Thank you for your listening.

2 . As environmental concerns continue to increase, many people are left wondering how they can balance the need to travel with the need to protect the planet. One particular dilemma that has received significant attention is air travel.

Air travel is known to be one of the most carbon-intensive forms of travel. According to a report by the European Environment Agency, aviation (航空) is responsible for around 3% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, and that number is expected to grow in the coming years. In addition, aircraft contribute to other types of air pollution, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.

For environmentalists who advocate for reducing our carbon footprint, this brings up a difficult question: should we avoid flying altogether?

On one hand, it’s easy to see why environmentalists would want to keep away from air travel. By doing so, they could dramatically reduce their carbon footprint and set an example for others. Additionally, some argue that air travel perpetuates (使永久) a culture of over-consumption, which is contradictory to environmental values.

However, there are also arguments in favor of air travel: For one, air travel enables people to experience different cultures, build relationships, and expand their knowledge in ways that might not be possible otherwise. It can also facilitate business trades and contribute to economic growth. Moreover, some experts believe that technological advancements could make air travel more sustainable in the future. For example, some airlines are experimenting with biofuels and electric planes, which could dramatically reduce the emissions associated with air travel.

So what’s the answer? Ultimately, it’s up to each individual to decide whether the benefits of air travel outweigh the environmental costs. However, there are steps that everyone can take to reduce their impact. For example, travelers can choose to fly less frequently, decide on direct flights, and offset (抵消) their emissions through programs like carbon offsetting. In the end, the key is to remain aware of the environmental impact of our choices and to make informed decisions based on our own values and priorities.

3 . Small-scale fisheries supply many people with food. Almost all of those in this trade rely on gillnets (刺网) to trap fish. But gillnets trap other things, for example, endangered animals such as turtles; dangerous ones, such as Humboldt squid; and ones that are both endangered and dangerous, such as several types of sharks. Everyone involved would be better off if this did not happen.

Building on studies done both by himself and by others, to try to avoid the accidental netting of turtles, Jesse Senko, a marine-conservation biologist at Arizona State University, has been investigating the idea of fitting LEDs (发光二极管) to nets to avoid netting other unwanted by-catch without discouraging target animals. And, as he reports in Current Biology, it seems to work.

Dr. Senko and his colleagues set up an experiment in the Gulf of Ulloa, in Mexico, in which they cooperated with local fisher folks to employ over 10,000 meters of net s that had had net s battery-powered waterproof green LEDs fitted onto them every ten meters. In half of the these, lights were lit. The other half were left unlit, as controls. Each lit net was paired with an unlit one, and the two were employed alongside one another at prime fishing locations. The fishers' target fish were large groupers. Dr. Senko was interested both in what else got caught and whether the lights decreased catches of the target species.

On the latter point, to his relief, they did not. On the former, the lit net s caught 95% fewer kilograms of shark-related species. In particular, several threatened species turned up less often in the lit than the unlit nets.

The advantage from the point of view of fisher folks was that they needed to spend a lot less time clearing these dangerous by-catches from their nets. And, crucially, the LEDs concerned are cheap, hard-wearing, and easy to fit. There are also plans to make them solar powered, for easy recharging. Here, then, is a conservation idea from which everyone wins.

6 . Overlooking the Davis—Gant Varsity Soccer Field, a bed of overturned soil waits for further development. In a few years, this area will become a natural habitat and a playground for animals and residents. This peaceful area didn’t appear naturally, but through planning and action taken by Catlin Gabel’s Tiny Forest project launched by teacher Patrick Walsh.

Forests typically take hundreds of years to mature, with four stages of growth. “Tiny forests flatten out time through the planting of all four layers (层),” Walsh explained. The end result is a fast-growing, native forest in about 20 years. Over 600 plants from 43 species will be planted in the tiny forest, the first one in Oregon.

Walsh was inspired to build a tiny forest after hearing about this idea, which emerged in Japan and has taken hold in North America. He shared his vision with seniors in his class. The seniors researched tiny forests and made a proposal resulting in Clean Water Services donating 60 trees and $5,000 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Armed with these resources, Walsh and the students started working. “Something I didn’t really expect was the outpouring of students’ enthusiasm. Seeing students from all grades volunteered to contribute to the ‘dirty work’ really blew me away,” Walsh said.

Senior Megan Cover has been at the school since the first grade. “I’ll graduate after working on this project, which is surely sad, but it’s really rewarding and great to be a part of this project and to do my bit. We’re creating this educational space for many young kids,” Cover said.

Walsh summed up his goal of the project, which is to build a place where students can enjoy and learn about nature. “The forest will obviously not solve climate change, but it will deserve the efforts if the kids think about climate change and remember the importance of reforestation and trees when they look outside at the forest.”

7 . There was a time when a trip to the supermarket in the United States often ended with a seemingly simple question from the cashier, “Paper or plastic?” Well, which type of bag would you choose?

While both types of bags have some influence on the environment, it has long been supposed that paper bags are better. They are made from a renewable source, are broken down easily, burn without giving off thick smoke and can be recycled. However, the producing process behind paper bags uses more energy than that of plastic ones. How can this be true?

Studies show that paper bag production requires four times as much energy as plastic bag production. And the amount of water used to make them is twenty times larger. Besides, the influence on forests is very serious. It takes about fourteen million trees to produce ten billion paper bags, which happen to be the number of bags used in the United States yearly. In terms of recycling, the idea that paper bags are more environment-friendly than plastic ones can be quickly discarded. Research shows it requires about 98% less energy to recycle plastic than it does to recycle paper.

Even though paper bags might be more harmful than plastic ones, plastic still seems to be considered as the more harmful of the two by governments. In Ireland, for example, a tax has been introduced to discourage the use of plastic bags. People have to pay 22 cents for every plastic bag, and as a result, their use has dropped quickly.

There’s no doubt that it makes more sense to reuse these bags. However, we don’t seem to be doing that at present. That may be because they fall apart quickly. If so, cloth bags are a better choice, but still, their production also has a bad influence on the environment. So what to do? How should we answer the question of “Paper or plastic?” It seems that we first need to ask ourselves one more general question: “What can I do to help the environment?”

9 . In the old days, when you had to drive to a movie theater to get some entertainment, it was easy to see how your actions could have an impact (影响)on the environment. After all, you were jumping into your car, driving across town, coughing out emissions (产生排放)and using gas all the way. But now that we’re used to staying at home and streaming movies, we might get a little proud. After all, we’re just picking up our phones and maybe turning on the TV. You’re welcome. Mother Nature.

Not so fast, says a recent report from the French-based Shift Project. According to “Climate Crisis: The Unsustainable Use of Online Video”, digital technologies are responsible for 4% of greenhouse gas emissions, and that energy use is increasing by 9% a year. Watching a half-hour show would cause 3.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. That’s like driving 3.9 miles. And in the European Union, the Eureca project found that data centers (where videos are stored)there used 25% more energy in 2017 compared to just three years earlier, reports the BBC.

Streaming is only expected to increase as we become crazier about our digital devices (设备)and the possibility of enjoying entertainment where and when we want it increases. Online video use is expected to increase by four times from 2017 to 2022 and account for 80% of all Internet traffic by 2022. By then, about 60% of the world’s population will be online.

You’re probably not going to give up your streaming services, but there’re things you can do to help lessen the impact of your online use, experts say. For example, according to Lutz Stobbe, a researcher from the Fraunhofer Institute in Berlin, we have no need to upload 25 pictures of the same thing to the cloud because it consumes energy every time. If instead you delete a few things here and there, you can save energy. Moreover, it’s also a good idea to stream over Wi-Fi, watch on the smallest screen you can, and turn off your Wi-Fi in your home if you’re not using your devices.

For those consuming Asian food, using chopsticks is almost second nature. About 20 to 33 percent of people in the world use chopsticks     1    a daily basis. Not all of those are disposable (一次性的),     2    no doubt many are.

Felix Bock, a student at the University of British Columbia, was eager to find a way     3     (recycle) wood from construction projects, and he had a particular interest in bamboo. One day he noticed a drawer in his friend’s house filled with disposable bamboo chopsticks, and an idea hit     4    .

He decided to give     5    second life to disposable chopsticks by making them into home     6    (decoration) or other accessories (配件). He told the idea to restaurant owners,     7    (convince) them to install recycling bins in their restaurants. He cleaned the chopsticks, pressed them into square pieces and coated them with glue. The square pieces were then     8     (creative) arranged into household and office products. Bock’s company, called Chop Value, has repurposed chopsticks into desktops, cutting boards and even table games.

Since 2016 when the company     9    (found), Chop Value has rescued billions of chopsticks from landfills. Instead of an economy of the typical take-make-dispose model, Chop Value seeks to create one     10    transforms waste into a usable resource.