Tips for More Sustainable Living

Making some small changes to your routine can pay off big in various ways:helping the planet while saving your time, money, or both. You will be surprised by how big a difference you can make with     1     little effort. Here’s some suggestions:

Give up throwing certain items. Your coffee grounds, and used tea leaves can be fertilizer (肥料) instead of being thrown in the trash. If you don’t have access to a fertilizer factory, you can hire a company to    2    pick up your leftover food for a fee.

Try to     3     the ugly. The fruit and vegetables that are odd-looking or    4     are actually good to use. It is easy to hide them in soups and yogurt. Don’t     5    away from these foods at the store and do sign up to have them    6     straight to your door through service such as Misfit Market, which offers ugly produce at discounted prices.

Forget fast fashion. The average American throws away 82 pounds of fast fashion clothing each year. Thankfully, there’s a(n)     7    number of companies that prioritize sustainability, producing fewer but longer-lasting articles, often made with organic fabrics and eco-friendly dyes. When clothing is truly at its end, consider     8     it as cleaning duster.

Don’t get cheated. Because of the consumer trend toward more eco-friendly products, many companies make exaggerated (夸张的) claims about their own efforts. For instance, a brand might boast that its products are free of a certain chemical, even though that chemical has been     9     for decades. This is called green-washing. Avoid falling    10    to it by looking for certifications such as “Fair Trade Certified” or “Rainforest Alliance Certified.”

4 . They, stretching along the shore, swim quite lovely, looking for underwater greens to feed on. However, in these days, something is mixing with the sea grass that manatees(海牛)like to eat along Florida’s western coast. And it’s making them sick-even killing them.

It’s a poisonous form of algae, which is usually called “red tide” because of its color. Algae are plant-like organisms that live mainly in water. Most are harmless, but red tide is an exception. When it gets mixed in with the grass and the manatees eat it, they get so sick that they can’t even swim.

“They’re basically paralyzed(瘫痪的), and they become unconscious,” said Virginia Emonds, an animal care manager. Manatees are mammals and they need to surface often to breathe in air. If a manatee is paralyzed, it can’t swim and will drown.

As of Monday, the current red tide outbreak has killed at least 184 manatees since the beginning of this year. That has already beaten Florida’s record-high number for manatee deaths in a single year-and we still have nearly nine months to go!

The experts aren’t sure when the red tide outbreak will end. So many more manatees are in danger. The situation has gotten so desperate that Florida zoos have rescued at least a dozen manatees. You can find manatees anywhere from Brazil up to Florida-and throughout much of the Caribbean Sea.

In fact, the manatee is officially considered an endangered species. Thanks to the US government’s protection, Florida’s manatee population has grown to approximately 5,000 in recent years. But the red tide is threatening their survival. Some experts suspect that pollution from farms even might be fueling the red tide outbreak, because fertilizer that’s used on farms often winds up in water. And when that fertilized water runs off into the Gulf of Mexico, it makes things grow faster-just like on land.

Throughout the world, only 15% of the material that are used to make clothing is properly recycled, according to the Alle SacUrthur Club, an organization in Liverpool, UK, that boosts the circular economy. Most clothing waste—an     1    (estimate) 82 million tonnes from the fashion industry alone-produced every year ends up buried or burnt.

    2    (handle) all that waste, methods to recover and reuse the material are intended as an active response to the future risks by researchers and start-up companies. Much of their focus is on chemical recycling,     3     the material is broken down into its building blocks and applied to create new materials, including fibres that     4     (weave) into new clothes. The challenges lie in     5     (develop) the processes for such treatment. They have to be practical, but they also have to be at least as cost-effective as simply making new fibres.

    6     the natural cellulose fibres from cotton, some other materials include human-made cellulosic fibres. They are derived from wood-pulp cellulose and may be used to produce materials such as viscose (rayon) and a similar material called lyocell.

A change in the manufacturing process is being applied to the textile-waste problem by Essen, a start-up in Seattle, Washington.     7     the company has fundamentally devoted to the process is that it uses discarded textiles, instead of wood, as the source of its cellulose. It has also adjusted the process to produce a fibre that the firm’s co-founder and president Christo Stan says is superior to     8     other cellulosics and cotton, and that can be recycled more times.

Although there are abundant technical challenges, the main barrier     9     widespread textile recycling could be economic, says materials engineer Lijiang Jiang at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Atlanta. “Most of the materials are not that invaluable,” Jiang says. So cheap it is to produce polyester, cotton and other fabrics     10     there’s little profit margin unless the recycling processes themselves are very inexpensive.

Using renewables seems to cut carbon more than nuclear. Nations that embraced renewable forms of energy have significantly cut their carbon emissions, but     1     pursuing nuclear power have failed to do so, researchers have found.

Nuclear and renewables are seen as two key ways for governments to decarbonize(去碳), but the question of   whether one is more effective for dealing with climate change     2     (not address) fully. With several countries on the brink of deciding whether    3     (back) new nuclear power plants to meet their carbon targets, the answer to this question matters

To find out, Benjamin Sovacool at the University of Sussex and his colleagues looked at carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and GDP over 25 years. They found that in 117 countries that had been using renewables, CO2 emissions per capita(人均地)dropped from 0.69 tonnes(公吨)on average between 1990 and 2004 to 0.61 tonnes between 2000 and 2014 and     4     these latter figures included a further six countries.

During the same periods, however, the 30 countries that had been using nuclear power largely stayed flat, shifting from an average 0.52 tonnes of Co2 emissions per capita to 0.51. The two groups of countries overlap because some fall into both. Renewables included wind, solar, hydroelectric, and biomass energy. “If you’re focusing on    5     we can do to reduce emissions in the next 15 years,     6     (pursue) renewables instead of nuclear,” says Sovacool.

The reason    7     the results is not clear — the analysis found a connection, not a causation—but Sovacool has ideas. Nuclear power is restricted due to agreements     8     (limit) the spread of nuclear weapons     9     material from reactors (核反应堆) can be used to make bombs. Renewables are not, enabling more countries to learn from one another, such as Germany benefiting from Chinese economies of scale on solar. Other reasons for this    10     be that renewables are cheaper and quicker to build and more socially acceptable, says Sovacool.

Food delivery apps are changing the way we eat

It’s raining, it’s dinnertime, and the fridge is nearly empty. Years ago, we made do; today, we order food through our phones. Within twenty minutes, we get whatever it was we were craving, we’re warm and dry, and there’s not a single dish to wash afterward.

Food delivery apps have altered the     1     of how eat, particularly in big cities. The industry is a complex machine; there’s Meituan, Ele.me, Hema…the list goes on. These companies are     2     and changing at a rapid rate, bringing on the rise of virtual restaurants and ghost kitchens, and customers who will never step inside a brick-and-mortar shop（实体店）.

Of course, these apps bring all types of cuisines around the city to our fingertips, but it comes at a cost. And one of the real environmental     3     lies in all that plastic and excess food.

In the US alone, packaging accounts for 30 percent of municipal solid waste. In 2017, that meant 80.1 million tons. Food delivery systems are likely     4     this huge number to rise. Durable materials like the plastics serveware is made from, are difficulty to     5     of.

Restaurant delivery is a global phenomenon – as is the impact on the environment. Meituan, one of the leading Chinese delivery platforms, delivered 6.4 billion food orders in 2018. It is estimated that China     6     1.6 million tons of packaging waste(containers, utensils, plastic bags) in 2017, nine times more than in 2015.

In the EU, University of Manchester researchers estimate, over two billion single-use takeaway containers are used every year. Most of those are not     7    . According to the European Commission, packaging, which includes plastic utensils, plates, and straws, make up 70% of all     8     pollution found in European seas.

Plastic bans,     9     packaging materials, and other efforts to cut down on waste are on the rise. Food delivery apps should, too, do their part to raise awareness for plastic pollution and     10     the gap between food waste and hunger.

9 . Ranchers(农场主) and environmental advocates haven’t always seen eye to eye, but the differences between the two aren’t as extreme any more, as more and more ranchers have come around to the understanding that taking good care of the land supports both economic stability and environmental health.

“For some, ranching was pursued in the past with an emphasis on raising beef at the expense of everything else,” says Bill Bryan of the Montana—based Rural Landscape Institute in a recent Christian Science Monitor. “As a matter of necessity, the old way of ranching is giving way to a new pattern. Raising animals for the dinner table isn’t an activity that has to be at odds with the environment.”

According to the nonprofit World Wildlife Fund (WWF), grazing (放牧)—when done right—is key to maintaining biological diversity and ecosystem health across the Northern Great Plains, across 183-million-acre expanse of rangelands spanning five US states and two Canadian provinces.

This vast landscape evolved in harmony with large herbivores (食草动物), such as bison and elk, and must be grazed in order to remain healthy, reports WWF, which works with hundreds of ranchers across the region as part of its Sustainable Ranching Initiative. “Without grazing, woody vegetation, such as juniper and cedar creeps in and kills plants that threatened species, such as grassland birds, need to survive.”

Not surprisingly, many of the ranchers that are following in the forebears’ footsteps have been using what we now call “sustainable ranching practices” for decades already. One example is rotational (轮流的) grazing, that is moving cattle herds more frequently to different pastures(牧场), so they don’t overgraze any one particular patch of land.

A newer “best practice” involves depositing a quarter to half inch of cattle wastes on grazed land to kick-start the soil chemistry below while also absorbing significant amounts of methane (沼气)—the most potent greenhouse gas—before it can head for the atmosphere. This technique is now becoming more commonplace as today’s ranchers care about reducing their carbon footprints like no generation before them.

The problem of electronic waste

We have gradually come to realise that in two ways in particular, modern hi-tech can be bad for the planet. The first is its energy use; the worldwide scale of information technology is so enormous that electronics now produce fully two percent of global carbon emissions, which is about the same as the highly controversial emissions of aeroplanes. The other is the hardware, when it comes to the end of its natural life. This, increasingly, is pretty short. We have hardly noticed this important stream of waste, so much so that a Greenpeace report on the untraced and unreported e-waste two years ago referred to it as “the hidden flow”. We need to be aware of it.

The latest United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report estimates that worldwide, electronic waste is mounting by about 40 million tons a year. So what can we do about it?

The European Union has recognised the problem by adopting a key principle: producer responsibility. In other words, making it the duty of manufacturers of electronic goods to ensure their safe disposal at the end of their lives. In practice, an EU regulation now means that electronics dealers must either take back the equipment they sold you, or help to finance a network of drop-off points, such as public recycling sites. Its main feature is quite ambitious: it aims to deal with “everything with a plug”.

The new UN report suggests that all countries could do something about the problem with a change in design. Groups such as Greenpeace have led the way in putting pressure on major manufacturing companies to find substitutes for the toxic chemicals inside their products. Encouragingly, they have had some success in forcing them to develop non-poisonous alternatives to these. This may be the real way forward.