2 . Twenty-four trains, nine countries, 13, 500 miles. They are the numbers behind the heroic round trip one man took from Southampton in the UK to eastern China.

Roger Tyers, 37, used over $2, 500, which was almost twice more than the cost of a return flight, to travel to the Chinese port city Ningbo for academic research in May, 2019. The man spent a month on board 15 trains during the first leg of his round trip. It was the climate crisis, not a love of trains, that drove the sociologist to choose this complicated route over a return flight. He stopped flying when UN climate experts warned that the world had less than 11 years to avoid terrible levels of global warming. Tyers calculated that his train journey to China produced almost 90% less emissions than a return flight.

Tyers is not the only person to avoid air travel in response to climate change. Thousands of people worldwide have publicly promised to stop flying. Activist Maja Rosen launched the “Flight Free” campaign in Sweden with the goal of encouraging 100,000 people not to fly for one year. Although only around 14,000 people signed the online “#flightfree2019” pledge (保证), Rosen, who stopped flying 12 years ago, says that the campaign had made more people worry about the climate crisis and aware of harm of travel by air and motivated them to try new ways of travelling.

According to a survey released in May 2019 by Swedish Railways (SJ), 37% of respondents chose to travel by train instead of by plane where possible, compared to 20% at the start of 2018. An SJ spokesperson said: “Rail travel has been augmented due to the worries.” Domestic passenger numbers in July fell by 12% compared to the previous year, according to Swedavia, a company which operates Sweden’s 10 busiest Airports.

“The collective pledge helps fight the sense of hopelessness many people feel when it comes to tackling climate change”, Rosen said. “One of the problems is that people feel there’s no point in what you do as an individual. The campaign is about making people aware that if we do this together, we can actually bring changes.”

3 . Twenty-four trains, nine countries, 13, 500 miles. They are the numbers behind the heroic round trip one man took from Southampton in the UK to eastern China.

Roger Tyers, 37, used over $2, 500, which was almost twice more than the cost of a return flight, to travel to the Chinese port city Ningbo for academic research in May, 2019. The man spent a month on board 15 trains during the first leg of his round trip. It was the climate crisis, not a love of trains, that drove the sociologist to choose this complicated route over a return flight. He stopped flying when UN climate experts warned that the world had less than 11 years to avoid terrible levels of global warming. Tyers calculated that his train journey to China produced almost 90% less emissions than a return flight.

Tyers is not the only person to avoid air travel in response to climate change. Thousands of people worldwide have publicly promised to stop flying. Activist Maja Rosen launched the “Flight Free” campaign in Sweden with the goal of encouraging 100,000 people not to fly for one year. Although only around 14,000 people signed the online “#flightfree2019” pledge (保证), Rosen, who stopped flying 12 years ago, says that the campaign had made more people worry about the climate crisis and aware of harm of travel by air and motivated them to try new ways of travelling.

According to a survey released in May 2019 by Swedish Railways (SJ), 37% of respondents chose to travel by train instead of by plane where possible, compared to 20% at the start of 2018. An SJ spokesperson said: “Rail travel has been augmented due to the worries.” Domestic passenger numbers in July fell by 12% compared to the previous year, according to Swedavia, a company which operates Sweden’s 10 busiest Airports.

“The collective pledge helps fight the sense of hopelessness many people feel when it comes to tackling climate change”, Rosen said. “One of the problems is that people feel there’s no point in what you do as an individual. The campaign is about making people aware that if we do this together, we can actually bring changes.”

4 . If a cat or a dog shares your home, I’ll take a wild guess that you don’t refer to the four-footed family member who licks your face, naps in your lap, sleeps on your bed as “it”. You probably call them by a name; and refer to them as “he” or “she” and various nicknames inspired by their personality and habits.

A group of more than 80 people with an interest in animal welfare, including Dr Jane Goodall, have signed a letter calling on the editors of the Associated Press Stylebook to change their guidance so that animals in news stories would be identified as “she/her/hers and he/him/his when their sex is known, regardless of species, and the gender-neutral they, or he/she, or his/hers when their sex is unknown. ”

News organizations often follow the guidance of the AP Stylebook. The signatories of this letter hope that when we write about animals in zoos, shelters, fields, farms, forests, seas and labs, they are recognized as living beings who feel: hunger, fear, happiness and pain. It would mean writing sentences like, “The rat was injected with the virus ... ” or, “The deer was struck by the car ... ” and “he, she or they died”-not it.

The proposed change might seem difficult to imagine right now. But consider how the care we take with personal pronouns for humans has changed over the past several years. Ben Dreyer, copy chief at Random House and author of the bestseller Dreyer’s English. An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style, says these changes remind us that thoughtful adjustments to our language don’t have to wait for a stylebook.

Laura Hillenbrand, author of Seabiscuit and other bestselling books, told us that if we don’t refer to animals in personal terms, “we open ourselves to abusing, neglecting, and exploiting creatures whose capacity (能力) for suffering is no less than our own. Referring to animals in personal terms may help us recognize how much of life we share. ”

5 . Right at this moment, cockroaches (蟑螂) are doing more to save the environment than you are. A big overstatement? Not if you’ve ever thrown away leftovers from your plate or bought more food than you could manage to cook in a week. You’re part of the food waste problem. But just like cockroaches, you can also be part of the solution.

For example, some farmers in Asia and Africa collect tomatoes in big bags, which means that many of them get crushed out of shape and spoiled before they can be sold or eaten. Switching the bags for large wooden containers already lowers the amount of food lost. Similar successes can and have been achieved in various regions with weather-protected storage facilities.

Let’s focus on China for a second. It’s one of the few countries with an innovative approach to minimizing the environmental impact of food waste. How does it do it? Cockroaches. Millions of the tiny creatures are kept in farms in the suburban districts of big cities. Every morning, food waste is delivered by the tonnes and fed to the cockroaches. Just like tiny pigs, they’re not picky and devour everything quickly. After they die, they’re processed into protein-rich feed for animals such as cows or sheep, or used for cosmetic products and Chinese medicine. It’s an efficient and environmentally-friendly alternative to dumping leftover food in a landfill. Cockroaches aren’t going to solve the problem with food waste, but they can serve as an inspiration for finding other similar solutions on a wider scale.

To avoid food waste completely, improvements are needed at every step of the food supply chain, from production to retail. These take time and are often out of your hands as a consumer. But a meaningful reduction of food waste is definitely in your hands. You can not only buy less and shop more often, but also cut down on animal products.

6 . The green, natural forest absorbs carbon dioxide from the air through photo- synthesis (光合作用). There is another way of dealing with the climate crisis. That is setting up fields of dark-colored solar panels (太阳能电池板), also known as “solar forests”, which replace power stations that use fossil fuels such as coal and gas to make electricity, thus mitigating harmful emissions (排放) of greenhouse gases.

But since they are both relatively dark, they absorb a lot of solar radiation. Some of the energy is used for photosynthesis in natural forests or to produce electricity in “solar forests”, but most returns to the atmosphere, heating it up. Then what would be the more effective land use option in terms of the climate crisis: planting a forest, or building solar panels? This issue has long been debated by decision-makers around the world. Now, we may have an answer, thanks to a new study.

First, the researchers compared the impact of a forest on the climate crisis in a dry area to that of a solar farm in a similar environment. The researchers found that the albedo effect (反射效应) of both of these “forests” was similar, but that the absorption or prevention of carbon emissions was very different. It turns out that it takes 2.5 years for the heat emitted by solar farms to be balanced by the carbon emissions that are avoided, thanks to the energy they produce. In the case of a natural forest of similar size, it would take more than 100 years of photosynthesis to balance its heating effect.

The researchers also studied how the heating-cooling relationship changed in other climates and found that in more humid environments, the heating effect of planting large numbers of trees is smaller. And the break-even point is reached within 15 to 18 years.

“In dry places, building solar forests seems far more effective in addressing the climate crisis. Meanwhile, forests absorb about a third of annual carbon emissions and play a vital role in the global rain cycle, in maintaining biodiversity and in many other environmental and social contexts. Preventing them from being cut down and planting more trees in humid areas are of great significance,” explains one of the researchers in the study.