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.

When the explorers first set foot upon the continent of North America, the skies and lands were alive with an astonishing variety of wildlife. Native Americans had taken care of these precious natural resources wisely. Unfortunately, it took the explorers and the settlers who followed only a few decades to decimate a large part of these resources. Millions of waterfowl ( 水禽 ) were killed at the hands of market hunters and a handful of overly ambitious sportsmen. Millions of acres of wetlands were dried to feed and house the ever-increasing populations, greatly reducing waterfowl habitat.

In 1934, with the passage of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (Act), an increasingly concerned nation took firm action to stop the destruction of migratory ( 迁徙的) waterfowl and the wetlands so vital to their survival. Under this Act, all waterfowl hunters 16 years of age and over must annually purchase and carry a Federal Duck Stamp. The very first Federal Duck Stamp was designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, a political cartoonist from Des Moines, lowa, who at that time was appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt as Director of the Bureau of Biological Survey. Hunters willingly pay the stamp price to ensure the survival of our natural resources.

About 98 cents of every duck stamp dollar goes directly into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase wetlands and wildlife habitat for inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System — a fact that ensures this land will be protected and available for all generations to come. Since 1934, better than half a billion dollars has gone into that Fund to purchase more than 5 million acres of habitat. Little wonder the Federal Duck Stamp Program has been called one of the most successful conservation programs ever initiated.

The Government's sugar tax on soft drinks has brought in half as much money as Ministers first predicted it would generate, the first official data on the policy has shown.

First announced in April, 2016, the tax which applies to soft drinks containing more than 5g of sugar per 100ml, was introduced to help reduce childhood obesity（肥胖）. It is believed that today's children and teenagers are consuming three times the recommended level of sugar, putting them at a higher risk of the disease.

Initially the sugar tax was expected to make £520m a year for the Treasury. However, data of the first six months showed it would make less than half this amount. At present it is expected to generate £240m for the year ending in April 2019, which will go to school sports.

It comes after more than half of soft drinks sold in shops have had their sugar levels cut by manufacturers（制造商）so they can avoid paying the tax. Drinks now contain 45 million fewer kilos of sugar as a result of manufacturers' efforts to avoid the charge, according to Treasury figures. Since April drinks companies have been forced to pay between 18p and 24p for every litre of sugary drink they produce or import, depending on the sugar content.

However, some high sugar brands, like Classic Coca Cola, have accepted the sugar tax and are refusing to change for fear of upsetting consumers. Fruit juices, milk-based drinks and most alcoholic drinks are free of the tax, as are small companies manufacturing fewer than 1m litres per year.

Today's figures, according to one government official, show the positive influence the sugar tax is having by raising millions of pounds for sports facilities（设施）and healthier eating in schools. Helping the next generation to have a healthy and active childhood is of great importance, and the industry is playing its part.