问题 选择题

2009年l2月哥本哈根会议的主要内容之一是:共同应对全球气候变化,保护地球家园的生态环境,下列做法与之不符的是(  )

A.将使用后的废旧电池集中起来,统一处理

B.植树造林,营造绿池

C.多使用一次性饭盒、纸杯等制品

D.推广使用无磷洗衣粉

答案

“低碳生活”,就是指生活作息时所耗用的能量要尽力减少,从而减低碳,特别是二氧化碳的排放量,从而减少对大气的污染,减缓生态恶化,主要是从节电、节气和回收三个环节来改变生活细节.低碳生活应该从现在做起,从自我做起,从小事做起,主要表现在节电、节气和回收等三个方面,如节约用电(随手关灯、少开空调、少吹风扇、少看电视、及时关闭电脑…)、骑自行车或者步行上学、乘公交车、建议父母建造沼气池和使用太阳能热水器、多植树造林、爱护植被、推广使用无磷洗衣粉、废旧电池集中回收处理等;使用一次性筷子、餐盒和少用纸巾等,不但要增加制造中的能量消耗.同时从原料上,还要多伐棵树,不利于植物对二氧化碳的吸收.不符合低碳生活的理念.可见C符合题意.

故选:C

单项选择题
单项选择题

She was French; he was English; they had just moved to London from Paris. When he found out about her affair, she begged for a reconciliation. He was more ruthless: the same afternoon, he filed for divorce in France, one of the stingiest jurisdictions in Europe for the non-earning spouse and where adultery affects the court’s ruling. Had she filed first in England her conduct would have been irrelevant, and she would have had a good chance of a large share of the marital assets, and even maintenance for life.

International divorce is full of such dramas and anomalies, so the natural response of policymakers is to try to make things simpler and more predictable. But the biggest attempt in recent years to do just that, in a European agreement called Rome Ⅲ, has just been shelved. Instead, several EU countries are now pressing ahead with their own harmonisation deal. Many wonder if it will work any better.

At issue is the vexed question of which country’s law applies to the break-up of a mixed marriage. The spouses may live long-term in a third country and be temporarily working in a fourth. The worst way to sort that out is with expensive legal battles in multiple jurisdictions.

The main principle at present is that the first court to be approached hears the case. Introduced in 2001, this practice has worked well in preventing international legal battles, but has made couples much more trigger-happy, because the spouse who hesitates in order to save a troubled marriage may lose a huge amount of money. Rome III aimed to remove the incentive to go to court quickly. Instead, courts in any EU country would automatically apply the local law that had chiefly governed the marriage. This approach is already in force in countries such as the Netherlands. A couple that moved there and sought divorce having spent most of the marriage in France, say, would find a Dutch court dividing assets and handling child custody according to French law.

That works fine among continental European countries where legal systems, based on Roman law, leave little role for precedent or the judge’s discretion. You can look up the rules on a website and apply them. But it is anathema in places such as England, where the system favours a thorough (and often expensive) investigation of the details of each case, and then lets judges decide according to previous cases and English law.

Another snag is that what may suit middle-class expatriates in Brussels (who just happened to be the people drafting Rome Ⅲ) may not suit, for example, a mixed marriage that has mainly been based in a country, perhaps not even an EU member, with" a sharply different divorce law. Swedish politicians don’t like the idea that their courts would be asked to enforce marriage laws based on, say, Islamic sharia.

The threat of vetoes from Sweden and like-minded countries has blocked Rome Ⅲ. But a group of nine countries, led by Spain and France, is going ahead. They are resorting to a provision in EU rules-never before invoked-called " enhanced co-operation" This sets a precedent for a "multi-speed’" Europe in which like-minded countries are allowed to move towards greater integration, rather than seeking a "big-bang" binding treaty that scoops up the willing and unwilling alike. Some countries worry that using enhanced co-operation will create unmanageable layers of complexity, with EU law replaced by multiple adhoc agreements.

The real lesson may be that Rome III was just too ambitious. A more modest but useful goal would be simply to clarify the factors that determine which court hears a divorce, and then let that court apply its own law. David Hodson, a British expert, proposes an international deal that would start by giving greatest weight to any prenuptial agreement, followed by long-term residency, and then take into account other factors such as nationality. That would then make it easier to end marriages amicably, with mediation and out-of-court agreement, rather than a race to start the beastly business of litigation.

Which of the following may possibly be the reason for why several EU countries are now pressing ahead with their own harmonisation deal()

A. Vetoes from some countries blocked Rome III from being put into effect

B. Citizens in those countries require the government to do so

C. Rome Ⅲ was just too ambitious to encompass all the issues that may occur in Europe, thus lacking of feasibility in specific cases

D. Differences between civil law system and common law system force this