【推荐2】As the coronavirus spreads, remote work arrangements preserve continuity and allow people to stay busy doing something familiar during a time of crisis. At first glance, telecommuting (远程办公) might not seem so bad.

While it works well for some, it doesn’t for everyone. Working remotely has widespread negative consequences, including people spending time working that they might otherwise have spent with family or friends – because they can easily cross their work-life boundaries, they end up working longer hours.

People who telecommute may also have trouble freeing themselves from work and from the technology that enables it, which contributes to the harmful consequences of reducing face-to-face time and personal interactions. When humans rely on technology, we may forget how essential these interactions are to human happiness.

As a university professor, my days consist of social interactions with students and colleagues. I generally find those conversations and the resulting relationships inspiring and rewarding. The coronavirus situation means that countless teachers like me face the possibility of standing in front of a camera instead of a classroom. I’d prefer doing that to canceling class, but I can’t help wondering whether my job, along with so many others, is about to experience a great and potentially permanent change.

I wonder how many faculty members might be laid off if the university decides teaching remotely is good enough, or how many people will be let go when their bosses realize they don’t need to show up every day, or even at all. Finally, here’s the most important question: whether people believe their firsthand, lived experiences can be replaced – and not just during a pandemic (大流行病).

The coronavirus will accelerate our rush into the arms of technology. Ironically, our faith in   technology may end up speeding up our own obsolescence (过时).

【推荐2】The government of India has announced that it will replace the single-use plastic cups used for tea in 7,000 train stations around the country with traditional clay cups called kulhads. This will reduce the amount of waste thrown away every day, thus helping further the government's goal of making India free from single-use plastics, and it will provide much-needed employment for two million potters.

Jaya Jaitly, a politician and handicrafts expert, has advocated since the early 1990s for clay cups to be reintroduced in train stations. She explained that employing potters to provide these cups was a way to support them at a time when they lost jobs due to "new Internet technology."

It is reported that a potter's average monthly income will increase from $34 to $135 a month. The government is distributing electric wheels to those who do not have them and funding a switch from wood-fueled to gas-fueled kilns(窑炉)in villages that already have gas devices for cooking. Jaitly said this would reduce smoke pollution.

She also said that one reason why earlier efforts to reintroduce kulhads failed was that the government was unwilling to accept non-standardized sizes and shapes of cups. This time they will have to accept it because the handmade pieces cannot possibly be the same, particularly with production being so scattered(分散). Variation in appearance is a small price to pay for the environmental benefits.

This is happy, hopeful news from India, a country that has long struggled to deal with plastic waste, partly because of its huge population and inadequate waste processing infrastructure across vast rural regions. This policy is an excellent example of getting at the root cause of a problem and fixing it, rather than just trying to clean up the mess afterward. To use the bathtub metaphor(比喻) that's commonly cited when talking about plastic pollution, this is like turning off the plastic-producing tap, instead of wasting time trying to mop up the overflow, wishing it would go away.

【推荐3】After about two weeks of intense negotiations in Paris, delegates from around the world reached an international agreement on Dec. 12 to address climate change. For the first time in history, 195 countries have promised to reduce greenhouse gas（GHG）emissions and to increase these reductions over time.

The agreement goes beyond requiring developed countries like the US to take actions to cut down emissions. It's a universal agreement requiring some form of action from every country, rich or poor.

The agreement sets the date for an emissions peak "as soon as possible". It would also limit warming worldwide to less than 2℃ above the levels in the 1800s. According to scientific studies 2℃ is the point at which climate change will bring destructive consequences to the planet, including rising sea levels, severe droughts, increased flooding, destructive storms, and widespread food and water shortages.

The deal also urges wealthy countries to set a non- binding goal of providing more than $100 billion（650 billion yuan）per year in public and private financing by 2020 for poorer countries to help them invest in clean energy and combat the impact of climate change.

The Paris deal asks countries to make voluntary promises based on an analysis of each country's economy, politics and technology. However, the deal also includes a series of legally binding（有约束力的）requirements. It requires countries to reconvene every five years, starting in 2020, with updated plans that would cut their further emissions. Countries will also be legally required to reconvene every five years starting in 2023 to publicly report on their progress.

The Paris deal alone won't solve global warming. Its effectiveness will depend on whether each country enacts（立法）their promise. But the deal "could be viewed as a signal to global financial and energy markets, triggering a fundamental shift away from investment in coal, oil and gas as primary energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear power", according to The New York Times.