2 . 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.

3 . Sea life near Turkey is being harmed by a layer of brown foam (泡沫) on the ocean’s surface. The foam, which many people are calling “sea snot”, is natural, but it’s caused by pollution and global warming.

The actual name for the foam is mucilage (粘液). Scientists first noticed and described mucilage in 2007, when it was found near Turkey. Then, it was also found in other parts of the Aegean Sea, near Greece. Mucilage covers the ocean’s surface with a thick, slimy layer that gives it the nickname of sea snot.

This year’s appearance of mucilage is the worst ever recorded. It’s been developing for seven months and is now covering large parts of the Sea of Marmara. The Sea of Marmara is an inland sea, surrounded by land belonging to Turkey, and connected to the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea.

There are many different kinds of algae (海藻), and it’s natural and normal for algae to grow in the ocean or in other bodies of water. But when there is lots of food for the algae, and other conditions are just right, algae would boom, which results in algae growing quickly and in huge numbers. And in very bad situations, mucilage is the result.

There are two main causes of the present appearance of mucilage. One is the heavy pollution — waste water and chemicals — flowing into the Sea of Marmara. The second cause is higher water temperatures because of climate change.

By covering the ocean’s surface, mucilage stops sunlight from reaching all the sea life below. “This mucilage is now covering the sea surface like a tent,” says Muharrem Balci, who teaches biology at Istanbul University. Because there is so much algae, it takes up lots of oxygen from the seawater. That means that there’s very little oxygen left for the other sea life that depends on it. The BBC reports that divers in the area are seeing large numbers of dying fish. After a while, the mucilage falls to the bottom of the ocean, where it covers the sea floor, poisoning sea life that lives there. The mucilage has already been found as deep as 30 meters below the surface.

Mahsum Daga, a local fisherman, told the reporter, “Do you know what it does to shellfish? When they open up, it prevents them from closing up again because it gets in the way. All the seasnails here are dead.”

5 . Japan said Tuesday that it would start pouring treated radioactive water (放射性废水) from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean within two years. Officials in Tokyo said the water would be filtered and diluted (稀释) to safe levels first, but most locals remain firmly opposed to the plan. Protesters gathered outside Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s residence in downtown Tokyo to criticize the government’s decision.

More than a million tons of radioactive water is currently being stored at the Fukushima power plant in a massive tank farm big enough to fill 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The wastewater comes from water pumped in to cool the plant’s damaged reactors (反应堆). The government says it has simply run out of room to store all the water. The plan to dump the water into the ocean first came to light in the autumn of last year, when Japanese news reported anonymous (匿名的) officials said the decision had been taken.

On Tuesday, Suga said that after years of study, his scientific advisors had concluded that ocean discharge was the most possible way to cope with the wastewater. But the decision to pour Fukushima wastewater into the ocean has drawn fire from neighboring Asian countries and local fishermen along Japan’s coast.

China called the decision “extremely irresponsible,” and South Korea summoned (召唤) the Japanese ambassador in Seoul over the matter. “They told us that they wouldn’t release the water into the sea without the support of fishermen,” Kanji Tachiya, who leads a local cooperative of fisheries in Fukushima, told national broadcaster NHK ahead of the announcement on Tuesday. “We can’t support this move to break that promise and release the water into the sea unilaterally (单方面地).”

The actual release of water from the Fukushima plant will take decades to complete. Critics have called on Japan’s government to at least ensure that independent monitoring is in place to check the level of radiation in the poured water is safe for the environment.

10 . 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.”