3 . Could looking through trees be the view to a greener future? Trees replacing the clear glass in your windows is not a work of science fiction. It's happening now.

Forest Products Laboratory researcher Junyong Zhu together with colleagues from the University of Maryland and University of Colorado has developed a transparent wood material that may be the window of tomorrow. Researchers found that transparent wood has the potential to outperform glass currently used in construction in nearly every way.

While glass is the most common material used in window construction, it comes with quite a few bad consequences. Heat easily transfers through glass and amounts to higher energy bills when it escapes during cold weather and pours in when it's warm. Glass production used for construction also comes with a heavy carbon footprint. Manufacturing emissions alone are approximately 25,000 metric tons per year, without considering the heavy footprint of transporting the glass.

The innovation was developed using wood from the balsa tree, which is native to South and Central America. The team treated balsa wood to an oxidizing bath, where the wood is kept in a bleach solution at room temperature to remove the light-absorbing substance from the structure. The wood is then penetrated （注入）with a synthetic polymer called polyvinyl alcohol （PVA）, creating a product that is virtually transparent. So the transparent wood is created, which is far more durable and lighter than glass.

Switching to transparent wood could prove to be cost efficient as well. It is approximately five times more thermally efficient than glass, cutting energy costs. It is made from a sustainable, renewable resource with low carbon emissions.

With all of these potential benefits for consumers, manufacturing and the environment, the case for transparent wood couldn't be clearer.

4 . Great Barrier Reef Choking on Pollutants

Attempts to protect the Great Barrier Reef are failing. A report released Monday by the government in Australia says water quality in the Great Barrier Reef is far below what it should be. It showed that pollution have decreased, but not enough to reach environmental targets.

Sediment (沉淀物) and chemicals can weaken coral, hurting its ability to feed and grow. Coral are live animals that take root in the ocean floor, but they are not plants. Reefs are the hard skeletons (骨架) left at the bottom of the sea by small marine creatures called polyps (珊瑚虫). The polyps then form the larger structure of a reef. Corals also are some of the most diverse ecosystems on the entire planet. They can make a home for invertebrates, crustaceans, fish, and sea snakes.

Steve Miles is Queensland’s environment minister. He says the research shows the Reef needs more protection. “Over that five-year period, we did see some progress towards our targets. Sediment is down 12 percent and pesticides (杀虫剂) loads are down 30 percent. But what is most disturbing is that these results are far from our targets. Progress towards these targets flat-lined in the period 2013-2014. If one of my kids came home with a report card like this, I would be a bit disappointed. There is more bad news here than good news. ” said Steve Miles.

The report also found that fewer than one-third of Queensland’s sugar plantations used techniques to reduce the use of pesticides. Only 28 percent of land managers managed their land properly. They had reduced harmful water run off to protect the health of the Reef. The official target is a 90 percent reduction in pesticide use within three years.

Scientists at the University of Queensland and the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences published their findings Wednesday, July 18 in the journal Science Advances. It found between 1992 and 2010, the recovery rate dropped by an average of 84 percent. But there is hope. The study also found some corals can recover quickly if “acute and chronic stressors” are lessened.

Meanwhile, the Australian government released its updated reef protection plan Friday. It clearly states global temperatures must be stopped from rising in order to save the world’s largest living structure.

5 . When we buy something new, we get rid of what’s old. That cycle of consumption（消费）has made electronics waste the world’s fastest-growing solid-waste stream, which is expected to grow as the world upgrades to 5G. However, less than a quarter of U. S. electronic waste is recycled, the rest ending up as rubbish, posing environmental risks.

Part of the problem concerns rule. In states without laws banning (禁止) electronics from the regular trash, electronics often end up in garbage. Even when e-waste rules exist, it’s left to consumers to handle their old devices properly. But recycling them can be a pain. People have to take their electronics to a store, which may pay them for it or charge them to get rid of it. Many consumers simply throw their devices into the trash or throw them in a drawer.

One solution is to make electronics last as long as they once did. Yet, technology companies are speeding the pace of being deserted. “It’s a strategy by producers to force us into shorter upgrade cycles,” said Kyle Wiens, the founder of iFixit, which publishes do-it-yourself repair guides.

Some environmental groups say big companies like Apple and Samsung should pick up the cost of recycling the devices they sell. Lawmakers have passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, which require producers to establish and fund systems to recycle or collect deserted products.

Some companies are increasing their recycling efforts on their own. For example, Apple in 2018 introduced Daisy, a smartphone-recycling robot that can take apart 200 iPhones every hour. But that's a drop in the bucket compared with the 50 million tons of e-waste produced globally last year.

6 . As the effects of climate change become more disastrous, well-known research institutions and government agencies are focusing new money and attention on an idea: artificially cooling the planet, in the hopes of buying humanity more time to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

That strategy, called solar climate intervention (干预) or solar geoengineering, involves reflecting more of the sun’s energy back into space — abruptly reducing global temperatures in a way that imitates the effects of ash clouds flowing out from the volcanic eruptions. The idea has been considered as a dangerous and fancied solution, one that would encourage people to keep burning fossil fuels while exposing the planet to unexpected and potentially threatening side effects, producing more destructive hurricanes, wildfires floods and other disasters.

But. as global warming continues, producing more destructive hurricanes, wildfires floods and other disasters, some researchers and policy experts say that concerns about geoengineering should be outweighed by the imperative to better understand it, in case the consequence of climate change become so terrible that the world can’t wait for better solutions.

One way to cool the earth is by injecting aerosols (气溶胶) into the upper layer of the atmosphere. where those particles reflect sunlight away from the earth. That process works, according to Douglas MacMartin, a researcher at Cornell University.

“We know with 100% certainty that we can cool the planet,” he said in an interview. What’s still unclear, he added, is what happens next. Temperature, MacMartin said, is an indicator for a lot of climate effects. “What does it do to the strength of hurricanes?” he asked, “What does it do to agriculture production? What does it do to the risk of forest fires?”

Another institution funded by the National Science Foundation will analyze hundreds of simulations of aerosol injection, testing the effects on weather extremes around the world. One goal of the research is to look for a sweet spot: the amount of artificial cooling that can reduce extreme weather events without causing broader changes in regional rainfall patterns or similar impacts.

7 . The twilight zone (朦胧地带) contains the largest and least explored fish stocks (储备) of the world’s oceans. Ranging from just below 200 metres to 1,000 metres deep, it is an interface between the well-studied sea life in the sunlit zone above and the ecosystems of the darkest territory below. It has a major role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it for centuries or longer. The twilight zone is also known to the largest migration on Earth. Huge numbers of fishes and zooplankton (浮游动物) move hundreds of metres towards the surface each night to feed, before withdrawing back down at dawn.

Yet the zone is poorly understood — physically,     biogeochemically and ecologically. Even the number of organisms that live there remains a mystery, let alone their diversity and function.

It is alarming, then, that this vast ocean domain is at risk in three ways-even before any of the potential consequences are understood. First, the world’s growing population has an increasing need for food. Second, sea-floor mining for minerals and metals could release waste into the region. And   third, climate change is varying temperature, acidification and oxygen levels in ways that are likely to affect life there.

The twilight zone is hard Io study. Its organisms are difficult to sample and analyse, being thinly distributed, almost invisible and often fragile. They also live at pressures of up to 100 atmospheres, which poses problems for laboratory-based investigations.

Critics might argue that walers near coasts and above shelves are more deserving of study, given the huge environmental pressures there, as well as their importance to societies. And, of course, they need attention. Sadly, however, it is too late to avoid widespread environmental damage to these inshore regions. Instead, research efforts and local policies must aim at minimizing the worst effects.

By contrast, the twilight zone is almost left in its original condition. Moreover, the majority of it lies beyond national administration. This makes it of common interest and responsibility, and means that global agreement is necessary to manage it.

8 . Over two weeks ago I was standing on the summit of Mount Qomolangma. It was the top of many years' hard work, and the_______of a childhood dream.

I have been overwhelmed by the tide of goodwill and support. But one thing has become_________apparent. Many people have constant misunderstandings about Mount Qomolangma. In their minds, Qomolangma has_________her crown. She has become a mountain connected with death, exploitation and_________.

The most common question I get asked is: "Is it_________with rubbish?" As a United Nations patron(资助人)of the wilderness, one of my roles is to_________back the Earth's remaining wildernesses and to act as a_______for the wild.

I climbed Qomolangma expecting a rubbish dump but what I found_________me: I_________saw any litter, from the airport to the summit.

The Nepalese have____________some huge clean-up campaigns in recent years, perhaps to improve their reputation, but also in response to some tragic natural disasters. The government____________a number of requirements including that each climber____________an additional 8kg of litter(not including their own) and incentives(激励)for Sherpas(夏尔巴人)of $ 2 per kilo of rubbish cleaned.

The results have been____________. The country lanes of Great Britain have more rubbish than the path to base camps; despite the 100, 000 footsteps I saw one of the cleanest, tidiest wilderness trails I have encountered.

I have spent time in many of the world's popular wilderness locations and I would say Nepal should be proud. It is an example of man repairing the____________he has done. As our focus turns to the oceans and the seemingly____________task of repairing our marine habitat, we could look at Qomolangma as a fine example of turning back the clock.

9 . NOT that long ago, the world wondered whether clean energy could survive without government support. Now the question is how far it can spread. The number of electric vehicles, which was about 1 million in 2015, last year reached 2 million. In electricity generation, too, trend is with the greens. In the first half of this year wind, solar and hydro generated a record 35% of Germany's power.

Greater success is breeding greater ambition. California is proposing to reach 60% renewable energy by 2030. 176 countries have clean-energy goals. Hawaii, America's most oil-dependent state, has promised to be 100% renewable by the middle of the century and so have 48 poor countries vulnerable to climate change. This week the number of multinationals making a commitment to running their operations on 100% renewable energy rose to 100.

But not every target is helpful. To see why, consider that goal of 100% renewable energy. It makes solving climate change seem easy. In fact, though wind and solar can generate the whole country's electricity some day, renewables still account for less than 8% of the world's total power output. Moreover, cleaning up electricity is only part of the battle. Even though gas-fired heating and cooking can be at least as big a source of greenhouse-gas emissions, renewable heating gets little attention. Transport policy is unpredictable, too. Carmakers may hit their goal of annual sales of 10 million electric vehicles in a decade, but battery-powered road transport, shipping and aviation are dreams. A much-quoted claim that America could rely on wind, solar and hydro alone for its electricity has recently been bitterly criticized by a group of respected academics.

Most importantly, a 100% renewables target confuses means with ends. The priority for the planet is to stop net emissions（净排放量）of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Putting too much emphasis on wind, solar and other renewables may block off better carbon-reduction paths. New technologies, such as "direct air capture" systems designed to separate carbon dioxide from the air, may in time prove vital. Likewise, greater energy efficiency could reduce emissions by even more than using renewables would.

10 . Skeptics are strange a lot. Some of them refuse to admit the serious threat of human activities to the environment and they are tired of people who disagree with them. Those people, say skeptics, spread nothing but bad news about the environment. The "eco-guilt" brought on by the discouraging news about our planet gives rise to the popularity of skeptics as people search for more comforting worldviews.

Perhaps that explains why a new book by Bjorn Lomborg received so much publicity. That book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, declares that it measures the "real state of the world" as fine. Of course, another explanation is the deep pockets of some big businesses with special interests. Indeed, Mr. Lomborg's views are similar to those of some industry-funded organizations, which start huge activities through the media to confuse the public about issues like global warming.

So it was strange to see Mr. Lomborg's book go largely unchallenged in the media though his beliefs were contrary to most scientific opinions. One national newspaper in Canada ran a number of articles and reviews full of words of praise, even with the conclusion that "After Lomborg, the environmental movement will begin to die down."

Such one-sided views should have immediately been challenged. But only a different review appeared in Nature, a respected science magazine with specific readership. The review remarked that Mr. Lomborg's "preference for unexamined materials is incredible".

A critical eye is valuable, and the media should present information in such a way that could allow people to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, that is often inaccessible as blocked by the desire to be shocking or to defend some special interest. People might become half-blind before a world partially exhibited by the media. That's a shame, because matters concerning the health of the planet are far too important to be treated lightly.