growing mountain of electronic waste like computers and personal digital assistants. The electronic waste stream is

increasing three times faster than traditional garbage as a whole.

        Electronic devices contain valuable metals such as gold and silver. A Swiss study reported that while the 

weight of electronic goods represented by precious metals was relatively small in comparison to total waste, the 

concentration (含量) of gold and other precious metals was higher in            So-called e-waste than in naturally 

occurring minerals.

         Electronic wastes also contain many poisonous metals. Even when the machines are recycled and the harmful 

metals removed, the recycling process often is carried out in poor countries, in practically uncontrolled ways which 

allow many poisonous substances to escape into the environment.

         Creating products out of raw materials creates much more waste material, up to 100 times more, than the 

material contained in the finished products. Consider again the cell-phone, and imagine the mines that produced 

those metals, the factories needed to make the box and packaging(包装) it came in. Many wastes produced in the

producing process are harmful as well.

        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that most waste is dangerous in that “the production, 

distribution, and use of products — as well as management of the resulting waste — all result in greenhouse gas 

release.” Individuals can reduce their contribution by creating less waste at the start — for instance, buying 

reusable products and recycling.

        In many countries the concept of extended producer responsibility is being considered or has been put in place 

as an incentive (动机) for reducing waste. If producers are required to take back packaging they use to sell their 

products, would they reduce the packaging in the first place?

Governments' incentive to require producers to take responsibility for the packaging they produce is usually

based on money. Why, they ask, should cities or towns be responsible for paying to deal with the bubble wrap (气

泡垫) that encased your television?

From the governments' point of view, a primary goal of laws requiring extended producer responsibility is to

transfer both the costs and the physical responsibility of waste management from the government and tax-payers 

back to the producers.

    The old man walked with a cane (拐杖) slowly into the restaurant. His poor jacket, patched (打补丁的) trousers, and worn-out shoes made him stand out from the usual Saturday morning breakfast crowd. Unforgettable were his pale blue eyes that sparkled (闪光) like diamonds, large rosy cheeks, and thin lips that held a steady smile. He walked toward a table by the window. A young waitress watched him and ran over to him, saying, “Here, Sir. Let me give you a hand with that chair.” Without a word, he smiled and nodded a thank you. She pulled the chair away from the table. Supporting him with one arm, she helped him move in front of the chair, and get comfortably seated. Then she pushed the table up close to him, and leaned his cane against the table where he could reach it. In a soft, clear voice he said, “Thank you, Miss.” “You're welcome, Sir.” She replied. “My name is Mary. I'll be back in a moment. If you need anything, just wave at me.”

    After he had finished a hearty meal of pancakes, bacon, and hot lemon tea, Mary brought him the change, helping him up from his chair and out from behind the table. She handed him his cane, and walked with him to the front door. Holding the door open for him, she said, “Come back and see us, Sir!” He nodded a thank you and said softly with a smile, “You are very kind!”

    When Mary went to clean his table, she was shocked. Under his plate she found a business card and a note written on the napkin, under which was a $ 100 bill. The note on the napkin read, “Dear Mary, I respect you very much, and you respect yourself, too. It shows by the way you treat others. You have found the secret of happiness. Your kind gestures will shine through those who meet you.”

    The man she had served was the owner of the restaurant. This was the first time that she, or any of his employees, had seen him in person.

    In the fight to conserve tropical rainforests, here's a tool you don't often hear about orange peels. Specifically, 12,000 tons of them, dumped (倾倒) on the land. “You don't usually associate waste treatment with biodiversity benefits, something that's good for the environment.

    Tim Treuer is an ecologist at Princeton University, and he's talking about a unique conservation story. It started in the early 1990s, when an orange juice producer called Del Oro set up a company near the Guanacaste Conservation Area in Costa Rica, a region that contains several national parks and a wildlife protection zone.

    Del Oro needed somewhere to dump the orange peels, and the company also owned forested land next to the parkland that it had no intention of growing crops on. So a deal was struck: if Del Oro donated its forested land, it could dump orange peel waste on degraded(退化的) land within the conservation area. Then a thousand dump trucks' worth of orange peels were lying on the land in 1998. “And within about six months the orange peels had been turned from orange peels into this thick black rich soil.”

    “I couldn't even find the site the first time I saw it.” He couldn't find it because, over 16 years, the orange peel waste had sent the land on a journey to become a vine-choked jungle, with three times the diversity of tree species of the neighboring control plot, richer soil and a much thicker covering. In other words, the experiment was a success. The results appear in the journal Restoration Ecology.

    Treuer says perhaps this lesson could be applied elsewhere. “It's a shame that we live in a world with nutrient-limited degraded ecosystems and also nutrient-rich waste streams. We'd like to see those things come together a little bit. That's not license for any agricultural company to just start dumping their waste products on protected areas, but it does mean that land managers, people involved with industrial-scale agricultural operations should start thinking about ways to do thoughtful experimentation to see if in their particular system they can have similar win-win-win results.”

    The words “protect animals” appear everywhere in books and on screens because some animals are in danger of dying out. But sometimes the reality can be a little different from what people read or watch.

    Florida, US, has held its first bear hunt since 1994. The local government gave people nearly 4,000 permits to kill black bears. And more than 200 were killed on Oct 24.

    Animal protection groups protested this decision. But local officials explained that the black bear population had grown to 3,500 and become a menace to local people. In the past two years, bears have hurt at least four people in Florida.

    This brings an old question back into the spotlight – which is more important, protecting animals or protecting people's interests?

    This question is asked in other countries too. In Switzerland, a wolf was sentenced to death by the Swiss government months ago. This is because the wolf killed 38 sheep and local people lost a lot of money. Days ago in China, three old men were arrested for killing a serow(鬣羚), a protected species. But they insisted they didn't know about this and killed the animal because it ruined their crops.

    However, these stories don't always mean that animal protection stops due to human interests, especially involving economic development. A man named Zhou Weisen set up a wild animal base in Guilin, Guangxi. He saved over 170 tigers and 300 bears. But his base also offered jobs to local people.

    “There may never be a standard answer to the question of whether we should give more attention to the environment or human development,” said Robert May, a British biologist at Oxford University. “But we shouldn't push either one to the side, as the future is hanging in the balance.

    Many people go to school for an education. They learn languages, history, geography, physics, chemistry and mathematics. Others go to school to learn a skill so that they can make a living. School education is very important and useful. Yet no one can learn everything from school. A teacher, no matter how much he knows, cannot teach his students everything they want to know. The teacher's job is to show his students how to learn. He teaches them how to read and how to think. So, much more is to be learned outside school by the students themselves.

    It is always more important to know how to study by oneself than to memorize some facts or a formula （公式）. It is usually quite easy to learn a certain fact in history or a formula in mathematics. But it is very difficult to use a formula in working out a maths problem. Great scientists, such as Einstein, Newton and Galileo didn't get everything from school. But they were all so successful. They invented so many things for mankind.

Above all, they knew how to use their brains.

    I had a teacher who used to wake up in class by shouting: "The early bird gets the worm!" I say "let him have the worm". I hate food that doesn't stay still, and avoid Japanese restaurants for that very reason. Anyway, I stopped eating worms at the age of three, switching to regular breakfasts of cereal(谷物), to which I would add extra sugar.

    Recently I was thinking about early birds and the competitive spirit after receiving a letter from a reader in Malaysia: "My son deliberately throws away marks because he doesn't like to be top of the class. What shall I do?" Give him a round of "applause" for being smart! Actually many children in Asia tend to be the focus by performing better.

    Placed into a very competitive class when I was 11, I quickly learned the ideal position was second to last. The top three performers and the very last person are highlighted; the second-to-last contestant is INVISIBLE. And it's an easy position to get—just deliberately underperform at every test. I could do that. I once came second to last in eight straight sports day races. No one suspected anything. I was so invisible that I could have robbed a bank in my street and no one would have noticed.

    At the London Olympics a few months ago, badminton pairs from three Asian countries deliberately tried to lost matches to draw good lots in later rounds. It was funny to watch, but they were all thrown out for poor sportsmanship. What they really needed were acting lessons, their moves were so unconvincing. "Oops, I hit the ball in entirely the wrong direction."

    The other day, I took the children out and they raced for the car. "I'm first," said one. The second said: "First is worst, second is best." Together they sang at the last one: "And third's the one with a hairy chest."

    It struck me that the organizers of sports matches could use this song when people deliberately lost matches. "I lost," the delighted loser will say. The judges could still declare them winners, pointing to a new, optional regulation: "First is worst, second is best, third's the one with a hairy chest."