Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency
proposed a stricter nationwide health standard for smog-causing pollutants that
would bring substantial benefits to millions of Americans. With a final rule
expected by the end of this month, some opponents, mainly from industrial and
oil-producing states, are pushing back. They say investments required to
produce cleaner air are too expensive and not scientifically justified.
Lisa Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, needs to stick
to her guns. This is only the first of several political tests to come this
fall, as she also seeks to tighten rules governing individual pollutants like
mercury and global warming gases like carbon dioxide.
The health standard she is proposing covers
ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog, which is formed when sunlight mixes
with pollutants from factories, refineries, power plants and automobiles. Ozone
is a major health threat, contributing to heart disease and various respiratory
(呼吸道的) problems.
Ms. Jackson’s proposal—to reduce the permitted level
of smog in the air from the current 75 parts per billion to between 60 parts
per billion and 70 parts per billion—is sensible, no matter what industry’s
defenders may claim. It had been recommended by the agency’s independent
scientific panel but rejected by the Bush administration, which proposed a weaker
standard.
Industry will have to make investments in cleaner
power plants, and new technologies may be required. As it is, about half the
counties that monitor ozone levels are not yet in compliance with current
standards, let alone the proposed standard.
Fears about burdening industry raised by critics like
George Voinovich, a Republican of Ohio, and Mary Landrieu, a Democrat of
Louisiana, cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially in the middle of a
recession (蕭條). But the health benefits, E.P.A. says,
far outweigh the costs, and the time frame for compliance (服從) is generous.
1.Why are some people strongly against a stricter
limitation of smog-caused pollutants?
A.Because they
have to live a poorer life.
B.Because they
think they have to spend more money.
C.Because they
hold different political view.
D.Because they
want to make more money.
2. What does Ms Jackson propose to do?
A.To reduce the
permitted smog level as much as possible.
B.To raise the
permitted smog level as much as possible.
C.To keep the
permitted smog level from 60 to 70 to 75 parts per billion.
D.To lower the
permitted smog level from 75 to 60 to 70 parts per billion.
3.What is the attitude of the author to the
smog-controlling issue?
A.Objective. B.Subjective. C.Critical. D.Unknown.
4.Which of the following can serve as the best title
of the whole passage?
A.Cleaner power
plant on the way.
B.Say no to
smog pollutants.
C.Lower smog
pollutant, better our life.
D.Debate on
smog pollutants.