C The plaintiffs comprise 12 states,three cities,various NGOs,and American Samoa,a Pacific territory in danger of vanishing beneath the rising ocean. They are supported by a further six states,two power companies,a ski resort,and assorted clergymen,Indian tribes and agitated grandees such as Madeleine Albright,a former secretary of state. They point out that under the administration of Bill Clinton,the EPA decided that it did have the authority to regulate CO2. The act,they note,says the EPA should regulate any air pollutant that may reasonably be interpreted to endanger public health or welfare. It goes on to define public welfare to include effects on soils,water,crops,vegetation,manmade materials,animals,wildlife,weather,visibility,and climate.
D The Supreme Court may give a mixed ruling,decreeing that carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant,but one the EPA is free to ignore or regulate as it pleases. Or it might dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have the right to lodge it in the first place. In theory,they must prove that the EPAs foot-dragging has caused them some specific harm that regulation might remedya tall order in a field as fraught with uncertainty as climatology. Even if the court found in the plaintiffs favour,rapid change is unlikely. By the time the EPA had implemented such a ruling,Congress would probably have superseded it with a new law.
【雅思阅读模拟真题:Global warming】相关文章:
★ 雅思阅读扩展训练
★ 雅思阅读备考计划
最新
2016-02-26
2016-02-26
2016-02-26
2016-02-26
2016-02-26
2016-02-26