单项选择题

In an effort to alleviate America’s increasing dependence on foreign oil and mitigate the worst effects of the current power crisis, Sens Frank Murkowski and John Breaux recently introduced the National Security Energy Act of 2001.
While the bill contains a wide array of provisions, including everything from $ 1 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to the promotion of alternative fuel vehicles, the most controversial measure calls for opening a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and gas exploration.
Liberals have already gone to war over the measure, charging that the potential resources in ANWR are negligible, that drilling in ANWR will have calamitous effects on the environment, and that any oil and gas that does come out of the area will arrive too late to solve any of the energy challenges consumers currently face.
Yet such arguments simply don’ t stand up to the evidence. In the first place, no one actually knows how much oil is available. A 1998 survey by the U. S. Geological Survey estimated that there are between 4. 3 and 11.8 billion barrels of oil within the area that could be recovered. Even using the low estimate, this would still be enough to supply all of the energy needs of the United States for nearly two-thirds of a year, more than enough to merit further exploration into the ANWR environment.
Moreover, there is little evidence that the environment will be harmed by such activity. The New York Times Science Section recently pointed out that innovations in technology and technique have greatly reduced the environmental "footprint" left by oil exploration in general, and Mr. Murkowski estimates that the development resulting from even a large ANWR oil field would cover only about three square miles. Since drilling began in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, the herds of nearby caribou have greatly increased in size. Populations of nesting migratory birds have also gotten larger, "Over the past 20 years, the population of polar bears has remained exceedingly healthy," according to Mr. Murkowski.
Helping the public is the primary reason for such drilling, even if the oil won’t reach the market for months after the first well is capped. In the long-term, oil from ANWR will help lower energy prices, alleviate long-term energy shortages and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.
Currently, about 55 percent of America’s dally oil consumption of almost 20 million barrels comes from foreign sources--700, 000 from Iraq. According to the Department of Energy, this dependence could grow to 64 percent by 2020. By then, the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests, "fully 50 percent of estimated total global oil demand will be met from countries that pose a high risk of internal instability."
America needs long-term solutions to its domestic energy needs and a smart start would be by exploring the resources at ANWR.
The word "mitigate" (Paragraph 1) most probably means______

A.lessen.
B.augment.
C.migrate.
D.modify.
热门 试题

问答题
A few years ago, the rich world’s worry about economic interaction with developing countries was that the poor could not profit from it. So unbalanced were the terms of exchange between the North’s mighty industries and the South’s weakling sweatshops that trade between the two could be nothing more than exploitation of the one by the other; far from helping the poor countries, global integration would actually deepen their poverty. This fear has now given way to a pessimism that is equal and opposite--namely, that trade with the developing world will impoverish today’s rich countries.This new fear is more dangerous than-the old one. The earlier scare tacitly affirmed that the, industrial countries would suffer if they cut heir links with the third world. Starting from there, campaigning in the North to restrict trade with developing countries was going to be an uphill struggle. Those who oppose deeper economic integration now have a better platform. Vital interests oblige the rich countries to protect their industries from the new competition. Unlike its predecessor, this idea may sell.The new fear, like the old one, expresses the conviction that growth in one part of the world must somehow come at the expense of another. This is a deeply rooted prejudice, and plainly wrong. Very nearly all of the world is more prosperous now than it was 30 years ago. Growth has been a story of mutual advance.Lending useful support to this first error is a second--the idea that there is only so much work to go round. If new technologies make some jobs obsolete, or if an increase in the supply of cheap imports makes other jobs uneconomic ,the result must be a permanent rise in unemployment. Again, on a moment’s reflection, this is wrong.At the core of both errors is blindness to the adaptive power of a market economy.