1 . The Atlantic salmon (鲑鱼) of Scotland are hardy and determined animals. Each spring and summer, they return from the North Atlantic Ocean to lay eggs in Scotland’s shallow rivers,leaping up waterfalls and over barriers, pushing themselves upstream in enormous efforts. Some fail, and others succeed, but today they face yet another challenge.

During the mid-1980s, there were between eight and ten million salmon swimming around Scotland’s Atlantic coast; that number has now dropped sharply. There’s evidence of reducing the availability of the salmon’s prey (猎物) as climate change warms and acidifies oceans. New research suggests climate change is also bearing down on rivers, which is bad news for salmon.Adapted to life in cold water, salmon experience slow growth and population changes at high temperatures. Heat influences their health and reduces their resistance to disease.

“Now salmon are struggling to deal with the rising temperatures. There are recent records of 27°C in the upper reaches of the Dee catchment,” says Peter Cairns, director of an environmental charity. In 2018, Scotland recorded the lowest pole catch for salmon since records began. Evidence suggests that the degraded quality of river worsens the impact of our changing climate. “Atlantic salmon evolved using river systems in Scotland that were once way more forested and therefore shaded.” Yet Scotland is today one of the least wooded countries in Europe, with just 3 percent of its native woodland undamaged. Scientists have found that just 35percent of rivers in Scotland have enough tree cover for salmon survival.

A movement to get trees back on riverbanks is gathering pace. “Broad-leaf trees close tothe bank can reduce the light that enters the water,” explains fisheries scientist Anthony Hawkins. A new initiative called Riverwoods — led by the Scottish Wildlife Trust and supported by Scottish Water and several other government and regulatory bodies — aims to create a network of woodlands along Scotland’s riverbanks, and has already received a number of large funds.“Money is not the pressing business. River health is complex, but tree planting is one of the most basic things we can get started with right away,”says Cairns.

2 . In recent years, lots of American companies have gotten behind a potential climate solution called carbon capture and storage, and the government has backed it with billions of dollars in tax preferences and direct investments. The idea is to trap planet-heating carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of factories and power plants and ship it to sites via thousands of miles of new pipelines. Communities nationwide are pushing back against these pipeline construction and underground sites, arguing they don’t want the pollution running through their land.

Now the U. S. Forest Service is proposing to change a rule to allow storing this carbon dioxide pollution under the country’s national forests and grasslands. “Authorizing carbon capture and storage on National Forest System (NFS) lands would support the Administration’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent below the 2005 levels by 2030,” the proposed rule change says.

Some experts, like June Sekera, a research fellow with Boston University, question the timing of the proposed rule change, given community pushback across the country to pipelines planned on private land. Yet she says the Forest Service proposal to open up national parks for CO2 storage is “an end run around local towns and counties. And it’s a much simpler and way less expensive route.”

In an email, Scott Owen, press officer for the Forest Service, writes that the proposed rule change would allow the Forest Service to consider proposals for carbon capture and storage projects. He writes that any proposals must still pass through a secondary screening, adding, “The Forest Service has been ‘screening’ proposals for use of NFS lands for over 20 years as a means to be increasingly consistent in our processes and also be able to reject those uses that are inconsistent with the management of the public’s land. ” He notes the Forest Service currently does not have any carbon capture project proposals under consideration. The Forest Service has opened public comments on the proposed rule change until Jan. 2, 2024.

4 . A new international organization, ReShark, including partners from 15 countries and 44 aquariums, is challenging the shark statistics. According to National Geographic, ReShark’s goal is to release 500 endangered zebra sharks in Indonesian waters to increase a wild population that is on the edge of extinction. This is the first-ever attempt to reintroduce captive sharks into the wild.

Marine reintroductions present significant challenges due to the complexity and shortage of ocean life, as well as the difficulty in managing threats, according to National Geographic. Team ReShark understands that the reintroduction may go up in smoke. Unlike land animals that have been successfully reintroduced in the past, such as giant pandas in China, young sharks are more likely to suffer from diseases and be killed by other animals, and they struggle to find food on their own.

Sharks have a remarkable history as one of the oldest vertebrate species, surviving five mass extinctions over a period of 420 million years. They play an important role in marine ecosystems by influencing the ocean’s food chains. However, they are now facing the second-highest rate of disappearance. Research shows that more than 37 percent of the shark species are at risk of extinction due to overfishing, both legal and illegal. Sharks are hunted for their meat. Nearly 100 million sharks are killed by human hands each year, according to the organization Sentient Media.

Despite the alarming decline in shark populations globally, top shark scientists are hopeful that ReShark’s efforts will succeed. Given these challenges, Simon Fraser University ecologist Dulvy initially had some doubts about ReShark’s plans. However, after asking some questions, he was surprised by what the initiative could produce. “This initiative is different,” Dulvy explained. Similarly, Rima Jabado, Dulvy’s successor, recognized ReShark as a unique project that could provide a lifeline for endangered shark species. “It may provide an opportunity for species not to go extinct,” she said.

5 . Watford and her family have lived in Curtis Bay, Baltimore for generations. Her community has faced environmental injustice. Heavy industries continued to move in her community. As a result, her neighbors have had to live with serious respiratory (呼吸的) problems.

When she knew a plan to build the nation’s largest trash-burning incinerator (焚化炉) less than a mile away from her high school, she realized she had to take action. The incinerator was being sold wrongly as clean, renewable energy equipment but actually it would be a source of brain-damaging chemicals and would release 200 million tons of greenhouse gases per year, both worse than coal burning. Watford felt she had a responsibility to warn her community to work together to shut this plant down.

She co-founded Free Your Voice (FYV), a 10-person student organization devoted to community rights and social justice. Together, they decided to start a campaign to take down Energy Answers, the incinerator’s developer. They went door-to-door talking to neighbors and organizing protests.

When it was discovered that Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) was going to be a customer of Energy Answers, the organization fought with the board and presented their case, urging BCPS to withdraw from the project. BCPS was convinced to cancel their contract, which in turn inspired 22 other customers to do the same. Without any financial gain, Energy Answers had no market to move forward with its plan.

Watford continues to work with Curtis Bay residents toward fair development. They have a vision for the future which includes building a zero-waste movement, a solar farm, and green jobs. She wants the entire human family to join the fight for environmental justice because survival as a species depends on our ability to take action.

7 . It may come as a surprise that the fashion industry is one of the most polluting industries in the world, especially when it comes to carbon emissions and water usage.     1     Clothing production releases 10% of worldwide carbon emissions. Although cotton is often offered as a more sustainable material, one cotton shirt requires 2, 700 liters of water to make, which is enough for one person to drink eight cups per day for 2.5 years.

    2     However, it’s undeniable that sustainable companies like Reformation and Organic Basics are out of most people’s price ranges. Fast-fashion clothing companies have the advantage of low prices, and when it comes down to it, most people will choose low prices over sustainability. So, how can people buy sustainable clothing when it’s not affordable?    3    

Actually, there are other ways to practice sustainable habits. Of course, the best way to limit waste is to not buy any new clothes. For example, saving up to buy more sustainable clothes and then wearing them for many years is healthier for the environment and your wallet.     4     Then you can combine them with your statement pieces to get a variety of new outfits that still feel stylish and don’t generate waste. Certainly, buying second-hand clothing is also a great option.

With ever-changing fashion trends moving at breakneck speed, consumers are easily persuaded into buying latest designs to stay stylish and sustainable.     5     Honestly, it’s unnecessary. Wearing what makes you feel confident will make you look good, and the earth will thank you for your efforts.

Be Energy Smart