2 . The slogan of a University of Northern Iowa clothing exchange also serves as the perfect description of a fashion currently popular among students: thrifting-trading clothes with friends informally or through campus events and websites such as Swapstyle or at a thrift store.

Students are becoming increasingly vocal champions of this creative and commercial effort and the culture it represents. The act of thrifting is at the heart of the rise in students’ do-it-yourself (DIY) fashion shows and themed parties in which clothes must be handmade-composed of older, organic or recyclable items.

More broadly, the thrifting movement represents a generational switch built on five basic beliefs: old is new, mixing is far better than matching exchanging beats shopping, the best things in life are free (or incredibly cheap), and social responsibility is the new black.

According to recent campus and professional press reports, more students are thrifting so they can remain fashionable during the economic downturn.

They are giving up brand loyalty. They are also increasingly unwilling or unable to buy things at full price. Instead, they are seeking discounted ways to stand out stylistically, including making certain classic clothes the next big things.

“It’s often hard to find two of the same clothing items in a thrift store. You can leave knowing that the special outfit you are getting for your major event, no one will have,” Saint Xavier University rising senior Sydney Bennett confirms. “Because a lot of the items in thrift stores are classic, you will have a chance to showcase a ‘recycled style’ that is just like new for our generation.”

To this end, Bennett calls thrifting “a treasure hunt and shopping experience rolled into one ”.

3 . Meat is crucial for feeding the planet, leading scientists have said, as they warned it is not more environmentally-friendly to go vegan (素食).

Prof. Geoff Simm, Director of Global Academy Agriculture and Food Security at the University of Edinburgh, said, “I think livestock (家畜) farmers do feel they are being demonized (妖魔化).” Often the argument is made that going vegan would minimize land use, but the modelling studies that have been done demonstrate that’s not the case. We feel that while livestock production has a range of economic, social and environmental costs and benefits, the costs have perhaps been receiving far more attention recently than some of the benefits. Meat has massive social benefits. It’s an important source of dietary protein, energy, highly bioavailable micronutrients (微量营养素), even small amounts of animal-sourced food have a really important effect on the development of children, in the developing world on their cognitive and physical development and they are really important.

Prof. Mike Coffey, from Scotland’s Rural College, added, “It’s completely unnecessary to go vegan. If everybody went vegan it would be devastating for the UK environment. Animals bred for food help boost biodiversity.”

Researchers are currently attempting to breed more environmentally friendly cattle, which grow faster and eat less, which could further reduce the sector’s carbon footprint by reducing the amount of methane (甲烷) released by cows.

Prof. Coffey said that the difference in methane emissions from best and worst cattle was about 30 percent and that if all UK farmers used the most efficient animals this could reduce carbon emissions by nearly a third. But Prof. Coffey said the next stage will be trying to measure the methane given off by different breeds of cattle to find which are the lowest emitters. Prof. Coffey said that soon shoppers could be able to check meat labels to find out how much environmental impact their food has had. He added, “My expectation is that at some point in the near future there will be product labels that relates to the efficiency or carbon impact of the food.”

Professor Andrea Wilson, also of Edinburgh University, said more research was needed into the impact of veganism (绝对素食主义). She added, “We know a lot about the livestock sector because people have looked at it. We actually know very little about the vegan sector. The danger is we demonize one and jump too quickly to the other.”

4 . Coming upon a clear - cut in an old forest is a shocking experience. Tees large and small are collapsed one above the other in pile, and the ground is covered with the tracks of heavy machinery. Such was the scene when forest activist Zack Porter and I hiked a newly built logging (伐木) road in Green Mountain National Forest.

Clear - cutting in the American forests has long been widespread. But now, the Forest Habitat Creation Project represents new reasoning which is hotly debated - that clear - cutting benefits native creatures. The thinking is that clear - cutting done wisely can mimic natural disturbances, for example, from insect invasions or from storms overturning older trees that produce what ecologists call Early Successional Habitats - places where young trees and bushes get the upper hand and animals that depend on such habitat thrive.

The project also states that forests “can only be saved by being destroyed” - by keeping them young. Timber (木材) interests are enthusiastic about the approach because it lets them profit from cutting trees while claiming the significance of conservation. Hunting groups favor it because a younger, less thick forest makes it easier to find the game and birds they're tracking.

Nevertheless, Porter says, “Allowing some of the oldest standing trees in New England to be removed is equal to dereliction of duty on the part of the government, who sees the forests as commodities (商品).” “Forests can produce clean water, clean air, carbon storage, and biodiversity that we need,” he continues as we walk among lovely mixed hardwoods and evergreens that are cut down for logging. “We shouldn't be removing them for short - term gain.”

In this sense, Zack Porter's description of logging for wildlife for short - term gain - the short - term gain of favoring habitat for species people today want to see and hunt - is reasonable.