2 . Where does food waste go? In most countries around the world, it goes into landfills (垃圾填埋场). But not in South Korea. The country banned food waste in landfills nearly 20 years ago and today, it is turned into animal feed, fertilizers and fuel.

Around the globe, 1.4 billion tons of food is thrown away every year. The waste goes into landfills where it can pollute the land and water as well as releasing methane — a greenhouse gas — into the air. In fact, food waste is the third-largest source of methane in the US.

The system that is in place in South Korea keeps almost 100 percent of unused food out of landfills. While other cities and local governments have put similar plans in place, it is not done anywhere else on a country-wide basis.

There are two reasons why South Korea passed laws to carry out mandatory (强制性的) recycling of food waste. First, the country’s cooking tradition of numerous small dishes resulted in large amounts of uneaten food. This food waste went into landfills. But the country’s mountainous geography didn’t allow for enough landfills to be built. That’s why the government forced recycling of paper and plastic in 1995 but food waste continued to be buried in landfills. But it was the neighbors of these landfills that demanded that another solution be found due to the very unpleasant smell from rotting food. The government banned organic waste from landfills in 2005. Another law that was passed in 2013 banned dumping liquid food waste in the ocean.

The system is not free but most of the cost is absorbed by the country. People can buy yellow recycling bags that are picked up on the roadside and some local governments have placed autonomous food waste collectors that require residents to pay a weight-based fee by using cards.

The food waste is collected from the bins every day except Sunday. Some of it is used to make animal feed or fertilizers and some is used to make fuel.

3 . Gardeners who use pesticides are contributing to the decline of British songbirds, a study suggests. Scientists have urged people to stop “spraying their gardens with poisons” in order to halt bird decline and adopt instead wildlife-friendly practices. The results of the University of Sussex study, which researchers call the first of its kind, were published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

The experiment, which surveyed 615 gardens in Britain, found 25% fewer house sparrows when glyphosate (草甘膦) was used regularly. This is an ingredient found in commonly used herbicide (除草剂) brands such as Roundup or Gallup. Slug pellets (鼻涕虫杀虫剂) also seemed to have an impact on bird sightings; in gardens where Slug pellets were used, house sparrow numbers were down by almost 40%.

Prof. Dave Goulson, of the school of life sciences at the University of Sussex, said, “The UK has 22 million gardens, which collectively could be a fantastic refuge for wildlife, but not if they are overly tidy and sprayed with poisons. We just don’t need pesticides in our gardens. Many towns around the world are now pesticide free. We should simply ban the use of these poisons in urban areas, following the example of France.” The Royal Horticultural Society, the UK’s leading gardening charity, said the use of pesticides and herbicides should be avoided if possible and they should only be used, if ever, in small and targeted applications.

The research also found that those who adopted wildlife-friendly practices such as planting native shrubs and flowers, or digging a wildlife pond, saw more birds than those who did not. Cannelle Tassin de Montaigu, a PhD researcher within the school of life sciences and an author of the study, said, “It’s encouraging to find that simple measures, such as planting native shrubs and trees and creating a pond, together with avoiding the use of pesticides, really make a measurable difference to the number of birds you will see in your garden.”

4 . Hurricane season is here. Fiona ruined Puerto Rico, and less than two weeks later, Ian struck the west coast of Florida and its remnants(残余部分) moved up and hit the Eastern Seaboard.

Extreme weather events like Ian and Fiona have become more intense because of climate change. That reality has implications for those of us in health care. We have a duty to protect and advance the health of our patients.

We typically think of health as something doctors monitor, offering treatment such as prescription medications as needed. But in reality, only about 20% of a person's health is attributable to the medical care they receive. Social determinants such as people's neighborhood and socioeconomic status are actually responsible for 40% of a person's health outcomes. It's a sad truth that a ZIP code can be more predictive of a person's health than his or her genetic code.

Consider how extreme weather events such as this summer's heat waves affected communities unequally. Poor urban neighborhoods, with sparse tree cover but plenty of concrete and asphalt, absorb and retain the heat of the sun's rays, while leafy, shaded countrysides just a few miles away stay much cooler. A University of California–San Diego study that measured land surface temperatures in over 1,000 counties across the United States found that neighborhoods with the lowest average education and income levels generally recorded higher temperatures.

Extreme weather events such as flood can threaten people's physical and mental health long after it recedes. Almost 1 in 3 people in the flooded area were estimated to have suffered from certain post-traumatic stress disorder. Therefore, physicians in regions at increased risk of natural disasters may need to be ready to deliver more mental health care. For example, doctors in drought-stricken areas may need to make water safety a part of their conversations with patients, because groundwater sources can become unsafe to drink without sufficient rainfall.

Climate change has posed an immediate and dire health threat. Now is the time for health care providers to take collective action to adapt to this unfortunate reality.

6 . Nowadays, taking no notice of protecting the environment leads to problems including global warming. While discussing with my daughter about going green, I remembered the daily practices in most households in India. What we did was actually helping our environment and also protecting our resources. We did all this naturally, without even realizing its importance.

We preferred reusing pens in the past. We used to have ball pens used again and again by changing the refills and we also used ink pens, which were refreshed now and then by filling ink in them when required. There was no such thing as a use-and-throw pen. We loved the process of cleaning the writing instruments. However, today, plastic pens that do not last long are ruling the stationery（文具）shops.

We recycled and reused newspapers without really thinking twice about it. Newspapers were kept carefully during those days because they were an important material used for packing and storing. Today plastic bags have become important, All these materials pollute our land and water and prevent all conservation(保护)efforts.

Public transport was a common thing in the old days and it was so much fun. Nowadays.no one seems to have the patience to take public transport and many consider it too silly for them. So people take their cars out every day and pollute the environment, thinking it makes the m look cool. Vehicular (车辆的) pollution in cities is the biggest contributor to environmental problems.

I am not against the usage of modern technologies. In fact, it has helped make our life casier. While we can use the same technology to go green instead of polluting the environment, we should also go back to a few old traditions that are ecofriendly.