The UN this week launched a report urging companies to stop issuing false net-zero targets that amount to greenwashing.

Greenwashing is a term used to describe situations where companies mislead consumers by claiming to be eco-friendly or sustainable as a marketing plan rather than as a core principle of their business model. Often, these industries spend more money making themselves appear sustainable than they do taking actual sustainable measures into their company.

Cities, financial institutions, and scores of companies have announced plans to reduce their emissions to zero, which, in principle, should help the fight against climate change.

“The problem is that the criteria for these net-zero commitments have varying levels of precision and loopholes (漏洞),” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres during the launch of the report.

Many net-zero plans contain far-away or unclear targets and often call for the use of unproved technologies like carbon capture and tree planting, which effectively allow companies to continue polluting the atmosphere. Studies show that most of these net-zero plans will do little to stop temperatures from rising. For example, many oil majors have announced plans to reduce emissions from their operations to zero by 2050 that do not take into account the carbon emitted by the fossil fuels they sell, which would allow them to increase production. Far from decreasing, fossil fuel production is going strong.

To close these net-zero loopholes, the UN this week released a report that includes 10 recommendations to ensure that companies, cities, regions, and other non-state actors issue credible and accountable net zero commitments. “Their plans cannot rely on cheap carbon credits instead of immediately cutting their own emissions,” Guterres said.

Financial institutions need to cut down emissions from all their investments and businesses need to bring down the carbon footprint of their supply chain, the report said. The report’s lead author, Catherine McKenna, urged companies to release new net-zero targets within a year. The updated targets must contain concrete actionable details.

Industrial emissions (排放) of carbon dioxide and other planet-warming greenhouse gases have raised the global average temperature by about 0.8°C since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But studies have disagreed about what impact the rise is having on the world’s species, says Mark Urban, an ecologist at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. Some have estimated that as many as 54% of species could eventually become extinct as a result of the climate change, but others have suggested no significant impact.①

Such disparate result might originate from the limited nature of some individual studies, possibly because they focused only on a few species or a relatively small geographical region, says Urban.② To address these limits, Urban used statistical methods to help blend the results of previous studies into an apples-to-apples comparison that estimates the risk of extinction of species worldwide.

③He chose to analyze only the results of studies that had assessed extinction risks of more than one species. Then he researched into the details, such as the regions in which species considered, whether those species were limited to one small region or were widely spread, and whether the species were free to move as climate changed or were blocked by barriers such as mountain ranges or urban development.④

Effects of climate change aren’t always immediate, Urban says, and the risks of extinction he’s estimated are the long-term results of species not being able to find a suitable habitat. Maybe the habitat will merely shrink to a size that can’t support the species, or maybe it will disappear entirely. In some cases, he notes, a species might not be able to outpace the shift in its range, dying out before it can reach a new homeland. For over the generations that rapid warming might kill them off before they can spread to a suitable new habitat.

It is reported that bags are getting bigger all the time，and that there are more bags per person on the street today than at any other time in history．If this is true，possible explanations could include the wide use of small electric and electronic devices，a reading-material explosion，a popular interest toward tight or pocket less clothing，or cheap bagmaking labor overseas.

But，much as nature finds ways—such as disease—to control overpopulation，city life has thrown up impediments(障碍) to bags．To enter many public buildings，such as theatres and railway stations，you must go through a search or go bagless．The city has countless bag rules．It is hard to keep them all straight，and you're never sure，when leaving home for the day，whether it might be a bad idea to bring one along．

Last week，the New York Public Library got in the game．Students，researchers，writers，historians，and anyone else who has got used over the years to treating the vast Rose Main Reading Room as an office or a reading room came up against a new rule．You are no longer allowed to bring a bag larger than eleven inches by fourteen inches into the library．If you walk in with one，you must leave it at the coat check．You may keep its contents with you，however，and the library provides big clear plastic bags for them．You return them when you come back for your own bag．

What the library is trying to prevent，in this case，is people taking things out，rather than bringing things in．A librarian said on the second day，”It’s a big change for people who used to come and bring in half their flats．The people who use the library responsibly will continue to do so．The people who steal will continue to get away with it，if they really want to．”