2 .

Pesticides might just be a bee's worst enemy. They harm their brains, slow down their reproduction, and even kill their buzz. Now it seems they damage their social lives and reduce their ability to care for their young.

While previous studies have shown that commonly used neonicotinoid（新烟碱类）pesticides make bees sick and affect how they search for food and navigate, a new study gives more of an idea of how these chemicals affect the internal workings of a colony（种群）. Studying these effects has proved difficult, so the team employed a new technique. They stuck tiny QR codes to the backs of humblebees and tracked their movements using a robotic camera.

The researchers looked at 12 colonies housed in a lab, giving some the same level of imidacloprid—the world's most commonly used pesticide—that they'd be exposed to in the wild while keeping others pesticide-free as controls. They checked on them for a few minutes 12 times a day. The findings are published in the journal Science.

Unfortunately, the researchers found a number of obvious differences between the bees exposed to the pesticide and the controls. The bees given neonicotinoids spent less time interacting with other bees and more time resting. This pause in activity tended to happen more at night, but the researchers aren't sure why.

"Bees actually have a very strong circadian rhythm（生理节奏）," lead author James Crall explained in a statement. "So what we found was that, during the day, there was no statistically observable effect, but at night, we could see that they were crashing. We don't know yet whether the pesticides are destroying circadian gene regulation or if this is just some, maybe physiological feedback…But it suggests that, just from a practical perspective, if we want to understand or study these compounds, looking at effects overnight matters a lot."

3 . Think about a remote control. Something so simple in function is seemingly capable of invisible magic to most of us. Only few have any real idea of why a remote control works. The rest of us just assume it should. And the longer a given technology exits, the more we take it for granted.

Consider for a moment a screen showing modern remote control users versus the first remote control users： the original users would be carefully aiming the remote directly at the television, reading the names of the buttons, and intentionally pressing the button. The modern users would be leaning on a sofa, pointing the remote any which way, and instinctively feeling for the button they desired.

Humans are known for being handy with tools, so it is no surprise that we get so comfortable with our technology. However, as we become increasingly comfortable with how to use new technologies, rather than being humbled by is originality, we consumers often become unfairly demanding of what our technology should do for us Once wonderful new inventions （such as televisions） quickly became commonplace. The focus of consumer attitudes towards them changed from gratitude with respect to discriminating preference. Televisions needed to be bigger and have a higher resolution. Video games needed to be more realistic. Computers needed to be more powerful yet smaller in size.

For children of the last twenty years born into this modern life, these technological wonders seem like elements of the periodic （周期的） table： a given aspect that is simply part of the universe. Younger generations don't even try to imagine life without modern conveniences. They do not appreciate the unprecedented （史无前例的） technology that is in their possession； rather, they complain about the ways in which it fails to live up to ideal expectations. "My digital video recorder at home doesn't allow me to program it from my computer at work. "

If it sounds as though were never satisfied, we aren't. Of course our complaints do actually motivate engineers to continually refine their products. After all, the expectation is that someone, somewhere is working on how to make the existing product even better.

4 . We've all heard it before： to be successful, get out of bed early. After all, Apple CEO Tim Cook gets up at 3： 45 am, Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne at 3： 30 am and Richard Branson at 5： 45 am ﹣and, as we all know, "the early bird's catches the worm. "

But just because some successful people wake up early, does that mean it's a trait most of them share？ And if the idea of having exercised, planned your day, eaten breakfast, visualized and done one task before 8 am makes you want to roll over and hit snooze till next Saturday, are you really doomed to a less successful life？

For about half of us, this isn't really an issue. It's estimated that some 50% of the population isn't really morning or evening﹣oriented, but somewhere in the middle. Roughly one in four of us, though, tend more toward bright﹣eyed early risers, and another one in four are night owls. For them, the effects can go beyond falling asleep in front of the TV at 10 pm or being regularly late for work.

Numerous studies have found that morning people are more self﹣directed and agreeable. And compared to night owls, they plan for the future more and have a better sense of well﹣being.

Although morning types may achieve more academically, night owls tend to perform better on measures of memory, processing speed and cognitive （认知） ability, even when they have to perform those tasks in the morning. Night﹣time people are also more open and more creative. And one study shows that night owls are as healthy and wise as morning types ﹣and a little bit wealthier.

Still think the morning people sound more like CEO material？ Don't set your alarm for 5 am Just yet. As it turns out, overhauling （全面改革） your sleep time may not have much effect

"If people are left to their naturally preferred time, they feel much better. They say that they are much more productive. The mental capacity they have is much broader, " says Oxford University biologist Katharina Wulff. On the other hand, she says, pushing people too far out of their natural preference can be harmful. When they wake early, for example, night owls are still producing melatonin （褪黑素）. "Then you disrupt it and push the body to be in the daytime mode. That can have lots of negative physiological consequence. " Wulff says, like a different sensitivity to insulin and glucose （葡萄糖） which can cause weight gain.

5 . The conclusion of the Paris Agreement in 2015，in which almost every nation committed to reduce their carbon emissions(排放)，was supposed to be a turning point in the fight against climate change.But many countries have already fallen behind their goals.Meanwhile emissions worldwide continue to rise.

The only way to catch up is to aggressively pursue an approach that takes advantage of every possible strategy to reduce emissions.Wind and solar energy are usually part of this effort，but it must also include investing heavily in carbon capture(碳捕捉)，utilization(应用)and storage(CCUS)—a range of technologies that pull carbon dioxide from the air，and transform it into useful materials or store it underground.Although CCUS has been opposed as too expensive and unproved，recent gains have made it far more effective.Improvements such as chemical compounds could drive the cost down from $1 00 per ton of captured carbon in 20 16 to $ 20 per ton by 2025，according to a 2016 article in Science.

Three primary CCUS paths lead to the reduction of carbon emissions:retrofitting(改装)existing power plants；reducing emissions in industries that cannot run on renewable energy；and directly removing carbon from the air.Cutting emissions from existing electric power stations with CCUS could be made more appealing in a future with a circular carbon economy，in which captured carbon could be resold and recycled for other uses——for instance，serving as a raw material for making concrete or plastics.

The basic idea of carbon capture has faced a lot of opposition.Skepticism has come from climate change deniers，who see it as a waste of money，and from passionate supporters of climate action, who fear that it would be used to justify continued reliance on fossil fuels.Both groups are ignoring the recent advances and the opportunity they present.By limiting investment in decarbonization，the world will miss a major avenue for reducing emissions in a variety of industries.CCUS can also create jobs and profits from what was previously only a waste material by creating a larger economy around carbon.

The transition to clean energy has become necessary.But that transition’s ability to achieve deep decarbonization will become less effective without this wide range of solutions，which must include CCUS.