For far too long, the United States has been without a long-range energy plan. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 presents 1,700 pages and several hundred provisions attempting to elucidate such a plan. Many of the Act’s provisions are meant to spur innovative technologies, reduce American dependence on foreign oil, and keep a check on prices at the gas pump. These provisions include loan guarantees for companies that develop manufacturing processes that avoid producing greenhouse gases, and tax credits for both manufacturing and using environmentally conscious vehicles and appliances.
Though many of these provisions have merit, the Act is by no means a coherent plan for the future. There is no clear indication as to extent the of the nation’s long-term energy needs and no overall mechanism for either meeting those needs or managing the way we do business and live our lives so as to reduce those needs.
What the Act does provide is a slew of tax breaks and incentives for the petroleum, ethanol, and nuclear corporations that are already well served by government largess. And for every environmentally friendly provision, a free pass is given to a major energy provider. Oil and gas industries, for example, have been exempted from some clean-water laws. Another portion of the Act makes it easier to obtain permits for power lines and oil wells on public lands. There is even a provision that would allow for the consolidation of public utilities, something that has been wisely forbidden for the last 80 or so years.
Competition among the big energy concerns might produce innovative and profitable products, but it is folly to leave something so important and complex as the production, distribution, and use of energy to the marketplace alone. The federal government needs to find people who can do the hard science, who understand international markets, and who can formulate a policy that will realistically and conscientiously provide for this country’s energy needs as our oil deposits inevitably dry up. A policy of this sort—the Kyoto Protocol—is already in existence, but too many of our politicians are leery of an internationally formulated document that they simplistically see as a giveaway of money and power to developing nations.
1. According to the author, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 _______.
(A) encourages the consolidation of public utilities
(B) will do little to affect the price of foreign oil
(C) will not go far enough in spurring commercial innovation
(D) did not take into account the interests of smaller energy companies
(E) contains some useful ideas, but is marred by a lack of comprehensiveness
2. The author criticizes the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for all of the following reasons except _______.
(A) Companies that have already benefited from government policies will receive financial rewards
(B) There is insufficient mention of how to reduce energy consumption
(C) The provisions do not properly address the long-terms needs of the American public
(D) The financial incentives apply only to large businesses
(E) A longstanding and effective policy is overturned
3. According to the author, the Kyoto Protocol _______.
(A) is marginally better than the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(B) is viewed with suspicion by some elected officials because of its origins outside of the United States
(C) will be useful to the United States only after the nation’s oil reserves dry up
(D) was designed by scientists, not politicians
(E) is more likely to encourage innovation among energy companies than is the Energy Policy Act of 2005
4. Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the passage as being a part of the Energy Act of 2005?
(A) Government aid to ethanol companies
(B) Guaranteed loans to businesses that avoid producing greenhouse gases as a byproduct of their manufacturing process
(C) A stricter interpretation of existing clean-water laws
(D) Expedited access to public lands for private use
(E) Tax credits for producing appliances that do not harm the environment
5. The author discusses the consolidation of public utilities in order to
(A) illustrate a major problem of the Energy Act.
(B) demonstrate why the Energy Act is not a coherent plan.
(C) emphasize the risk of allowing permits for oil drilling on public lands.
(D) show how energy distribution can become more efficient.
(E) highlight the influence of energy lobbyists in formulating policy.
参考答案：
EDBCA
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2021-8-29 21:40:32
收藏
收藏
