Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Amid Rollbacks on Environmental Protections, the EPA Goes the Other Way on Delaware River Water Quality

The federal government is raising the required oxygen level in an urban stretch of the Delaware River near Philadelphia to improve conditions for fish and humans, but the move faces pushback from wastewater utilities that will have to pay millions of dollars for infrastructure upgrades to comply with the new rule. In late September, the […]

Environmental activists praise the new rule, which will improve the health of the river for fish. But wastewater-treatment utilities face millions in new costs to make it happen.By Jon HurdleThe federal government is raising the required oxygen level in an urban stretch of the Delaware River near Philadelphia to improve conditions for fish and humans, but the move faces pushback from wastewater utilities that will have to pay millions of dollars for infrastructure upgrades to comply with the new rule.

Water
Government
Waste

Appeal seeks to force factory farms to disclose hazardous air emissions

A coalition of food, environmental and animal welfare groups is appealing a recent federal court decision that upheld a US Environmental Protection Agency rule exempting factory farms from publicly disclosing hazardous air emissions information.

A coalition of food, environmental and animal welfare groups is appealing a recent federal court decision that upheld a US Environmental Protection Agency rule exempting factory farms from publicly disclosing hazardous air emissions information.

Animals
Food

Cold-Water Immersion May Offer Health Benefits -- and Also Presents Risks

Claims about the benefits of cold-water immersion date back centuries

Dr. Mark Harper recalls his first cold-water swim in the south of England 20 years ago. It was August, but the initial jolt from the plunge took his breath away. The shock to his system lasted a minute or two until he was “recombobulated and able to think about something other than the cold," Harper says. A surprise sensation soon replaced his discomfort. “I remember getting out of the water the first time and feeling so good," Harper, an anesthesiologist who has since researched the potential risks and rewards of taking a nippy dunk. "I wasn't expecting that.”Claims about the benefits of cold-water immersion date back centuries. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third American president, wrote toward the end of his life about using a cold foot bath daily for 60 years. He also owned a book published in 1706 on the history of cold-water bathing. But Harper, who became a regular cold-water swimmer after his initiation, said there are strong signs that people can derive mental health benefits from the activity. He mentioned a positive effect on depression and general well-being.“For now, we have a very strong base, but not hard evidence, that cold-water immersion is effective for mental health," Harper told The Associated Press. Harper said his own early experiences with cold-water swimming piqued his professional curiosity. As a physician, he wondered if the brief bodily shock had clinical uses for treating depression. He cited the biological phenomenon of hormesis, in which a stressor introduced at a low dose creates a positive response.Muscles and bones put under stress —for example, with weight-bearing exercise — also respond and grow.Harper acknowledged that the positive effects he's observed may be the result of the placebo effect, a phenomenon in which people who are given a medicine they think will help them report responding to the treatment even if it had no active ingredients. In the case of cold-water immersion, the benefits may come from meeting people, the exercise itself, or simply accepting a challenge and accomplishing it, which improves self-confidence, he said.“Personally, I think it’s all of those things, and the cold has an additive effect,” Harper said. “I think we have a good physiological basis for that. The basic science tells us the cold has a very strong effect on the body.“What we’re talking about is an intervention, when it's used clinically, that produces beneficial effects on mental health. So in a way it doesn’t matter which aspect is generating the positive effects.”Harper cited what he said was a common reaction among first-timers who have taken the plunge.They often say “the fact that I’ve done this means I can do anything,” he said. “It’s quite a confidence builder and it’s something people stick to because they enjoy it so much.” Know the risks when you start Dr. Mike Tipton, a physiologist at the University of Portsmouth in England who has studied extreme environments, authored a paper along with Harper and two more researchers several years ago. The title highlighted the potential advantages and dangers of stimulating the body with a sudden drop in temperature: “Cold Water Immersion: Kill or Cure.” “Like other environmental constituents such as pressure, heat and oxygen, cold water can be either good or bad, threat or treatment depending on circumstance,” they wrote after reviewing the research then available on the topic. One of their findings: The activity presents dangers. Deaths from cold-water immersion are not uncommon. The shock of frigid water can cause people to hyperventilate and drown. But Tipton told The AP the risks can be managed with common sense and precautions.You do not need to go to extremes to get a potential payoff. Entering water at a temperature of 20-15 degrees Celsius (68-59F) and staying for only a few minutes is sufficient.Tipton explained if the water is colder than that, you may get more benefit — but limit your exposure.“If you ask me what protocol you would follow if you thought this was going to be doing you good, I wouldn't go in water much below 12C (54F), and I wouldn’t stay in for much more than two minutes,” Tipton said.Tipton and Harper both said that any benefits from cold-water immersion come from the body's cold-shock response: the sudden fall of skin temperature, the release of the stress hormones, the release of endorphins, and the anti-inflammatory effect. Tipton cautioned against long spells in an ice bath.“Sitting in water for as long as I can fills me with horror,” Tipton said. "This could destroy small nerves, blood vessels in extremities and could result in amputation the same way frostbite can."Harper, who has swum as long as four-hour stretches in open water, advised vigilance.“People think it’s got to be super cold, super long and the longer the better,” Harper said, "and that’s wrong.” Be safe. You're a tropical animal Tipton said he's not trying to be the “fun police” but suggested caution and a medical screening if you take the plunge. He said humans are considered “tropical animals” who need to adapt to the cold and are better suited to warm conditions. A human’s resting body temperature is about 36.5 to 37.5 degrees Celsius (97.7 to 99.5F). Because of that, cold-water immersion is stressful and carries risks for the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Not to mention the risk of drowning.“We don’t want to stop people doing it, but we want to make sure they do it in a way that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks,” Tipton said.He suggested swimming in a life-guarded area, or going with experienced outdoor swimmers. He also suggested knowing the body of water you're swimming in. Hazards, among others, include tides, temperature, depth and pollution.“Understand that taking a tropical animal and putting it in cold water is probably the greatest stress that most people will experience in their life,” Tipton said.He suggested entering the water in a controlled fashion instead of jumping in. "Be sensible about it,” he said. “Incremental is the key.”Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Water
Health
Pollution

If Your North Star Is Lost, New Techniques Can Point You South

The writer Tristan Gooley describes how a pair of familiar constellations can help a person navigate in darkness when other methods fail.

Long before GPS and magnetic compasses, written maps or even writing, people oriented themselves under the cosmos using rules of thumb. Orally transmitted knowledge has repeatedly shown that Indigenous peoples all over the world have sophisticated understandings of the stars. And in early literature like Homer’s “Odyssey,” the nymph Calypso teaches Odysseus how to sail home by keeping the Great Bear constellation to his left.By now, it should seem like there is nothing new under the billions of suns that make up the night sky that could help people navigate in the dark. But a British author, Tristan Gooley, writes in a new book about following environmental signs throughout the year, “The Hidden Seasons,” that he has identified a new pair of hacks to find one’s way through the world by starlight. The book is published by the independent publisher The Experiment and comes out on Oct. 21.Mr. Gooley, a proponent of what he calls natural navigation, preaches attention to common patterns in nature like a sommelier describing wine — the shadows cast by the sun here, the tree angled there, the moss greener on this side of the rock.As part of that work he has invented, or perhaps reinvented, a couple of wayfinding methods.For example: After sunset in midwinter in the Northern Hemisphere, dress warm and go outdoors to a spot where you have a relatively unobstructed view to the south. Rolling up to the sky from the southeast, you’ll see a letter “V” made up of bright stars in the constellation Taurus. When two particular stars in that “V” are stacked in an invisible vertical line, let that line drop down to the horizon, where it will point due south.Or suppose it’s a midsummer night instead. You can perform the same kind of trick (in lighter clothing) with a pattern of stars that resemble a teapot inside the constellation Sagittarius. When two of these stars, Ascella and Kaus Media, align horizontally in the sky, you’re in business.

Business
Indigenous
Nature

Report: Sustainability in supply chains is still a firm-level priority

Analysis from MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics finds companies are still acting to reduce emissions, but often lag in measurement techniques.

Corporations are actively seeking sustainability advances in their supply chains — but many need to improve the business metrics they use in this area to realize more progress, according to a new report by MIT researchers.   During a time of shifting policies globally and continued economic uncertainty, the survey-based report finds 85 percent of companies say they are continuing supply chain sustainability practices at the same level as in recent years, or are increasing those efforts.“What we found is strong evidence that sustainability still matters,” says Josué Velázquez Martínez, a research scientist and director of the MIT Sustainable Supply Chain Lab, which helped produce the report. “There are many things that remain to be done to accomplish those goals, but there’s a strong willingness from companies in all parts of the world to do something about sustainability.”The new analysis, titled “Sustainability Still Matters,” was released today. It is the sixth annual report on the subject prepared by the MIT Sustainable Supply Chain Lab, which is part of MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics. The Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals collaborated on the project as well.The report is based on a global survey, with responses from 1,203 professionals in 97 countries. This year, the report analyzes three issues in depth, including regulations and the role they play in corporate approaches to supply chain management. A second core topic is management and mitigation of what industry professionals call “Scope 3” emissions, which are those not from a firm itself, but from a firm’s supply chain. And a third issue of focus is the future of freight transportation, which by itself accounts for a substantial portion of supply chain emissions.Broadly, the survey finds that for European-based firms, the principal driver of action in this area remains government mandates, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which requires companies to publish regular reports on their environmental impact and the risks to society involved. In North America, firm leadership and investor priorities are more likely to be decisive factors in shaping a company’s efforts.“In Europe the pressure primarily comes more from regulation, but in the U.S. it comes more from investors, or from competitors,” Velázquez Martínez says.The survey responses on Scope 3 emissions reveal a number of opportunities for improvement. In business and sustainability terms, Scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions are those a firm produces directly. Scope 2 emissions are the energy it has purchased. And Scope 3 emissions are those produced across a firm’s value chain, including the supply chain activities involved in producing, transporting, using, and disposing of its products.The report reveals that about 40 percent of firms keep close track of Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but far fewer tabulate Scope 3 on equivalent terms. And yet Scope 3 may account for roughly 75 percent of total firm emissions, on aggregate. About 70 percent of firms in the survey say they do not have enough data from suppliers to accurately tabulate the total greenhouse gas and climate impact of their supply chains.Certainly it can be hard to calculate the total emissions when a supply chain has many layers, including smaller suppliers lacking data capacity. But firms can upgrade their analytics in this area, too. For instance, 50 percent of North American firms are still using spreadsheets to tabulate emissions data, often making rough estimates that correlate emissions to simple economic activity. An alternative is life cycle assessment software that provides more sophisticated estimates of a product’s emissions, from the extraction of its materials to its post-use disposal. By contrast, only 32 percent of European firms are still using spreadsheets rather than life cycle assessment tools.“You get what you measure,” Velázquez Martínez says. “If you measure poorly, you’re going to get poor decisions that most likely won’t drive the reductions you’re expecting. So we pay a lot of attention to that particular issue, which is decisive to defining an action plan. Firms pay a lot of attention to metrics in their financials, but in sustainability they’re often using simplistic measurements.”When it comes to transportation, meanwhile, the report shows that firms are still grappling with the best ways to reduce emissions. Some see biofuels as the best short-term alternative to fossil fuels; others are investing in electric vehicles; some are waiting for hydrogen-powered vehicles to gain traction. Supply chains, after all, frequently involve long-haul trips. For firms, as for individual consumers, electric vehicles are more practical with a larger infrastructure of charging stations. There are advances on that front but more work to do as well.That said, “Transportation has made a lot of progress in general,” Velázquez Martínez says, noting the increased acceptance of new modes of vehicle power in general.Even as new technologies loom on the horizon, though, supply chain sustainability is not wholly depend on their introduction. One factor continuing to propel sustainability in supply chains is the incentives companies have to lower costs. In a competitive business environment, spending less on fossil fuels usually means savings. And firms can often find ways to alter their logistics to consume and spend less.“Along with new technologies, there is another side of supply chain sustainability that is related to better use of the current infrastructure,” Velázquez Martínez observes. “There is always a need to revise traditional ways of operating to find opportunities for more efficiency.” 

Transportation
Business
Energy

If You Want to Stay Healthy and Care About Humanity, Here’s What to Eat

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Adoption of a plant-rich “planetary health diet” could prevent 40,000 early deaths a day across the world, according to a landmark report. The diet—which allows moderate meat consumption—and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by […]

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Adoption of a plant-rich “planetary health diet” could prevent 40,000 early deaths a day across the world, according to a landmark report. The diet—which allows moderate meat consumption—and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by half by 2050. Today, a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system and taming the climate crisis is impossible without changing how the world eats, the researchers said. Food production is also the biggest cause of the destruction of wildlife and forests and the pollution of water. The planetary health diet (PHD) sets out how the world can simultaneously improve the health of people and the planet, and provide enough food for an expected global population of 9.6 billion people by 2050. “This is not a deprivation diet…” It “could be delicious, aspirational and healthy.” The diet is flexible, allowing it to be adapted to local tastes, and can include some animal products or be vegetarian or vegan. However, all versions advise eating more vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes and whole grains than most people in the world currently eat. In many places, today’s diets are unhealthy and unsustainable due to too much meat, milk and cheese, animal fats and sugar. People in the US and Canada eat more than seven times the PHD’s recommended amount of red meat, while it is five times more in Europe and Latin America, and four times more in China. However, in some regions where people’s diets are heavily reliant on starchy foods, such as sub-Saharan Africa, a small increase in chicken, dairy and eggs would be beneficial to health, the report found. North American adult diets in 2020 versus planetary health recommendation, daily per capita intake in grammesGuardian Severe inequalities in the food system must also be ended to achieve healthy and sustainable diets, the researchers said. The wealthiest 30 percent of the world’s population generates more than 70 percent of food-related environmental damage, it found. Furthermore, 2.8 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet and 1 billion are undernourished, despite enough food being produced globally. The food system is also failing the 1 billion people living with obesity, the report said. The report recommends shifting taxes to make unhealthy food more costly and healthy food cheaper, regulating the advertising of unhealthy food and using warning labels, and the shifting of today’s massive agricultural subsidies to healthier and more sustainable foods. “What we put on our plates can save millions of lives, cut billions of tonnes of emissions, halt the loss of biodiversity, and create a fairer food system,” said Prof Johan Rockström, who co-chaired the EAT-Lancet Commission that produced the report. “The evidence is undeniable: transforming food systems is not only possible, it’s essential to securing a safe, just, and sustainable future for all.” “This is not a deprivation diet,” said Prof Walter Willett of the Harvard TH Chan school of public health, and another commission co-chair. “This is something that could be delicious, aspirational and healthy. It also allows for cultural diversity and individual preferences, providing flexibility.” “Our recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world experience.” The report, published in the Lancet, was produced by 70 leading experts from 35 countries and six continents. It builds on the 2019 report that introduced the PHD, but includes new evidence of the health benefits of the diet. “We have been able to look at this diet in relation to health outcomes such as total mortality, diabetes, respiratory diseases, heart disease, stroke, etc and we found very strong inverse relationships” said Willett. The diet was also linked to reduced cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Overall, the researchers estimated global adoption of the PHD could prevent 15m early deaths a year in adults. The estimate did not include the impact of the diet reducing obesity, meaning it is probably an underestimate. The PHD recommends plant-rich, flexible diets, including: Fruits and vegetables—at least five portions a day Whole grains—three to four portions a day Nuts—one portion per day Legumes (beans, peas, lentils)—one portion per day Dairy—one serving of milk, yoghurt or cheese portions a day Eggs —three to four a week Chicken—two portions a week Fish—two portions a week Red meat—one portion a week Marco Springmann from UCL in the UK and an author of the report said the differences between the PHD and current diets vary: “What needs to be reduced differs a lot. In low income countries, it’s the starchy foods and grains, whereas in high income countries it is animal-sourced foods, sugar, saturated fats, and dairy. It’s insane how much dairy is consumed in Europe and North America.” The data underlying the report is available online and can be used to tailor different planetary health diets for the tastes of people in specific countries and of different ages. The website also shows how much the diets reduce deaths, improve nutrition, and cut environmental impacts. “Hopefully this will lead to more science-based policymaking,” said Springmann. The PHD is better than current average diets for many nutrients, including fatty acids, fibre, folate, magnesium and zinc. Adequate iron and vitamin B12 could be provided by green leafy vegetables, fermented soy foods and algae, the researchers said. Moving diets towards the PHD could be achieved by helping consumers make better everyday choices, said Line Gordon, director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, for example by shifting taxes to make healthy foods cheaper, and putting warning labels on unhealthy foods. “But it is not just about getting prices lower, it’s also about bringing purchasing power up so that people can afford a healthier diet” she said. “Our recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world experience,” Gordon said. “Changes are already under way, from school meal programmes to regenerative agriculture and food waste reduction initiatives.” England banned price promotions on unhealthy foods on Wednesday and will ban advertising such foods online. The report estimates that food-related ill health and environmental damage costs society about $15 trillion a year. It said investments to transform the food system would cost $200 billion to $500 billion a year, but save $5 trillion. Alongside a shift in diets, the report calls for other changes to the food system, including cutting the loss and waste of food, greener farming practices, and decent working conditions, as a third of food workers earn below living wages. The launch of the PHD in 2019 led to attacks from meat industry interests. Rockström said: “The [new report] is a landmark achievement. It is a state-of-the-art scientific assessment that quantifies healthy diets for all human beings in the world and the environmental boundaries all food systems need to meet to stay safe. So we have a really rigorous foundation for our [results]. We are ready to meet that assault.”

Health
Climate
Food

Air Pollution Particles Hitch A Ride On Red Blood Cells, Into Major Organs, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The tiny particles inhaled from air pollution stick to our red blood...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The tiny particles inhaled from air pollution stick to our red blood cells, hitching a ride to do damage throughout our bodies, a new small-scale study says.These particles — produced by motor vehicles and industrial emissions — recently have been found in the brain and the heart, where they are linked to increased risk of disease, researchers said.The new study provides the first glimpse into how those particles work their way into people’s major organs, according to findings published recently in the journal ERJ Open Research.“In our bodies, red blood cells work by collecting oxygen from our lungs and delivering it throughout the body,” said lead researcher Dr. Jonathan Grigg,  a professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine with Queen Mary University of London in the U.K.“With this set of experiments, we have shown that tiny air pollution particles are hijacking our red blood cells, meaning they can also travel almost anywhere in the body,” Grigg said in a news release. “We’re finding more and more evidence that air pollution particles are making their way into many different organs of the body and now we have clear evidence of how that could be happening.”Air pollution particles typically are 2.5 microns or less in width, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. By comparison, a human hair is 50 to 70 microns wide.For the new study, researchers recruited 12 adults who were asked to spend an hour standing next to a busy London street. The participants all carried a small device that measured the particle pollution in the air around them.Blood samples showed an increase in the amount of pollution particles stuck to participants’ red blood cells after they spent their hour out by the busy road, researchers said.On average, there were two to three times as much particle matter stuck to their red blood cells after an hour next to traffic, results showed.In some, levels decreased after an hour but remained high for others, suggesting that people’s bodies might differ in how they filter out the pollution breathed in, researchers said.All told, researchers calculated that around 80 million red blood cells could be assumed to be transporting pollution particles after a person spends an hour by traffic.Eight of the volunteers later returned to repeat the experiment on a different day, while wearing a face mask designed to screen out particle pollution.When people wore face masks, the amount of pollution particles found on their red blood cell did not increase after standing by a busy road. That shows wearing a filter mask reduces the amount of particle pollution a person inhales, researchers said.“We were surprised to find how well an FFP2 face mask prevents these very tiny particles from reaching and attaching to blood cells,” Grigg said. FFP is a European standard for face masks, and an FFP2 provides about the same level of protection as N95 and KN95 respirators.To confirm these findings, researchers exposed human red blood cells and mice to diesel exhaust in the lab.The particles stuck easily to red blood cells from both humans and mice, and the more particles that researchers added, the more they found stuck to the cells.Analysis of the particles found on blood cells showed that they contained iron, copper, silicon, chromium and zinc, which are produced by car exhaust, as well as silver and molybdenum produced by brake or tire wear, researchers said.“This technique means we now have a relatively simple way to measure the amount of pollution entering the body, so now we can test out which factors might increase or reduce the problem,” Grigg said.Ane Johannessen, chair of the European Respiratory Society’s expert group on epidemiology and environment, reviewed the findings.The new study “sheds light on how these dangerous particles might be infiltrating every part of the body via the bloodstream,” she said in a news release.“It also suggests we could lower the risk with the right protective face mask,” continued Johannessen, who was not involved in the study. This could be beneficial for people who are vulnerable because they have a lung disease, or who cannot avoid spending time next to a busy road, she said.“However, most of us cannot avoid being exposed to dangerously high levels of air pollution in our daily lives, so we need laws to dramatically lower air pollution and reduce the risk for everyone,” Johannessen concluded.SOURCE: European Respiratory Society, news release, Oct. 2, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Pollution
Health

Seasonal Allergies Might Increase Suicide Rate, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Seasonal allergies are considered an annoyance to most, and maddening...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Seasonal allergies are considered an annoyance to most, and maddening to some.Few think of seasonal sniffles and sneezes as potentially fatal — but we might be overlooking the danger they pose, a new study warns.High pollen counts are linked to a significant increase in suicide risk, according to findings published in the December issue of the Journal of Health Economics as the U.S. enters fall allergy season.Further, suicide risk increases as airborne levels of pollen rise, researchers found.The physical misery caused by seasonal allergies likely contributes to this increase, by wrecking people’s sleep and increasing mental distress, researchers speculated."During our study period, there were nearly 500,000 suicides in the U.S.," said lead researcher Joelle Abramowitz, an associate research scientist at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research."Based on our incremental data, we estimate that pollen may have been a contributing factor in up to 12,000 of those deaths over the period, or roughly 900 to 1,200 deaths per year,” she said in a news release.For the study, researchers compared suicides reported between 2006 and 2018 with daily pollen counts from 186 counties in 34 metropolitan areas across the United States.Results showed an association between suicide and pollen counts that increases in strength, after the research team divided pollen levels into four tiers.Suicide risk jumped 7.4% at the worst pollen counts; 5.5% higher at the third-highest level; and 4.5% at the second level, all compared to the lowest level of airborne pollen.People with known mental health problems were more vulnerable, experiencing a nearly 9% increase in their risk of suicide on days with the highest pollen counts, results showed.“A small shock could have a big effect if you're already in a vulnerable state," Abramowitz said.The results indicate that seasonal allergies should be taken more seriously, and not seen as a mere nuisance, researchers said.More accurate pollen forecasting and better public communication on the mental health impact of seasonal allergies could save lives, by providing people the opportunity to protect themselves, researchers said.This will become even more important as climate change progresses, extending and intensifying pollen seasons, researchers said."We should be more conscious of our responsiveness to small environmental changes, such as pollen, and our mental health in general," Abramowitz said."Given our findings, I believe medical providers should be aware of a patient's allergy history, as other research has also established a connection between allergies and a higher risk for suicide,” she added. “I hope this research can lead to more tailored care and, ultimately, save lives."SOURCE: University of Michigan, news release, Sept. 29, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health
Climate

The Senate is back today with no shutdown deal in sight

The House has no votes planned this week, as Republicans try to pressure Senate Democrats to fold and open the government.

Senators return to Washington on Monday without a deal to end the government shutdown now entering its sixth day.The shutdown has sidelined 750,000 federal workers and forced many others to work without pay since funding laws expired early Wednesday. It has almost completely shuttered agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Education Department, though national security and law enforcement functions are continuing.

Government
Education

How CEOs are thinking about tackling political and social issues in today’s climate

Headwinds across the business world challenge any leader striving to make an impact beyond shareholder value. Few organizations know this struggle better than the B Team, born out of Richard Branson’s drive to elevate the role and responsibility of business in society. CEO Leah Seligmann shares why some leaders are pulling back, where others are pressing forward, and which actions can have the greatest impact—from climate change to diversity. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. I remember when [the B Team] came onto the scene. It was kind of this wave of business as a vehicle for social good and social impact and environmental impact. Recently, this ethos has been under pressure. I’m curious how surprised you’ve been by that. I think that the writing was on the wall for a while. But I think the feeling of CEOs is that we really need to re-own the narrative, re-own why we’re doing these things—because they’re good for business, they’re good for our communities—and get away from a lot of the narrative, the language, and the programs that left people behind. I get to work for this amazing group of global leaders. Half of them are from the business sector, half of them are from civil society, but their focus is really, How do we transform business? And I think we were all a little shell-shocked, to be honest, at the beginning of the year. When the attacks started happening, to have that happening and have CEOs really scared and unsure of what they can say or what they can do. I think what we’ve been spending the last couple of months on is thinking about how do you retake that and go to the things that you really have license to speak about and get a little bit away from [being] the CEO [who] has to stand up for everything all the time, which really was the place that we were a couple of years ago. I know you used the word courage a lot, the courage to speak out in the right places, the courage to act. The collective of the B Team is based on the idea that maybe it’s easier to be courageous when others are joining you. But we’re not seeing a lot of collective action these days, aside from fawning dinners at the White House from tech CEOs. How do you make that start to happen?  I think that the appetite to hear a bunch of people speaking out into the wind has really decreased. Those statements were useful. They served a purpose in raising awareness and this idea that sustainability and treating people well could be good for business. At this moment in time though, I think that it rings hollow. So the courage that we’re really looking for is a different type of courage. It’s more engaged. Figure out what people care about and why they’re worried about it and why what you’re saying isn’t landing, and then go from there. So I think that’s a significant shift. And I don’t want to undermine the idea that it actually takes courage to pause sometimes and to listen and to understand why you’ve missed your mark. That maybe is the hardest type of courage because we’re so wired towards action. There was a period where the trust for corporate leaders and CEOs was higher than any other figures in public life in a lot of ways, right? Do you have a sense about why that eroded? I think a big piece of it has to do with the pay gap between everyday working people. That growing inequality makes it really hard to feel like the person that you’ve put so much trust in actually sees your problems and is trying to make your life better. And so we still see employers and CEOs having high trust with their own employees, but this idea that business as a whole is a trusted institution has really eroded along with all of our institutions. Trust in government, trust in the news and the media, all of these things have been impacted by a crisis of trust.  The B Team recently announced a new strategy initiative. Lots of high-profile business leaders signed on as part of your group, from Marc Benioff at Salesforce to Hamdi Ulukaya at Chobani, and Ryan Gellert at Patagonia. Can you explain what the new strategy is?  I think the biggest piece is the pace. It used to be that you would have one major thing happen and everybody had time to get riled up and create opposition and drive things forward and create coalitions. And now we have multiple times a day things that are coming out that are shifting the landscape, and we need to be much more aware of and able to respond to the context that we’re in. The long-term goals of the B Team remain the same. How do we catalyze business to be a force for good in the world? But now we’re in a moment where every single day you have massive changes. One world order is ending, but we have yet to define or design the world order that we’re heading towards. And then the last piece is we’re in the middle of this incredible technology revolution. Technology isn’t good or bad, technology is potential. And we have businesses really trying to figure out how they harness the power of AI and minimize the downsides. So what we at the B Team decided is that we needed to get very clear on our values, very clear on our outcomes, and be much more nimble in our approach. And honestly, how can we stop being just a group that does a statement every six months and turn into a group that’s actually catalyzing real change? We’ve seen companies make climate pledges, not always delivering. We’ve got a U.S. administration that seems actively hostile to climate action. So what do you do?  Most leaders that act on climate see it as in their business interest. Business leaders that stick to the fundamentals of why we have to deal with climate, that doesn’t change with political cycles. The fact that your supply chain is going to be disrupted, that doesn’t shift with who’s in power politically. That’s where we need business leaders to step up and lean in. But also to remember that the reason they got into that game wasn’t because they thought it was going to be a nice PR story; you got into climate because you had to. I noticed that DEI isn’t particularly prioritized within the new B Team strategy. Was that conscious? The word itself might not be used, but the B Team is seeking to create workplaces that are open to all people because we have a strong belief, not just that everybody deserves an opportunity, but business thrives when it attracts the best talent. So it’s not a deprioritization. What does DEI even mean? What value does that acronym give us? I think it covers a huge ground of incredibly rich thinking and work and things that do need to stay in the workplace, but the label DEI just has led to a tremendous backsliding of a vicious unleashing of anti-people rhetoric. So yeah, I think that language does need to change. Many businesses, of course, are not part of the B Team collective. Is there something that those places and CEOs that aren’t part of the B Team have in common?  Our goal was always to be a small group, a group of leaders that we felt were really driving and pushing this agenda. The agenda is meant to be a broad agenda that could invite anyone in wherever they are, but that little cohort of 33 business leaders is not meant to represent everyone. The group that we have right now, they are in the rooms with so many other coalitions of CEOs and leaders that are trying to do something. And if they can use their role to weave things together, to lift the ambition of those efforts, I see that as success. And . . . ideally, no one would look back and be like, “The B Team did this.” They would be like, “A bunch of people all over the world did these different things,” and we created some positive change in the world. We don’t need credit. We should seek impact. It doesn’t matter to me if the B Team name is ever known.

Headwinds across the business world challenge any leader striving to make an impact beyond shareholder value. Few organizations know this struggle better than the B Team, born out of Richard Branson’s drive to elevate the role and responsibility of business in society. CEO Leah Seligmann shares why some leaders are pulling back, where others are pressing forward, and which actions can have the greatest impact—from climate change to diversity. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. I remember when [the B Team] came onto the scene. It was kind of this wave of business as a vehicle for social good and social impact and environmental impact. Recently, this ethos has been under pressure. I’m curious how surprised you’ve been by that. I think that the writing was on the wall for a while. But I think the feeling of CEOs is that we really need to re-own the narrative, re-own why we’re doing these things—because they’re good for business, they’re good for our communities—and get away from a lot of the narrative, the language, and the programs that left people behind. I get to work for this amazing group of global leaders. Half of them are from the business sector, half of them are from civil society, but their focus is really, How do we transform business? And I think we were all a little shell-shocked, to be honest, at the beginning of the year. When the attacks started happening, to have that happening and have CEOs really scared and unsure of what they can say or what they can do. I think what we’ve been spending the last couple of months on is thinking about how do you retake that and go to the things that you really have license to speak about and get a little bit away from [being] the CEO [who] has to stand up for everything all the time, which really was the place that we were a couple of years ago. I know you used the word courage a lot, the courage to speak out in the right places, the courage to act. The collective of the B Team is based on the idea that maybe it’s easier to be courageous when others are joining you. But we’re not seeing a lot of collective action these days, aside from fawning dinners at the White House from tech CEOs. How do you make that start to happen?  I think that the appetite to hear a bunch of people speaking out into the wind has really decreased. Those statements were useful. They served a purpose in raising awareness and this idea that sustainability and treating people well could be good for business. At this moment in time though, I think that it rings hollow. So the courage that we’re really looking for is a different type of courage. It’s more engaged. Figure out what people care about and why they’re worried about it and why what you’re saying isn’t landing, and then go from there. So I think that’s a significant shift. And I don’t want to undermine the idea that it actually takes courage to pause sometimes and to listen and to understand why you’ve missed your mark. That maybe is the hardest type of courage because we’re so wired towards action. There was a period where the trust for corporate leaders and CEOs was higher than any other figures in public life in a lot of ways, right? Do you have a sense about why that eroded? I think a big piece of it has to do with the pay gap between everyday working people. That growing inequality makes it really hard to feel like the person that you’ve put so much trust in actually sees your problems and is trying to make your life better. And so we still see employers and CEOs having high trust with their own employees, but this idea that business as a whole is a trusted institution has really eroded along with all of our institutions. Trust in government, trust in the news and the media, all of these things have been impacted by a crisis of trust.  The B Team recently announced a new strategy initiative. Lots of high-profile business leaders signed on as part of your group, from Marc Benioff at Salesforce to Hamdi Ulukaya at Chobani, and Ryan Gellert at Patagonia. Can you explain what the new strategy is?  I think the biggest piece is the pace. It used to be that you would have one major thing happen and everybody had time to get riled up and create opposition and drive things forward and create coalitions. And now we have multiple times a day things that are coming out that are shifting the landscape, and we need to be much more aware of and able to respond to the context that we’re in. The long-term goals of the B Team remain the same. How do we catalyze business to be a force for good in the world? But now we’re in a moment where every single day you have massive changes. One world order is ending, but we have yet to define or design the world order that we’re heading towards. And then the last piece is we’re in the middle of this incredible technology revolution. Technology isn’t good or bad, technology is potential. And we have businesses really trying to figure out how they harness the power of AI and minimize the downsides. So what we at the B Team decided is that we needed to get very clear on our values, very clear on our outcomes, and be much more nimble in our approach. And honestly, how can we stop being just a group that does a statement every six months and turn into a group that’s actually catalyzing real change? We’ve seen companies make climate pledges, not always delivering. We’ve got a U.S. administration that seems actively hostile to climate action. So what do you do?  Most leaders that act on climate see it as in their business interest. Business leaders that stick to the fundamentals of why we have to deal with climate, that doesn’t change with political cycles. The fact that your supply chain is going to be disrupted, that doesn’t shift with who’s in power politically. That’s where we need business leaders to step up and lean in. But also to remember that the reason they got into that game wasn’t because they thought it was going to be a nice PR story; you got into climate because you had to. I noticed that DEI isn’t particularly prioritized within the new B Team strategy. Was that conscious? The word itself might not be used, but the B Team is seeking to create workplaces that are open to all people because we have a strong belief, not just that everybody deserves an opportunity, but business thrives when it attracts the best talent. So it’s not a deprioritization. What does DEI even mean? What value does that acronym give us? I think it covers a huge ground of incredibly rich thinking and work and things that do need to stay in the workplace, but the label DEI just has led to a tremendous backsliding of a vicious unleashing of anti-people rhetoric. So yeah, I think that language does need to change. Many businesses, of course, are not part of the B Team collective. Is there something that those places and CEOs that aren’t part of the B Team have in common?  Our goal was always to be a small group, a group of leaders that we felt were really driving and pushing this agenda. The agenda is meant to be a broad agenda that could invite anyone in wherever they are, but that little cohort of 33 business leaders is not meant to represent everyone. The group that we have right now, they are in the rooms with so many other coalitions of CEOs and leaders that are trying to do something. And if they can use their role to weave things together, to lift the ambition of those efforts, I see that as success. And . . . ideally, no one would look back and be like, “The B Team did this.” They would be like, “A bunch of people all over the world did these different things,” and we created some positive change in the world. We don’t need credit. We should seek impact. It doesn’t matter to me if the B Team name is ever known.

Climate
Business
Government

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.