Padraig ó Dubhlaoidh,an Irish master violin maker，has created the world’s first-ever vegan violin,valued at 8, 000.

An amateur violinist himself, Padraig ó Dubhlaoidh has long held the belief that animal body parts aren’t needed to create the instrument.“With our planet facing crises on almost every front, the collective voice of people wanting a fairer future grows stronger every day, ”he said.“ Ethical(合乎道德的)musicians are part of this movement and have long wished for a violin that is fully vegan yet retains all the qualities of the classic instrument.”

Traditional instruments are tightly connected to animal products.Like other wood-based instruments, violins use hide glue-a product obtained from the skins and bones of animals-as a primary adhesive(黏合剂).Violin strings and bows have also been known to contain ivory and horse tail hair. Using traditional tools and methods, Padraig chose natural replacements such as steamed pears, berries, and spring water to create the instrument. His adhesive, composed in part of spring water gathered from the hills behind his home, is 100%natural.

More than just an ethical step in the right direction, Padraig says his natural adhesive has other advantages.He said, ”During my experiments, I discovered that the vegan violin has unexpected advantages.Apart from the benefit to animals, society, and our environment, it has become very clear that animal-based glues have harmful effects on violins, inducing powerful tension on wooden components.The adhesive used in my vegan violin, however, has no such effect.This is an acoustic(声音的)improvement.”

While Padraig doesn’t think everyone will switch to the vegan violin immediately, he does think there’s a bright future ahead for his instrument and the concept of vegan instruments. He continues to make both vegan and non-vegan violins in his workshops. However, he said, “Just as petrol cars are gradually being replaced with more eco-friendly options, the same progression may happen to violins gradually, and even many other handicrafts.”

Jimmy likes to follow rubbish trucks. His strange habit makes sense when you consider that he's an environmental scientist who studies how to reduce rubbish, including things that fall off rubbish trucks as they drive down the road. What is even more interesting is that one of Jimmy's jobs is defending an industry behind the plastic shopping bag.

Americans use more than 100 billion thin film plastic bags every year. So many and up in tree branches or along highways that a growing number of cities do not allow them in supermarkets. The bags are not allowed in some 90 cities in California, including Los Angeles. Seeing these headwinds, plastic-bag makers are hiring scientists like Jimmy to make the case that their products are not as bad for the planet as most people assume.

Among the bag bakers' arguments: many cities with bans still allow shoppers to buy paper bags, which are easily recycled but require more energy to produce and transport. And while plastic bags may be ugly to look at, they make up a small percentage of all rubbish on the ground today.

The industry has also taken aid at the product that has appeared as its replacement; reusable shopping bags. The stronger are usable bag is, the longer its life and the more plastic-bag use it cancels out. However, long-lasting reusable bags often require more energy to make. One study found that a cotton bag must be used at least 131 times to be better for the earth than plastic.

Environmentalists don't question these points.They hope paper bags will be banned someday, too. They want shoppers to use the same reusable bags for years.

Using more wood for construction has been praised as a lower-emission alternative to carbon-intensive steel and concrete but it may not be as carbon friendly as thought.

“It would be very convenient if wood were a better solution,” says Tim Searchinger atPrinceton University. Wood is, in theory, a renewable resource and any wood used in buildings acts as long-term carbon storage. Research has found that using wood for construction instead of concrete and steel can reduce emissions.

But Searchinger says many of these studies are based on the false assumption that harvesting wood is carbon neutral (中和的). “Only a small percentage of the wood gets into a timber (木材) product, and a fraction (小部分) of that gets into a timber product that can replace concrete and steel in a building,” he says. Efficiencies vary in different countries, but much of a harvested tree is left to rot and used for short-lived products like paper or burned for energy, all of which generate emissions.

In a report for the World Resources Institute, Searchinger and his colleagues have modeled how using more wood for construction would affect emissions between 2010 and 2050, accounting for the emissions from harvesting the wood. They considered various types of forests and fractions of wood going towards construction. They also factored in the emissions savings from replacing concrete and steel. In general, they found a large increase in global demand for wood would probably lead to rising emissions for decades.

The researchers report in a related paper that increasing forest harvests between 2010 and 2050 would add emissions equal to about 10 percent of total yearly emissions. William Moomaw at Tufts University in Massachusetts says the works show that harvesting timber, even when done sustainably, isn’t a carbon neutral activity.

Ali Amiri at Aalto University in Finland says the report’s conclusions about emissions from rising demand are probably correct, but the story is different for wood we have already harvested. Boosting the efficiency of current harvests and using more wood for longer-lived purposes than paper would cut emissions, he says. “We cannot just say we should stop using wood.”