1 . Electric cars have been gaining popularity in recent years, and for good reason. Not only are they cost-effective in the long run, but they also offer many benefits for the environment. Here are three reasons why electric cars are great for the planet.

One of the biggest advantages of electric cars is that they produce zero emissions (排放). Unlike gasoline cars that emit harmful pollutants into the air, electric cars are powered by electricity that is generated from renewable sources such as wind or solar power. This means that when you drive an electric car, you’re not only saving money on gas, but you’re also helping to improve air quality.

Electric cars also save more energy than gasoline cars. When you drive a gasoline car, only about 20% of the energy made by the fuel is actually used to move the car forward. The rest of the energy is lost to heat and other things. Electric cars, on the other hand, convert (转化) almost 100% of the energy stored in the battery into motion. This means that electric cars can travel further on the same amount of energy, which is great news for the environment.

Another benefit of electric cars is that they reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Gasoline cars are powered by gasoline, which is a non-renewable resource that is taken from the earth. As we continue to use gasoline, we’re using the earth’s natural resources and contributing to climate change. By driving electric cars, we can reduce our need for gasoline and move towards renewable sources of energy.

In conclusion, electric cars offer many benefits for the environment, including zero emissions, energy efficiency, and reduced need on fossil fuels. As more people make the switch to electric cars, we can help to create a cleaner and more sustainable future for ourselves and for future generations.

4 . 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.

5 . 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.

6 . In the rich countries of the West, the electric vehicle revolution is well occurring. Climate-conscious consumers drive Teslas or Polestars for reasons of morality (道德) and fashion. Poorer countries are also experiencing a wave of electrified trend. In Bangladesh, electric three-wheeler taxis, known as tuk-tuks, are rapidly replacing gas-powered ones on the streets. Such electric vehicles are climate friendly, cost effective, and help reduce air pollution.

Yet a glance under the hood (引擎盖) of these vehicles shows a poisonous secret: each tuk-tuk runs on five massive lead-acid batteries (铅酸电池), containing almost 300 pounds of lead (铅) in total. Every year and a half or so, when those batteries need to be replaced and recycled, about 60 pounds of lead leaks into the environment. Battery recycling, often at small-scale unregulated factories, is a highly profitable (高利润的) but deadly business.

Lead is dangerous, and any exposure to it is harmful to human health. Lead that has entered the environment hurts people on an unexpected scale. The numerous ways lead enters air, water, soil, and homes across the developing world and the enormous damage it does to human health, wealth, and welfare cause one of the biggest environmental problems in the world yet receives little attention.

The World Bank estimates that lead kills 5.5 million people per year, making it a bigger global killer than AIDS, malaria, diabetes, and road traffic deaths combined. On top of the shocking deaths, the social burden of lead poisoning is heavy, as is its contribution to global inequality — our research on the cognitive (认知的) effects of lead poisoning suggests that it may explain about one-fifth of the educational achievement gap between rich and poor countries.

But unlike many challenges faced by developing countries, lead poisoning is a problem that can be resolved through financial investment (财政投入). Better monitoring, research, and rules can help protect children all over the world from the unpleasant effects of lead poisoning and reduce the massive global costs it brings.

10 . Sarah Toumi, a young girl growing up in France, had a dream of becoming a leader who could make a positive impact on the world. Her desire to help others was awakened when she accompanied her Tunisian father to his hometown in the eastern part of Tunisia during vacations. During her time there, she organized homework clubs and activities for children. Toumi personally witnessed the negative effects of desertification (沙漠化). She realized that within 10 years, wealthy farmers had become worse off. Toumi was determined to stop the progression of the Sahara Desert. Due to a decrease in average rainfall and an increase in severe droughts (干旱), nearly 75% of Tunisia’s agricultural lands are currently at risk of desertification.

Toumi understood the need for a change in farming practices. She firmly believed that even small plots of land could bring significant returns if farmers were willing to adapt. This adaptation involved planting sustainable crops, using advanced water treatment technologies, and using natural products and fertilizers (肥料) instead of chemical alternatives.

In 2012, Toumi took a decisive step towards realizing her dream of fighting desertification. She moved to Tunisia and set up a program called Acacias for All, with the aim of putting her sustainable farming ideas into action. “I want to show young people in the countryside that they can create opportunities where they are. Nobody is better able to understand the impact of desertification and climate change than somebody who is living without water.”

By September 2016, over 130,000 acacia trees had been planted on 20 pilot farms, with a survival rate of 60% reported by farmers. Toumi estimates that around 3 million acacia trees are required to protect Tunisia’s farmland. She plans to plant 1 million trees by 2018. In the coming years, Toumi aims to promote the program to Algeria and Morocco.