2 . Trapping used to be a way to make a good living. That has certainly changed over the past several years. The demand for furs is nearly gone. Environmentalists think trapping is wrong.     1    

Martin started trapping when he was nine. He makes a pretty good living by trapping animals like rabbits, foxes, etc. He traps enough animals to make up for low fur prices. “    2     I can make up for low fur prices by bringing in more than the average trapper,” he said. Farmers also hire Martin to trap annoying animals. He receives two dollars for each gopher he traps. The Department of Natural Resources has also contracted with Martin. About twelve times a year, he traps beavers that have destroyed private land.

    3     For example, his home is filled with animal skins. It’s also not easy. for him to take a day off. State law requires that traps be checked every day. “It can be very hard work,” Martin said.     4     “Then, I spend the rest of the evening skinning animals and preparing for the next day. I really don’t get a day off during trapping season.”

As a full-time trapper, Martin worries about the views people have of his profession. He thinks that most anti-trapping groups don’t understand that trapping animals helps in the long run. “    5     They don’t understand the animals’ environment,” he said. “There are areas where I can’t trap right . now. Most of the animals in those areas are sick with disease because of the lack of food and overpopulation. I’d like to show anyone who is against trapping some of the terrible things I’ve seen.”

6 . As global warming becomes more and more serious, each one of us must take action to help.

Changing what you eat could easily have a significant effect because animal agriculture creates about 14% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (排放).     1     Each kilo consumed produces 26.5 kilos of CO2 emissions, five times more than chicken or turkey. Changing to plant-based diets could reduce emissions greatly.

Nearly all transport relies on fossil fuels. In the US, driving one mile in an average 2016 car emits 404 grams of CO2 equivalents per mile. But taking nearly any other means of transport will reduce CO2 emissions.     2    

    3     But a few quick changes can make a difference. Switch from incandescent (白炽灯) lights to LEDs. They use a quarter of the energy and last 25 times longer. And taking for showers, the average water heater is set to 140 degrees Fahrenheit. But bringing it down by 20 degrees can save 250 kilograms of CO2.

Think before you buy. The fashion industry creates about 10% of global greenhouse emissions and consumes more energy than flight and shipping combined.     4     If you' re buying food, bring your own containers and just get the amount you need.

Plant a garden instead of building a yard out of cement (水泥), the production of which creates 8% of global CO2 emissions a year.     5    

So from a burger to a cyclist, no one thing will have a big influence, but lots of little things can.

8 . People use laughter to connect and bond with others. It’s how we tell friends that we find their jokes funny, or how kids in a park show that they are having fun. Laughter is so important to humans, even if they belong to different cultures or speak different languages. What about animals? Scientists are studying if there is a connection between animals’ laughing and playing.

Sasha Winkler, from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), studies biological anthropology (人类学)，including the study of animal behavior. She noticed that the small monkeys she worked with, liked to play together by chasing each other. While having fun together, they made panting (喘气) sounds, almost like they were out of breath, which reminded Winkler of their quiet laughter. This made Winkler wonder whether other animals did so while they were playing.

To find out whether other animals laugh and play, Winkler teamed up with another scientist named Greg Bryant, a professor and vice chair in the Department of Communication at UCLA. Together, they found and read dozens of reports written by other scientists who study animals. Winkler and Bryant looked for any mentions in any animal of sound signaling like the panting of the monkeys during their playing.

In April 2021, Winkler and Bryant published their findings in a science journal. Through their research, they identified 65 species or groups of animals, which laugh while playing. The animals that laugh the most include primates (灵长类) like monkeys and apes, rodents (啮齿动物) like rats, and mammals that live in the ocean like dolphins. Their work won’t only help us understand animals better but it could also help us understand how humans develop or change over time. Next, they will carry on more study to find more.

10 . In the struggle to survive the ever hotter deserts of California, there are winners and losers. Among the losers are desert birds, whose populations have fallen among the heat stress of climate change. The winners, it turns out, are small burrowing mammals（穴居哺乳动物）, which take refuge from the sun underground. Researchers noted that the stable mammals populations formed a striking contrast to the extremely bad condition of birds.

But why? Birds had a higher evaporative（蒸发）heat loss. Birds were more exposed to the effects of warming, so they had higher energy costs to maintain their body temperature. However, mammals were able to reduce their body temperature by using burrows during the day.

Temperatures have risen about 4 degrees Fahrenheit on average across the area studied, but the heat affects birds and small mammals differently. As part of the study, scientists modeled each species' body temperature and cooling needs under different desert conditions. To calculate that, they measured the conductivity（传导率）of the animals' fur or feathers, and used information on their heat reducing behaviors.

The models showed that in the fight against climate change, there was not a level playing field for furred and feathered desert animals. Cooling costs—or the resources needed to maintain stable body temperature—were about 3. 3 times higher for birds than they were for small mammals, the study reported.

Small mammals have shown this remarkable stability. It's really quite interesting that, in the same region, with the same level of climate change, these two species have responded very differently to the changes taking place. Insights into the status of different species can help scientists take steps to protect them, such as increasing fire prevention in high desert areas, and enhancing water sources in those areas. The study also demonstrates that climate change is already reshaping the California desert