Hello, and welcome to 6 Minute English. I'm Neil.
And I'm Rob.
Now Rob, we’ve talked before on this programme about our love of coffee.
Oh yes, indeed. I couldn’t function without it.
But have you ever thought about the environmental consequences of all those disposable coffee cups?
Oh yes, indeed. I always carry a reusable cup with me so I don’t have to throw one away.
So if a disposable cup is one you throw away,
a reusable one is one that you can use again and again.
Yes, there is a big problem with disposable cups in that many of them can’t be recycled,
so there is a lot of waste for something we only use for a short time.
What are the big coffee shop chains doing about this problem?
We’ll find out a little bit more shortly, but first, a quiz for you. Which country drinks the
most coffee per capita – so not the total amount of coffee but the average per person. Is it:
a) Japan b) Kenya, or
c) Finland What do you think, Rob?
Ooh, tricky. I don’t think the Japanese are big coffee drinkers and I know they produce
a lot of coffee in Kenya. I’m surprised the USA isn’t on the list but I’m going to go with
Finland. Just because.
Well, we'll see if you're right later in the programme. On a recent BBC You and Yours radio
programme they discussed the topic of coffee cups. Some of the big chains are now charging customers
more for a disposable cup and giving discounts if people bring their own reusable. However not all
of the shops actually collect old cups and sort them for recycling in the shop itself. Here’s
Jaz Rabadia from Starbucks, Is the store only interested in facilities inside their shops?
It is something that we are in the process of rolling out and it will be in all of our stores.
It's also not just our stores in which these cups end up. So we're doing a lot of work
outside of our store environment to ensure that paper cups can be recycled on the go. We're
working with our environmental charity partner Hubbub to increase recycling infrastructure
outside of our stores because that too is where a lot of our cups will end up.
So are they just working in their stores at improving recycling?
Rob Well no, after all most people
take their coffee out of the stores, so they are working on recycling infrastructure outside as
well. This will be things like bins and collection points which are clearly marked for coffee cups.
And what about enabling recycling cups in store?
Well, she said that was something they are rolling out to all stores. Rolling out here
means introducing over a period of time. So it’s starting to happen but is not finished yet.
Let’s listen again.
It is something that we are in the process of rolling out and it will be in all of our stores.
It's also not just our stores in which these cups end up. So we're doing a lot
of work outside of our store environment to ensure that paper cups can be recycled on
the go. We're working with our environmental charity partner hubbub to increase recycling
infrastructure outside of our stores because that too is where a lot of our cups will end up.
Not everyone, however, believes that the coffee chains are doing everything
that they can. This is Mary Creagh, a member of the British parliament.
She compares the situation to that of the plastic bag charge. This was a law brought
in to force shops to charge customers for plastic bags, which previously had been free.
If you think you’re having to pay extra for something, as we saw with the plastic bags,
we think a similar psychological measure is needed, a nudge measure,
to encourage people to remember to bring their reusable cup with them
and of course this is something that the coffee shops have been fighting tooth and nail.
Neil She
thinks that we consumers need a nudge to help us remember our reusable cups.
Rob Yes, we need a nudge,
which is a little push, a reason. In this case, she is thinking of a law to make them charge more.
But she says the coffee chains really don’t want this, they are, she says, fighting it tooth and
nail. If you fight something tooth and nail you are against it completely and try to stop it.
Neil Let's hear MP Mary Creagh again.
If you think you’re having to pay extra for something, as we saw with the plastic bags,
we think a similar psychological measure is needed, a nudge measure,
to encourage people to remember to bring their reusable cup with them
and of course this is something that the coffee shops have been fighting tooth and nail.
Time to review our vocabulary, but first,
let’s have the answer to the quiz question. Which country drinks the most coffee per capita? Is it:
a) Japan b) Kenya, or
c) Finland What did you think, Rob?
I took a bit of a guess at Finland.
Well, congratulations, your guess was correct.
The Finns on average get through an amazing 12kg of coffee a year, each. Now, onto the vocabulary.
We had a couple of related but opposite words. Something disposable is designed to be used
once or a few times and then thrown away and a reusable is designed to be used again and again.
We then had 'rolling out' which in a business sense is the process
of gradually introducing something new. This could be a new system,
new product, new technology or even a new way of doing things.
New ideas often need new infrastructure. This is usually physical structures that
are needed to make something work, for example,
rail infrastructure includes tracks, stations and signals.
A nudge is a small push,
to encourage us to do something. You don’t need a nudge to carry a reusable coffee cup, do you?
Oh, no, I’m all for it. In fact, I’d fight tooth and nail to keep hold of my reusable.
Which is quite a coincidence as that was our last expression today. To fight tooth
and nail means to make a strong effort to try to stop something or achieve something.
Well, that’s all from us. We look forward to your company next time.
Until then, you can find us in all the usual places on social media,
online and on our app. Just search for 'BBC Learning English'. Goodbye!
Goodbye!
Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I’m Neil.
And I’m Sam. How are you, Neil?
I’ve been as busy as a bee this week, Sam.
Oh, don’t you sound like the bee’s knees!
All right, Sam, there’s no need to get a bee in your bonnet!
As you can hear, English is full of idioms involving bees.
But the sad truth is that bee numbers are declining at an
alarming rate and in some places disappearing altogether.
And this has serious consequences for humans.
Today, one third of the food we eat depends on insects to pollinate crops, fruit and vegetables.
But bees are in trouble. In some European countries up to half of
all bee species are facing extinction, placing our food supply chain at risk.
Bees are vital in pollinating hundreds of crops, from apples and blackberries to cucumbers.
In fact, almost all plants need insects to reproduce – which is my quiz question – of
the world’s top 50 crops, how many rely on insect pollination? Is it:
a) 35 out of 50?,
b) 40 out of 50? or c) 45 out of 50?
I reckon those busy bees pollinate b) 40 out of 50 of the most common crops.
OK, Sam, we’ll find out the answer later. Now, if you think back to your school biology lessons,
you may remember that plants and flowers contain both male and female reproductive parts inside.
But what exactly is going on when bees pollinate a plant?
Here’s Claire Bates from BBC World Service programme People Fixing the World to remind us:
What is pollination? All flowering plants need it to reproduce. Pollen is moved from the male part
of a flower to the female part of a flower, then fertilisation can happen causing fruit to grow.
Some staple crops such as wheat, rice and corn are pollinated by the wind however many plants
don’t release their pollen easily and this is where insects, and especially bees, come in.
As they collect nectar to eat, pollen sticks to them and they carry it from flower to flower.
Pollination is the process in which pollen is taken from one plant to another
so that it can reproduce. This is the important work done by bees and insects.
Only after pollination can the next process occur – fertilisation - when the pollen carried
from another plant fertilises a female ovule to make new seeds.
Fertilisation occurs in all flowering plants, some of which like wheat,
potatoes and rice are staple crops - food that is eaten in large amounts as part of
a community’s daily diet and provides a large fraction of their energy and nutrient needs.
Fewer bees reduces pollination levels, meaning fewer new seeds are created and fewer crops grown.
But it isn’t just the decline in bee numbers causing a problem. Like us, bees need to rest
and this has led some to come up with creative new ways of supplementing bee pollination.
One such innovator is Keren Mimran, co-founder of agro-tech company, Edete. Here she is, explaining
how dropping pollen from drones can pollinate crops, giving a helping hand to hard-working bees.
How come our food security is so much dependent on an insect that we cannot really control? We
can bring the bees to the orchard or to a field but we cannot control their behaviour. They do
not come out of the hive when it’s raining or when there’s heavy wind, they work only during daytime.
There must be a possibility of developing a mechanical solution to the pollination challenge.
Keren Mimran speaking on the BBC World Service programme People Fixing The
World. Bees’ behaviour can’t be controlled - when it rains they won’t leave their hive
– the structure where bees live, either built by people or made by the bees themselves.
So Keren’s company has developed drones to drop
pollen on her orchard – an area of land on which fruit trees are grown.
The need for these high-tech solutions reflects
the seriousness of the pollination problem for food security -everyone getting enough
affordable and nutritious food to meet their daily dietary needs.
I had no idea bees were so important, Neil. Maybe I underestimated how hard they work.
Ah, you mean today’s quiz question. I asked you how many of the top 50
world crops rely on insect pollination.
And I said b) 40 out of 50 of the top crops.
And you are right! They certainly are the bee’s knees when it comes to pollinating plants!
So in today’s programme we’ve been hearing about the important role
bees play in pollination – transferring pollen from plant to plant,
necessary for the next stage of fertilisation – producing new seeds and fruit inside a plant.
Bees and insects play a vital role in growing the world’s staple crops - food which, eaten in large
amounts, makes up the majority of a community’s daily diet and meets their nutrient needs.
So bee numbers are directly linked to the issue of food security - everyone getting enough
affordable, nutritious food to meet their dietary needs.
Which explains why, when bees won’t leave their home - or hive – some people have
started using drones to pollinate their orchards – land growing fruit trees.
And that’s it for this edition of 6 Minute English. Bye for now!
Goodbye!
Hello, and welcome to 6 Minute English. I'm Neil.
And hello, I'm Rob.
Today we're talking about plastic.
Yes, it's our addiction to plastic that is of concern because this material doesn't
decay very quickly, so once we've used it, it hangs around for a very long time.
It is a problem – and decay, by the way, describes the natural process
of something being destroyed or breaking down into small particles. We hear so much
about the consequences of having too much waste plastic around, don't we?
Indeed. Not only does it cause a mess - wildlife, particularly marine animals,
are at risk when they become entangled in plastic waste,
or ingest it. It's an issue that needs tackling – or dealing with. And that's
what we'll be discussing today and finding out what could be done to solve this plastic crisis.
OK, first, let's challenge you to answer a question about plastic, Rob. The first synthetic
plastic – that's plastic made entirely from man-made materials - was created over 100 years
ago. Do you know what its brand name was? Was it… a) Bakelite,
b) Lucite or c) Formica?
I'm no expert, so I'll say c) Formica.
Well, we'll reveal the answer at the end of the programme. Now let's talk more about plastic.
This man-made substance is everywhere - from clothing to crisp packets, and bottles to buckets.
But the problem is that most of it isn't biodegradable – that's a word that describes
something that can decay naturally without harming anything. Each year, 400 million
tonnes of plastic is produced and 40% of that is single-use. So why don't we stop using it?
It's not that easy, Rob, and it's something Lucy Siegle, a BBC reporter and author, has been
talking about. She was speaking in a discussion on the Costing the Earth programme on BBC Radio 4,
and explained the issue we have with quitting plastic but also how our attitude is changing…
We have this weird psychological attachment to this material that's been around and it's like
a push and pull. At the one time, we're so horrified by what we're seeing – the whales
dying, the oceans vomiting plastic, beaming in from all over the world,
and at the same time we're being told we can't live without it,
so that creates a psychological dissonance –which I think is the barrier to behavioural
change but I'm finding now awareness has peaked and it's going over into activism.
She mentioned the word psychological – that's something that affects or involves
our mind – so here, psychological attachment means that in our mind
we feel we have to use plastic – we're addicted.
But we also see the negative impact of plastic – like whales dying – and in our mind we're also
thinking we must stop! This has created what Lucy says is a 'psychological dissonance' - dissonance
means a disagreement between two opposing ideas – so we're having an argument in our
head about the right thing to do – this is the 'push and pull' of thoughts she referred to.
And this dissonance has been the barrier to us trying to solve the plastic issue – but
now we're starting to do something about it – we're taking action to reduce our plastic
waste – we're turning to activism. That's taking action to change something – it
could be social or political change, or a change in our behaviour or attitude.
Of course there has been a big push – that means people have been strongly encouraged – to recycle.
Maybe in an ideal world the best thing to do is go plastic-free – but that isn't easy, is it?
No, it isn't, and it's something Lucy Siegle spoke about. Getting rid of plastic in our
lives is a gradual process. But where does she think we can make the biggest difference?
I really think that to concentrate on stopping the flow of plastics into your life
is easier and more effective in the long term, than trying to go plastic-free from the outset.
We are in the UK, a supermarket culture, so a lot of the tips and
tricks to decreasing the flow of plastic are getting round supermarket culture.
She says we have a supermarket culture in the UK. Culture here describes a way of life – or
a way that we generally behave – and in terms of food shopping, we tend to do that in supermarkets.
So, for example, customers can make a big difference by putting
pressure on supermarkets to use less plastic packaging.
It does seem that the future of plastic is in our hands – we need to be more careful
about how and when we use it – and use our collective power to force change if it's needed.
But there's no doubt plastic is useful for many things
so it will be a long time before it disappears altogether.
And earlier I asked you what was the name of the first synthetic plastic, invented over a 100
years ago. Was it… a) Bakelite,
b) Lucite or c) Formica?
And I said c) Formica. Was I right?
Formica is a type of hard plastic used for covering tables and working areas
in kitchens – but it's not the oldest type. That was Bakelite.
I may have got that wrong but hopefully I'll have more success recapping some of today's
vocabulary – starting with decay, which describes the natural process of something being destroyed
or breaking down into small particles – which plastic takes a long time to do.
Next, we had biodegradable – that's a word to
describe something that can decay naturally without harming anything.
Then we had psychological – that's something that affects or involves your mind.
Next up, we had dissonance, which describes a disagreement between two opposing ideas.
And then we mentioned activism - that's taking action
to change something. We also mentioned the phrase a big push which means people
are strongly encouraged or persuaded to do something, usefully by force.
And finally we had culture. In our context of supermarket culture,
it describes a way of life – or a way that we generally behave.
Thanks, Neil. Now, remember you can find more learning English programmes and materials
on our website at bbclearningenglish.com. That's
it for now but please join us next time for 6 Minute English. Goodbye.
Neil Goodbye.
Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I’m Neil.
And I’m Rob.
I’ve been reading about ways to protect the environment, Rob, and I’ve decided
to eat less meat. And maybe drive my car less too.
Good for you, Neil! And flying less can also help reduce air pollution.
Right. Flying and driving less are two good ways to combat climate change
because they reduce your carbon footprint – that’s the amount of carbon dioxide or
CO2 released into the atmosphere as a result of your everyday activities.
The idea of reducing carbon emissions is catching on in the music industry too.
Bands and artists who go on tour around the world generate large carbon footprints.
So recently some music groups like Massive Attack and Green Day
started thinking about ways to reduce the impact their tours are having on the environment.
Ha! Green Day – what a good name for a band trying to be environmentally friendly!
Today we’ll be finding out about bands and musicians
who want to continue going on tour but do it in ways which reduce their environmental impact.
And of course, we’ll be learning some related vocabulary on the way.
So, it seems like the days of rock and roll stars flying around the world in private jets
may soon be a thing of the past.
Indeed, Rob, and that brings me neatly to my quiz question. One British band recently announced
they would stop going on tour until they were 100% carbon neutral, but which band? Was it:
a) The 1975
b) The Rolling Stones, or
c) Coldplay
Well, Coldplay had a hit with their song The Scientist,
and we are talking about carbon dioxide and the climate, so I’ll say c) Coldplay.
Good thinking, Rob! We’ll find out the answer later. But first let’s hear from another artist
concerned about her carbon impact. Fay Milton is the drummer of the band
Savages and co-founder of the climate pressure group
Music Declares Emergency. She spoke to BBC Radio 4’s programme You & Yours:
This year I have actually turned down a tour. My income comes from
touring so it has put me in a bit of a precarious situation
but I actually feel quite good about it – it feels like the right thing to do in this moment.
Even though Fay earns a living as a drummer by going on tour,
she has started to turn them down – meaning to reject or refuse the offer of touring.
Losing the income she usually gets from touring
puts Fay in a precarious situation – a situation where things could become difficult,
in this case financially difficult, because she isn’t making money from playing the drums.
But she still wants to do the right thing – in other words,
do what is most fair, ethical and just. For Fay, fighting climate change is even
more important than doing what she loves – going on tour with the band.
Well, good for her! I’m not sure if I’d be so committed as Fay. But if bands stopped touring
altogether, fans wouldn’t get to see gigs – or live concerts and hear the music they love.
Well, that’s an interesting point because it might be possible for bands to carry on touring
and also reduce their environmental impact at the same time. Bristol band, Massive Attack,
want to do exactly that. Their singer Robert Del Naja explains:
We’re working with an electric bus company. We’re going to look at all the energy being
renewable and obviously the power we can create will go back to the grid,
so we’re hoping we can actually create legacy green infrastructure which can then power
future gigs. We plan to travel to Europe solely by train, with the band, the crew and all the gear.
Swapping tour planes for trains and encouraging fans to travel to gigs
by bus are two good ways to reduce the total carbon footprint of the concert.
And by using renewable energy, the gig can create power. This can then be put back into the national
grid, called the grid for short – the network supplying electrical power across a country.
Well, Massive Attack are certainly ticking all the green boxes, Neil,
but who else is doing a good job? Remember your quiz question earlier?
Ah, yes. I asked which band has decided to stop
touring until their tours were carbon neutral and you said?
I said c) Coldplay.
And you were right! Are you a Coldplay fan, Rob?
Just remember to leave your car at home the next time you go to their gig!
Right! Today, we’ve been looking at some of the
ways music bands and artists are trying to fight climate change.
They want to reduce their carbon footprint – the amount of carbon they release into the air.
Some musicians are starting to turn down – or refuse, long world tour dates because flying from
country to country playing gigs – or live musical concerts, generates so much carbon dioxide.
Bands like Savages, Green Day and Massive Attack are trying to do the
right thing - taking the most fair and ethical course of action, even though for some artists,
the income lost from not touring puts them in a precarious – or difficult situation.
But when they get it right, bands can be carbon neutral or even generate power which can be put
back into the national grid – the network supplying electrical power across a country.
All of which means we can ‘keep on rocking’ into the next century
without increasing carbon emissions and adding to climate change.
So, Rob, you could say you were ‘born to run’… on renewable energy!
Ha-ha! Very funny, Neil. That’s all for today but remember to join us again soon
for more topical discussions and vocabulary from 6 Minute English, here at BBC Learning English.
Thanks for listening and bye!
Bye.
Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I’m Neil.
And I’m Sam.
In this programme, we’ll be asking looking at some of the many dangers facing humanity, from climate
change and global pandemics to asteroid impacts and nuclear war. We’ll be finding out whether
human civilisation can survive these risks and looking at some of the related vocabulary as well.
Do you really think humans could become extinct and end up as dead as the dodo?
Ah, so of course you’ve heard of the dodo?
Yes, dodos were large, metre-high birds which died out in the 1600s
after being hunted to extinction by humans.
That’s right. Dodos couldn’t fly and weren’t very clever.
They didn’t hide when sailors with hunting dogs landed on their island.
The species was hunted so much that within a century, every single bird had died out.
But do you know which island the dodo was from, Sam? That’s my quiz question for today. Was it:
a) The Galapagos
b) Mauritius
c) Fiji
I’ll guess the Galapagos, Neil, because I know many exotic animals live there.
By the way, that’s also cheered me up a bit because as humans we
are much smarter than the dodo! We’re far too clever to die out, aren’t we?
I’m not sure I agree, Sam. Lots of the existential risks - the worst
possible things that could happen to humanity, such as nuclear war,
global pandemics or rogue artificial intelligence, are human-made. These
threats could have catastrophic consequences for human survival in the 21st century.
That’s true. But existential risks don’t only threaten the survival of the human species.
Instead, they could destroy civilisation as we know it,
leaving pockets of survivors to struggle on in a post-apocalyptic world.
And it wouldn’t be the first time that has happened,
as the BBC World Service programme The Inquiry found out.
Simon Beard of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge University explains:
The historical record suggests that about once every thousand years an event occurs that wipes
out about a third of the human population – so in the Middle Ages, this was the Black Death - huge
plague that covered Eurasia, while there was also dramatic global cooling at that time which many
people think was related to volcanic eruptions and about a third of the global population died.
So, humanity has been facing these risks throughout history, according to the historical
record – the collection of all written and recorded past events concerning the human race.
Yes. Wars and plagues –infectious, epidemic diseases which spread between countries
can quickly wipe out – or completely destroy, millions of people.
And there’s not much we can do to stop disasters like that!
True, Sam, but what about individuals who actively work to bring about the end of the world - like
apocalyptic terrorists, rampage shooters and fundamentalist cults like those who
organised the poisonous gas attack on the Tokyo subway.
Those are people who want to end human life on Earth and bring about
Doomsday - another word for the final, apocalyptic day of the world’s existence.
Right. And things got even scarier in modern times with the invention of nuclear weapons.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis between America and the USSR for example, risk experts estimated
a 41% probability that human life would be completely wiped out! Seth Baum of New York’s
Global Catastrophic Risk Institute explains how human error almost brought about Doomsday:
There are some ways that you could get to a nuclear war
without really intending to, and probably the biggest example is if you have a false alarm
that is mistaken as a nuclear attack, and there have been a number of,
maybe even very serious false alarms, over the years, in which one side or the other genuinely
believed that they were under nuclear attack, when in fact they were not at all under nuclear attack.
One such false alarm - an incorrect warning given so that people wrongly
believe something dangerous is about to happen, came about in 1995, when the US
sent missiles up into the Earth’s atmosphere to study the aurora borealis, the northern lights.
Soviet radars picked up the missiles, thinking they were nuclear warheads and almost retaliated.
Nuclear Armageddon was only averted by the actions of one clear-thinking Russian general
who decided not to push the red button
Phew! A close shave then! Well, Neil, all this doomongering has
made me want to just give it all up and live on a desert island!
Like the dodo eh, Sam? So, which island would that be? If you remember,
today’s quiz question asked where the dodo was from.
I said The Galapagos.
And I’m afraid to say it was b) Mauritius. So, to recap, in this programme we’ve been discussing
Doomsday – the final day of life on Earth and other existential
threats - dangers threatening the survival of humans on the planet.
We looked back throughout the historical record - all recorded human history,
to see examples of threats which have wiped out, or killed millions of people in the past,
including wars and plagues which spread epidemic diseases between populations.
And we’ve seen how modern dangers, like nuclear war and climate change,
further reduce the probability of human survival. But Sam, it’s not all doom and gloom!
The same scientific intelligence which spilt the atom could also find
solutions to our human-made problems in the 21st century, don’t you think?
So, the end of the world might be a false alarm – or unfounded warning – after all!
Let’s hope we’ll all still be here next time for another edition of 6 Minute English. Bye for now!
Bye.
Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I'm Sam…
And I'm Neil.
In this programme, we’re discussing low emission
zones and explaining some useful items of vocabulary along the way.
Well, that’s good, Sam. But what exactly is a low emission zone?
Well, the noun emission is an amount of,
usually, gas, that is sent out into the air and harms the environment – it’s pollution.
And a low emission zone is an area of a city where the amount of pollution is controlled.
Of course, and cities like London have them - most vehicles, including cars and vans,
need to meet certain emissions standards or their drivers must pay a daily charge
to drive within the zone – or they might even be banned altogether.
Exactly. It’s all about making the air we breathe cleaner. And my question today is
about one UK city which recently announced it wants to be the country’s first ‘net zero’
city - placing their greenhouse emissions at a neutral level. But which one is it? Is it…
a) Glasgow
b) Manchester
c) Cardiff
Ah yes, I’ve heard about this and I’m sure it is a) Glasgow.
OK, I'll let you know if that was correct at the end of the programme. Now,
Neil mentioned that London already has an ultra-low emission zone. But this year,
other UK cities, including Bath, Leeds and Birmingham, are also bringing in Clean Air Zones.
And around the world, many other cities, like Beijing, Paris and Madrid have these zones.
Although there are many types of emissions, such as from factories, these zones predominantly
target exhaust fumes from vehicles – poisonous gases called nitrogen dioxide.
Let’s hear from an expert on this - Alastair Lewis, who is a Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry
at the University of York. He spoke to BBC Radio 4’s Inside Science programme and explained why
we should be trying to reduce these pollutants – a word for the substances that cause pollution…
Most of the evidence we have now on air pollution is that we continue to see
health benefits by reducing pollution, even when you're below the target value. So, just because
the city meets a particular value, there is still an incentive to continue to improve air quality,
because the health benefits continue to build up as you do that. So, targets are very good
at focusing the mind, but they shouldn't be the only thing that we're considering.
Alastair Lewis mentions ‘targets’. These are official levels of something that need to
be achieved. They give us something to aim for – in this case reducing air pollution.
He uses the phrase ‘focusing the mind’ – that means to concentrate on one idea or thought.
But, while setting a target to cut air pollution is good – it has health benefits – we shouldn’t
just focus on meeting the target. Even if the target is met, we shouldn’t stop
trying to improve. The incentive should be that we are improving people’s health.
And an incentive is something that encourages someone to do something.
So, I think it’s accepted that creating low emission zones is an incentive because it
encourages people to either not drive into cities or to, at least, drive low-polluting vehicles.
And, of course, changing to electric-powered cars
is one way to do this. There’s more of an incentive to do this now, at least in the UK,
because the government has said new diesel and petrol cars and vans will be banned from 2040.
But pollution from vehicles is just part of the problem, as Alastair Lewis points out…
One has to accept that air pollution is an enormously complex
problem with a very very large number of contributing sources, and there will never
be any one single action that will cure the problem for us. So, low emission zones are
one way to reduce concentrations, but they are not, in isolation, going to be the solution.
So, Alastair points out that air pollution is a complex problem – it’s complicated,
difficult and involves many parts.
Yes, there are many sources – things that create these emissions. So,
it’s not possible to solve - or cure – the problem by doing one thing.
Low emission zones are only one part of the solution to the problem.
He said it was one way to reduce concentrations – he means amounts of substances, pollutants,
found in something, which here is the air.
Well, earlier, Neil, you had to concentrate your mind and answer a question about
emissions. I asked which UK city recently announced it wants to be the country’s first
‘net zero’ city - placing their greenhouse emissions at a neutral level. Was it…
a) Glasgow
b) Manchester, or
c) Cardiff
And, Neil, what did you say?
I said it’s Glasgow.
And it is Glasgow! Well done, Neil. It wants to become the UK's first ‘net zero’ city. And
later this year it is hosting a major United Nations climate change summit.
OK, Sam, I think we need a recap of the vocabulary we’ve discussed, starting with emissions…
Emissions are amounts of, usually, gas that is sent out into the air from things like cars.
They harm the environment. And pollutants are the actual substances that cause pollution…
To focus the mind means to concentrate on one idea or thought.
And we mentioned an incentive, which is something that encourages someone to do something.
Complex describes something that is complicated, difficult and involves many parts.
And when talking about pollution, we sometimes talk about concentrations.
These are amounts of substances, or pollutants, within something.
So, in a polluted city, we might find high concentrations of nitrogen
dioxide because of all the traffic – it’s not great for our health, Sam.
Indeed, Neil – that’s why we need low emission zones!
And that brings us to the end of this 6 Minute English programme. See you soon. Bye.
Goodbye.
Hello and happy Christmas! This is 6 Minute English with me,
Neil. And joining me today is Sam.
Hello.
So, Sam, are you feeling excited about Christmas?
Of course! Time with friends and family, eating lots,
partying, presents – and generally indulging – what’s not to like?
Indulging – allowing yourself to have perhaps too much of something you enjoy. Well, it only
happens once a year, Sam. But for those of us who do celebrate Christmas, it comes at a price.
Yes, well buying all those presents can be expensive.
Not just that, Sam. I mean it comes at a cost to the environment, as we’ll explain shortly.
But let’s start off with a quiz question for you to answer. In 2010, a Christmas tree in Belgium
was awarded the world record for having the most lights on it – but do you how many? Were there…
a) 19,672
b) 94,672, or
c) 194,672
What do you think, Sam?
Well, I don’t think you could fit 194, 673 lights on a Christmas tree, so I’ll say a) 19,672.
OK. Well, we’ll find out how ‘bright’ you are at the end of the programme!
Of course, Christmas trees are the ultimate Christmas decoration.
It’s part of the Christmas tradition and millions are bought around the world each year.
But what impact do Christmas trees - real and artificial - have on the environment?
Well before we answer that, let’s hear from some of the BBC Learning English
team who chose to have a real Christmas tree in their home and find out why…
Well, you've got the smell of it. You've got the look of it. But more importantly, it’s
Christmas trees are supposed to be symbolic, aren't they? So the idea of something that
stays green all year, so bringing that into your house it, it means something.
I just think a real Christmas tree is more festive and more Christmassy.
And it's just the tradition to get a real Christmas tree, that's all.
There’s something more beautiful about the nature, the smell,
the feel, the look of the tree and I like it to be sustainable. So, as long as I get my tree from
a person that promises to grow two or three in its place, then I'm really, really happy.
Yes, I agree – you can’t beat having a real Christmas tree. And as Phil said, it’s
symbolic – it represents something important – and here a Christmas tree is the symbol of Christmas.
And as Jiaying mentioned, it’s a tradition – something that’s done regularly and has
become the expected thing to do – and I’d agree it makes things more festive – a
word to describe the joyful feeling you get when celebrating something like Christmas.
But of course, all these trees are often thrown away, which is wasteful.
That's why Roy mentioned his tree being sustainable – which means they can continue
to be grown and cut down over a longer period so it’s less harmful to the environment.
Well, an alternative to a real Christmas tree is a fake or artificial one,
which is what Feifei from our team has in her house. What are the reasons why?
We have a plastic Christmas tree, which we've had for about nine years. So it's plastic so you can
re-use it every year and it's more economical, and we don't have to keep buying new trees.
So Feifei’s fake tree is made of plastic – so that’s not great for
recycling – but the good thing is she uses it year after year which makes
it economical – which means it doesn’t cost a lot of money, it’s good value.
Ah, but even Feifei admits it doesn’t have the smell and feel of a real tree.
It’s a dilemma isn’t it, Neil?
Yes – what’s best for us and what’s best for the environment?
The BBC’s Reality Check programme found that real trees take about 12 years to grow and as they do,
they absorb carbon from the atmosphere and nitrogen from the soil – so a good thing.
But when it’s chopped down, it starts to release emissions back into the atmosphere – especially if
you have to transport it to your home. And when Christmas is over, if it ends up in landfill,
the tree’s carbon footprint will be higher.
But its carbon footprint will be lowered if it’s recycled or composted – that’s the process of
allowing it to decay and then adding it to the ground to improve soil quality. A fake tree on
the other hand is usually imported, and can’t usually be recycled but, as Feifei mentioned,
it can be re-used. But without any type of Christmas tree, where would we put all those
lights I mentioned earlier, Sam? I asked you: In 2010, a Christmas tree in Belgium was awarded
the world record for having the most lights on it – but did you know how many? What do you say, Sam?
I think I said 19,672.
Ooo, not very bright I’m afraid! There were in fact 194, 672!
Wow – think of the electricity that must have used!
Indeed. Well, let’s enlighten everyone with some of the vocabulary we’ve discussed today.
OK, well we started talking about indulging – that means
allowing yourself to have perhaps too much of something you enjoy.
When something is symbolic, it represents something important.
And the word festive describes the joyful feeling you get when celebrating something like Christmas.
Like the festive jumper you are wearing today, Neil – very jolly!
OK, next we mentioned sustainable – which means
the ability to do something over a long period of time without harming the environment.
Economical describes doing something that doesn’t cost a lot of money, it’s good value.
And when something is composted, it is allowed to decay – and it turns
in to compost which can be added back into the soil to improve its quality.
Thank you, Sam. And that brings us to the end of 6 Minute English for now.
It just leaves us to wish you a very happy Christmas. Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I’m Neil.
And I’m Georgina.
Sorry I was late today, Georgina. I’d forgotten to take the recycling bins out before the rubbish
collection this morning. I seem to have more and more plastic packaging each week! Actually, that’s
the topic of our programme. With more and more household waste being either incinerated – that’s
burned - or being buried underground, we’ll be asking - is the recycling system broken?
China used to accept 55% of the world’s plastic and paper scrap – another word for
unwanted waste - or in other words, rubbish. That included waste sent over from Britain.
But in 2018 it stopped taking any more.
Other countries like Indonesia and Vietnam took over China’s waste processing role.
But they too are now sending much of the scrap back,
arguing it is contaminated and it is harming their own environments.
This has created major problems for countries in the West
who traditionally relied on others to process their recycling waste.
And the problem isn’t going away. In fact, we are creating more household waste than ever.
So here’s my quiz question. On average, how many kilograms of household waste were generated per
person in the UK last year? Was it: a) 280 kg
b) 480 kg c) 680 kg
That sounds like a lot of waste! I’ll say a) 280 kg.
OK. We’ll find out later if you were right. Although nowadays people are recycling more,
the use of plastic isn’t decreasing at the same rate.
The BBC World Service’s programme The Inquiry spoke to Roland Geyer,
a professor at the University of California about the current situation.
There’s been a real raise in consciousness which is fantastic and I’m really glad
that now it seems the public at large is really interested in this issue
and appalled and wants to do something about it, wants to change it. But at the same time I don’t
see yet any real action that would make things better because while all of this
is happening the virgin plastic industry is actually increasing its production capacity.
Workers who process recycling are often exposed to dangerous waste materials which can harm them.
Professor Geyer says there has been a raise in consciousness about this problem – meaning that
people are being told about an unfair situation with the aim of asking them to help change it.
Now, professor Geyer is an American and he uses 'raise' as a noun.
The main problem comes from virgin plastic - original, unused plastic containers.
These are made directly from fossil fuels like crude oil
or natural gas - major sources of carbon dioxide and climate change.
But consciousness-raising of this issue is having an impact.
The public at large – meaning most people in the world, rather than just
some of them – are concerned about the increase in plastic waste and want to do something to help.
However, it’s not always easy to know what the best way to help is.
Another expert, Professor Monic Sun,
believes that focusing only on recycling may not be the best idea.
She conducted psychological experiments to find out more about peoples’ attitudes to recycling…
..and surprisingly found that if people know
recycling is an option they tend to use more resources. They reduce any guilty
feelings by telling themselves that the material will be recycled anyway.
We have the slogan of ‘Reduce, Reuse and Recycle’ and the priority should
be exactly that – reduce and reuse is better than recycling. And the cost of
recycling is often not emphasised enough. People perceive recycling to be great but
there’s actually significant labour and material costs associated with recycling.
Professor Sun mentions ‘Reduce, Reuse and Recycle’ as a useful slogan - a short,
easily remembered phrase, often used to promote an idea,
in this case, that we should all do what we can to protect the environment.
But while protecting the planet is a common goal, recycling in itself
may not be so important. It’s better to reduce and reuse than recycle,
so these two objectives should be emphasised - highlighted as being especially important.
Do you remember my quiz question? I asked you how
many kilograms of waste the average British person generated last year.
I reckoned it was a) 280 kg.
That would be bad enough, but the real answer is b) 480 kg. Multiply that by
the UK population of 66 million and you start to see the size of the problem!
Today we’ve been talking about the problems associated with recycling
scrap – another word for rubbish.
Western countries used to send their rubbish to China for recycling but this caused issues for
the local environment. Some groups raised consciousness about the problem – made
people aware of the situation to encourage them to help change it.
The public at large – most people in the world – are now
aware of the need to ‘Reduce, Reuse and Recycle’,
the slogan – or short, memorable phrase – used by environmentalists to spread their message.
A related problem is the increase of virgin plastic – original, unused plastic made from
fossil fuels. Recycling is unable to keep pace with virgin plastic production, so instead
reducing and reusing plastic should be emphasised - highlighted as being especially important.
And that’s all from us. Bye for now.
Bye.
Hello, this is 6 Minute English. I'm Neil.
And I'm Georgina.
Georgina, what do you do to cheer yourself up?
Having a walk usually helps – especially if it’s in the countryside.
Yes, being in all the green open space can certainly help us relax
and de-stress – getting back to nature can be a tonic when you’re feeling down.
Georgina A tonic is
something that makes you feel happier and healthier. I’ll drink to that!
Me too. But connecting with the natural world is particularly beneficial to people with mental
health issues such as clinical depression. And it’s something that’s being called ‘ecotherapy’.
More on that in a moment but here’s a question for you to answer, Georgina.
OK, Neil. Fire away.
Well, seeing or even hugging trees is a form of therapy, but how high is the world’s tallest tree
thought to be? Is it... a) 65.8 metres,
b) 115.8 metres, or c) 185.8 metres
Georgina, any ideas?
Not a clue – but let’s go for the highest figure of 185.8 metres.
Are you sure? Well, we’ll have to wait until the end of the programme to find out.
Now, the mental health charity, Mind, describes ecotherapy as a formal type of
treatment which involves doing outdoor activities in nature.
However, there’s not one simple definition, it just relates to doing activities outdoors.
Yes, it can involve doing many things, such as outdoor yoga or
horticulture – another name for gardening. It doesn’t involve taking medication,
but instead, it just develops a person’s relationship with nature.
It’s something Patricia Hasbach knows a lot about. She’s a clinical psychotherapist and told the BBC
Radio programme Health Check how ecotherapy can help. Does she say it can help everyone?
I often think about ecotherapy as another tool in the therapist's toolbox. It's not a
panacea. It's not going to erase somebody's pain or grief. But it is a powerful tool,
you know. Traditionally therapy has stopped at the urban boundary.
So it’s interesting that she describes ecotherapy as a tool – something that can
be used to achieve something else. Here is can be used to help improve someone’s mental health.
Ah, but she says it’s not a panacea – so not something that will solve everything – it won’t
erase or get rid of someone’s pain. But going beyond what she calls the ‘urban boundary’,
and into the natural world, means there is another method for helping people.
Now, as we’ve mentioned, ecotherapy can take on many forms – doing art in a forest or
running on a beach are all therapeutic. They're things that makes you feel better or healthier.
Well, I think that’s clear, but what is it about the outdoors that affects us?
A good question, Georgina. It seems from research that our busy brains are always on guard, but when
we get into nature it gets a break, there’s not so much to be on the lookout for and we can relax.
Well, it does seem the negative symptoms of urban life can benefit from a dose of
nature – a dose is an amount of something. Let’s get a good explanation from an expert.
Environmental psychologist Birgitta Gatersleben also spoke to the BBC Health Check programme
and gave two reasons – one of them, she explained, was something called ‘biophilia’.
Biophilia, very briefly, is really an innate positive response that
people have with life and life-like features.
The idea that nature reminds us of life, and if we (are) exposed to the natural elements
then our sort of negative feelings get almost immediately replaced with positive emotions.
Birgitta Gatersleben there explaining biophilia – which is a passion for
or empathy with the natural world and living things.
She said biophilia is innate, which means is a quality that you’re born with.
So basically, most of us were born to connect with nature – nature reminds
us of life and gives us good, positive emotions.
Naturally. OK. Well, Georgina, maybe getting today’s quiz question right will give you positive
emotions. Earlier I asked you how high the world’s tallest tree is thought to be. Is it...
a) 65.8 metres, b) 115.8 metres, or
c) 185.8 metres What did you say?
I said c) 185.8 metres.
Oh dear, I'm afraid that's far too high! The correct answer is 115.8 metres. Never mind.
The tree, named Hyperion, is a type of redwood and was found in California in 2006.
Well, that’s still very tall, and would be great to see.
Now we’ve just got time to recap some of the vocabulary we’ve discussed,
starting with tonic which can be a fizzy drink you mix with an alcoholic drink, but in the
context of therapy it can mean something that makes you feel happier and healthier.
Horticulture is the study or activity of growing garden plants – in other words, gardening.
A panacea is something believed to solve everything.
If something is therapeutic, it makes you feel better or healthier.
We also discussed biophilia, which is a passion for or
empathy with the natural world and living things.
And innate means a quality that you naturally have – you’re born with it.
Well, as you know I have an innate quality for presenting this programme – but now it’s
time to go. Please join us next time, and don’t forget to check us out on your favourite social
media platform, on our app and of course the website bbclearningenglish.com. Goodbye
Bye!
Hello. This is 6 Minute English and I'm Rob.
This is the programme where in just six minutes we discuss an interesting topic
and teach some related English vocabulary. Well, joining me to do this is Sam.
Hello! So what’s our interesting topic today, Rob?
Something close to our hearts, Sam – it's travel.
Great!
But more and more of us are travelling to explore the world – many of us have more leisure time,
and the cost of travelling has become relatively cheaper.
But here lies the problem – the places we’re visiting are becoming more crowded,
sometimes spoiling the atmosphere and the beauty – the things we came to see in the first place!
This is why we’re going to be discussing
how some cities around the world are putting restrictions on the tourists who visit.
But that’s after I challenge you to answer this question, Sam! Are you ready?
Bring it on, Rob!
According to Mastercard’s Global Destination Cities Index, what was the most visited city
in 2018? Was it… a) London
b) New York, or c) Bangkok?
All great places to visit – but I think I’ll stay close to home and say a) London.
OK. Well, as always I will reveal the answer later in the programme.
Now, let’s start our journey in Italy’s capital city,
Rome. Famous for its Colosseum, Trevi Fountain and many other things.
Lots of people are visiting, Rob – and locals and tourists have differing attitudes towards
the way they respect these beautiful and historic sites. Respect here is a verb,
to mean treat something with care.
Well, the authorities in the city fear that some tourists are showing disrespect to the city
and have introduced laws to clampdown on certain behaviour. Clampdown means officially trying to
stop or limit people doing something. Sabina Castelfranco is a journalist in the city.
She told BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours programme why new restrictions have been introduced…
The new rules are really to make sure that tourists do not misbehave when they are
visiting tourist attractions in Rome. Romans don't like to see tourists walking around
bare-chested, they don't like to see them wading in their fountains - so really the
objective is to improve the life of the city for residents and for tourists themselves.
So, the new rules are to stop tourists misbehaving – that’s doing bad or inappropriate things.
I’m sure not all visitors misbehave – but those who have been,
have been wading – that’s walking through water – in the famous fountains and men
have not been covering up the top half of their bodies – so, going bare-chested.
Not any more, Sam! These new laws have banned this with the objective of improving the life
for the people of Rome – the Romans. An objective is a plan or aim to achieve something.
Other laws introduced in Rome, with the objective of improving the city, include giving out severe
fines to people who drop litter and to those who attach ‘love padlocks’ to historic monuments.
Well, I guess if it makes the city a nicer place to visit for everyone,
then it’s a good idea. Well, let’s talk about another historic old city – Bruges
in Belgium. The old and narrow streets are often packed with sightseers – so
restrictions have been introduced there. Helen Coffey, deputy travel editor for the
Independent newspaper, also spoke to the You and Yours programme, to explain what is going on…
Bruges was the latest city to say we're going to introduce new regulations to crack down on
what they called the Disneyfication of their city. A really key one is they're going to
cap the number of cruises that can dock, and actually this a big one that lots of cities do.
They basically don't like cruise visitors because cruise visitors don't spend money.
So Helen mentioned a crackdown – which like clampdown – means taking action to restrict
or stop certain activities. And Bruges wants to crack down on the Disneyfication of the city.
This term describes turning something into an artificial, not real, commercial environment,
similar to a Walt Disney theme park. I’m not sure it’s that similar yet, but one way to
maintain the authentic feel of the city is to cap the number of cruises that can dock.
Cap means restrict or limit. It’s felt that visitors who come by cruise ship,
don’t stay overnight and therefore don’t bring much money into the city.
The message from the city authorities is ‘stay overnight or don’t come!’
Well, one city that has people visiting for the day or staying longer is the most visited city
in the world – but where is that, Sam? Earlier I asked you what the most visited city in 2018 was?
Was it… a) London
b) New York, or c) Bangkok?
And I said London.
That was in second place. The most visited city last year was Bangkok, in Thailand.
OK, Rob. Well, maybe what I can get right is a recap of today’s vocabulary.
Starting with respect. If you respect something you treat it with care.
We also discussed clampdown, which means officially trying to stop or
limit people doing something. Crackdown is a similar phrase.
To misbehave is to do something bad or inappropriate.
And an objective is a plan or aim to achieve something.
Our next word is Disneyfication - a term that describes turning something into an artificial,
not real, commercial environment, similar to a Walt Disney theme park.
And finally we had cap – which means restrict or limit.
Well, we’ve had to cap this programme at 6 minutes – and we’re out of time. Goodbye!
Bye bye!