Eco-friendly Vauban, located in the southwest of Germany, is a city where less than 20% residents(居民) own cars, since parking spots are a no-no on private property. Most of the residents get around Vauban by walking or biking, according to a report from ABC news. Can an eco-friendly city like Vauban be a model for Americans to stop their over-reliance on the cars?

Sometimes when I watch a news report what’s in the back of my mind is what isn’t being reported or stressed. While this eco-friendly city is inspiring in that it shows residents getting exercise and fresh air through the majority use of bicycles, as well as good old fashioned walking, common sense would tell you that even for a place like Vauban, Germany, it owes its existence to the cars.

Do you think that bicycles were able to transport all the construction materials that were needed to build and maintain the eco-friendly homes and businesses in Vauban? It took cars to help build this utopia. It is one of the paradoxes(矛盾) of life that sometimes in order to get away from relying on something like the car, you actually have to rely on that very thing at the beginning and into the foreseeable future to some degree.

I myself haven’t owned a car for more than 14 years, and mostly get around town running, walking, or using public transportation. There are times I wish I had one, since it would make many things easier, but overall I’m glad not to have to deal with the headaches of owning a car, which caused me to get rid of it in the first place. And all the walking and running has helped to keep me fit and healthy.

To get even close to being like eco-friendly Vauban, Americans will need to absolutely change the way they live. Commuting (乘车上下班) patterns will have to change, public transport will have to be invested in, etc. And though ending our love affair with the car will be impossible during my lifetime, we may at least start to see more Vauban-like areas in the USA.

We can hope that Americans will consider using their feet more to get around, cutting down on pollution, and giving themselves some more exercise.

A new government report has some bad news about sea levels on the U.S. coastline. 【小题1】 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and six other agencies created the report.

“The sea level rise is upon us,” said Nicole LeBoeuf, director of NOAA’s National Ocean service. 【小题2】 “That’s because the United States coasts are home to a lot of economic activity and 40 percent of the U.S. population,” LeBoeuf explained.

【小题3】 “The greatest rise in the U.S. will be on the Gulf of Mexico and East Coast. The West Coast and Hawaii will be below the average,” said William Sweet, who is the report’s lead writer. The report predicts 0.6 meters of sea level rise in St. Petersburg, Florida. But the study predicts just 0.36 meters in Los Angeles, California.

Cities, such as Annapolis, Maryland, and Miami Beach, Florida, already experience a few minor floods every year during high tides, but those will be replaced by several “moderate (中等的)” floods a year by about 2050. “Higher sea levels mean more floods,” Sweet said, “【小题4】 And many of our major metropolitan (大都市的) areas on the East Coast are going to be increasingly at risk.”

Climate change is the major cause of the sea level rise. 【小题5】 To avoid the potential consequences of the sea level rise, great efforts should be made to reduce the negative effects of climate change.

New Zealand introduced its new climate change curriculum (课程) to schools in January, but not everyone is happy about it. Dairy farmer Malcolm Lumsden told reporters, “If they're going to continue to bite the hand that feeds them, they're going to lose out in the long term.”

The curriculum, which is available to any schools that choose to use it, does point to industrial agriculture as being a major source of greenhouse gas emission. It encourages students to “eat less dairy and meat, have meatless days each week, eat more fruit and vegetables, drive less, recycle and buy second-hand products when possible”. Some of these suggestions, however, are being challenged for not being scientifically sound.

But animal agriculture is widely accepted in the scientific world as a driver of emissions, particularly methane (甲烷), which warms the Earth 86 times faster than carbon dioxide. A brand new study has shown that cutting the consumption of animal products by 50% would reduce dietary-related greenhouse gas emissions by 35%. It is just one of countless other studies that have made similar conclusions.

Kids aren’t clueless (笨的). They hear about the coming global catastrophe (灾难). They deserve to be given the tools with which to comprehend it and to take action. They deserve the knowledge with which to make their own decisions. The curriculum is a response to kids “really crying out for something like this”, in the words of an official from New Zealand.

There isn't about biting the hand that feeds, but rather engaging in thoughtful debate over how humans could be fed in ways that are better and gentler for the planet. Livestock farmers shouldn't be so offended, but rather be open to this debate so as not to become outdated or irrelevant.