At a recent meeting of the American Public Transit Association, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stringent new standards for pollution control. The transit authorities were particularly concerned about the implementation of a proposed "Clean Air Act." They believed the provisions of the Clean Air Act could severely affect basic services to their local communities. Many transit agencies were concerned that it would be difficult to comply with the pollution and emissions control standards while continuing to operate within realistic budgets.The aim of the Clean Air Act is to assure that by the year 2000, there will be a reduction of at least 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide from 1980 levels. The bill also calls for a reduction in pollutants that contribute to the depletion of ozone. Strict regulations of toxic air emissions would have to be established and enforced.Additionally, the Clean Air Act would establish specific acid-rain reduction quotas and enforce severe penalties for transgressors of any of the new clean air regulations.There is little doubt that mass-transit suppliers will be considerably affected by this new legislation, just as the chemical and petroleum industries have already been affected by similar legislation. Transit authorities are challenged to strike a difficult balance between complying with the governments new standards and developing an official concern for the environment, while continuing to fulfill the transportation needs of the general population.Among the areas addressed by the Clean Air Act, the topic of mobile resources is of particular interest to mass transit authorities. Provisions contained in the Act under this title are aimed at encouraging the development and practical use of alternative fuel sources, like solar energy and methane fuel. The goal of this section of the Act is to eradicate toxic fuel emissions in order to provide cleaner air and a more favorable environment. The Act even goes so far as to declare that in cities like New York, Los Angeles and Houston where air quality is particularly noxious and toxins exceed the limits of federal regulations forms of mass transit should run on so-called "clean-burning fuels" by the year 2000. Such fuels include reformulated gasoline, propane, electricity, natural gas, ethanol, methanol, or any similar type of low-emission fuel. In addition, the Act proposes that, by 1994, all new urban buses in cities with populations exceeding one million must operate solely on clean-burning fuels.The topics of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles represent, by far, the most controversial issue in the Clean Air Act. President Bush has called alternative fuels "bold and innovative" means to control pollution, but according to many transportation experts, the Act’s proposals on alternative fuel usage are unrealistic. The transit authorities recognize that concern for the environment and health hazards like pollution are global issues. However, most transit officials concur that inventing and developing new ways to fuel mass transit will take at least 50 years to realize. They point out that the Act does not mention the political and social ramifications of usurping the role of the petroleum industries. The Act does not mention if or how the thousands of people employed by the oil industry will get retrained to produce and implement the use of "clean" fuel.No one disputes the fact that people need some form of transportation to get from place to place. Preserving the environment should be a priority, yet we need to remember that even if toxic emissions are completely eliminated sometime in the future, the challenge of moving mass numbers of people where they want to go will still exist and must remain a priority. Transit authorities contend that unless the Clean Air Act also acknowledges this, and develops a way to encourage mass transit over personal transportation, the problems of pollution might not be significantly altered. They suggest that there are many areas in this country that have little or no mass transit and that, if the Clean Air Acts goal is to reduce pollution, perhaps the most practical and realistic means to achieve that goal is to encourage the development and maintenance of mass transit systems.According to the passage, the main goal of the Clear Air Act was to:
At a recent meeting of the American Public Transit Association, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stringent new standards for pollution control. The transit authorities were particularly concerned about the implementation of a proposed "Clean Air Act." They believed the provisions of the Clean Air Act could severely affect basic services to their local communities. Many transit agencies were concerned that it would be difficult to comply with the pollution and emissions control standards while continuing to operate within realistic budgets.The aim of the Clean Air Act is to assure that by the year 2000, there will be a reduction of at least 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide from 1980 levels. The bill also calls for a reduction in pollutants that contribute to the depletion of ozone. Strict regulations of toxic air emissions would have to be established and enforced.Additionally, the Clean Air Act would establish specific acid-rain reduction quotas and enforce severe penalties for transgressors of any of the new clean air regulations.There is little doubt that mass-transit suppliers will be considerably affected by this new legislation, just as the chemical and petroleum industries have already been affected by similar legislation. Transit authorities are challenged to strike a difficult balance between complying with the governments new standards and developing an official concern for the environment, while continuing to fulfill the transportation needs of the general population.Among the areas addressed by the Clean Air Act, the topic of mobile resources is of particular interest to mass transit authorities. Provisions contained in the Act under this title are aimed at encouraging the development and practical use of alternative fuel sources, like solar energy and methane fuel. The goal of this section of the Act is to eradicate toxic fuel emissions in order to provide cleaner air and a more favorable environment. The Act even goes so far as to declare that in cities like New York, Los Angeles and Houston where air quality is particularly noxious and toxins exceed the limits of federal regulations forms of mass transit should run on so-called "clean-burning fuels" by the year 2000. Such fuels include reformulated gasoline, propane, electricity, natural gas, ethanol, methanol, or any similar type of low-emission fuel. In addition, the Act proposes that, by 1994, all new urban buses in cities with populations exceeding one million must operate solely on clean-burning fuels.The topics of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles represent, by far, the most controversial issue in the Clean Air Act. President Bush has called alternative fuels "bold and innovative" means to control pollution, but according to many transportation experts, the Act’s proposals on alternative fuel usage are unrealistic. The transit authorities recognize that concern for the environment and health hazards like pollution are global issues. However, most transit officials concur that inventing and developing new ways to fuel mass transit will take at least 50 years to realize. They point out that the Act does not mention the political and social ramifications of usurping the role of the petroleum industries. The Act does not mention if or how the thousands of people employed by the oil industry will get retrained to produce and implement the use of "clean" fuel.No one disputes the fact that people need some form of transportation to get from place to place. Preserving the environment should be a priority, yet we need to remember that even if toxic emissions are completely eliminated sometime in the future, the challenge of moving mass numbers of people where they want to go will still exist and must remain a priority. Transit authorities contend that unless the Clean Air Act also acknowledges this, and develops a way to encourage mass transit over personal transportation, the problems of pollution might not be significantly altered. They suggest that there are many areas in this country that have little or no mass transit and that, if the Clean Air Acts goal is to reduce pollution, perhaps the most practical and realistic means to achieve that goal is to encourage the development and maintenance of mass transit systems.According to the passage, the major fear that transportation officials have about the effects of the Clean Air Act is:
At a recent meeting of the American Public Transit Association, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stringent new standards for pollution control. The transit authorities were particularly concerned about the implementation of a proposed "Clean Air Act." They believed the provisions of the Clean Air Act could severely affect basic services to their local communities. Many transit agencies were concerned that it would be difficult to comply with the pollution and emissions control standards while continuing to operate within realistic budgets.The aim of the Clean Air Act is to assure that by the year 2000, there will be a reduction of at least 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide from 1980 levels. The bill also calls for a reduction in pollutants that contribute to the depletion of ozone. Strict regulations of toxic air emissions would have to be established and enforced.Additionally, the Clean Air Act would establish specific acid-rain reduction quotas and enforce severe penalties for transgressors of any of the new clean air regulations.There is little doubt that mass-transit suppliers will be considerably affected by this new legislation, just as the chemical and petroleum industries have already been affected by similar legislation. Transit authorities are challenged to strike a difficult balance between complying with the governments new standards and developing an official concern for the environment, while continuing to fulfill the transportation needs of the general population.Among the areas addressed by the Clean Air Act, the topic of mobile resources is of particular interest to mass transit authorities. Provisions contained in the Act under this title are aimed at encouraging the development and practical use of alternative fuel sources, like solar energy and methane fuel. The goal of this section of the Act is to eradicate toxic fuel emissions in order to provide cleaner air and a more favorable environment. The Act even goes so far as to declare that in cities like New York, Los Angeles and Houston where air quality is particularly noxious and toxins exceed the limits of federal regulations forms of mass transit should run on so-called "clean-burning fuels" by the year 2000. Such fuels include reformulated gasoline, propane, electricity, natural gas, ethanol, methanol, or any similar type of low-emission fuel. In addition, the Act proposes that, by 1994, all new urban buses in cities with populations exceeding one million must operate solely on clean-burning fuels.The topics of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles represent, by far, the most controversial issue in the Clean Air Act. President Bush has called alternative fuels "bold and innovative" means to control pollution, but according to many transportation experts, the Act’s proposals on alternative fuel usage are unrealistic. The transit authorities recognize that concern for the environment and health hazards like pollution are global issues. However, most transit officials concur that inventing and developing new ways to fuel mass transit will take at least 50 years to realize. They point out that the Act does not mention the political and social ramifications of usurping the role of the petroleum industries. The Act does not mention if or how the thousands of people employed by the oil industry will get retrained to produce and implement the use of "clean" fuel.No one disputes the fact that people need some form of transportation to get from place to place. Preserving the environment should be a priority, yet we need to remember that even if toxic emissions are completely eliminated sometime in the future, the challenge of moving mass numbers of people where they want to go will still exist and must remain a priority. Transit authorities contend that unless the Clean Air Act also acknowledges this, and develops a way to encourage mass transit over personal transportation, the problems of pollution might not be significantly altered. They suggest that there are many areas in this country that have little or no mass transit and that, if the Clean Air Acts goal is to reduce pollution, perhaps the most practical and realistic means to achieve that goal is to encourage the development and maintenance of mass transit systems.Which of the following statements about transit officials reactions to the Clean Air Act is LEAST supported by the passage?
At a recent meeting of the American Public Transit Association, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stringent new standards for pollution control. The transit authorities were particularly concerned about the implementation of a proposed "Clean Air Act." They believed the provisions of the Clean Air Act could severely affect basic services to their local communities. Many transit agencies were concerned that it would be difficult to comply with the pollution and emissions control standards while continuing to operate within realistic budgets.The aim of the Clean Air Act is to assure that by the year 2000, there will be a reduction of at least 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide from 1980 levels. The bill also calls for a reduction in pollutants that contribute to the depletion of ozone. Strict regulations of toxic air emissions would have to be established and enforced.Additionally, the Clean Air Act would establish specific acid-rain reduction quotas and enforce severe penalties for transgressors of any of the new clean air regulations.There is little doubt that mass-transit suppliers will be considerably affected by this new legislation, just as the chemical and petroleum industries have already been affected by similar legislation. Transit authorities are challenged to strike a difficult balance between complying with the governments new standards and developing an official concern for the environment, while continuing to fulfill the transportation needs of the general population.Among the areas addressed by the Clean Air Act, the topic of mobile resources is of particular interest to mass transit authorities. Provisions contained in the Act under this title are aimed at encouraging the development and practical use of alternative fuel sources, like solar energy and methane fuel. The goal of this section of the Act is to eradicate toxic fuel emissions in order to provide cleaner air and a more favorable environment. The Act even goes so far as to declare that in cities like New York, Los Angeles and Houston where air quality is particularly noxious and toxins exceed the limits of federal regulations forms of mass transit should run on so-called "clean-burning fuels" by the year 2000. Such fuels include reformulated gasoline, propane, electricity, natural gas, ethanol, methanol, or any similar type of low-emission fuel. In addition, the Act proposes that, by 1994, all new urban buses in cities with populations exceeding one million must operate solely on clean-burning fuels.The topics of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles represent, by far, the most controversial issue in the Clean Air Act. President Bush has called alternative fuels "bold and innovative" means to control pollution, but according to many transportation experts, the Act’s proposals on alternative fuel usage are unrealistic. The transit authorities recognize that concern for the environment and health hazards like pollution are global issues. However, most transit officials concur that inventing and developing new ways to fuel mass transit will take at least 50 years to realize. They point out that the Act does not mention the political and social ramifications of usurping the role of the petroleum industries. The Act does not mention if or how the thousands of people employed by the oil industry will get retrained to produce and implement the use of "clean" fuel.No one disputes the fact that people need some form of transportation to get from place to place. Preserving the environment should be a priority, yet we need to remember that even if toxic emissions are completely eliminated sometime in the future, the challenge of moving mass numbers of people where they want to go will still exist and must remain a priority. Transit authorities contend that unless the Clean Air Act also acknowledges this, and develops a way to encourage mass transit over personal transportation, the problems of pollution might not be significantly altered. They suggest that there are many areas in this country that have little or no mass transit and that, if the Clean Air Acts goal is to reduce pollution, perhaps the most practical and realistic means to achieve that goal is to encourage the development and maintenance of mass transit systems.The main goal of the "Mobile Resources" section of the Clean Air Act is to:
At a recent meeting of the American Public Transit Association, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stringent new standards for pollution control. The transit authorities were particularly concerned about the implementation of a proposed "Clean Air Act." They believed the provisions of the Clean Air Act could severely affect basic services to their local communities. Many transit agencies were concerned that it would be difficult to comply with the pollution and emissions control standards while continuing to operate within realistic budgets.The aim of the Clean Air Act is to assure that by the year 2000, there will be a reduction of at least 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide from 1980 levels. The bill also calls for a reduction in pollutants that contribute to the depletion of ozone. Strict regulations of toxic air emissions would have to be established and enforced.Additionally, the Clean Air Act would establish specific acid-rain reduction quotas and enforce severe penalties for transgressors of any of the new clean air regulations.There is little doubt that mass-transit suppliers will be considerably affected by this new legislation, just as the chemical and petroleum industries have already been affected by similar legislation. Transit authorities are challenged to strike a difficult balance between complying with the governments new standards and developing an official concern for the environment, while continuing to fulfill the transportation needs of the general population.Among the areas addressed by the Clean Air Act, the topic of mobile resources is of particular interest to mass transit authorities. Provisions contained in the Act under this title are aimed at encouraging the development and practical use of alternative fuel sources, like solar energy and methane fuel. The goal of this section of the Act is to eradicate toxic fuel emissions in order to provide cleaner air and a more favorable environment. The Act even goes so far as to declare that in cities like New York, Los Angeles and Houston where air quality is particularly noxious and toxins exceed the limits of federal regulations forms of mass transit should run on so-called "clean-burning fuels" by the year 2000. Such fuels include reformulated gasoline, propane, electricity, natural gas, ethanol, methanol, or any similar type of low-emission fuel. In addition, the Act proposes that, by 1994, all new urban buses in cities with populations exceeding one million must operate solely on clean-burning fuels.The topics of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles represent, by far, the most controversial issue in the Clean Air Act. President Bush has called alternative fuels "bold and innovative" means to control pollution, but according to many transportation experts, the Act’s proposals on alternative fuel usage are unrealistic. The transit authorities recognize that concern for the environment and health hazards like pollution are global issues. However, most transit officials concur that inventing and developing new ways to fuel mass transit will take at least 50 years to realize. They point out that the Act does not mention the political and social ramifications of usurping the role of the petroleum industries. The Act does not mention if or how the thousands of people employed by the oil industry will get retrained to produce and implement the use of "clean" fuel.No one disputes the fact that people need some form of transportation to get from place to place. Preserving the environment should be a priority, yet we need to remember that even if toxic emissions are completely eliminated sometime in the future, the challenge of moving mass numbers of people where they want to go will still exist and must remain a priority. Transit authorities contend that unless the Clean Air Act also acknowledges this, and develops a way to encourage mass transit over personal transportation, the problems of pollution might not be significantly altered. They suggest that there are many areas in this country that have little or no mass transit and that, if the Clean Air Acts goal is to reduce pollution, perhaps the most practical and realistic means to achieve that goal is to encourage the development and maintenance of mass transit systems.Transit authorities feel that the Act errs in NOT:
In the early nineteenth century a large number of communal experiments, both secular and religious, sprang up in the northeastern United States. Perhaps the most famous secular commune was Brook Farm, founded by transcendentalists George Ripley and William H. Channing to promote the pursuit of leisure and culture through the proper application of time and labor. Its members (among the more notable were Nathaniel Hawthorne and Margaret Fuller) pursued field labor by day, art and philosophy by night. For a time the system worked so well that two afternoons a week were set aside for leisure and Brook Farm began outcompeting local farmers at the produce market. But by nature the Farms members were thinkers, not workers; despite their success they remained mainly interested in the theoretical and philosophical implications of the experiment. Thus, when a devastating fire brought the community considerable financial burdens in its fifth year, the members felt little compunction about closing shop and returning to their comfortable Boston homes.One of the most notable religious utopias was the Oneida community. Its founder, John Humphrey Noyes, believed that Christs second coming had already occurred and that everyone alive was favored by Divine grace, which Noyes saw as an imperative to live a better life. Perhaps surprisingly, the Oneidans embraced industry and commerce, achieving success in fruit packing, trap making, and silk thread winding. They owned everything communally, and this principle extended to each other. The Oneidans saw monogamy as a selfish act and asserted that the men and women of the community were united in one "complex" marriage; sex between any two consenting members was perfectly acceptable. The Oneidans maintained order solely through "criticism"—anyone acting out of line was made to stand before the other members and hear his or her faults recounted. Oneida remained viable for some thirty years, until the leadership devolved on Noyes son, an agnostic. The old religious fervor died out, and the dream degenerated into a joint stock company.Doubtless the most successful communalists were the Shakers, so called for the early propensity to tremble ecstatically during religious worship. Their guiding light, Mother Ann, espoused four key principles: Virgin Purity, Christian Communism, Confession, and Separation from the World. Though the Shakers were less adamant on the last pointmaintaining social relations and some commerce with heir neighborsthey insisted on the other three, and renounced both personal property and sex. Men and women lived in a single large "Unitary Dwelling" and were considered complete equals, but they occupied separate wings and could speak together only if a third person were present. Despite their religious strictness, Shakers were known as simple, sincere, intelligent people, healthy and long- lived, producers of lovely books and hymns, and of furniture still prized for its quality and durability. In their eyday, six thousand Shakers lived in fifty-eight separate"families" throughout the Northeast. Later their celibacy, combined with their strict discipline, led to a decline in numbers, but even today a small number of elderlyShakers in two communities in Maine and New Hampshire continue to keep the faith.The passage implies that the end of the Brook Farm experiment was probably brought on by:
