We already know the fastest, least expensive way to slow climate change: Use less energy. With a little effort, and not much money, most of us could reduce our energy diets by 25 percent or more—doing the Earth a favor while also helping our wallets.

    Not long ago, my wife, PJ, and I tried a new diet—not to lose a little weight but to answer an annoying question about climate change. Scientists have reported recently that the world is bending up even faster than predicted only a few years ago, and that the consequences could be severe if we don't keep reducing emissions(排放) of carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) and other greenhouse gases that are trapping heat in our atmosphere.

    We decided to try an experiment. For one month we recorded our personal emissions of CO₂. We wanted to see how much we could cut back, so we went on a strict diet. The average US household(家庭) produces about 150 pounds of CO₂  a day by doing common-place things like turning on air-conditioning or driving cars. That's more than twice the European average and almost five times the global average, mostly because Americans drive more and have bigger houses. But how much should we try to reduce?

    For an answer, I checked with Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers: How Man is Changing the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth. In his book, he had challenged readers to make deep cuts in personal emissions to keep the world from reaching extremely important tipping points, such as the melting(融化) of the ice sheets in Greenland or West Antarctica. "To stay below that point, we need to reduce CO₂  emissions by 80 percent," he said.

    Good advice, I thought. I'd opened our bedroom windows to let in the wind. We'd gotten so used to keeping our air-conditioning going around the clock. I'd almost forgotten the windows even opened. We should not let this happen again. It's time for us to change our habits if necessary.

    The UK government has announced plans to tackle sources of air pollution, including popular wood-burning stoves, but its Clean Air Strategy, which was unveiled last week, fails to address the real problem.

    Although pollution from woodburning stoves is a relatively new problem for the UK, it has long been a major one in countries such as Canada and New Zealand. And the take-home message from them as to controlling the release of harmful particulates in the air is simple: ban wood burning.

    "There does not seem to be a limit below which there is no impact on health," says Gary Fuller at King's College London, whose team has shown that wood burning is now the source of a third of particulate pollution in UK cities.

    As New Scientist reported last year, families with wood burners are likely to be exposed to the highest levels of pollution and their neighbours are next in the firing line, given that the particulates produced can easily escape from homes. Despite this, the UK government isn't planning a ban. Instead, it wants "to prohibit the sale of the most polluting fuels", such as wet wood. What's more, lots of people with wood burners don't buy wood from shops. Instead, they scrounge it from wherever they can, with building waste one popular source. This is a disaster in pollution terms as treated or painted wood can release highly toxic chemicals when burned. The plan is also to "ensure that only the cleanest stoves are available for sale by 2022". But even the cleanest stove produces eight times as much pollution as a diesel truck, says Fuller.

    Some cities actually required old wood stoves to be replaced with cleaner new ones. That has helped, but wood burning remains a major source of pollution, says Fuller. In most cases, conventional gas central heating plus properly insulating (使隔热) your home is less harmful in global-warming terms than switching to a wood burner.

    Finally, there are separate but related EU laws that set limits on the maximum allowable concentrations of specific pollutants in the air at individual locations. The UK frequently breaches these: London's Oxford Street often hits its annual limit within the first weeks of each year. As a result, the UK government has lost a series of court cases brought by the environmental organization ClientEarth. Separately, on 17 May, the UK and five other countries were referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for their repeated failures to keep to these limits. If the government really wants to clean up the UK's air, it has a lot more work to do.

    A fresh and gentle wind on your face, soft sand under your feet and blue waters as far as the eye can see. Is there any other Olympic sport that is played in such pleasant conditions as beach volleyball?

    "I've gone to a lot of beautiful places, and met a lot of beautiful people. That wouldn't have happened if I had been playing another sport," said Randy Stoklos, America's most famous beach volleyball player.

    The sport began as a four-a-side game on beaches in Southern California in the 1920s.The first recorded two-man game took place there in 1930, and the first tournament was held in Los Angeles 18 years later. The winners were awarded a case of Pepsi. In the 1950s, women started playing and the sport soon spread to Europe and South America. Yet at that time, beach volleyball was more an entertainment show than a sport, with beauty contests included. The Association of Volleyball Professionals was founded in 1983 and beach volleyball developed into a fast, athletic sport. Its world-wide popularity won beach volleyball a place at the 1996 Olympics in Atalanta, where 24 male teams and 16 female teams took part. At present, the US and Brazil are the best in the world at beach volleyball.

    The game came to China in the early 1990s and there have been national tournaments since 1994. It became an official event at the Eighth National Games in 1997.China's You Wenhui and Wang Lu finished ninth in the women's beach volleyball world championships in Brazil.

When it comes to having fun in the sun, it's easy to lose track of time. If you're not careful, this can be quite dangerous.{#blank#}1{#/blank#}But it can easily be prevented—all you need is a little sunscreen.

{#blank#}2{#/blank#}People have been using chemical pastes to protect themselves from the sun for centuries. But the first modern sunscreen sold on the market was offered by French company: L'oreal in 1935.

Several other companies were quick to release their own sunscreens. Perhaps the biggest advancement in the world of sunscreen came in the 1970s, when scientists started looking at the sun protection factor, or SPF.{#blank#}3{#/blank#}

The advantages of using sunscreen are obvious. It limits the painful effects of sunburn.{#blank#}4{#/blank#}Millions of people have died from skin cancer caused by ultraviolet rays from the SUITL. Remember to apply sunscreen 30 minutes before going outside.

Unfortunately, there are many mistaken ideas about sunscreen.{#blank#}5{#/blank#}Some also think you only need to put it on once for a whole day's protection or that you don't need it on cloudy days. None of these things are true. Experts say you should apply sunscreen every two hours when outside in the daytime, no matter how dark your skin is or what the weather is like.

A. And it can even save your life.

B. Sunscreen is not exactly a recent invention.

C. Choosing a sunscreen isn't as simple as it used to be.

D. In direct sunlight, sunburn can occur in less than 15 minutes.

E. This rating is a number that shows how effective a sunscreen is.

F. It's believed that you don't need much sunscreen if you have dark skin.

G. Some think a good method is to cover as much as possible with protective clothing.

My acquaintance, who never excelled in scholastic pursuits, possessed an innate acuity for aesthetic appreciation. On one occasion, I was engaged in the task of arranging a collection of floral blooms within a container, yet was unable to achieve a visually pleasing arrangement. She approached and, with a few deft motions of her hand, metamorphosed the ensemble into an arresting arrangement of blossoms. Upon receiving commendation for this remarkable proficiency, she dismissed the praise with a nonchalant gesture, perceiving her imaginative prowess as unremarkable.

Frequently, we tend to undervalue our innate competencies, perhaps because we are conditioned to regard only those attributes such as superior intellectual capacity, a proclivity for numerical computation, or an extensive lexicon as possessing intellectual merit. I was graced with the opportunity to discern a different perspective at an early stage of my life.

Upon my commencement of secondary education, a vocational advisor informed my parent that I was not suited for higher education due to my lackluster performance in a spelling component of a standardized assessment. Fortunately, my parent recognized the breadth of my intellectual endowments and advocated on my behalf, demanding that I be included in an academically rigorous curriculum. This episode fundamentally shaped the trajectory of my existence, illustrating the significance of not succumbing to the categorizations imposed by others and enabling me to reach my fullest intellectual capacity.

In the nascent years of the 1980s, Howard Gardner, an eminent scholar from Harvard, introduced the groundbreaking notion of "multiple intelligences." In his seminal work, "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences," he posited that intelligence transcends the conventional definition and encompasses a diverse spectrum of cognitive faculties.

What captivates me about the theory of multiple intelligences is its capacity to reconceptualize one's own capabilities and innate skills, particularly those that may not conform to the structured confines of academic paradigms. While it is acknowledged that a threshold of intellectual capability is necessary for success, the analytical competencies gauged by I.Q. assessments do not encompass the complete narrative. Hence, we ought to extol all of our talents and competencies, for they constitute the essence of what renders your individual cognitive capacity so extraordinary and distinctive.