GMAT考试 3月6日更新GMAT阅读机经(十三).

　　GMAT考试已于12年3月1日更换题库，以下是2012年3月的GMAT阅读机经更新，更新日期从2012年3月1日起至3月6日，目前共18题。澳际留学祝大家GMAT考试顺利!

　　【考题汇总】

　　1. 有题，第一段的作用

　　就是解释这个市场以及其作用。

　　2. 有题，问的就是弊端

　　即政治相关性

　　3. 有题，问后果

　　选的就是价格不确定性增加。

　　4. 有一题问结论是什么?

　　我选税收减免优于拍卖方式。

　　5. 有一题问类比，就是以下哪种类似于文中说的税收减免。

　　【背景知识】

　　Carbon Taxes vs. Emissions Trading

　　There is a growing debate between two competing climate change policy instruments - carbon taxes and emissions trading. Along with a suite of other "flexibility mechanisms," emissions trading among industrialized and transitional countries (former Soviet bloc) was included in the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change under Article 17 (formerly 16bis) and has thus been the subject of much international discussion since December. Although an international emissions trading system does not necessarily preclude the use of carbon taxes (domestically or internationally), the two are commonly seen as competing policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG). This analysis attempts to clarify the two policy approaches and the respective advantages of each.

　　Carbon taxes, and all environmental taxes, are "priced-based" policy instruments. Taxes increase the prices of certain goods and services, thereby decreasing the quantity demanded. This is called the "price fect." Tradable permits, or emissions trading, is considered a "quantity-based" environmental policy instrument. Although both policy approaches are "market-based," they operate differently - carbon taxes fix the marginal cost for carbon emissions and allow quantities emitted to adjust, while tradable permits fix the total amount of carbon emitted and allow price levels to fluctuate according to market forces.

　　Emissions Trading Under an emissions trading system, the quantity of emissions is fixed (often called a "cap") and the right to emit becomes a tradable commodity. The cap (say 10,000 tons of carbon) is divided into transferable units (10,000 permits of 1 ton of carbon each). Permits are often rerred to as "GHG units," "quotas" or "allowances." To be in compliance, actors participating in the system must hold a number of permits greater or equal to their actual emissions level. Once permits are allocated (by auction, sale or free allocation) to the actors participating in the system, they are then tradable. This enables emissions reductions to take place where least costly.

　　Carbon Taxes Carbon taxes are simply direct payments to government (collection body), based on the carbon content of the fuel being consumed. Given that the primary objective of the abatement policy is to lower carbon dioxide emissions, carbon taxes make sense economically and environmentally because they tax the externality (carbon) directly. Coal generates the greatest amount of carbon emissions and is therore taxed in greater proportion than oil and natural gas, which have lower carbon concentrations (Coal contains .03 tons of carbon per million Btu of energy, while oil and natural gas contain only .024 and .016 tons respectively).

　　Which is Better? There is no simple yes or no answer, and the policies are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Several important advantages and drawbacks of the respective policies are outlined below.

　　The Case for Emissions Trading

　　A well functioning emissions trading system allows emissions reductions to take place wherever abatement costs are lowest, regardless of international borders. Since costs associated with climate change (e.g. coastal flooding, increasing incidence of violent storms, crop loss, etc.) have no correlation with the origin of carbon emissions, the rationale for this policy approach is clear. If emissions reductions are cheaper to make in Poland than in France, emissions should be reduced first in the former where costs are lower.

　　Emissions trading has the advantage of fixing a certain environmental outcome - the aggregate emissions levels are fixed, and companies/countries pay the market rate for the rights to pollute. This also makes emissions trading more conducive to international environmental agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, because specific emissions reduction levels can be agreed upon more easily than tax rates or policy instruments, which may vary in appropriateness and applicability between states.

　　Emissions trading is more appealing to private industry. By decreasing emissions, firms can actually profit by selling their excess greenhouse gas allowances. Creating such a market for pollution could potentially drive emissions reductions below targets. In general, transferring resources between private entities is more appealing than transfers to government.

　　Emissions trading is better equipped than taxes to deal with all six GHGs included in the Kyoto Protocol and sinks (e.g. trees which absorb and store carbon) in one comprehensive strategy. Each gas has a "greenhouse gas potential" (GWP, based on carbon dioxide). Thus firms emitting more than one GHG have more flexibility in making reductions.

　　Permits adjust automatically for inflation and external price shocks, while taxes do not. For example, the US has already experienced an extended period of stable greenhouse gas emissions levels from 1972 to 1985 because of high oil prices. Taxes would need to be designed to adjust for such external shocks.

　　以上就是3月6日更新的GMAT阅读机经，考生可以适当借鉴，并通过练习来掌握GMAT阅读的解题规律，从而在GMAT考试中发挥出更好的水平。 相关链接：

1.GMAT考试 3月6日更新GMAT阅读机经(十二)

2.GMAT考试流程全攻略：账号姓名更改

3.GMAT逻辑解题技巧：Assumption题型总结(二)

想要获得更多咨询服务点击进入 >>>>有问题?找免费的澳际专家咨询! 或联系QQ客服： ，也可以通过在线咨询处留言，把您最关心的问题告诉我们。