【推荐1】A new coffee culture is forming in and around San Francisco, California. A growing number of coffeehouses there are barring paper cups. Instead, they are using glass containers or creating “bring your own cup” policies. The movement started among neighborhood cafes in an effort to reduce waste. Now it is gaining support from large businesses in the city—and around the country.

Famous cook Dominique Crenn is opening a cafe in San Francisco next year that will not use to-gabags, throw-away coffee cups or any plastic. Diners who plan to buy a to-go drink from boutique Crenn will be asked to bring their own coffee cups, a spokeswoman said.

The Blue Bottle coffeehouse company uses about 15,000 to-go cups each month at its 70 shops across the U.S. The company recently said it wants to “show our guests and the world that we can get rid of disposable (一次性的) cups”.

Blue Bottle plans to stop using paper cups at two of its stores next year. The move is part of a promise to produce “zero waste” by the end of next year.

Larger coffee and fast-food businesses around the U. S. are feeling a sense of urgency (紧急) to be more environmentally friendly, said Bridget Croke. She is with the New York-based investment company Closed Loop Partners. It is working with Starbucks and McDonald’s to develop a substitute (替代品) for the disposable coffee cup.

Today’s to-go cups for hot drinks are not only made from paper, they also have plastic to prevent leaking. This makes them hard to recycle, Croke said. She admitted that it is not likely that large national food and drink companies will stop using disposable cups totally or ask all customers to bring their own.

So, her company is looking for other solutions. In partnership with Closed Loop, Starbucks and McDonald’s paid $10 million to develop the “single-use cup of the future”. The result is expected to be recyclable and to break down naturally.

【推荐2】In 2019, the world generated 54.6 million tons of e-waste. However, just 17.4 percent of it was formally collected and recycled. Since 2014, the amount of e-waste recycled has grown by 1.8million tons a relatively small amount, considering that the amount of e-waste generated increased by 9.2 million tons in the same period.

Global reserves of some elements, such as platinum (铂), are supposed to be fully used up within 15 years if the proportion of recycled stocks entering production doesn’t increase.E-waste and EV batteries are currently recycled through processes called pyrometallurgy(火法冶金术) and hydrometallurgy (湿法冶金术) . However, they involve burning temperatures with a high energy demand and deep carbon footprint, and poisonous chemicals which are harmful to the environment. Alternatives are therefore being sought.

A team of scientists from the University of Coventry are extending one such alternative.They have been using non-poisonous bacteria to oxidize(使氧化) and recover the precious metals—a process known as “bioleaching”. They have shown that copper is widely recoverable from e-waste, and that all metals present in EV batteries can be recovered by using microbes(微生物).If extended, bioleaching facilities would mean that manufacturers of EV batteries and other electronic goods would be able to reco ver metals locally, relying less on costly exports to recycling centers abroad.

“At present, a key limitation for e-waste recycling is the lack of certification detailing the types and amounts of metals contained in electronic goods. But with an efficient recycling process appearing, manufacturers have the motivation to use more recycled material in their products, which will change the very design of electronics goods. It’s about closing the loop of a product’s life cycle,” said the leader of the Bioleaching Research Group, Sebastien Farnaud.

Ultimately, bioleaching technology is born out of the idea of creating a truly circular process for the things that we consume. We need to shift from a mindset and economy where we see waste as an end product, to one where there isn’t even a start or an end at all.

【推荐3】I am asked repeatedly why anyone would want to keep an “ugly” building or a building that is dirty and clearly in need of work. I guess you could say we preservationists (文物保护者) look at buildings through a different angle — an angle that can see the swan in the ugly duck, the story in the simple lines, and the book behind the cover.

The Queen Emma Building is remembered by many as one of the ugliest buildings in town. Yet the angle from which a preservationist views the building is that it is uniquely constructed with an artistical sun shield to block the sunlight, a decorative wall designers used concrete bricks to form. Unfortunately, it was removed in 2011, making the building one of many contemporary buildings in town.

Other times, when a beautiful site is replaced by a “horrible” building, people hate it and can’t get over their anger, even when that “horrible” building becomes an important part of our story. This is particularly true in San Francisco with many Victorian buildings, which are many. preservationists’ favorite. Yes, it was a tragedy that many Victorian buildings. got torn down several decades ago, but those losses also tell another important story. It tells the story of the 1950s and 1960s when there was hope for a more equal society with inexpensive housing for the working class. Should that history be wiped from our memories?

Preservation is not just about keeping pretty, well-kept buildings, but about holding on to parts of our history — not just the history of huge events, but the story of how everyone used to go to a certain corner market. Our history cannot be told only in buildings that meet someone’s criteria of beauty; sometimes our history is painful, but no less important.