十五岁的少年Jimmy应该没有想到，他到无惧营的第一个晚上就被拉上台，发表关于“公路旅行碳排放”的学术演讲。
2018年无惧营从“身体，头脑，内心”三个方面培养孩子。其中“头脑”部分，鼓励大家争取我们创办的无惧营奖学金，在无惧营期间做一个“科研调查”，然后把成果出产成论文和PPT。
为完成奖学金项目，学生需要对自己感兴趣的一个话题进行深入调查。可参考的研究内容包括：环保、生态、物种、人文、国家公园现状、自我升、时间规划、习惯培养、团队合作、提高情商等等。
在出发前，无惧营对奖学金科研项目的要求是：
-
问题实质：你想要研究或者解决的问题是什么？能不能具体、量化？
-
研究方法：为了研究这个问题，你是采用的实地获取数据、采访，还是阅读书籍，或是参考网站？为何要选择这个调查方法？
-
调查结果：用清晰直观的文字或者图标呈现你的调查结果
-
自我认知：这个调查结果告诉我们什么？它为什么重要？你能从中学习什么？
可以说是在用美国本科二三年级、社会和自然科学开始写APA格式的学术论文的调查方法，去要求国内15、16岁的孩子们。
我们对论文的要求并不低：中式教育下忽略的自主研究、独立思考、寻找资料、客观辩证等能力，都会在此项目中得到锻炼。
Jimmy的APA初稿，以及我的批注
Jimmy没有被这些要求吓到。他不仅在无惧营开始前一个多月，就在微信上跟我讨论关于公路旅行中垃圾和环保问题的细节，而且还提前在网上把所有调查数据、论文都看好了。因为我告诉他：无惧营之中，要停下来做科研很难，所以得未雨绸缪。
结果，无惧营的第一个晚上，我们所有人聚在一起，听了Jimmy 15分钟的调查报告演讲。Jimmy的PPT是用英文做的；他有点小紧张，“因为有些数据还没有完全准备好。”
在座的孩子有些年纪尚小，对英文的学术词汇比较生疏，所以我们告诉Jimmy, 他可以用中文做报告。
“我还是想试试用英文讲。”
在无惧营后面的日子里，每天早上Jimmy吃完早饭之后，会准时出现在大车门口，和Paul一起帮孩子们搬行李上车。即使有时候我们安排了其他学生参与锻炼搬行李，他也会主动帮忙。
Jimmy很瘦，但小小的身体里有着巨大的能量。我们在Lake Isabella游泳，孩子们嬉戏着，把某个同学的游泳眼镜仍到了十几米外的水里。游泳镜随着波浪越漂越远。Jimmy二话不说地朝着泳镜的方向奋力游去，把眼镜捡了回来。
不仅论文和演讲出彩，Jimmy在高原徒步、20公里长距徒步都走在队伍最前面，还赢得了无惧营扳手腕大赛冠军。（好吧，其实是亚军，如果算上叔叔的话。）Jimmy从来没有在海拔接近4000米的地方徒过步，也没有单日走过那么长的距离，但是他不畏惧这些“第一次”，而且也拥抱着挑战自我的所有可能性。
在无惧营结营的那天，我们给Jimmy写了以下的评语：
子敬不常说话，但他的谨言慎行让这种“留白”成为他的魅力之一，这是连我们成年人都难以学到的品质。这次无惧营最大的挑战其实对他不是徒步漂流、也不是搬箱子和坐船，而是和各式各样的灵魂相处。
希望他能在术业专攻上更上一层楼，遇到自己的知己和导师，有能满足他的求知欲和好奇心的交流体验。相信他能量满满，飞向目的地先要把自己推下悬崖，然后才能在下落的过程中长出翅膀。
Jimmy在无惧营结束之后，总结他所完成的“最困难的事”：
连续31个小时醒着（从上海飞到旧金山）；把19个人的行李放进大车；每天在车里摇摇晃晃地坐几小时；在海上晕船；吃没有蔬菜的午餐；在没有完全准备好的情况下演讲；徒步到3500米，高反；跳进冰冷的湖水；快速徒步10小时……
回到国内之后，Jimmy撰写了APA格式（美国自然和社会科学论文的标准格式）的论文，经过我的两次提议和修改，最后成了有板有眼、恐怕连大学生看了都要汗颜的文章——《公路旅行中可消耗物品对生态环境的影响》。
我们在此隆重授予Jimmy 3000元人民币奖学金，愿他以后能登高望远，展翅翱翔。
Jimmy论文原文：
Influence of Consumables on the Ecosystem during Road Trips
There is no doubt that people use more consumables during road trips then they do in daily life. The more we use, the more pollution we generate. This research aims to help people to learn more about their influence on the ecosystem during road trips and give suggestions to help save our precious planet.
Method
Definition
The Life-cycle Assessment (LCA), also known as life-cycle analysis or cradle-to-grave analysis, is a consulting-based model that can be used to evaluate the resource usage and environmental effects of all the stages of a product, process or activity, to aid environmental decision-making.
Source of Information
During the 2018 no fear camp, I recorded the consumables that we used and estimated the amount. After categorizing the various kinds of consumables by materials, I searched the information about them on Google, Wikipedia, Zhihu, etc. For the fuel part, I used an online tool (https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx) to calculate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of different vehicles.
Comparison Method
After getting the information, we can evaluate the energy usage or the GHG emissions of each consumable product with the LCA results. By comparing different consumable products with similar functions, we can make decisions during road trips on how we consume in order to minimize our impact on the environment.
Results
Food
We consume more packed food when we’re on road trips, so we dispose more plastic. But that’s only a small part of the pollution of food, because the raw materials have a great influence on the environment. Meatless meals are eco-friendlier then meat-containing ones (Dettling, 2016). In comparison to other kinds of meat, beef cattle and sheep costs more energy, uses more land and emits more GHG to produce the same amount of edible protein. Thus, eating beef or mutton is not environmental-friendly (Schenck & Huizenga, 2014).
Electricity & water
We actually use less electricity when we’re on road trips than when we do when we’re at home (if the power consumptions of electronic appliances in the hotels are equal to the amount of power of those at home), so the way to save it is not that significant.
There is no difference of water use during trips and at home, except that we drink more bottled water on trips. Disposable water bottles (usually made of PET) are surely harmful to the environment, while larger packages of water, such as reusable jugs, are better. Tap water, as long as it’s clean, is friendly to the environment (Dettore, 2009).
Fuel
As we can learn from its name, fuel plays a big role in road trips. For long distance trips, travel by railway or coach is the best, for they release little GHG. Airplanes pollute more, but they are better than cars.
To attend this camp, I took an Economy class direct return flight from PVG to SFO. The GHG emission during the flight is equivalent to 1.44 metric tons of CO2. GHG is more harmful when it’s high up in the sky, so the emission is actually equivalent to 2.73 tons of CO2.
During the trip, we traveled for about 2000 kilometers by van. The two vans emitted 1.28 tons of CO2 in all. That’s about 67 kilograms of CO2 per person, a fairly low number compared to other vehicles.
Plastic
Plastics can be found everywhere in our life. They cost little and are good in quality. It is said that they can destroy the environment.
Plastic bags (mainly made of HDPE), unlike what the government had said, are actually not that bad. Paper bags produce more pollution when they are manufactured, used and degraded. When we use and reuse a paper bag for 3 times, the pollution is actually equal to 3 plastic bags that are used only once. Similarly, we have to use the so-called environmental-friendly cotton bags for more than 131 times to be eco-friendlier than using 131 plastic bags once, something that most of the cotton-bag buyers are unaware of (Environment Agency, 2011).
Some types of plastics can be recycled well. A new research showed a certain kind of worm can degrade plastics (Yang et al., 2015). As long as we dispose it in the trash bin, plastic is actually an excellent material.
Discussion
As we can learn from the plastic bag part, sometimes different products produce the same amount of pollution; it’s our behavior that make a difference. When we think about it again, what really pollutes in road trips might not be the consumables we use. It is the things that we bought just for these trips, or the things that we don’t really need. For instance, if we don’t go camping or hiking after this camp, all those sleeping bags, hiking shoes, backpacks are wasted because they did not play there value while the energy and material uses are go to waste. If we sell them on second hand market, or simply just don’t buy them, we can reduce a lot pollution.
Being a rational consumer can benefit the ecosystem. Thinking twice before buying something will certainly reduce the pollution. If we waste less and reuse things more, we can proudly say we are protecting the environment.
For each part of the pollution, I only focus on several LCA studies done by other people, so the results might contain bias if the results of the study are not confirmed. By using the results of meta-analysis or systematic review can solve the problem. I only collect the consumables we use in the 2018 no fear camp, so the amount or the types of consumables can be different with those of the other road trips.
The results of this research can help people learn about their influence to the ecosystem when they’re on their road trips, and help them decide how to choose consumables or other products to protect the environment.
References
Dettling, J. (2016, March). A comparative Life Cycle Assessment of plant-based foods and meat foods. Retrieved from https://www.morningstarfarms.com/content/dam/morningstarfarms/pdf/MSFPlantBasedLCAReport_2016-04-10_Final.pdf
Schenck, R. & Huizenga, D. (Eds.), (2014). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA.
Dettore, G. C. (2009). Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Bottled vs. Tap Water Systems (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS09-11.pdf
Environment Agency (2011, February). Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006 Edwards, C. & Fry, J. M. (Eds). (Report: SC030148) Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf
Yang, Y., Yang, J., Wu, W., Zhao, J., Song, Y., Gao, L., Yang, R. & Jiang, L. (2015). Biodegradation and Mineralization of Polystyrene by Plastic-Eating Mealworms. 1. Chemical and Physical Characterization and Isotopic Tests Environ. Sci. Technol., 49 (20), 12080–12086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02661
再次祝贺Jimmy翁子敬！
– E N D –
美国低龄留学 – 专业、爱心、使命