2 . I recently had a conversation with a friend who was feeling very upset about work. Why? He thought his manager didn’t like him. He rarely heard much from his manager, and when his manager said something, it was about correcting some aspects of his work or giving him some constructive advice.

Not surprisingly, given my friend’s understandably anxious view of these workplace dynamics (动态), he was afraid of his annual performance evaluation. He was worried that his boss might even tell him that he wasn’t needed anymore. Accordingly, he considered looking around for another job — not because he really wanted to, as he liked the kind of work he was doing, but because he suffered from the kind of management.

The evaluation day came, and to his great surprise, rather than being harshly critical, his manager told him that he was doing a fine job and gave him a promotion.

The sad truth is, this kind of phenomenon is by no means unusual in the workplace. One recent survey showed that nearly half of the employees have considered leaving a job “due to lack of recognition”. Another similar study found 46 percent of the employees left a job “because they felt unappreciated”.

The good news is that, in this case, the damage was repaired before it was too late — before my friend was out the door and his company began the expensive and time-consuming process of hiring a new employee. But as the research noted above shows, workplace problems related to recognition and appreciation are as common as the office air we breathe.

This conforms with my personal experience; during my decades of corporate management, I saw similar appreciation issues all the time. When a job isn’t done well, nobody deserves anything, of course. But when a job is done well, if you’re an employee, it’s entirely natural to expect at least a bit of appreciation. So if you’re a manager, it’s a good idea to show some. It’s that simple.

3 . The idea that humans are facing a global extinction of experience of nature is popular, but is it true? To give more light on this issue, the scientists measured how the average distance from an individual’s home to the nearest area with low human impact changed in the last decade.

The scientists found that humans currently live 9.7 kilometers away from a natural area on average, which is 7% further away than in the year 2000. Europe and East Asia have the highest average distance to natural areas, such as 22 kilometers in Germany and 16 kilometers in France. The scientists also showed that tree cover within cities has declined worldwide since 2000, suggesting that the possibility for the urban population to access green spaces is reducing as well.

The scientists also systematically searched for scientific publications assessing a trend in experiences of nature, finding that the number of studies assessing these trends was very low (the number is 18), most of which are about the US, Europe and Japan. This shows that more studies should investigate the claim about the extinction of nature experience, especially in Africa and Latin America. The 18 studies found by the scientists show a decline in visits to nature parks in the US and Japan, a decrease in camping activities in the US, and a decrease in the number of flower species observed by Japanese children. They also find signs of decline in the use of natural elements in novels, songs and cartoons.

Despite these examples of decline, other interactions are increasing. Watching wildlife documentaries or interacting with wild animals in videogames is, for example, more common than a few years ago. “New ways of digitally interacting with nature have certainly emerged or increased in recent years,” says Dr Gladys Barragan-Jason. “But several former studies show that these vicarious interactions have a lesser effect on our sense of connection with nature than exposure to nature, such as visiting nature parks.”

4 . The Global Food Donation Policy Atlas has issued a recent report in order to recommend ways to increase food donations, reduce food waste, and fight hunger, which may help Kenyan leaders meet 2030 food waste reduction goals.

Food donation can reroute eatable food—that would otherwise give off greenhouse gasses in a landfill—to those experiencing hunger. According to the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, 3.5 million Kenyans, roughly 37 percent of the population, face severe hunger. At the same time, the Policy Atlas reports roughly 40 percent of food produced within Kenya goes to waste. But Broad Leib, Deputy Director of Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC), sees some promising changes. “While progress is not happening as quickly as needed, Kenya’s food loss index has been steadily reduced from 1,744 metric tons in 2017, to 1,531 in 2018, to 1,446 metric tons in 2019, indicating a steady improvement and national commitment to food loss reduction,” reports Broad Leib.

According to the Policy Atlas, motivating food donation with rewards is particularly important, which helps food donors and food recovery organizations make up for costs necessary for recovery, storing, processing, and transporting food for donation.

“A major driver of food waste is inconsistent or unclear date labels that cause confusion among all actors along the value chain and limit the ability of businesses to donate food. This increases the likelihood that much safe food will go to waste,” Broad Leib tells Food Tank. However, he acknowledges Kenya’s current dual (双的) date labeling laws. While food may lose its freshness over time, it is still eatable before expiration (到期). Dual date labeling on packaged foods reduces bewilderment by defining dates for both safety and quality. This helps reduce considerable waste and responsibility for donors.

Broad Leib believes that the private sector can also play a significant role in decreasing food waste in Kenya. It is vital for consumer education campaigns. FLPC’s research shows that public-private initiatives can help raise awareness among consumers and donors around issues of food waste and food donation.

5 . According to a new study from Oxford Economics, a rise in artificial intelligence will result in an increase in “income inequality” as they estimate that 20 million manufacturing jobs will be lost in the next 11 years. In China alone, there could be 14 million robots taking work currently done by humans by 2030. While in the United States, more than 1.5 million workers would have lost their employment to technology by 2030.

The report predicts the use of robots worldwide has increased to 2.25 million over the past two decades. The researchers said, “As a result of robotisation, tens of millions of jobs will be lost, especially in poorer economies that rely on lower-skilled workers, which will therefore translate into an increase in income inequality.”

However, the researchers noted how “robotisation” has the potential to boost productivity and economic growth. They predicted a 5.3 percent rise in global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030.The report said, “This means adding an extra $4.9 trillion per year to the global economy by 2030(in today’s prices).”

The report remained positive about the use of automation and urged lawmakers not to sand in the way of robots in the workplace, despite the threat of job losses.

The researchers said, “These findings should not lead policy-makers to seek to prevent the adoption of robot technology. Instead, the challenge should be to distribute the robot profits more evenly by helping workers prepare for and adapt to the big changes it will bring about. Explore all policy options from training, initiatives (新方案) and new welfare programs such as universal basic income.”

7 . Moving around Bogota can be a bit of a Jekyll-or-Hyde experience. On the one hand, the city is infamous (声名狼藉的)for having the world’s worst traffic. Yet, on the other, its cycling infrastructure is considered a good model of sustainable urban mobility, according to the Copenhagenize Index, which ranks bike-friendly cities. The Colombian capital generated a now-international movement in the 1970s called Ciclovia, which sees 1.5 million people cycle across 128km of car-free streets each Sunday morning.

So, when the pandemic reached its shores in mid-March, Bogota Mayor Claudia Lopez, an avid cyclist herself, introduced one of the world’s first plans to encourage bike travel, using traffic cones to create 76 km of temporary lanes.

“Everyone started using a bicycle, and they already knew how to get around on one because we have this bike culture thanks to the Ciclovia,” says Carlos Pardo, a local cycling advocate and senior advisor at the New Urban Mobility Alliance. Pardo got involved at the beginning of the pandemic by partnering with a local bikeshare company to provide 400 free e-bikes to health workers. Now, he’s busy persuading the public that the government’s new bike lanes should become permanent fixture (固定设施).

“Some drivers say, ‘you took away our lane’, but we’re saying, we took one car lane and made a two-lane bidirectional bike lane,” he explains. “So, you’re duplicating the effectiveness of the space, and moving more people per hour, per direction.”

Biking has enjoyed a renaissance (复兴) around the world as urban citizens avoid public transport for the relative safety of a two-wheeled commute. Now, many advocates like Pardo are working with local governments in the hope of turning these pandemic-response measures into lasting changes—ones that are more plausible now than ever after lockdowns provided an unprecedented (空前的)opportunities to fast-track infrastructure trials. The results of these urban planning experiments could not only radically shape the way we commute across global cities, but also make them more adaptable to future shocks.

9 . Charity is simple in theory: A heart warms, a hand reaches out. In practice, though, charity can become a troubled mix of motives (动机) and consequences. Giving can be driven by guilt (负罪感), duty, praise, or perhaps the hope that giving will somehow make up for past cruelty (残酷) or ignorance. Too little charity is far less than valuable. Too much can cause dependence, which makes the receiver continuously ask for more.

Giving from the heart is good. But critics (批评家) have long worried about misdirected charity that does more harm than good. In his 2012 book, Harmful Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Solve the Problem), Robert Lupton, an experienced social worker of 40 years of community work in inner-city Atlanta, argues that charity must not do for the poor what they can do for themselves.

Due to emergencies such as natural disasters, the afterward financial aid is greatly welcome. Mr. Lupton advocates (提倡) it should focus on the development of self-supporting. The task can be carried out via, for instance, offering microloans (小微贷款), hiring local builders and suppliers, and trying to found self-supported, locally owned and operated factories. What seldom works, he argues, are untargeted handouts from far-off providers and the sudden arrival of inexperienced volunteer-tourists hoping to earn personal reputation by digging wells or mending roofs that locals are perfectly able to take care of themselves.

Getting charity right isn’t easy. But from money raising to the rising in volunteering among Millennials (千禧一代), from the increasing worldwide willingness to give to the efforts by charity organizations to become more effective and fruitful, there is strong evidence that human beings’ ability of taking care of others is growing along with their ability to help without harming.

Charity can be as simple as holding the door for a stranger and as complex as a global campaign to get rid of malaria (疟疾). Charity works best when it returns the weak to strength, and helps a small town shaken by an earthquake get back on its feet. A successful charity is one that eventually is no longer needed.

10 . Last week came solid evidence that living in toxic Britain can seriously harm your health. Cardiologists at Queen Mary University of London found that even "safe" levels of air pollution are linked to heart abnormalities similar to those seen during the early stages of heart failure. Their study of almost 4,000 people was backed up by a major US study which showed that higher exposure to fine particles and nitrogen oxides is linked to an acceleration in the hardening of the arteries (动脉).

We have long known that air pollution leads to coughing, shortness of breath and irritation in the eyes, nose and throat. It is also clearly linked to respiratory diseases such as asthma and bronchitis, as well as diabetes and some cancers. It is now beyond doubt that children's health is greatly affected, and links have been made between it and Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, dementia and congenital birth defects.

The statistics are alarming. In the UK, more than 2 million people suffer from cardiovascular (心血管的) diseases, and nearly one in seven men and one in 12 women will go on to die from them. Heart disease costs the UK economy nearly £30 bn a year to treat, as much as the state spends on secondary education. It is one of the greatest single drains on the public purse. Britain, however, rejects common sense, and shows little sign that it wants to seriously address pollution any time soon.

Despite the mounting evidence of air pollution's costs and health impact, Britain has had to be dragged screaming through the courts to make it comply with minimal clean air guidelines and laws. Successive governments have continually tried to evade their legal responsibilities, spending millions of pounds fighting in the courts and lobbying the EU to be allowed to continue to pollute.

The government now has a new draft clean air strategy our for consultation until 14 August and claims to be acting faster to tackle air pollution than almost every other major developed economy. It pledges to halve the number of people living in places that do not meet World Health Organization pollution guidelines, and it propose to end the sale of new diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2040.

But intending to cut the air pollution bill by around 12.5% in 12 years and waiting 20 years to be rid of the worst vehicles seems criminally weak. Meanwhile, government is knowingly forging ahead with infrastructure plans that will inevitably increase air pollution. The effect will inevitably be to massively increase air pollution and health costs for millions of Britons.

So could the car-clogged streets of Sunder-land, Birmingham and London, where I lived for many years, have contributed to my disease and those of millions of others? Probably. Could the oil companies be responsible for far more than climate change? Certainly. Could Britain's monstrous and mounting bill for heart disease be partly due to the highly polluting diesel cars that governments so scandalously encouraged us to drive? Quite possibly.

What is certain is that air pollution is now an international scandal, and the cause of a health emergency that governments and industry have failed to address. It undoubtedly threatens life more than any war or disaster. When there are clear alternatives to burning fossil fuels then politicians who do not act to prevent it must stand accused not just of failing to act, but of condoning the mass poisoning of their people.