2 . There is an increasing alarm about the extent of microplastics pollution, which has been found everywhere from Everest to the Arctic. However, it turns out there’s an even smaller and more poisonous form of plastic pollution entering remote reaches of the globe. A new study published in Environmental Research found significant quantities of nanoplastics (纳米塑料) in ice samples from both the North and South Poles.

“Now we know that nanoplastics are transported to these corners of the Earth in these quantities. This indicates that nanoplastics are really a bigger pollution problem than we thought,” study lead author Dusan Materic said in a press release.

Nanoplastics are plastics that are smaller than a micrometer in size. Their small size means they are more difficult to study than microplastics, or plastics between five millimeters and a micrometer. But they may be even more dangerous.

“Nanoplastics are very toxicological active compared to, for instance, microplastics, and that’s why this is very important,” Materic said.

Materic and his team used new methods to measure nanoplastic pollution in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica. They sampled a 14-meter-deep ice core from the Greenland ice cap and sea ice from Antarctica’s McMurdo Sound. They found that there were an average of 13.2 nanograms per-milliliter of nanoplastics in the Greenland ice and an average of 52.3 nanograms per milliliter in the Antarctic ice

But what was even more surprising than the amount of nanoplastics in the remote ice was just how long they had sat there. “In the Greenland core, we see nanoplastic pollution happening all the way from the 1960s. So organisms, despite the lack of the solid evidence, likely all over the world, have been exposed to it for quite some time now,” Materic said.

The study also looked at the types of plastic present in the samples. Half of the Greenland nanoplastics were polyethylene (PE), the kind of plastic used for plastic bags and packaging. A quarter came from tires and a fifth were polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is used for clothing and bottles.

4 . In the endless sky, the unaided human eye should be able to perceive several thousand stars on a clear, dark night. Unfortunately, growing light pollution has impeded people from the nightly view.

New citizen-science-based research throws alarming light on the problem of “sky glow”-the diffuse illumination (漫射照明) of the night sky that is a form of light pollution. The data came from crowd-sourced observations collected from around the world as part of Globe at Night, a program developed by astronomer Connie Walker.

Light pollution has harmful effects on the practice of astronomy but also on human health and wildlife, since it disturbs the cycle from sunlight to starlight that biological systems have evolved alongside. Furthermore, the loss of visible stars is a great loss of human cultural heritage. Until relatively recently, humans throughout history had an impressive view of the starry night sky, and the effect of this nighty spectacle (壮观) is evident in ancient cultures.

Globe at Night has been gathering data on star visibility since 2006. Anyone can submit observations through the Globe at Night web application. Participants record which one best matches what they can see in the sky without any telescopes or other instruments.

Researchers find that the loss of visible stars indicates an increase in sky brightness of 9.6% per year while roughly 2% is measured by satellites. Existing satellites are not well suited to measuring sky glow as it appears to humans, because they can not detect wavelengths shorter than 500 nanometers (纳米). White LEDs, with shorter wavelengths under 500 nanometers, now are increasingly commonly used in outdoor lighting. But human eyes are more sensitive to these shorter wavelengths at nighttime. Space-based instruments do not measure light from windows, either. But these sources are significant contributors to sky glow us seen from the ground.

“The increase in sky glow over the past decade underlines the importance of redoubling our efforts and developing new strategies to protect dark skies,” said Walker. “The Globe at Night dataset is necessary in our ongoing evaluation of changes in sky glow, and we encourage whoever can to get involved to help protect the starry night sky.”

5 . A new analysis of photographs from the International Space Station has identified a shift in the kind of lighting technologies that European countries are using at night to brighten streets and buildings. Researchers have found that the old warm high-pressure street lights are rapidly being replaced by cooler LED lights. The University of Exeter study, published in Science Advances, claimed that “this phenomenon is widely increasing the risk of harmful effects to ecosystems”.

LED lighting was promoted as being intended to reduce emissions, but its usage has raised energy consumption. One explanation of this is that the increase in power efficiency and the associated decrease in economic cost have driven increased demand for lighting, therefore, any efficiency gains have been counteracted by increased consumption of light.

The study also claimed that previous research into the effects of light pollution have underestimated the impacts of blue light radiation. Chief among the health consequences of blue light is its ability to reduce the production of melatonin(褪黑素)that regulates sleep patterns in humans and other organisms. Scientific studies have warned that increased exposure to artificial blue light can worsen people’s sleeping habits.

The increase in blue light radiation in Europe has also reduced the visibility of stars in the night sky, which may have impacts on people’s sense of nature. Blue light can also alter the behavioral patterns of animals including bats and moths, as it can change their movements towards or away from light sources.

David Smith, of the conservation charity Buglife, said, “Light pollution can dramatically impact animals. We should consider light from a wider biological perspective than that of just humans and focus on better quality lighting that is harmonious with our natural world. Better quality and lower levels of lighting would help save energy, and lower financial costs, while also making our environment safer for living beings. Authorities can dim the lights during night hours, and change the bandwidths(带宽值)of their LED bulbs to produce less harmful blue light.”

6 . Scientists visiting tiny Henderson Island in the South Pacific recently made an alarming discovery.     1    They calculated there were 38 million pieces of plastic. “This is not an issue to ignore. We need to do something now to protect the sea.” said one scientist.

Plastic waste in the sea has long been known about, but only now are we discovering the true extent of the problem. Plastic takes hundreds of years to decompose, so all the plastic ever produced still exists somewhere. Around 95% of plastics made are not recycled, and large amounts enter the sea. Currents(洋流) collect this waste in large circular systems called “gyres”.     2    

The problem gets worse as plastic breaks down into very small pieces, or “micro plastic”,     3     Humans also eat these fish, and micro plastic has even been found in tap water around the world. The plastic on Henderson Island accounts for just 2 seconds’ worth of global annual plastic production. That production will be three times by 2050.

    4     While diving in Greece, young Boyan Slat noticed there was more plastic waste than fish. He decided right then to dedicate his life to solving this problem. Boyan thought, why move through the sea when the sea can move through you? So he started The Ocean Cleanup project, which places very long floating barriers in the Pacific. Currents then concentrate the waste naturally so it can be collected and recycled. He hopes to reduce the patch by 50% in just five years.

“Sea plastic is a symbol of the negative effects of our lifestyle and technology,” he says. “    5     Protecting the sea from plastic is a good place to start!”

7 . Plastic recycling is a hot topic. But what’s the real face behind it? You diligently sort your rubbish; you dutifully wash your plastic containers; then everything gets thrown in a landfill or in the ocean anyway. According to one analysis, only 9% of all plastic ever made has likely been recycled. Here’s the kicker companies making all that plastic have spent millions on advertising campaigns lecturing us about recycling while knowing full well that most plastic will never be recycled.

A new investigation by National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) reports that the large oil and gas companies that manufacture plastics have known for decades that recycling plastic was unlikely to ever happen on a broad scale because of the high costs involved. “They were not interested in putting any real money or effort into recycling because they wanted to sell raw material,” Larry Thomas, former president of one of the plastic industry’s most powerful trade groups, told NPR. “There is a lot more money to be made in selling new plastic than reusing the old stuff. But, in order to keep selling new plastic, the industry had to clean up its wasteful image. If the public thinks that recycling is working, then they are not going to be so concerned about the environment,” Thomas noted.

We have been successfully convinced that people start pollution and people can stop it and that if we just recycle more, the planet will be OK. To some degree that is right: there must be a level of personal responsibility when it comes to the climate emergency. We all have to do our part. But individual action is a tiny drop in a heavily polluted ocean. We need systematic change to make a real difference. And, more than anything, we need to change what we value.