The destruction of our natural resources and contamination of our food supply continue to occur, largely because of the extreme difficulty in affixing (把……固定) legal responsibility on those who continue to treat our environment with reckless abandon (放任). Attempts to prevent pollution by legislation, economic incentives and friendly persuasion have been met by lawsuits, personal and industrial denial and long delays-not only in accepting responsibility, but more importantly, in doing something about it.It seems that only when government decides it can afford tax incentives or production sacrifices is there any initiative for change. Where is industry’s and our recognition that protecting mankind’s great treasure is the single most important responsibility If ever there will be time for environmental health professionals to come to the frontlines and provide leadership to solve environmental problems, that time is now.We are being asked, and, in fact, the public is demanding that we take positive action. It is our responsibility as professionals in environmental health to make the difference. Yes, the ecologists, the environmental activists and the conservationists serve to communicate, stimulate thinking and promote behavioral change. However, it is those of us who are paid to make the decisions to develop, improve and enforce environmental standards, I submit, who must lead the charge.We must recognize that environmental health issues do not stop at city limits, county lines, state or even federal boundaries. We can no longer afford to be tunnel-visioned in our approach. We must visualize issues from every perspective to make the objective decisions. We must express our views clearly to prevent media distortion and public confusion.I believe we have a three-part mission for the present. First, we must continue to press for improvements in the quality of life that people can make for themselves. Second, we must investigate and understand the link between environment and health. Third, we must be able to communicate technical information in a form that citizens can understand. If we can accomplish these three goals in this decade, maybe we can finally stop environmental degradation, and not merely hold it back. We will then be able to spend pollution dollars truly on prevention rather than on bandages. The word "tunnel-visioned" (Line 2, ParA.4) most probably means "()."
A. narrow-minded
B. blind to the facts
C. short-sighted
D. able to see only one aspect
查看答案
The destruction of our natural resources and contamination of our food supply continue to occur, largely because of the extreme difficulty in affixing (把……固定) legal responsibility on those who continue to treat our environment with reckless abandon (放任). Attempts to prevent pollution by legislation, economic incentives and friendly persuasion have been met by lawsuits, personal and industrial denial and long delays-not only in accepting responsibility, but more importantly, in doing something about it.It seems that only when government decides it can afford tax incentives or production sacrifices is there any initiative for change. Where is industry’s and our recognition that protecting mankind’s great treasure is the single most important responsibility If ever there will be time for environmental health professionals to come to the frontlines and provide leadership to solve environmental problems, that time is now.We are being asked, and, in fact, the public is demanding that we take positive action. It is our responsibility as professionals in environmental health to make the difference. Yes, the ecologists, the environmental activists and the conservationists serve to communicate, stimulate thinking and promote behavioral change. However, it is those of us who are paid to make the decisions to develop, improve and enforce environmental standards, I submit, who must lead the charge.We must recognize that environmental health issues do not stop at city limits, county lines, state or even federal boundaries. We can no longer afford to be tunnel-visioned in our approach. We must visualize issues from every perspective to make the objective decisions. We must express our views clearly to prevent media distortion and public confusion.I believe we have a three-part mission for the present. First, we must continue to press for improvements in the quality of life that people can make for themselves. Second, we must investigate and understand the link between environment and health. Third, we must be able to communicate technical information in a form that citizens can understand. If we can accomplish these three goals in this decade, maybe we can finally stop environmental degradation, and not merely hold it back. We will then be able to spend pollution dollars truly on prevention rather than on bandages. Which of the following, according to the author, should play the leading role in the solution to environmental problems()
A. Legislation and government intervention.
B. The industry’s understanding and support.
C. The efforts of environmental health professionals.
D. The cooperation of ecologists, environmental activists and conservationists.
Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsides by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies "dumped" their products in the United States at "less than fair value". Even when no unfair practices are all alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient ground to seek relief.Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate Web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports-and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad-the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to deice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The "United States" company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the "Canadian" companies included a subsidary of a Chicago firm that was the second largest domestic producer of rock salt. Which of the following dangers is warned of in the passage()
A. Companies in the United States may receive no protection from imports unless they actively seek protection from import competition.
B. Companies that seek legal protection from imports competition may incur legal costs that far exceed any possible gain.
Companies that are United States owned but operate internationally may not be eligible for protection from import competition under the law of the countries in which their plants operate.
D. Companies that are not United States-owned may seek legal protection from import competition under United States import relief laws.