A brown and dry lawn is not something many gardeners would boast about. But that is exactly the kind of yard competition organizers in Sweden were looking for when they launched the prize for the "World's Ugliest Lawn". People from around the world were invited to post pictures of their dehydrated（脱水的）grass to social media in a bid to win the uncertain honor. 

The intention, according to those behind the project, was to raise awareness of "saving water on a global scale by changing the norm for green lawns". Lawns, which can require large amounts of water to maintain, are coming under increasing examination as climate change makes periods of drought more frequent and intense. 

The global initiative was launched on the official website for Gotland in Sweden. "Huge amounts of water are used to water lawns for aesthetics（美学）. As the world gets warmer, lack of water in urban areas is projected to affect up to 2.4 billion people by 2050. By not watering lawns for aesthetic reasons, we can protect the availability of groundwater," the competition organizers said. 

The unlikely title has been awarded to Kathleen Murray who lives in Sandford in Tasmania, Australia. According to the organizers, Murray's lawn "boasts deep and dry divots created by three wild bandicoots（袋狸）and not one dust-covered decimeter is wasted on watering". Murray said in the press release about her triumph, "I am terribly proud! I knew I would have my 5 minutes of fame, even if it was for having the ugliest lawn on the planet! I am now free of ever taking care of my lawn again."

A press release by the Gotland, office added, "For the planet and its declining stockpiles of life-giving liquid, thank you, Kathleen, as well as those naughty bandicoots damaging your lawn for the greater good." Organizers added, "Gotland aims to show to Sweden and the world that sustainable behavior doesn't have to be dull."

We live in a town with three beaches. There are two parks less than 10 minutes' walk from home where neighbourhood children gather to play. However, what my children want to do after school is pick up a screen — any screen — and stare at it for hours. They are not alone. Today's children spend an average of four and a half hours a day looking at screens, split between watching television and using the Internet.

In the past few years, an increasing number of people and organisations have begun coming up with plans to counter this trend. A couple of years ago. film-maker David Bond realised that his children, then aged five and three, were attached to screens to the point where he was able to say "chocolate" into his three-year-old son's ear without getting a response. He realised that something needed to change, and. being a London media type, appointed himself "marketing director for Nature''. He documented his journey as he set about treating nature as a brand to be marketed to young people. The result was Project Wild Thing, a film which charts the birth of the Wild Network, a group of organisations with the common goal of getting children out into nature.

"Just five more minutes outdoors can make a difference." David Bond says. "There is a lot of really interesting evidence which seems to be suggesting that if children are inspired up to the age of seven, then being outdoors will be a habit for life" His own children have got into the habit of playing outside now: "We just send them out into the garden and tell them not to come back in for a while."

Summer is upon us. There is an amazing world out there, and it needs our children as much as they need it. Let us get them out and let them play.

Men's consumption habits are worse for the planet than women's, according to a new study. For the study, consumption-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (排放) were measured For the average individual, the average single male, and the average single woman. These were 6.9, 10, and 8.5 tonnes per capita per year respectively, and more than half of those amounts were due to food, holidays, and furnishings.

What's interesting is that single men and women spend similar amounts of money on consumer goods, but men's choices lead to 16% more GHG emissions than women's. That is because they choose to spend money on things like cars and driving, rather than taking public transportation or trains, as women are more willing to do. More of men's money goes toward alcohol, tobacco, and eating out, while women often spend money on clothes, home furnishings, and health-based purchases.

Curiously, there were no differences in the carbon footprints of men's and women's diets. While men tend to eat more meat, women make up for that in dairy products, which are also carbon-intensive (碳密集) foods.

Lead study author Mannikin Okayama says she wasn't surprised by the findings because previous research had showed similar differences between single men and women regarding energy use. Instead, she expressed surprise at the fact that more studies haven't been done on gender differences in environmental impact. "There are quite clear differences and they are not likely to go away in the near future."

The purpose of the study was to examine where individuals could make changes to their consumption habits in order to shrink their carbon footprints. The researchers looked for ways that would require minimal additional spending, so as to be more accessible to a greater number of people. They found that only switching to plant-based diets and train-based holidays can reduce emissions by 40%.

Policy-makers would do well to pay attention to this if they want to get serious in the fight against global warming.