Groups of reindeer, a species of deer, and horses could soon run across the frozen (冷冻的) ground in places as far north as Siberia. That’s because reintroducing these grazing animals (食草动物) can slow down the rate of permafrost melting (永冻土融化) and global warming. A new study conducted by Professor Christian Beer has found that if there are enough animals in the Arctic, 80% of the permafrost could be kept until at least 2100.

It was inspired by an experiment carried out by a scientist named Sergey Zimov. He had believed that because of the warming climate of the Arctic region, the melting permafrost would give off greenhouse gases that had been trapped in the soil for thousands of years, and it would increase the amount of warming and start an endless cycle. 20 years ago, by the Pleistocene Park Experiment, he successfully proved that grazing animals running across the land would break up the snow and help freeze the soil. However, he failed to get his scientific papers published.

But now scientists are taking his warning seriously. According to a survey, 1.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide were given off from melting permafrost between 2003 and 2017, which changed the Arctic from being a place that took in carbon dioxide into a place that gave off carbon dioxide. If uncontrolled, there would be a 7-degree increase in the permafrost temperature that would cause half of it to melt by 2100.

Fortunately, Beer’s study shows that most of the permafrost can be kept if the place is repopulated with grazing animals. “Today, we have an average of 5 reindeer per square kilometer across the Arctic. With 15 reindeer per square kilometer, we could save 70% of the permafrost. If we were able to maintain the high animal density (密度) like in Zimov’s Pleistocene Park, would that be good enough to save permafrost under the strongest warming? Yes, it could work for 80% of the region,” said Beer.

Whether due to genuine concern for the environment or the widespread criticism of plastic among consumers, many companies have invested heavily in reducing their use of plastic packaging, which may indeed have a positive environmental impact. But another trend that’s grown out of the anti-plastic movement is a lot less positive: overpackaging. More and more brands have begun adding unnecessary paper packaging on top of plastic packaging in order to make their products look more environmentally friendly, without actually reducing plastic waste.

Unfortunately, there’s a very good reason companies are adopting this clearly problematic approach. Through a series of eight studies with more than 4,000 participants, we found that consumers will accept a product’s packaging as more environmentally friendly if it’s plastic with an additional layer of paper than if the product is visibly packaged in identical plastic packaging but without the paper. These perceptions (认知) in turn make consumers both more likely to buy a product, and willing to pay more for it.

Part of what makes this overpackaging trend particularly harmful is that it is much valued by consumers who reported engaging in more eco-friendly behaviors. They were more likely to view overpackaged products as environmentally friendly. As a result, the very consumers who are most interested in pushing companies to make sustainable choices are likely unintentionally encouraging the environmentally harmful practice of overpackaging.

The good news is, overpackaging isn’t the only way to signal sustainability and attract such consumers. In our studies, we found that instead of additional paper packaging, simply adding a minimal packaging sticker to plastic packaging could clarify the misperception that overpackaged products are more sustainable, Especially for products for which plastic is necessary to ensure safe transportation and lengthen shelf life, this kind of clear messaging can help reduce consumers, discrimination against the responsible use of plastic packaging.

Of course, minimal packaging stickers certainly should only be used if a brand has actually ensured that it is using the minimal possible packaging, ideally under the supervision of a trade organization or regulatory body that maintains clear, consistent standards.

In advance of World Book Day on April 23, the Chinese Academy of Press and Publication released its 17th annual report on the study of Chinese people's reading habits on Monday.

Based on a survey that ranged from August 2019 to February 2020, the report showed 81.1 percent of adult Chinese surveyed have a habit of reading, whether in print or on digital devices, a slight increase of 0.3 percent from 2018. Wei Yushan, director of the academy, said the survey covered 55 cities and towns in the country and it can credibly represent the situation of the whole population.

In 2019, adult Chinese read on average 4.6.5 books in print and 2. 84 digital books, while in 2018 it was 4.67 and 3. 32, a small drop for both.

While the report said most Chinese feel they 're not satisfied with the amount of books they read in a year. 11.1 percent read more than 10 books in print, and 7.6 percent more than 10 e-books. As for children and young people under 17, "the results are more encouraging, according to Wei. The survey revealed they read 10.36 books a year on average, 1. 45 more than in 2018.

Audio(有声的) books are attracting more Chinese, as 30.3 percent of adults and 34.7 percent of minors had a habit of listening to audio books in 2019, increasing by 4.3 and 8.5 percent compared to2018. The report found mobile phones were the top choice of medium when Chinese people read. On average, adults spent 100.41 minutes a day on mobile phones, 15.54 minutes more than in 2018.

A closer look at the report shows people's priority when using the Internet was to socialize (60.2 percent), followed by getting news (59 percent) and enjoying video clips (56.9 percent). Only 20.5 percent of them used it to connect to books, newspapers or journals.

Still, there's good news in the data from younger readers. Wei said 94.3 percent of Chinese families with children under 8 had a habit of reading, and parents spent almost 25 minutes every day reading with their kids, 2.37 minutes more than 2018