1 . As cultural symbols go, the American car is quite young. The Model T Ford was built at the Piquette Plant in Michigan a century ago, with the first rolling off the assembly line (装配线) on September 27, 1908. Only eleven cars were produced the next month. But eventually Henry Ford would build fifteen million of them.

Modern America was born on the road, behind a wheel. The car shaped some of the most lasting aspects of American culture: the roadside diner, the billboard, the motel, even the hamburger. For most of the last century, the car represented what it meant to be American—going forward at high speed to find new worlds. The road novel, the road movie, these are the most typical American ideas, born of abundant petrol, cheap cars and a never-ending interstate highway system, the largest public works project in history.

In 1928 Herbert Hoover imagined an America with “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” Since then, this society has moved onward, never looking back, as the car transformed America from a farm-based society into an industrial

The cars that drove the American Dream have helped to create a global ecological disaster. In America the demand for oil has grown by 22 percent since 1990.

The problems of excessive (过度的) energy consumption, climate change and population growth have been described in a book by the American writer Thomas L. Friedman. He fears the worst, but hopes for the best.

Friedman points out that the green economy (经济) is a chance to keep American strength. “The ability to design, build and export green technologies for producing clean water, clean air and healthy and abundant food is going to be the currency of power in the new century.”

What has the use of cars in America led to?

2 . Some scientists say that animals in the oceans are increasingly threatened by noise pollution caused by human beings.

The noise that affects sea creatures comes from a number of human activities. It is caused mainly by industrial underwater explosions, ocean drilling,and ship engines. Such noises are added to natural sounds. These sounds include the breaking of ice fields, underwater earthquakes, and sounds made by animals themselves.

Decibels(分贝) measured in water are different from those measured on land. A noise of one hundred and twenty decibels on land causes pain to human ears. In water, a decibel level of one hundred and ninety-five would have the same effect.

Some scientists have proposed setting a noise limit of one hundred and twenty decibels in oceans. They have observed that noises at that level can frighten and confuse whales.

A team of American and Canadian scientists discovered that louder noises can seriously injure some animals. The research team found that powerful underwater explosions were causing whales in the area to lose their hearing. This seriously affected the whales’ ability to exchange information and find their way. Some of the whales even died. The explosions had caused their ears to bleed and become infected.

Many researchers whose work depends on ocean sounds object to a limit of one hundred and twenty decibels. They say such a limit would mean an end to important industrial and scientific research.

Scientists do not know how much and what kinds of noises are harmful to ocean animals. However, many scientists suspect that noise is a greater danger than they believed. They want to prevent noises from harming creatures in the ocean.

3 . New research links outdoor air pollution — even at levels considered safe — to an increased risk of diabetes (糖尿病) globally, according to a study from the VA St. Louis Health Care System. The findings raise the possibility that reducing pollution may lead to a drop in diabetes cases in heavily polluted countries such as India and less polluted ones such as the United States.

Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases, affecting more than 500 million people worldwide. The main drivers of diabetes include eating an unhealthy diet, having a sedentary lifestyle and obesity, but the new research indicates the extent to which outdoor air pollution plays a role.

“Our research shows a significant link between air pollution and diabetes globally,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the study’s senior author and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington. “We found an increased risk, even at low levels of air pollution currently considered safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). This is important because many industry lobbying (游说) groups argue that current levels are too stringent and should be relaxed. Evidence shows that current levels are still not sufficiently safe and need to be tightened.”

While growing evidence has suggested a link between air pollution and diabetes, researchers have not attempted to quantify that burden until now. “Over the past two decades, there have been bits of research about diabetes and pollution,” said Al-Aly. “We wanted to thread together the pieces for a broader, more solid understanding.”

The researchers also found that the overall risk of pollution-related diabetes tilted (倾斜) more toward lower-income countries such as India that lack the resources for environmental mitigation systems and clean-air policies. For instance, poverty-stricken countries facing a higher diabetes-pollution risk include Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea and Guyana, while richer countries such as France, Finland and Iceland experience a lower risk. The US experiences a medium risk of pollution-related diabetes.

5 . New research links outdoor air pollution — even at levels considered safe — to an increased risk of diabetes (糖尿病) globally, according to a study from the VA St. Louis Health Care System. The findings raise the possibility that reducing pollution may lead to a drop in diabetes cases in heavily polluted countries such as India and less polluted ones such as the United States.

Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases, affecting more than 500 million people worldwide. The main drivers of diabetes include eating an unhealthy diet, having a sedentary lifestyle and obesity, but the new research indicates the extent to which outdoor air pollution plays a role.

“Our research shows a significant link between air pollution and diabetes globally,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the study’s senior author and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington. “We found an increased risk, even at low levels of air pollution currently considered safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). This is important because many industry lobbying (游说) groups argue that current levels are too stringent and should be relaxed. Evidence shows that current levels are still not sufficiently safe and need to be tightened.”

While growing evidence has suggested a link between air pollution and diabetes, researchers have not attempted to quantify that burden until now. “Over the past two decades, there have been bits of research about diabetes and pollution,” said Al-Aly. “We wanted to thread together the pieces for a broader, more solid understanding.”

The researchers also found that the overall risk of pollution-related diabetes tilted (倾斜) more toward lower-income countries such as India that lack the resources for environmental mitigation systems and clean-air policies. For instance, poverty-stricken countries facing a higher diabetes-pollution risk include Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea and Guyana, while richer countries such as France, Finland and Iceland experience a lower risk. The US experiences a medium risk of pollution-related diabetes.

10 . In the old days, when you had to drive to a movie theater or to a video store to get some entertainment, it was easy to see how your actions could have an impact on the environment. You were hopping into your car, driving across town, and using gas all the way.

But now that we’re used to staying at home and streaming movies, we might feel better about ourselves. After all, we’re just picking up our phones or maybe turning on the TV. You’re welcome, Mother Nature.

“Not so fast,” says a recent report from the French-based Shift Project. Watching a half-hour show would lead to 3.5 pounds of CO₂ emissions. That’s like driving 3.9 miles. 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. Stored in data centers, videos are transferred to our terminals such as computers, smart phones, etc. via networks: all these processes require electricity whose production consumes resources and usually involves CO₂ emissions.

In the European Union, the Eureca project lead scientist, Rabih Bashroush, calculated that 5 billion downloads and streams of the song “Despacito” consumed as much electricity as the countries of Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Somalia, Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic used in a single year.

Streaming is only expected to increase as we become more attached to our devices. Online video use is expected to account for 80% of all internet traffic in five years according to CISCO. By then, about 60% of the world’s population will be online.

You’re probubly not going to give up your streaming services, but there are things you can do to help lessen the impact of your online use.

Here are some tips:

Disable autoplay for video on social media.

Stream over Wi-Fi, not mobile networks.

Watch on the smallest screen you can.

Don’t use high-definition (高清) video on devices.