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 e 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, monly 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 remended 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 pliance 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 (萧条). But the health benefits, E.P.A. says, far outweigh the costs, and the time frame for pliance (服从) is generous.
【小题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.【小题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.【小题3】What is the attitude of the author to the smog-controlling issue?A．Objective.B．Subjective.C．Critical.D．Unknown.【小题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.B
网友回答
(答案→)B
解析：本文论述了美国的环境保护局提出为了人们的健康，要求各公司各企业要采取措施，减少污染的排放，可是提议遭到了一些企业主的反对，他们认为排污的设备和技术的投资太大，一些比批评家也说在经济萧条期要做到减少排污量很难。
【小题1】细节理解题。根据They say investments required to produce cleaner air are too expensive and not scientifically justified.减少污染的投资太大，故选B。
【小题2】细节理解题。根据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. 故选D。
【小题3】作者态度题。根据Objective 客观的；Subjective主观的； Critical.批评的； Unknown不知道。As it is, about half the counties that monitor ozone levels are not yet in pliance with current standards, let alone the proposed standard.
作者只是客观的描述事实，所以应选A。
【小题4】标题归纳题。根据整篇短文的意思可知是在倡导减少污染还人们一个美好的生活，故选C。