Passage Two
Global energy demand is expected to triple by mid-century. The earth is unlikely to run out of fossil fuels by then, given its vast reserves of coal, but it seems unthinkable that we will continue to use them as we do now. It’s not just a question of supply and price, or even of the disease caused by filthy air. The terrorist assault on the World Trade Center raises other scary scenarios: how much easier would it be to crack open the Trans-Alaska pipeline and how much deadlier would it be to bomb a nuclear plant than to attack a wind arm
Skeptics may recall the burst of enthusiasm for conservation and renewable power when oil prices quadrupled in the 1970s. State-funded energy research and development surged, while tax incentives boosted solar, wind and other alternatives to petroleum and the atom. But when oil supplies loosened and prices dropped in the early 1990s, governments lost interest. In the state of California, subsidies evaporat
A. it will do great harm to the inadequate reserves of coal
B. it is deadly if terrorists attack a nuclear plant
C. it will limit the development of many other alternatives
D. there will be a wider gap between developed and developing countries
| Analysts have had their go at humor,
and I have read some of this interpretative literature, but without being
greatly instructed. Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in
the process and the innards (内在部分) are discouraging to any but the pure
scientific mind. In a newsreel theatre the other day I saw a picture of a man who had developed the soap bubble to a higher point than it had ever before reached. He had become the ace soap bubble blower of America, had perfected the business of blowing bubbles, refined it, doubled it, squared it, and had even worked himself up into a convenient lather. The effect was not pretty. Some of the bubbles were too big to be beautiful, and the blower was always jumping into them or out of them, or playing some sort of unattractive trick with them. It was, if anything, a rather A. just as scientists can dissect a frog, so analysts can dissect humor B. detailed, scientific analysis is not appropriate for humor, for it may make humor lose its aesthetic value C. some people’s analysis of humor are too scientific D. analysts’ attempts at humor am not instructive enough to interest the author 我来回答: 提交
|
