, the Kansas economy relies heavily on fossil fuels. The state is the nation's 10th-largest producer of crude oil and 12th-largest of natural gas, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. In 2013, coal-fired power plants provided 61 percent of the state's electricity, well above the national average. But the strong winds that blow across Kansas have carried new interests into the state. Kansas ranks sixth in the country in wind output, which jumped by a third last year and equaled 19 percent of the state's electricity, the EIA says. R. The growing number of wind farms not only generates power but royalties for landowners. Dorothy Barnett, executive director of the Climate and Energy Project, said that Kansas landowners receive more than $13 million a year. 'This issue is an issue that touches rural Kansans, and we have a lot of rural Kansas legislators,' she said.