The illegal ivory trade (象牙贸易) has been a major problem in Africa for decades. Poachers (偷猎者) and hunters have killed hundreds of thousands of elephants to obtain this precious material. Now the areas in which they do it are taking action. The International Union for Conservation (保护) of Nature (IUCN) announced on Dec 3 that key states     1     poaching takes place have made a promise to stop the ivory trade and protect Africa’s elephants.

Recently, top officials and experts from 30 states met to discuss how to protect Africa elephants. The conference,     2     (organize) by the IUCN and the government of Botswana, was held in Gaborone, Botswana’s capital city.

In     3    1980s, as many as 1 million elephants across Africa were killed for ivory. The ivory     4     (use) to make jewelry and other items. This continued until 1989,     5     the convention (大会) on International Trade in Species voted to ban all trade in ivory. Then, elephants’ population slowly began to increase.

According to the IUCN, 2011 saw the highest levels of poaching and illegal ivory trading in at least 16 years. Around 25,000 elephants were killed in Africa that year. “With an estimated 22,000 elephants illegally     6     (kill) in 2012, we continue to face a critical situation,” said John E. Scanlon, CITES Secretary- General.

At the meeting, key Africa states where elephants make     7     home agreed to develop a “zero-tolerance approach” to poaching. The deal calls for tough sentences for poachers and hunters, and increased cooperation between states where poaching and hunting is a big problem. All participants at the conference agreed to sign the deal. With these states     8     (come) together, there may be hope for elephants.

(A)

Concerns about microplastics are not new. They’ve been growing for more than a decade. Over the past two years, however, many creative solutions     1     (emerge)to address the problem on a local level, ranging from hoovering beaches to shooting bubbles up from river bottoms. Still, experts say there’s a need for a huge, coordinated effort     2     we want to curb the global issue: The world produces 400 million tons of plastic annually, and much of that material breaks down into tiny pieces that now pollute our planet.

The term microplastics was coined in 2004 by marine ecologist Richard Thompson after he discovered tiny bits of plastic littering British beaches. Since then, scientists have found microplastics—fragments less than 5 millimeters wide-nearly everywhere: in the deep sea, in Arctic ice, in the air. Even inside us.

A 2019 study in Environmental Science Technology estimated humans take in up to 100, 000 bits of plastic each day. It’s not just the physical presence of plastic inside the body     3     poses a potential problem; plastic’s chemical additives might affect different species’ tissues and organs, according to a 2021 study in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. However, there is disagreement in the literature as to how much microplastics     4     (harm)species, including humans. Some say larger pieces may pass right through our bodies while the     5     (tiny)pieces could enter our cells. More research is needed.

For a global view of this vast issue, some scientists in 2020 created a public database to track plastic removal innovations. For example, Hong Kong Polytechnic University researchers presented     6     unique idea in April at the Microbiology Society’s Annual Conference: a bacteria biofilm that could attract and trap microplastics at a wastewater treatment plant,     7     they flow into rivers and oceans.

3 . The water off the coast of northwest Greenland is a glass-like calm, but the puddles (水坑) on the region’s icebergs are a sign that a transformation is underway higher on the ice sheet.

Several days of unusually warm weather in northern Greenland have caused rapid melting, made visible by the rivers of meltwater rushing into the ocean. Temperatures have been running around 60 degrees Fahrenheit — 10 degrees warmer than normal for this time of year, scientists said.

The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 this year alone — 6 billion tons of water per day — would be enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Each summer, scientists worry that they will see a repeat of the record melting that occurred in 2019, when 532 billion tons of ice flowed out into the sea. An unexpectedly hot spring and a July heat wave that year caused almost the entire ice sheet’s surface to melt. Global sea level rose permanently by 1.5 millimeters as a result.

Greenland holds enough ice — if it all melted — to lift sea level by 7.5 meters around the world. The latest research points to a more and more threatening situation on the Northern Hemisphere’s iciest island.

“Unprecedented (史无前例的)” rates of melting have been observed at the bottom of the Greenland ice sheet, a study published in February found, caused by huge quantities of meltwater flowing down from the surface. This water is particularly concerning because it can destabilize the sheet above it and could lead to a massive, rapid loss of ice.

And in 2020, scientists found that Greenland’s ice sheet had melted beyond the point of no return. The rate of melting in recent years exceeds anything Greenland has experienced in the last 12,000 years, another study found — and enough to cause measurable change in the gravitational field over Greenland.

At the East Greenland Ice-core Project — or EastGRIP — research camp in northwest Greenland, the work of scientists to understand the impact of climate change is being affected by climate change itself.

Aslak Grinsted, a climate scientist at the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, said that they have been trying to get flights into the camp but the warmth is destabilizing the landing site.

Before human-caused climate change kicked in, temperatures near 32 degrees Fahrenheit there were unheard of. But since the 1980s, this region has warmed by around 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade — four times faster than the global pace — making it all the more likely that temperatures will cross the melting point.

4 . Insects are disappearing. The world has 25 per cent fewer terrestrial insects now than in 1990. This includes those we rely on to pollinate our crops and clean our rivers. If we don’t solve this problem very soon, some species will disappear.

There are many causes for the insect decline, but insecticides (杀虫剂) are a major part of the problem. Those used today are longer lasting and up to 10,000 times more toxic than some that were banned in the 1970s. Adding to the problem is that these pesticides are now applied to crops prophylactically (预防地) and used whether pests are present or not.

Overall, the amount of pesticide applied to the land is decreasing, but this is a grossly misleading statistic. A recent paper found that, between 2005 and 2015, there was a 40 per cent reduction in the amount of pesticide applied to crops measured by weight. But because modern insecticides are so much more toxic, the global toxicity of treated land to pollinating insects has more than doubled in the same period.

Governments and regulating agencies are aware of the problem, and some parts of the world have moved to ban the use of certain insecticides outdoors in an attempt to help bees survive. But the pesticides used instead are just as toxic.

One often-touted approach is to use pesticide-free pest control methods. These varied techniques are gathered under the name of integrated pest management (IPM) and have been around for decades. They offer effective crop protection and include methods such as crop rotation and the use of natural predators. But their adoption has been incredibly slow, because spraying pesticides is viewed as an easier option. As a result, IPM methods are unfortunately seldom used today

Neither changing insecticides nor shifting to IPM is a quick fix. We argue instead that we need a subtle shift in focus, away from killing pests and towards protecting crops.

By using the minimal dose we need to protect crops, we could reduce the amount of insecticide to a fraction of what is used today. Farmers would benefit from these changes. They would spend less money on pesticides and improve crop production by keeping health pollinator insects about. Reducing insecticide doses won’t solve the insect decline problem but it is a move that could win us time to make food production more sustainable and reconcile (使和谐) farmlands and the natural ecosystems we crucially depend on. And that will allow insects to recover.