采掘工作面的瓦斯检查，严格执行“一炮三检”制度，瓦斯浓度达到（）时不准装药。A、0.

Power StruggleArnold Schwarzenegger has a mission: he wants to terminate global warming. In June, the California governor called for the state to cut down drastically its greenhouse-gas emissions to 80% of 1990 levels in the next 45 years. "The debate is over," he said in a forthright speech in San Francisco. "We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now."This was fighting talk, but if any advanced economy can pull off such drastic cuts in emissions, this high-technology Pacific Rim state and its 36 million residents probably can. Schwarzenegger has help. He gets support from a team of state energy-conservation experts who have been in the business for years. And first among them is Arthur Rosenfeld. More than three decades ago, Rosenfeld helped to trigger the state’’s successful fight to cut energy consumption; today he is one of the five members of California’’s Energy Commission.Rosenfeld spent decades as a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He now commutes weekly between his home overlooking San Francisco Bay and Sacramento, the capital, in an energy-saving car that the state provides. The Energy Commission’’s job isn’’t easy: to help the most populous US state figure out how it might cut greenhouse-gas emissions and make money doing it.Under controlIn his office, Rosenfeld pulls out a data plot of which he is particularly fond. It shows electricity consumption per capita from 1960 to 2002, with one line for California and one for the United States. In 1960, both lines sit at 4,000 kilowatt-hours per person. They rise at roughly the same pace to about 7,000 kilowatthours in the early 1970s. But at the point when the US energy crisis struck that decade, the lines diverge dramatically: California virtually flatlines its energy use per citizen — even though its economy was outpacing the rest of the nation. The state’’s electricity use per capita today is the lowest in the nation at 6,800 kilowatt-hours, compared with 12,800 kilowatthours for the country overall.The strategies that helped California achieve those conservation goals may now help it in its greenhouse-gas cuts. State energy experts, including Rosenfeld, don’’t foresee California adopting many radical new technologies to meet its ambitious goals. Rather, a steady application of proven technologies should do much of the job.California’’s $1.5-trillion gross annual product makes it the world’’s sixth largest economy, behind France and ahead of Italy. It is the planet’’s ninth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. "California is not an insignificant actor, and we are seen as a world leader in protecting the environment," says Eileen Tutt, a senior officer at the California Environmental Protection Agency.Still, the governor’’s pledge, made on the United Nations World Environment Day, invited more support. Schwarzenegger is a tax-cutting Republican who is deeply suspicious of government regulation. Beset by budget fights and union opposition, he has dropped in popularity with the state’’s generally Democratic voters since his election two years ago. But his energy policies, building on those of a string of governors of both parties, get him reputation from longtime activists. "The governor is a real-life climate action hero today," Nancy Ryan, a senior economist with the group Environmental Defense, told reporters.Specifically, Schwarzenegger vowed that California will cut its greenhouse-gas emissions to below 2000 levels by 2010 and to less than the 1990 level of 373 million tonnes by 2020. But then the governor added the final, ambitious goal to cut emissions by a further 80% by 2050.Out on a limbHis policy stands in opposite contrast to that of the federal administration under President George W. Bush, who has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The president has said that such action would squeeze the US economy too much. California officials say that they can do it while boosting the economy and creating jobs. The state’’s p environmental policies in the past, they point out, occurred while its economy thrived.Success will require the cooperation of several interlocking agencies. The Energy Commission plays a major role, as do the state’’s Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board and Public Utilities Commission. Schwarzenegger’’s proclamation renewed their "absolute licence to go out and make California a model country for greenhouse policies", says Stephen Schneider, a physicist and climate-policy analyst at Stanford University.State officials have much at stake. California’’s climate could change utterly if a warmer world redirected storm paths. Rising temperatures could cause winter rain instead of snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains, triggering floods for which the state’’s aqueducts(沟渠) and dams are not prepared. Plus, its coast is vulnerable to a rise in sea level.Other states have also recognized their vulnerability to climate change, and have independently taken climate policy into their own hands. Local legislators, from mayors of cities to state governors, have begun their own versions of Kyoto-like regulations. In the northeast, nine states have agreed to limit carbon dioxide emissions from more than 600 power plants in the region. On the west coast, California has joined with Oregon and Washington in a governors’’ initiative to encourage energy efficiency and conservation.But of all the states, California’’s example has caused effect: in recent years many other states have adopted California’’s standards for car pollution rather than the more lax federal standards.And the state is now attracting international attention. In September, its Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company signed a pact (合同) with China’’s Jiangsu province to train officials and utility executives in energy-conservation tactics. Earlier this month, Schwarzenegger led a sales delegation to China to tout (吹捧) the state’’s energy-saving technologies, and another team from the state’’s Air Resources Board travelled to Belgium to brief European air-quality experts on energy policies.California’’s approach to energy conservation has helped it save money. The state sets electricity rates for private utilities, and sometimes provides subsidies to help power companies induce customers to cut their consumption. If they do, the state gives money back to the companies — through rate adjustments and other payments — that makes up for what the firms would have earned had they built additional power plants.The Energy Commission calculates that the total power bill for residents is about $16 billion lower each year than if the state had not launched its conservation campaign. Conservation has also managed to prevent some 18 million tonnes of carbon pollution being emitted from power plants — equivalent to taking 12 million cars off the roads. After allowing for the cost of measures such as changed building practices, appliances and subsidies, the net saving is about $12 billion.And deeper energy cuts should pay more, the commission says. The Air Resources Board estimates that planned reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, from motor vehicles alone, could save Californians $256 million annually by 2010 (mostly from smaller fuel bills), and $4.8 billion annually by 2020.Cut and dried But will the state’’s longer-term emissions policy succeed Schneider is unsure how cost-effective the whole plan will be. Earlier stages may pay for themselves, he says, but the final leap to the 80% cut is unlikely to come without costs. "It would take a total modification of our fuel infrastructure(基础设施)," he notes.So far, even state planners aren’’t sure how they will meet the later goals. "We don’’t have the details, but we’’ll have a report to the governor’’s office in January," says Tutt.Some fresh ideas are already in the works. One notion, is to place 1 million solarpanel (太阳能) systems on rooftops by 2018. California gets about 11% of its electricity from geothermal, wind, biomass and solar units; for the United States overall, the number is around 2%. California aims to increase its share of renewable sources to 20% by 2010 and to 33% by 2020.Also helpful will be the vehicle clean-up legislation enacted just before Schwarzenegger’’s arrival. This requires car manufacturers, starting in 2009, to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from new cars and trucks by 22% by 2013 and 33% by 2017. But the law remains in dispute — perhaps predictably, car companies have sued. They argue that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and that regulating it at state level would pre-empt (先占) federal control over the fuel-efficiency standards in new cars. In the long run, the governor has chosen hydrogen-fuelled cars as his personal crusade.Wind power figures large in state plans. California pioneered wide-scale use of it and already has more than 14,000 wind turbines. In a good breeze their combined capacity is 2,100 megawatts — about the same as two nuclear power plants. State energy officials estimate that wind alone, in principle, can generate an additional 30,000 megawatts.

Schwarzenegger’’s energy policy is________ to that of the federal administration under President George W. Bush.

在横线处写出诗文原句。（8分）

①尔卜尔筮，          。以尔车来，以我贿迁。  （《诗经·氓》）

②诚既勇兮又以武，                。（屈原《国殇》）

③                   ，随风直到夜郎西。（李白《闻王昌龄左迁龙标遥有所寄》）

④随风潜入夜，润物细无声。           ，江船火独明。 (杜甫《春夜喜雨》)

⑤故木受绳则直，         ，君子博学而日参省乎己……（《荀子·劝学》）

⑥令初下，群臣进谏，             ，数月之后……（《战国策·邹忌讽齐王纳谏》）

⑦鹏之徙于南冥也，水击三千里，           ，去以六月息者也。（《庄子·逍遥游》）

⑧              ，猥自枉屈，三顾臣于草庐之中。  （诸葛亮《出师表》）

韦氏智力测验是当今世界范围内使用较广的个别智力测验，而韦氏智力测验的年龄范围也从4岁持续到74岁，并且首次采用离差智商的方法表示智力发展水平。

在韦氏儿童智力量表中有两个备用测验，它们是（）。

A.算术和几何图形

B.算术和迷津

C.动物房和理解

D.数字广度和迷津

E.数字广度和几何图形

我国当前是由______负责教师的培训和教师资格认定等事务的。( )

A．教师专业团体

B．教育行政部门

C．教师所在的学校

D．社会公共事业机构

Elections often tell you more about what people are against than what they are for. So it is with the European ones that took place last week in all 25 European Union member countries. These elections, widely trumpeted as the world’s biggest-ever multinational democratic vote, were fought for the most part as 25 separate national contests, which makes it tricky to pick out many common themes. But the pest are undoubtedly negative. Europe’s voters are angry and disillusioned-and they have demonstrated their anger and disillusion in three main ways.

The most obvious was by abstaining. The average overall turnout was just over 45%, by some margin the lowest ever recorded for elections to the European Parliament. And that average disguises some big variations: Italy, for example, notched up over 70%, but Sweden managed only 37%. Most depressing of all, at least to believers in the European project, was the extremely low vote in many of the new member countries from central Europe, which accounted for the whole of the fall in turnout since 1999. In the biggest, Poland, only just over a fifth of the electorate turned out to vote. Only a year ago, central Europeans voted in large numbers to join the EU, which they did on May 1st. That they abstained in such large numbers in the European elections points to early disillusion with the European Union-as well as to a widespread feeling, shared in the old member countries as well, that the European Parliament does not matter.

Disillusion with Europe was also a big factor in the second way in which voters protested, which was by supporting a ragbag of populist, nationalist and explicitly anti-EU parties. These ranged from the 16% who backed the UK Independence Party, whose declared policy is to withdraw from the EU and whose leaders see their mission as "wrecking" the European Parliament, to the 14% who voted for Sweden’s Junelist, and the 27% of Poles who backed one of two anti-EU parties, the League of Catholic Families and Selfdefence. These results have returned many more Eurosceptics and trouble-makers to the parliament: on some measures, over a quarter of the new MEPS will belong to the "awkward squad". That is not a bad thing, however, for it will make the ’parliament more representative of European public opinion.

But it is the third target of European voters’ ire that is perhaps the most immediately significant, the fact that, in many EU countries, old and new, they chose to vote heavily against their own governments. This anti-incumbent vote was p almost everywhere, but it was most pronounced in Britain, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Sweden. The leaders of all the four biggest European Union countries, Tony Blair in Britain, Jacques Chirac in France, Gerhard Schroder in Germany and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, were each given a bloody nose by their voters.

The big question now is how Europe’s leaders should respond to this. By a sublime (or terrible) coincidence, soon after the elections, and just as The Economist was going to press, they were gathering in Brussels for a crucial summit, at which they are due to agree a new constitutional treaty for the EU and to select a new president for the European Commissi6n. Going into the meeting, most EU heads of government seemed determined to press ahead with this agenda regardless of the European elections--even though the atmosphere after the results may make it harder for them to strike deals.

Which of the following statements is not mentioned in the text （）

A. EU member countries hold that the European Parliament is of importance

B. The European Project is the worst vision of all

C. EU member countries maintain that central Europe are gaining more common themes

D. Anti-EU parties are never detrimental to the building-up of the European collaboration