C  The plaintiffs comprise 12 states, three cities, various NGOs, and American Samoa, a Pacific territory in danger of vanishing beneath the rising ocean. They are supported by a further six states, two power companies, a ski resort, and assorted¹ clergymen, Indian tribes and agitated² grandees³ such as Madeleine Albright, a former secretary of state. They point out that under the administration of Bill Clinton, the EPA decided⁴ that it did have the authority to regulate CO2. The act, they note, says the EPA should regulate any air pollutant⁵ that "may reasonably be interpreted to endanger public health or welfare". It goes on to define public welfare to include "effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate".

D The Supreme⁶ Court may give a mixed ruling, decreeing that carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant, but one the EPA is free to ignore or regulate as it pleases. Or it might dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have the right to lodge⁷ it in the first place. In theory, they must prove that the EPA's foot-dragging has caused them some specific harm that regulation might remedy-- a tall order in a field as fraught⁸ with uncertainty⁹ as climatology. Even if the court found in the plaintiffs' favour, rapid change is unlikely. By the time the EPA had implemented¹⁰ such a ruling, Congress would probably have superseded¹¹ it with a new law.

E  That is the point, environmental groups say. They want Congress to pass a law tackling global warming, and hope that a favourable¹² court ruling will jolly the politicians along. Moreover, the case has a bearing on several other bitterly-contested lawsuits¹³. Carmakers, for example, are trying to get the courts to strike down a Californian state law based on certain provisions of the Clean Air Act that require them to reduce their vehicles' CO2 emissions¹⁴. If the Supreme Court decides that the act does not apply to CO2, then the Californian law would also be in jeopardy¹⁶. That, in turn, would scupper the decision of ten other states to adopt the same standard.

F However the Supreme Court rules, many state governments are determined¹⁷ to tackle climate change. California is in the vanguard. Its legislature has passed a law that will cap and then reduce industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Seven eastern states have formed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which will treat emissions from power plants the same way. Almost 400 mayors have signed an agreement to cut their cities' emissions in line with Kyoto. Many businesses, even some power companies, would rather see regulation now than prolonged uncertainty. And several of the leading contenders for 2008's presidential election aQuestions 6-9

Do the following statements reflect the views of the writer in the reading passage?
In boxes 6-9 on your answer sheet write

     YES         if the statement reflects the views of the writer

     NO          if the statement contradicts the views of the writer

    NOT GIVEN  if there is no information about this in the passage

6.        Texas and Michigan are among the 12 states which call for regulating air pollution.

7.        An American island is in danger of disappearing beneath the rising ocean.

8.        The plaintiffs can prove that the EPA抯 foot-dragging has caused them harm that the regulation might remedy.

9.        The Supreme Court's ruling may influence the results of other lawsuits.

Questions 10-13

Answer the following questions with NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS each in boxes 10-13.

10.    What country produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gases?

11.    Which president opposes mandatory¹⁸ curbs¹⁹ on emission¹⁵, George Bush or Bill Clinton?

12.    Who are trying to get the courts to strike down a Californian state law that require them to reduce their vehicles' CO2 emissions?

13.    What would some power companies rather see than prolonged uncertainty at present?

Key and Explanations:

1. v  （See para.B: Furthermore, it(EPA) contends that regulating emissions would not do good unless all or most other countries did the same. That is in keeping with the policies of President George Bush.）

2. i (See para.C: They point out that...he EPA decided that it did have the authority to regulate CO2. The act?says the EPA should regulate any air pollutant that 搈ay reasonably be interpreted to endanger public health or welfare? )

3. viii (See para.D: The Supreme Court may give a mixed ruling, decreeing that carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant, but one the EPA is free to ignore or regulate as it pleases. Or it might dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have the right to lodge it in the first place.)
re much keener on emissions caps than Mr Bush. Change is in the air.