3 . New Zealand has announced it will outlaw smoking for the next generation, so that those who are aged 14 and under today will never be legally able to buy tobacco.

New legislation (法规) means the legal smoking age will increase every year, to create a smoke-free generation of New Zealanders, associate Health Minister Dr Ayesha Verrall said on Thursday. “This is a historic day for the health of our people,” she said.

The government announced the rising age alongside other measures to make smoking unaffordable and inaccessible, to try to reach its goal of making the country entirely smoke-free within the next four years. Other measures include reducing the legal amount of nicotine in tobacco products to very low levels, cutting down the shops where cigarettes could legally be sold, and increasing funding to addiction services. The new laws will not restrict vape (电子烟) sales.

New Zealand's daily smoking rates have been dropping over time - down to 11.65% in 2018, from 18% a decade earlier. But smoking rates for Maori and Pacifika were far higher - 29% for Maori and 18% for Pasifika. “If nothing changes, it would be decades till Maori smoking rates fall below 5%,” Verrall said. She said to end smoking in the next four years was within reach: “I believe it is. The issue is, though, if we don't change what we’re doing, we won’t make it for Maori - and that’s what the plan is really focused on”.

Smoking has already been widely replaced by vaping among teenage New Zealanders, which is also attracting many young people who would never have taken up smoking - according to surveying of 19,000 high school students this year, nearly 20% were vaping daily or several times a day, the majority with high nicotine doses. That’s compared to 3% of those aged 15-17 who smoked daily in 2018, or 13% who smoked a decade earlier.

Verrall said the legislation would be introduced in 2022, with the age limits coming in in 2023.

5 . LONDON—England will join the growing list of places that don’t allow smoking in public buildings, taxis and other places that includes even Buckingham Palace with a strong law.

Pubs, clubs and restaurants will all be smoke-free places. Taxi drivers have been warned that they could be fined(罚款) 50 pounds, or about $100, if they are caught lighting up inside work taxis.

Experts say the bans have become unchangeable because of increasing health costs and public worry over second-hand smoke. Some of the strictest smoking bans are in some of the United States’ states, such as New York and Florida, which include bars and restaurants as smoke-free places.

Spain, Italy, Iran, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, South Africa, Uruguay and New Zealand have made laws to limit smoking. France banned smoking in many public places in February and cafes and restaurants will become non-smoking places next year. Finland will introduce a ban, too.

Bans are spreading among countries, and the World Health Organization supports them, but it said that by 2030 there will be “at least another two billion smokers in the world” and an expected decrease in male smokers “will be offset(抵消) by an increase in female smoking rates, especially in developing countries.”

In advance of the English ban, anti-smoking ads have coated bus stops and the government prepares to pay some money to help people give up smoking. The rest of Britain—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—already have smoking bans ready.

7 . Known as a “living fossil”, the Chinese sturgeon(中华鲟)is a very precious species. It is believed to have lived alongside the dinosaurs more than 140 million years ago. Although dinosaurs are long since gone, the Chinese sturgeon still exists. However, the species has been listed as ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species．

On May 14,Shanghai legislators(立法机构)passed a new law protecting the Chinese sturgeon, emphasizing “regional cooperation”, according to China Daily. “This is the first local legislation in the country to protect one endangered fish,” said Ding Wei, director of the legislative affairs committee of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Congress.

Taken effect on June 6, the regulation urges cooperation in law enforcement(实施), scientific research and rescue of the species between Shanghai and other provinces and regions in the Yangtze River basin, according to People’s Daily．

The need for collaborative efforts is due to the living habitat of the Chinese sturgeon. As an anadromous(溯河产卵的)species, it mainly lives in the Yangtze River and depends on the Vangtze estuary(河口)for migration.

The protection of the Chinese sturgeon is urgent. China began the artificial breeding and release of the fish in 1984. However, very few of the fanned fish have survived in the wild, the number of which is less than 1000, according to a report by the Shanghai Observer.

Whether this species can be preserved depends on the natural population. “If the natural population is not well protected, the Chinese sturgeon is in danger of extinction.” Li Furong, vice chairperson of the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee of Shanghai Municipal People’s Congress, said in the report.

Since Jan 1 of this year, a 10-year fishing ban on key areas of the Yangtze River basin has been issued, covering 332 nature reserves, which includes Shanghai’s Chinese sturgeon nature reserve．

8 . Germany’s top court has ruled that parts of the country’s 2019 climate (气候) action law must be changed because they don’t do a good job of protecting young people. The result is a big victory for the nine young people who started the law suing (诉讼).

The court suing stresses an important part of the climate change: The change will impact greatly on young people far more than the adults. That’s because the effects of earth warming will become more serious over time. As young people become adults, they’ll be left to deal with many problems that today’s adults have ignored. The government’s failure to plan carefully was putting their future lives in danger.

In 2019, Germany passed a new law, promising that the country would be carbon neutral (碳中和) by 2050. The law made a detailed plan of action until 2030. But the law didn’t have any specific rules or plans for climate actions that would be taken between 2031 and 2050.

Last Thursday, the judges of Germany’s highest court agreed with the young people. They said that not taking climate action made the basic rights of young people to a good future in danger.

The young people had challenged the government’s law in four specific areas. The judges didn’t agree with all of the challenges. But having the court support even a part of their case is seen as a big victory. Neubauer is one of the young people who sued. She works with the climate action group Fridays For Future. Ms. Neubauer said, “Climate protection is our basic right. This is a huge win for the climate movement. It changes a lot.”

The court has given the German government until the end of 2022 to fix the law. The climate law will now need to have a much more detailed plan for the actions that will be taken after 2030 to cut Germany’s pollution, allowing it to become carbon neutral by 2050. Germany’s government has said that it will quickly begin working to make the needed changes.

10 . In the USA, youth curfews (宵禁) are traditionally issued by a parent in the interest of safety. This type of curfew is personal, and rightfully so. However, to stop teenagers committing crimes, some officials have turned youth curfews from family decisions into public laws.

The idea may have been thought to have good intentions. In practice, however, these policies have been shown to be unfair and unconstitutional, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In the town of Sumner, Washington, a father allowed his fourteen-year-old son to go to a convenience store after 11:00 p.m. Sumner had adopted a curfew law that prohibited people under the age of eighteen from being in public places past that hour. The father was fined, and then he pursued a legal challenge against the town. The ACLU, which filed the case on behalf of the father, claimed the curfew laws had violated (侵犯) parents' rights. In the end, Sumner's curfew laws were struck down.

But isn't it irresponsible not to enforce a curfew on teenagers? Curfew laws supporters argue that officials should provide a curfew to ensure teens are home by a reasonable hour. The risk of a serious accident is three times as high for drivers aged sixteen to nineteen as for drivers over twenty. And dangers only increase at night. This indicates to some that a law keeping teens off the road late at night is a positive safety measure. Still, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says that the best ways for drivers to increase safety are by obeying the speed limit, wearing a seat belt, and paying attention. The NHTSA makes no mention of youth curfews making driving safer.

In cities, curfew enforcement has been ineffective or even had a negative impact on communities. Most crimes committed by teens actually happen around 3：00 p.m. , right after school. On non-school days, that time shifts to between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The curfew hours, usually between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. , occur at a time of day when teenage crime is at its lowest. Meanwhile, violent crime rates peak around 10:00 p.m. for adults. When law enforcement performs the teen curfew sweep, policemen are distracted from the more serious violent crimes being committed by adults at that time. Also troubling is the racial discrimination in cities with curfews. For example, recent data have found that in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 56% of youths charged with breaking curfews were African American. Other law enforcement department reports show similar problems. Curfew laws are criticized because they are enforced in a racially discriminatory way.

The ACLU has succeeded in striking down at least one curfew law because of concerns over parental rights. Along with other community and civil rights groups, it continues to pursue other cases, arguing that curfew law enforcement can only increase tension and crime. To arrest teens for driving home from the movies, playing basketball in the park, or simply walking their dog is to punish them for being outside their homes—a policy inconsistent with the individual rights established in the U. S. Constitution.