Rhinos once lived throughout Eurasia and Africa but now are only found in very small parts of Asia and Africa. There are many false beliefs that a rhino horn can cure medical problems. Every year in Africa, hundreds of rhinos are killed for their horns. The horn is usually cut so deep that the rhino is left to bleed to death. So, environmentalists cut off the rhino horn, leaving behind just a small amount to prevent the animal being killed for the horn. However, many hunters will kill a rhino for that small remaining stump. Very soon, rhinos are dying out. But why should we care about this? Rhinos are far away from us.

The World Wild life Fund(WWF) argues that we should set aside reserves to protect rhinos, as well as animals and plants that live in the same areas. Rhinos are one of the most popular animals that people go to Africa to see. It is the same with pandas in China. Many people especially visit China to see the pandas, which is good for the economy of these areas. In addition, they have increased the status of China in the world as people are impressed with the work that the Chinese are doing to save their wildlife.

But beyond these practical and economic reasons that benefit humans, there is another argument for saving animals from extinction. This argument is based on the animals themselves—every animal, however small or seemingly insignificant, is interesting, unique and beautiful in its own way. They are deserving protection, even if it means that humans lose areas in which to live and farm.

However, there is a new way of thinking about protection. That is, we can't take care of ourselves without also protecting nature. In specific situations we might choose to favor man and, in others, nature, but overall, we have to protect both. Because it's not just a matter of the direct goods that ecosystems offer us. Instead, it's about seeing the needs of human society and wild ecosystems as inseparable. This view is called “nature and people”.

Rachel Carson’s classic best seller about ecological threats, Silent Spring, started a wave of American environmentalism. It played a direct role in the 1972 decision to ban the use of the pesticide(杀虫剂)DDT. Sixty years ago, the public was introduced to Carson’s arguments. The coming anniversary makes this a good time to consider whether the book achieved one of her major goals: protecting wildlife and, in particular, birds.

Carsen took a complex technical subject — the damaging effects of persistent pesticide and expressed it in one simple, poetic image: a spring in which no birds sang. She asked us to imagine what it would be like to awaken in the morning in a world without these songs. She wrote with grace, and she made us feel the loss. But how well have we acted on Carson’s warnings?

With some exceptions, we haven’t been very successful, and neither have birds. Twenty-nine percent of North American birds have died out since 1970, Grass lands were the hardest hit, with a documented loss of more than 700 million breeding individuals. The number of dead birds totaled nearly three billion, a figure that sparked(引起) a campaign with tips on what people can do to save them. Given these data, it is easy to conclude that despite the brilliance of her writing, Carson did not succeed in protecting birds.

Still, the 2019 bird study, despite its worrying results, also suggests that protecting biodiversity is not lost cause. One important exception is wet lands, where bird abundance increased by 13 percent. The other animative exception is bald eagles, which acre on the edge of extinction at the time Carson wrote, but they recovered in large part as a result of the ban on DDT. A news story published by the Au dub on Society notes that “the numbers show that taking steps like wildlife management, habitat restoration and political action can be effective to save species.”

Dror Angel, a marine ecologist seeks to fight climate change by purposely sinking waste wood to the sea floor, where carbon that the trees stored up while living can remain locked away for centuries. This initiative, led by Israeli company Rewind, is part of a growing trend in carbon capture technologies seeking to draw carbon out of the atmosphere.

Whereas some carbon capture schemes require expensive machines and complex chemistry, burying terrestrial biomass (地球生物量) at sea is extremely simple: All it takes are tugboats, barges, and woody waste from forestry and agriculture. The approach is favoured over other ocean-based carbon capture methods, such as growing and sinking scawced. The advantage lies in the fact that the plant material is grown on land, reducing the risk of robbing the surrounding waters of nutrients. Additionally, the existing infrastructure (基础结构) for terrestrial biomass production makes it more practical at scale. And because woody plants are tough and unlikely to degrade (降解), they can effectively store carbon.

In the Black Sea, Rewind has one of the world’s great carbon burial sites. The sea is much saltier at the bottom than at the top, so the two layers don’t mix much at all — one reason why very little oxygen makes it to the sea floor. And because the layers don’t mix, any greenhouse gases that are produced will be locked in the depths for hundreds or thousands of years.

However, critics raise concerns about potential drawbacks. The transportation of biomass on earth globally may not be environmentally practicable. And removing terrestrial biomass from land could steal soil nutrients over time. Additionally, as new uses for terrestrial biomass emerge, such as sustainable building materials or biochar (生物炭), the most environmentally friendly approach must be considered.

Dror Angel agrees that sinking terrestrial biomass has its limitations and challenges. But the urgency of carbon removal demands that every possible scheme be explored thoroughly, and he says, “I think every idea deserves $1 billion of support to test it out.”