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

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

Chemists create red fluorescent dyes that may enable clearer biomedical imaging

The new dyes are based on boron-containing molecules that were previously too unstable for practical use.

MIT chemists have designed a new type of fluorescent molecule that they hope could be used for applications such as generating clearer images of tumors.The new dye is based on a borenium ion — a positively charged form of boron that can emit light in the red to near-infrared range. Until recently, these ions have been too unstable to be used for imaging or other biomedical applications.In a study appearing today in Nature Chemistry, the researchers showed that they could stabilize borenium ions by attaching them to a ligand. This approach allowed them to create borenium-containing films, powders, and crystals, all of which emit and absorb light in the red and near-infrared range.That is important because near-IR light is easier to see when imaging structures deep within tissues, which could allow for clearer images of tumors and other structures in the body.“One of the reasons why we focus on red to near-IR is because those types of dyes penetrate the body and tissue much better than light in the UV and visible range. Stability and brightness of those red dyes are the challenges that we tried to overcome in this study,” says Robert Gilliard, the Novartis Professor of Chemistry at MIT and the senior author of the study.MIT research scientist Chun-Lin Deng is the lead author of the paper. Other authors include Bi Youan (Eric) Tra PhD ’25, former visiting graduate student Xibao Zhang, and graduate student Chonghe Zhang.Stabilized boreniumMost fluorescent imaging relies on dyes that emit blue or green light. Those imaging agents work well in cells, but they are not as useful in tissue because low levels of blue and green fluorescence produced by the body interfere with the signal. Blue and green light also scatters in tissue, limiting how deeply it can penetrate.Imaging agents that emit red fluorescence can produce clearer images, but most red dyes are inherently unstable and don’t produce a bright signal, because of their low quantum yields (the ratio of fluorescent photons emitted per photon of light is absorbed). For many red dyes, the quantum yield is only about 1 percent.Among the molecules that can emit near-infrared light are borenium cations —positively charged ions containing an atom of boron attached to three other atoms.When these molecules were first discovered in the mid-1980s, they were considered “laboratory curiosities,” Gilliard says. These molecules were so unstable that they had to be handled in a sealed container called a glovebox to protect them from exposure to air, which can lead them to break down.Later, chemists realized they could make these ions more stable by attaching them to molecules called ligands. Working with these more stable ions, Gillliard’s lab discovered in 2019 that they had some unusual properties: Namely, they could respond to changes in temperature by emitting different colors of light.However, at that point, “there was a substantial problem in that they were still too reactive to be handled in open air,” Gilliard says.His lab began working on new ways to further stabilize them using ligands known as carbodicarbenes (CDCs), which they reported in a 2022 study. Due to this stabilization, the compounds can now be studied and handled without using a glovebox. They are also resistant to being broken down by light, unlike many previous borenium-based compounds.In the new study, Gilliard began experimenting with the anions (negatively charged ions) that are a part of the CDC-borenium compounds. Interactions between these anions and the borenium cation generate a phenomenon known as exciton coupling, the researchers discovered. This coupling, they found, shifted the molecules’ emission and absorption properties toward the infrared end of the color spectrum. These molecules also generated a high quantum yield, allowing them to shine more brightly.“Not only are we in the correct region, but the efficiency of the molecules is also very suitable,” Gilliard says. “We’re up to percentages in the thirties for the quantum yields in the red region, which is considered to be high for that region of the electromagnetic spectrum.”Potential applicationsThe researchers also showed that they could convert their borenium-containing compounds into several different states, including solid crystals, films, powders, and colloidal suspensions.For biomedical imaging, Gilliard envisions that these borenium-containing materials could be encapsulated in polymers, allowing them to be injected into the body to use as an imaging dye. As a first step, his lab plans to work with researchers in the chemistry department at MIT and at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard to explore the potential of imaging these materials within cells.Because of their temperature responsiveness, these materials could also be deployed as temperature sensors, for example, to monitor whether drugs or vaccines have been exposed to temperatures that are too high or low during shipping.“For any type of application where temperature tracking is important, these types of ‘molecular thermometers’ can be very useful,” Gilliard says.If incorporated into thin films, these molecules could also be useful as organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs), particularly in new types of materials such as flexible screens, Gilliard says.“The very high quantum yields achieved in the near-IR, combined with the excellent environmental stability, make this class of compounds extremely interesting for biological applications,” says Frieder Jaekle, a professor of chemistry at Rutgers University, who was not involved in the study. “Besides the obvious utility in bioimaging, the strong and tunable near-IR emission also makes these new fluorophores very appealing as smart materials for anticounterfeiting, sensors, switches, and advanced optoelectronic devices.”In addition to exploring possible applications for these dyes, the researchers are now working on extending their color emission further into the near-infrared region, which they hope to achieve by incorporating additional boron atoms. Those extra boron atoms could make the molecules less stable, so the researchers are also working on new types of carbodicarbenes to help stabilize them.The research was funded by the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Health
Nature

Fade to grey: as forests are cut down, butterflies are losing their colours

The insects’ brilliant hues evolved in lush ecosystems to help them survive. Now they are becoming more muted to adapt to degraded landscapes – and they are not the only things dulling downPhotographs by Roberto García-RoaThe world is becoming less colourful. For butterflies, bold and bright wings once meant survival, helping them attract mates and hide from prey. But a new research project suggests that as humans replace rich tropical forests with monochrome, the colour of other creatures is leaching away.“The colours on a butterfly’s wings are not trivial – they have been designed over millions of years,” says researcher and photographer Roberto García-Roa, who is part of a project in Brazil documenting how habitat loss is bleaching the natural world of colour.Amiga arnaca found in a eucalyptus plantation, where scientists observed butterflies were less colourful than in native forests Continue reading...

The world is becoming less colourful. For butterflies, bold and bright wings once meant survival, helping them attract mates and hide from prey. But a new research project suggests that as humans replace rich tropical forests with monochrome, the colour of other creatures is leaching away.“The colours on a butterfly’s wings are not trivial – they have been designed over millions of years,” says researcher and photographer Roberto García-Roa, who is part of a project in Brazil documenting how habitat loss is bleaching the natural world of colour.Whether dazzlingly red, deep green or ghostly pale, the richness of a tropical forest provides butterflies with a diversity of habitats in which to communicate, camouflage and reproduce. As humans replace tropical forests with environments such as eucalyptus monocultures, however, those requirements are changing. In a plantation, the ecological backdrop is stripped bare and drab species do better. Being bland – like your surroundings – becomes an advantage.The difference is stark, researchers say. “You feel alive in the tropical forest, everything is wild – you never know what you are going to find,” says García-Roa. “When you arrive at a eucalyptus plantation it’s very frustrating – you can feel that things are not happening as they should be in a natural ecosystem. Animals are not around, and sounds are not as they should be.”Discoloration Eucalyptus plantations, such as this one in Espírito Santo, Brazil, are warmer, drier and flooded with direct light, compared with cooler, humid mature forests These preliminary findings are part of a broader body of research into “discoloration”, which examines how nature loss is altering the colours of the natural world.Butterflies are an ideal subject for study because they are among the most colourful organisms in the world. They display a vast array of colours across habitats, respond quickly to environmental changes and are easy to monitor.Colour isn’t just about aesthetics, it has important evolutionary functions. In a broader trend, ecosystems that once supported many colours are becoming more muted as they are degraded, simplified and polluted by humans. Coral reefs are bleaching, oceans are becoming greener – even rainbows are predicted to become less visible in densely populated and polluted areas.One obvious thing is that in eucalyptus plantations, butterfly communities are dominated by brown-coloured speciesMaider Iglesias-Carrasco, researcherNature’s palette is always changing in response to natural selection pressures. A notable mid 20th-century example is the peppered moth, which turned black during the Industrial Revolution to fit in with the sooty surroundings. But there are likely to be more rapid and widespread changes ahead due to human activity. “Even planet Earth itself is losing brightness as seen from space. It is truly remarkable and concerning how interconnected these processes are, and how every impact cascades into further consequences,” says Ricardo Spaniol from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.So far, researchers have identified 21 species in eucalyptus plantations and 31 in the natural forest, although there are many yet to be identified. They studied forests and plantations in the Brazilian state of Espírito Santo, north of Rio de Janeiro. “One thing that is obvious is that in eucalyptus plantations, butterfly communities are dominated by brown-coloured species,” says lead researcher, Maider Iglesias-Carrasco from the University of Copenhagen. There was a “general feeling of emptiness” in the plantations, she added.Amazonian butterfliesResearchers first discovered that being colourful in the Amazon may be turning into a disadvantage in 2019. Spaniol spent several weeks in the rainforest, and his team discovered butterfly species changed significantly depending on their environment, and their colours followed suit.“The most colourful species are often the first to disappear locally after deforestation, probably because of the loss of native vegetation and their increased exposure to predators. This represents an accelerated process of discoloration in Amazonian butterfly communities,” says Spaniol.Butterflies that persisted in deforested areas typically had brown or grey wings and bodies. In a preserved forest, however, a dazzling array of very colourful butterflies were found alongside the duller ones. Researchers did not expect to find such a clear and consistent pattern, and say it opened up a new area of research on how habitat loss can shape diversity.“Discovering that forests are losing their colours was frightening and revelatory,” says Spaniol. “It felt like we were uncovering a hidden dimension of how species respond to environmental change, a dimension that had remained invisible until then, but is incredibly rich.” When the colour diversity decreases, it may signal the erosion of ecological functioning.Butterflies are often considered indicators of broader biodiversity trends, says Spaniol: “A decline in their colour diversity may reflect a loss of complexity in ecosystems as a whole, with potential cascading effects on other organisms and ecological processes.”Protecting nature-rich forests Tropical forests, such as the Santa Lúcia biological reserve in Brazil, encompass a wide range of microhabitats. The more complex the habitat, the more opportunities butterflies have to develop diverse traits From the Amazon rainforest to California to Spain, monoculture forests are being grown over huge areas. According to one estimate, eucalyptus plantations – among the most common type, farmed for wood pulp, timber and toilet paper – cover at least 22m hectares (54m acres) around the world.Researchers don’t know whether the impact of plantations is homogeneous across the planet. “Coffee and banana plantations are always green, and people associate green with nature, but they are not [natural],” says García-Roa.If nothing is done to protect native habitats and prevent the further loss of forests, many of the most colourful and ecologically specialised species of butterfly could disappear, leaving behind only a few generalist species. “This would mean not only a loss of beauty, but also the disruption of important ecological interactions that depend on colour signals,” says Spaniol.However, this outcome is not inevitable. Spaniol’s research found that forested habitats in the Amazon rainforest that have been regenerating for 30 years after being used as cattle pasture showed a remarkable increase in butterfly colour diversity. “We still have the opportunity to restore this colourful world,” he says.Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow the biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield in the Guardian app for more nature coverage

Forests
Animals
Nature

Would a ban on genetic engineering of wildlife hamper conservation?

Some conservation groups are calling for an effective ban on genetic modification, but others say these technologies are crucial for preserving biodiversity

The idea of genetically modifying wild lions divides opinionAndrewfel/Shutterstock Should we genetically modify wild lions? Of course not, might be your instant response. But what if lions were being wiped out by a devastating disease introduced by people? What if the genetic change was a tiny tweak that makes them immune to this disease, of the sort that might evolve naturally given enough time and enough dead lions? These kinds of questions are dividing conservationists, and matters are about to come to a head. In the coming week, at a meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – the world’s leading conservation organisation – delegates will vote on a motion that would “pause” any form of genetic engineering of wildlife, including the introduction of modified microbes. “I have no idea how the vote will go,” says Piero Genovesi at the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Italy, who helped draft an open letter opposing the proposed motion. An IUCN moratorium on synthetic biology would have no legal force, but it could still have far-reaching effects. For instance, many conservation organisations might stop funding work involving genetic engineering, and some countries could make such a ban part of national laws. “The moratorium would certainly be problematic on many levels,” says Ben Novak at Revive & Restore, a US-based non-profit that aims to use biotechnologies to rescue endangered and extinct species. Why is this happening now? In a word, CRISPR. In 2014, it was shown that CRISPR gene-editing technology can be used to create gene drives – basically, a piece of DNA that gets passed down to all offspring, rather than the usual half. This means a gene drive can spread even if it is harmful and could, in theory, be used to wipe out invasive species. Gene drives could also be used to spread beneficial traits, such as disease resistance. At a conference in Hawaii in 2016, there was talk of using gene drives to get rid of the invasive mosquitoes that have wiped out half of Hawaii’s native bird species, says Genovesi. Some conservationists were enthusiastic; others were horrified. That triggered the events leading to the proposed moratorium. “Gene drives are being pushed quite strongly by some as the panacea for dealing with all sorts of environmental problems,” says Ricarda Steinbrecher at EcoNexus, a research organisation that is among those backing a moratorium. But the broad wording of the proposed motion applies to far more than gene drives. It would rule out most de-extinction efforts, for instance, and could also be seen as banning live vaccines. Steinbrecher says a moratorium is a pause, not a permanent block, and that there could be another vote to end it “when we have more data”. But some of those backing the ban are campaign groups opposed to any genetic engineering, so it is hard to see what would change their minds. “I am afraid it could be a very long ban,” says Genovesi. Take the idea of using gene editing to make wild animals resistant to diseases. Steinbrecher says gene editing could have unintended side effects. But the evidence we have suggests the risks are low – which is why several gene-edited foods are already being eaten, and why the first CRISPR treatment for people got approved last year. The same benefits-versus-risks considerations apply with conservation. Is it really better to stand by and watch coral reefs being wiped out by global warming than to, say, release genetically engineered algal symbionts that give corals more heat tolerance? A key issue is scalability, says Novak. Divers transplanting corals by hand are never going to save reefs. “This is where synthetic biology tools are vital,” he says. “The overall goals of restoring 30 per cent of land to nature, of saving species, etc, will not be attainable without synthetic biology.” Ultimately, this is about competing visions of nature. Some see nature as pristine and sacrosanct, and are appalled by the idea of any genetic meddling. But humans have been transforming nature ever since we wiped out most megafauna. We are already unintentionally meddling genetically by imposing all kinds of selection pressures. Hunting, pollution, pesticides, invasive species and introduced diseases are forcing many plants and animals to change to survive. Some elephant populations are nearly tuskless, for instance. Of course, this doesn’t mean that more meddling will make things better. There are indeed serious risks to releasing gene drives – for instance, gene drives designed to wipe out invasive species might spread to the native range of the target species. But researchers are very aware of the risks. And there are ways to reduce them, for instance by making gene drives self-limiting so they cannot just spread indefinitely. “We are facing a dramatic crisis of biodiversity,” says Genovesi. “We shouldn’t close the door to new tools that could help us combat some of the major threats.” Conservation and rewilding in the Central Apennines: Italy Journey into Italy’s Central Apennines region for a fascinating introduction to the concept and practicalities of rewilding.

Conservation
Animals
Extinction

Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea?

As work begins at four key beaches, this coastal management practice reveals a delicate balance between infrastructure and nature. The post Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea? appeared first on SA People.

With Capetonians in a fuss about the recently announced beach lowering programme, many are asking the obvious question: Why are bulldozers pushing sand back into the ocean at Fish Hoek, Muizenberg, Gordon’s Bay, and Bikini Beach? Aren’t we supposed to protect our beaches, not remove sand from them? The confusion is understandable. As the annual programme kicked off this October, the sight of heavy machinery on beloved beaches naturally raises concerns. But the answer lies in understanding Cape Town’s unique coastal challenge: the relentless power of wind-blown sand during the Mother City’s notorious summer winds. The Problem Cape Town’s coastal areas exist in what officials call “highly altered coastal systems”: urban coastlines where infrastructure sits close to dynamic natural forces. During winter, sand accumulates naturally. But when summer arrives with the infamous southeaster winds, this sand becomes a moving threat. “The lowering of beach sand levels enables greater areas of the beach to become wet during high tides, therefore limiting the potential for wind-blown sand to inundate adjacent roads and infrastructure,” explains Alderman Eddie Andrews, the City’s Deputy Mayor. Without intervention, wind-blown sand can smother parking areas, block stormwater outlets, and threaten electrical infrastructure. At Hout Bay, a giant dune once endangered key facilities. The Science Beach lowering is different from simply removing sand. The City pushes sand from the upper beach to the low-water mark, where wave action transports it back into the coastal circulation system. “Beach lowering mimics a natural scour event which is common on our shorelines, and puts the sand back into the sea where it returns to circulation within the oceanic system,” the City notes. By lowering the beach profile, more surface area becomes wet during high tides. Wet sand is significantly heavier than dry sand and far less susceptible to wind transport, effectively anchoring it in place during the windy season. Environmental Balance Beach manipulation raises important environmental questions. Research worldwide has identified both benefits and concerns. On the positive side, the practice maintains natural sediment circulation, protects infrastructure without hard structures like seawalls, preserves beach access and tourism, and represents a reversible intervention. Potential concerns include temporary disruption to beach organisms, short-term water turbidity during work, and disturbance to shorebirds during operations. Cape Town’s approach minimises impacts by scheduling work between 1 October and 8 November, before peak summer season and bird nesting periods. Critically, sand isn’t removed from the coastal system entirely but returned to natural ocean circulation. Why Not Just Build Walls? Hard structures like seawalls might seem simpler, but they accelerate erosion on adjacent properties, reflect wave energy, permanently alter natural processes, and prove inflexible as sea levels rise. Beach lowering represents a “soft” engineering approach that preserves the beach as a natural, dynamic feature while managing wind-blown sand. Looking Forward As sea levels rise and extreme weather intensifies, Cape Town’s approach of minimal intervention offers lessons for coastal cities worldwide. “Our intention is to intervene as little as possible,” says Gregg Oelofse, head of the City’s Environmental Policy and Strategy. “We have learnt that the more you intervene, the more you mess the situation up.” The mechanical work runs through early November, completing before summer winds intensify. Beaches remain accessible, though visitors should stay clear of machinery. For most beachgoers, results will be largely invisible. Beaches won’t look dramatically different, they’ll simply function better with less sand blowing onto infrastructure. The sand being pushed back into the sea isn’t wasted. It’s being returned to its natural home, to be redistributed by the forces that brought it ashore. Sometimes the best solution is working with nature rather than against it. A Sandy Perspective For South Africans living abroad, particularly in the UK, Cape Town’s beach challenges offer an interesting contrast. British beaches are often rocky affairs, frequently backed by concrete seawalls built to hold back the sea. When the weather is actually good enough for a beach day, you’re more likely to find pebbles than sand. Cape Town’s problem isn’t a lack of beaches but managing an abundance of sand that wants to go where it shouldn’t. It’s a uniquely South African coastal challenge, and one that makes those sprawling False Bay beaches all the more precious. Beach lowering runs from 1 October to 8 November 2025, weather dependent. For updates, visit the City of Cape Town’s official website. The post Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea? appeared first on SA People.

Nature
Energy
Waste

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.