问题 选择题

下图是甲、乙两幅区域图,回答下列小题。

(1)甲、乙两图所示区域的主要农业地域类型分别是

A.混合农业、商品谷物农业  B.季风水田农业、大牧场放牧业

C.季风水田农业、乳畜业   D.乳畜业、季风水田农业

(2)1949年洞庭湖面积有4350平方千米,由于泥沙淤积和大量围垦,到1997年其面积只有2691平方千米,缩小了近40%。下列为了减缓洞庭湖面积的减小采取的主要措施符合可持续发展观点的是

A.加强挖沙、清淤工作     B.减少湖泊上游地区的农业灌溉用水

C.减少富含氮、磷污水的排放  D.保护湖泊上游地区的植被,并且退耕还湖

(3)关于甲、乙两地所示区域的相关叙述不正确的是

A.甲地主要以亚热带常绿阔叶林为主  B.甲地主要的气象灾害有暴雨洪涝和干旱

C.乙地湖泊主要由冰川作用形成    D.乙地主要的气象灾害有寒潮

答案

(1)C

(2)D

(3)B

(1)甲属于我国南方,主要农业地域类型是季风水田农业;五大湖区乳主要农业地域类型是畜业。

(2)为了减缓洞庭湖面积的减小,A项的做法,治标不治本,只是暂时性的缓解。C主要是针对水体富营养化。B项主要是针对水资源不足的问题。

(3)甲地属于亚热带季风气候。主要的气象灾害有暴雨洪涝。

选择题
单项选择题

A deal is a deal—except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the state’s strict nuclear regulations.

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.

The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management—especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.

Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test()

A. Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises

B. the nature of states’ patchwork regulations

C. the federal authority over nuclear issues

D. the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues