BOX SET: 6 Minute English - 'Environmental English' mega-class! One hour of new vocabulary!

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!