题目内容
The evident increase of the variety and amount of the daily consumption items and imported food products have considerably increased the quantity of waste generated by these products particularly from glass, plastic, card board and metal packaging. On the other hand, there does not exist an adequate system for the collection and transport of solid waste. Also, the country has not elaborated a strategy on urban solid waste, including the contemporary technologies for their treatment and recycling. All these have created extraordinary situation in cities and urban areas and especially in the capital city, situations which make responsible the relevant ministries and local authorities. Although they have declared to be committed for the solution of the problem, several times are still too far from the situation control. No city in Albania has completely solved the collection, transport and depositing of urban wastes. The same picture is about sewage waters. The situation is worse, because the shelters near residential areas very often are filled with stagnant waters and garbage. Damages and splitting in the drinking water network, interrupted supplying and sewage leakages pose a continuous danger for the infection of drinking waters with sewage waters, in some cities. New construction works, particularly in the city suburbs are not associated with the network of sewage pipelines, something which will aggravate more the environmental situation in urban areas, unless funds are urgently allocated for the construction of pipeline networks. Presently, the most of the depositing sites of urban wastes are inappropriate for this purpose and even close to river beds, constantly contaminating their waters and seriously endangering the quality of ground waters which very often are sources of drinking water. In order to precede the investments in this sector, during 1995 at the financial assistance of PHARE program, a study on urban and industrial waste management will be carried out. Considerable damages have been caused to parks and public gardens inside and near cities, due to the construction of a large number of bars and kiosks, in flagrant opposition to the criteria of urban planning and preservation of environment and natural landscape. Parti-cularly critical is the situation in some main cities of the country, where relatively large construction works are realized within green areas, further damaging and reducing them. The phenomenon of illegal constructions is present in many other zones of the country, especially on the coast and ecologically protected areas for tourism development like Karvasta, Golem, and Ksamili. The complete lack of sewage water treatment plants in cities, like Tirana, Durres, Vlore, Pogradec has created grave problems regarding environmental pollution and health risks for the population, which should be treated as priorities, especially in perspective zones for tourism development. A good beginning for the solution of this situation is the inclusion in PHARE program of two projects about treatment plants for sewage waters in Vlore and Pogradec, as well as some undertakings in cooperation with the World Bank or other organizations to improve sewage water pipelines. Which of the following is NOT among the solutions to the lack of sewage water treatment plants
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
To many visitors to a country the word "city" means the capital city. And that in its turn means what would be taken in by a group of tourists who had set out to see the sights. To many visitors to Britain, London is where it’s all going on. The man who is tired of London is tired of life, Doctor Johnson said in 1750. Or as an updated version has it, London is where the action is. Well, that’s now it’s put down in the guide books anyway. Of course to Londoners the word city means "the City" with a capital C, that square mile eventually marked out and walled in by the Romans after they had set up their original camp by the Thames about 50 AD. Some Londoners still live there, but most Londoners are not Londoners and do not live in the London they work in. Their home is in one of the many large villages that make up London as it began spilling over and pushing out in the late 18th and 19th centuries. They live either in the inner suburbs of the Metropolitan area or the outer suburbs of the Greater London area. It’s all very expensive and overcrowded and yet more and more people are piling in and looking for a nest. For everyone who finds it too expensive and moves out, at least three are waiting to move in. Where does Britain really begin In London Well, does France begin in Paris Only a Parisian or a Londoner would make this claim and Londoners are scarcer than Parisians these days. What! With nine million inhabitants You might ask in astonishment. But what is meant by that is that these days in London if you’re in a roomful of people the chances of coming across a second-generation Londoner are about one in a hundred. And a third-generation Londoner is something to make people’s eyes pop. The old Londoners have died off, or moved out of a London they could no longer put up or identify with. Equally, the new Londoners cannot identify with something that for them has no identity as such. For London is not England, let alone Britain, neither in its inner nor outer suburbs. Any other city stands for its region in a way capital never can. The needs for a centre for commerce, finance and government have conspired to set up these artificial growths, and London like most capitals is a huge, tension-filled, problem-filled, necessary anomaly. For all that, London is still growing though it’s much slower external growth today, not like a tree putting on a new ring each year or a middle-aged waistline suddenly expanding. Outside, beyond the limits where the city runs out and agriculture and nature begin, is still for many people the beginning of reality. For them the real roots still lie in the land they have "got away from" or at heart want to get back to, or if they are true city-dwellers, imagine they want to go to throw off the artificial life. But no one is ever completely satisfied. The trouble about cities is that they can grow on one in true love-hate fashion and while the grass always looks greener in the next village it usually turns out not to be. According to the author, any city other than a capital ______.
To many visitors to a country the word "city" means the capital city. And that in its turn means what would be taken in by a group of tourists who had set out to see the sights. To many visitors to Britain, London is where it’s all going on. The man who is tired of London is tired of life, Doctor Johnson said in 1750. Or as an updated version has it, London is where the action is. Well, that’s now it’s put down in the guide books anyway. Of course to Londoners the word city means "the City" with a capital C, that square mile eventually marked out and walled in by the Romans after they had set up their original camp by the Thames about 50 AD. Some Londoners still live there, but most Londoners are not Londoners and do not live in the London they work in. Their home is in one of the many large villages that make up London as it began spilling over and pushing out in the late 18th and 19th centuries. They live either in the inner suburbs of the Metropolitan area or the outer suburbs of the Greater London area. It’s all very expensive and overcrowded and yet more and more people are piling in and looking for a nest. For everyone who finds it too expensive and moves out, at least three are waiting to move in. Where does Britain really begin In London Well, does France begin in Paris Only a Parisian or a Londoner would make this claim and Londoners are scarcer than Parisians these days. What! With nine million inhabitants You might ask in astonishment. But what is meant by that is that these days in London if you’re in a roomful of people the chances of coming across a second-generation Londoner are about one in a hundred. And a third-generation Londoner is something to make people’s eyes pop. The old Londoners have died off, or moved out of a London they could no longer put up or identify with. Equally, the new Londoners cannot identify with something that for them has no identity as such. For London is not England, let alone Britain, neither in its inner nor outer suburbs. Any other city stands for its region in a way capital never can. The needs for a centre for commerce, finance and government have conspired to set up these artificial growths, and London like most capitals is a huge, tension-filled, problem-filled, necessary anomaly. For all that, London is still growing though it’s much slower external growth today, not like a tree putting on a new ring each year or a middle-aged waistline suddenly expanding. Outside, beyond the limits where the city runs out and agriculture and nature begin, is still for many people the beginning of reality. For them the real roots still lie in the land they have "got away from" or at heart want to get back to, or if they are true city-dwellers, imagine they want to go to throw off the artificial life. But no one is ever completely satisfied. The trouble about cities is that they can grow on one in true love-hate fashion and while the grass always looks greener in the next village it usually turns out not to be. The passage suggests that few people ______.
"Until recently, I thought that there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive as the subprime mortgage industry," said Steve Eisman, a hedge-fund manager who made a lot of money during the financial crisis by shorting bank shares, to Congress in June. "I was wrong. The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task." America’s for-profit colleges are under fire, and the Obama administration is preparing tough new regulations for them. Although recent scandals suggest higher education needs to be better regulated, discriminating against the for-profit sector could do wider damage. The notion that profit is too dirty a motive to be allowed in a business as fine as education is pervasive. Even Britain’s Conservatives, determined though they are to introduce radical educational reforms, have drawn the line at allowing for-profit schools to get state funding. America has generally been more liberal; and, with the state and non-profit colleges cutting back, the for-profit sector has been doing startlingly well. In 2008-2009, some 3,000 for-profit colleges educated 3.2m students—59% more than three years earlier, and 11.7% of all students. Yet recent government reports suggest that some of these colleges have a troublingly familiar business model: selling a low-grade product to people who are paying with subsidized government loans. The Department of Education reported that most students at many of these universities were defaulting on their loans. Similarly, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that even leading for-profit colleges such as Kaplan and the University of Phoenix had engaged in cunning practices to recruit students and encourage them to borrow large sums to pay for their courses. Among the most controversial of the new rules due to be introduced on November 1st is a "gainful employment" requirement that would make a course eligible (合格的) for government loans only if enough current or past students are repaying their loans. The for-profit colleges maintain that they have high drop-out rates because their students are poorer than those in the state and non-profit sector, and that the gainful-employment rule will simply reduce access to higher education for poorer people. Don Graham, boss of the Washington Post Company, which owns Kaplan, has suggested that private colleges should be required to refund all lees if a student decides to drop out during his first term in order to "drive out all the bad actors" from the industry. Constructive suggestions are rare in a debate that has mixed a lot of rhetorical cant with a big principle. The cant is more obvious. The American right cites Barack Obama’s proposals as another sign that he hates capitalism. Yet not only abuses plainly occurred but for-profit colleges are hardly poster children for free enterprise: they are already heavily regulated, not least because most of the loans to students are provided by the government. The left, from its non-profit redoubts, claims that these are big businesses exploiting the little guy. The principle Concentrate on the quality of the education, not the ownership. All sorts of colleges seem to have been guilty of shabby marketing. They should be treated the same. Good rules—such as Mr. Graham’s one—should apply to non-profit and for-profit colleges alike. Singling out for-profits for special attention risks depriving students, and America at large, of the full benefits in innovation and cost-effectiveness that the profit motive has generally brought to higher education. That really would be "socially destructive". The deficiency of some for-profit colleges is that they ______.
"Until recently, I thought that there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive as the subprime mortgage industry," said Steve Eisman, a hedge-fund manager who made a lot of money during the financial crisis by shorting bank shares, to Congress in June. "I was wrong. The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task." America’s for-profit colleges are under fire, and the Obama administration is preparing tough new regulations for them. Although recent scandals suggest higher education needs to be better regulated, discriminating against the for-profit sector could do wider damage. The notion that profit is too dirty a motive to be allowed in a business as fine as education is pervasive. Even Britain’s Conservatives, determined though they are to introduce radical educational reforms, have drawn the line at allowing for-profit schools to get state funding. America has generally been more liberal; and, with the state and non-profit colleges cutting back, the for-profit sector has been doing startlingly well. In 2008-2009, some 3,000 for-profit colleges educated 3.2m students—59% more than three years earlier, and 11.7% of all students. Yet recent government reports suggest that some of these colleges have a troublingly familiar business model: selling a low-grade product to people who are paying with subsidized government loans. The Department of Education reported that most students at many of these universities were defaulting on their loans. Similarly, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that even leading for-profit colleges such as Kaplan and the University of Phoenix had engaged in cunning practices to recruit students and encourage them to borrow large sums to pay for their courses. Among the most controversial of the new rules due to be introduced on November 1st is a "gainful employment" requirement that would make a course eligible (合格的) for government loans only if enough current or past students are repaying their loans. The for-profit colleges maintain that they have high drop-out rates because their students are poorer than those in the state and non-profit sector, and that the gainful-employment rule will simply reduce access to higher education for poorer people. Don Graham, boss of the Washington Post Company, which owns Kaplan, has suggested that private colleges should be required to refund all lees if a student decides to drop out during his first term in order to "drive out all the bad actors" from the industry. Constructive suggestions are rare in a debate that has mixed a lot of rhetorical cant with a big principle. The cant is more obvious. The American right cites Barack Obama’s proposals as another sign that he hates capitalism. Yet not only abuses plainly occurred but for-profit colleges are hardly poster children for free enterprise: they are already heavily regulated, not least because most of the loans to students are provided by the government. The left, from its non-profit redoubts, claims that these are big businesses exploiting the little guy. The principle Concentrate on the quality of the education, not the ownership. All sorts of colleges seem to have been guilty of shabby marketing. They should be treated the same. Good rules—such as Mr. Graham’s one—should apply to non-profit and for-profit colleges alike. Singling out for-profits for special attention risks depriving students, and America at large, of the full benefits in innovation and cost-effectiveness that the profit motive has generally brought to higher education. That really would be "socially destructive". According to the for-profit colleges, which of the following is CORRECT about the gainful-employment rule
微信支付 
支付宝支付