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.
【小題1】Why are some people strongly against a stricter limitation of smog-caused pollutants?

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.

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. 1.

   Why are some people strongly against a stricter limitation of smog-caused pollutants?

   1. A.
      Because they have to live a poorer life
   2. B.
      Because they think they have to spend more money
   3. C.
      Because they hold different political view
   4. D.
      Because they want to make more money
2. 2.

   What does Ms Jackson propose to do?

   1. A.
      To reduce the permitted smog level as much as possible
   2. B.
      To raise the permitted smog level as much as possible
   3. C.
      To keep the permitted smog level from 60 to 70 to 75 parts per billion
   4. D.
      To lower the permitted smog level from 75 to 60 to 70 parts per billion
3. 3.

   What is the attitude of the author to the smog-controlling issue?

   1. A.
      Objective
   2. B.
      Subjective
   3. C.
      Critical
   4. D.
      Unknown
4. 4.

   Which of the following can serve as the best title of the whole passage?

   1. A.
      Cleaner power plant on the way
   2. B.
      Say no to smog pollutants
   3. C.
      Lower smog pollutant, better our life
   4. D.
      Debate on smog pollutants

     Imagine a world without trees. What if the rainforests and all of the plants and animals suddenly did not exist? In 1962, Gaylord Nelson decided something needed to be done to protect the environment. The work that he began led to what we now know as Earth Day.

     Mr. Nelson realized very few people were concerned about environmental problems. He then went to Washington, D.C., where he hoped to persuade President Kennedy to take a stand on environmental problems. It wasn’t long before President Kennedy agreed that action should be taken. The president set out on a five-day, eleven-state conservation(保護(hù)自然資源) tour in September of 1963. Although Kennedy’s tour was not a success, Mr. Nelson was not ready to give up.

     Mr. Nelson continued to speak to people across 25 states about the importance of the environment. Although his point of view began to be accepted by most people, politicians (政治家) were still not listening.

     In September of 1969, at a meeting in Seattle, Mr. Nelson announced that he would hold a nationwide demonstration (游行) for environmental protection the next spring. On April 22, 1970 (the first Earth Day), more than 20 million Americans took part in the demonstration. It made people sit up and pay attention to environmental problems. One year later, the UN signed(簽署) an announcement making Earth Day an official international holiday. Now, Earth Day is celebrated each year around the world, and more and more people begin to realize the importance of protecting the environment.

59. The main idea of the second paragraph is that _______.

A. Mr. Nelson tried to win the support of the government to protect the environment.

B. President Kennedy made a successful conservation tour.

C. Mr. Nelson prepared for the nationwide demonstration.

D. few people realized the importance of protecting the environment.

60. When did Earth Day become an official international holiday?_________

A. In 1963.     B. In 1969.    C. In 1970.    D. In 1971.

61. In which order did the following events happen?__________

a. Mr. Nelson made speeches about the importance of environment across 25 states.

b. Mr. Nelson went to Washington, D.C.

c. The first Earth Day was celebrated

d. President Kennedy set out on a conservation tour.

A. b-a-d-c     B. b-d-a-c     C. a-b-d-c     D. a-b-c-d

62. The best title for the passage would be “___________”.

A. Mr. Nelson-----A Great Environmentalist.

B. How to protect the environment.

C. Importance of Environmental Protection.

D. History of Earth Day.

A small town in southwest Britain is banning (禁止) plastic bags in an attempt to help the environment and cut waste－a step that environmentalists believe is a first for Europe.
Shopkeepers in Modbury population 1,500, agreed to stop handing out disposable plastic bags to customers on Saturday. They said paper sacks and cloth carrier bags would be offered instead.
Last month, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban plastic grocery bags. Internationally, laws to discourage the use of plastic bags have been passed in parts of South Africa and Ireland, where governments either tax shoppers who use them or fine companies that hand them out. Bangladesh already bans them, and so do at least 30 remote Alaskan villages.
Modbury, about 225 miles southwest of London, has also declared a bag ammesty (寬限期), allowing local people to hand in plastic bags that have piled up at home. They will be sent for a recycling.
The Modbury ban was the idea of Rebecca Hosking, who saw the effect of bags on marine life while working in the Pacific as a wildlife camerawoman. She said response in the town so far had been “really positive”.
“Modbury is quite an old-fashioned town and a lot of people have wicker(柳條) baskets to go out shopping anyway, ”Hosking told Sky News Television.
The World Watch Institute, an environmental research agency, states that 100 billion plastic bags are thrown away each year in the United States alone. More than 500 billion are used yearly around the world.
【小題1】The underlined word “disposable” in the passage probably means        .

A．a(chǎn)cceptable

B．valuable

C．environmentally-friendly

D．long-lasting