Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business

最全题库2022-08-02  25

问题 Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program Known as the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act of D.C.,the plan would place a new tax on all fossil fuels bought or sold,with the hope of ultimately discouraging the use of these polluting energy sources.The big-picture goal of this campaign is admirable:to address the everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is inherently flawed.Simply put,carbon pricing is a false solution to climate change and a distraction from real,effective climate solutions we must urgently pursue.To date,there is scant evidence to indicate that carbon taxes lower greenhouse gas emissions.In fact,the opposite is true.Recently Food&Water Watch reviewed the British Columbia carbon tax program,often cited by advocates as an example of success.From 2009(the first full year of the tax)t0 2014,emissions from taxed sources grew by 4.3 percent.And in the seven years after the carbon tax took effect,total gasoline sales increased by 7.37 percent.Supporters of such plans like to focus on a deceivingly simple notion that increasing the price of a consumer good will automatically reduce its use.But this just isn't the case when it comes to the purchase of necessities.People must heat their homes in winter,and they must commute to work,regardless of the cost.Those backing the D.C.carbon pricing plan like to note that revenue from the new tax would go toward investment in clean energy sources.But only 20 percent of the generated funds would be allocated in this manner.The rest would be shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates for consumers,another factor undercutting the notion that increased costs up front would change consumer behavior in the long run.Meanwhile,fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil are increasingly coming out in support of carbon pricing.This should be cause for alarm for anyone concerned with stamping out the use of the dirty energy sources these corporations profit from.Exxon knows that carbon taxes will do little to change the business-as-usual dependence on oil and gas that it relies on to continue operating and enriching shareholders.Furthermore,corporations such as Exxon rightly view carbon pricing schemes as a means of diverting energy and interest from tougher regulations that might actually encroach on their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious climate condition.There is only the hard truth that we must tackle the problem at its source:We must stop using fossil fuels,and soon.The latest science indicates that in order to avoid the worst effects of deepening climate chaos,society must transition completely to clean,renewable energy by 2035.Food&Water Watch found that_____.A.carbon taxes could limit greenhouse gas emissionsB.taxing carbon emissions did not reduce pollutionC.carbon emissions grew at a lower rate than gasoline salesD.British Columbia carbon tax program achieved lasting effect

选项 A.carbon taxes could limit greenhouse gas emissions
B.taxing carbon emissions did not reduce pollution
C.carbon emissions grew at a lower rate than gasoline sales
D.British Columbia carbon tax program achieved lasting effect

答案 B

解析 [信息锁定]根据题干关键名词Food&Water Watch(食品与水观察组织)定位到第三段。该段指出此组织对英国哥伦比亚碳税方案进行了评估,发现从2009年(实行碳税的第一个完整年)到2014年碳排放未降反增;碳税生效之后的七年间汽油销售额也未减反增。概括可知碳税未能降低污染,B.正确。[解题技巧]A.对第三段①句断章取义,违背了该句整体的否定含义“鲜有证据表明碳税能够降低温室气体排放”。C.对①⑤句数据关系(grew by 4.3 pcrcent和increasecl by 7.37 percent)理解错误,两数据并列说明“实施碳税后,碳排放和汽油销售未降反升”,并不存在比较关系,且二者关注时段不同,也无法比较增【乇速度。D.将③句“碳税支持者(advocates)的看法——英国哥伦比亚碳税方案是一成功案例”当做“Food&Water Watch的实际发现”,而实际上后者否定了前者。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/xueli/2700170.html

最新回复(0)