Britain’s government just announced plans to increase the current number of public chargers tenfold by the end of the decade, ahead of the expected national and global transition away from combustion engines and towards electric cars.

The £500 million Department for Transport-led scheme specifically includes £450 million for public and on-street charging for those without driveways. This was previously announced as part of the £1.6bn Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy, details of which are now public.

The plans will hopefully enable more Britons to adopt electrification, as nearly 25 percent of all households do not currently have access to off-street parking. This is a significant obstacle to the charging of personal electric vehicles, which can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 12 hours. (Either way, significantly more time-consuming than filling a car up with gasoline.)

The UK is set to ban all sales of new fossil fuel-powered cars and vans by 2030, a deadline that has also been matched by many private automobile manufacturers around the world. According to the new plan, the government expects 300,000 public chargers to be available by the same year. Chargepoint operators will also be legally required to meet certain standards, such as enabling drivers to pay and find nearby chargers easily.

“No matter where you live—be that a city centre or rural village, the north, south, east or west of the country—we’re powering up the switch to electric and ensuring no one gets left behind in the process,” says Transport Secretary Grant Schapps.

The UK will need nearly 500,000 new EV chargers by 2035

Despite the government’s optimism, the plan has received criticism from various companies and motoring groups for still falling short of expected demand. Energy regulator Ofgem previously estimated that around 25,000 public charging stations would need to be installed every single year until 2035 in order to reach the 480,000 and two million power leads required.

Furthermore, despite Schapps’ statement to the contrary, there is also a growing regional divide in the availability of EV chargers. And, in the historically underserved north of England, this disparity is growing even faster. Currently, around a third of all chargers are in London.

While electric cars are undeniably an essential part of national and international plans to reach zero emissions and mitigate climate change, they are far from a silver bullet. The affordability of new EVs (and new vehicles in general) means that they are out of reach for the vast majority of road users, with 75 percent of UK drivers purchasing used automobiles.

It’s also worth noting that active travel (such as cycling, walking, or wheeling) is the most sustainable solution, with public transportation a close second. Replacing all traditional vehicles with electric ones is not an acceptable solution to transportation emissions, and unfortunately, Britain’s public transport systems are some of the most prohibitively expensive in the world.

Where governments are falling short, private companies are exploiting the absence of public chargers for their own benefit. Both Taco Bell and Starbucks are hoping that adding EV charge points at stores will encourage an uptick in business from in-need travelers.

Gleaning, the simple process of gathering surplus produce from farm fields and even residential backyards, puts food on plates and keeps it out of landfills. It seems like the perfect solution to food shortages, and the people who run gleaning programs across the United States are universally agreed on one point: We have plenty of food in this country to feed everybody, if only we can stop wasting it.

“There will always be excess in the fields,” says Shawn Peterson, director of the Association of Gleaning Organizations. “We could do a far better job of managing it.”

How gleaning can help address food insecurity

In 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration identified that over 38 million Americans were food insecure, meaning they did not have an adequate amount of food on a daily basis to meet their basic nutritional needs. At the same time, 21 percent of food ends up in landfills, where that rotting food generates harmful methane gases that accelerate climate change. And as the Covid-19 pandemic fed unemployment in 2020, some 60 million Americans turned to food assistance programs for help, twice as many as in the previous year, but inequitable distribution meant that many communities—particularly in rural areas and among communities of color—still went without.

“There are plenty of fruits and vegetables to go around,” says Nkemdilim Nwosu, director of communications at Food Forward, a Southern California nonprofit that addresses food insecurity and food waste in multiple ways, including gleaning surplus fruit, such as citrus and avocados, from private properties, public parks, and orchards. “The issue is about providing equal access to healthy foods.” 

Gleaning allows organizations like Food Forward to address hunger by focusing on sustainability, building connections between farmers, distributors, and local communities, and directly impacting hungry people in senior centers, veterans’ homes, day care facilities, assisted living, and homeless shelters.

Those connections are invaluable, notes Lisa Ousley, executive director of After The Harvest in Kansas City, Missouri. The nonprofit had already been operating since 2014 when the pandemic hit, primarily focused on working with large commercial growers around the country to get donations of truckloads of already-harvested B-grade fruits and vegetables—millions of pounds of completely edible produce that doesn’t meet USDA standards, such as cucumbers that are more than seven inches long, misshapen bell peppers, or limes that are the wrong shade of green. Gleaning was a much smaller part of their efforts, but it all added up to keeping perfectly good food out of the waste stream and into the hands of those who needed it most. 

But with the onset of Covid-19, Ousley saw a surprising problem as a result of the USDA’s Farmers To Families Food Box program, which was created in the spring of 2020 to address disruptions to the food supply chain by purchasing fresh food directly from producers and delivering it to food banks. “Kansas City was suddenly flooded with free produce,” Ousley says, “but it wasn’t being distributed equitably. That food box program ended up driving our gleaning expansion so that we could focus on our local community and get food to those who desperately needed it.”

Gleaning programs like the one at After The Harvest tend to be volunteer-heavy. People in the community, from retirees to college students, head out to the fields when a farmer has excess produce that needs to be harvested, such as a crop of zucchini that has been pock-marked by a hail storm and can’t be sold at market; in a few hours, those volunteers harvest hundreds of pounds of produce for distribution to food banks and other local agencies. One specialized group of volunteers at After The Harvest is known as the VEG (Vegetable Emergency Gleaning) Squad, responds to farmers on short notice when, for instance, a forecast for a sudden hard frost threatens a tomato crop. The recent acquisition of a refrigerated truck has made it easier for Ousley’s gleaners to get even more produce out into the local community while it’s still fresh—another important step in keeping gleaned fruits and vegetables out of landfills.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside Washington, DC, gleaning is one of many strategies being implemented toward “zero waste” goals, including at Community Food Rescue, where they now have six to eight gleans at local farms each year. Program director Cheryl Kollin says, “Food rescue is not the solution to establishing food security or rectifying the waste stream issue, but it is a great solution to the reality that a farmer’s life is hard. They have to hedge their bets against weather conditions, crop failure, and labor shortages—and, in a good year, they might have more than they can sell.”

If that leftover produce isn’t gleaned, then many farmers simply till it over to fertilize the field for the next planting season. However, there can also be crops, often overlooked, that are valuable to immigrant and indigenous communities and worth gathering, says Kollin. One such crop was recently identified by the nonprofit Red Wiggler Community Farm, which called Kollin to ask for gleaning volunteers to harvest the leaves from sweet potatoes—a prized ingredient in recipes across Asia, Africa, and the South Pacific.

“It’s a very labor-intensive process,” say Kollin, “because you have to separate the leaves from the stems, but harvesting them means that we are providing an ingredient that members of the local community value while keeping that crop out of the landfill at the same time.” 

Gleaning is typically referred to as very reactive, because it is often necessitated by a sudden need to gather produce before it rots. However, more organizations are understanding that being intentional can benefit the populations they serve and reduce food waste at the same time, meaning that some gleaners are getting into farming the land themselves. Boston Area Gleaners, which distributed over eight million pounds of food in 2020 alone, is one such group: they recently purchased farmland in Acton, Massachusetts, allowing them to be more proactive in the planning of their food distribution and how they impact the waste stream.

Paul Franceschi, outreach coordinator for Boston Area Gleaners, is excited about how this venture allows them to provide greater food options beyond typical regional staples to their community. “We have feedback from our partners already in some of the crops they’d like to see more of,” says Franceschi, “including a bigger variety of cultural crops that aren’t always available in the emergency food system. We’re getting set to plant okra and collards in the fields soon, among other crops.”

In an ideal world, everyone would have access to nutritious food and far less of it would be wasted. Gleaning advocates know these are big, complex issues to solve.

The Association of Gleaning Organizations noted in its 2020 annual report that it is estimated by the World Wildlife Fund that 10 billion pounds of produce grown globally is never harvested, while one in seven people is experiencing food insecurity at the same time. That wasted food represents 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, almost quadruple that created by the airline industry.

“Hunger is not a production problem,” says director Peterson, “it’s a distribution problem. We have far too much food and a pressing issue of climate change. Gleaning offers a way to empower local communities to use that excess and have a real impact on people and the environment.”

The views expressed in opinion pieces are those of the author(s) and do not represent the policy or position of LIVEKINDLY.

Today we need this magical wisdom more than ever. Climate change continues to weaken and deplete food systems around the world, threatening the most vulnerable communities. Without a just and equitable resolution to the climate crisis, food insecurity will grow and those on the frontlines, most often Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income people, will suffer most. Climate Justice is our superpower—a weapon against both the climate crisis and racism.

How climate change and racism are linked

Tackling the climate crisis, and its consequential food insecurity, requires that we center race in both the discussion and the solutions. The IPCC report directs us to look specifically at Africa, Asia, and Central and South America as regions that will suffer greatly without a response that addresses social inequities and restoration of natural resources. It further specifies that the vulnerability of people to climate change varies by certain factors including, but not limited to, colonialism and marginalization. Talking about the effects of colonialism without talking about race is akin to referring to the Civil War as just a disagreement between states. When the direct metric of race is excluded we fail to directly address the cause of a problem and risk missing groups of people that should rightly benefit from a solution. We cannot do anti-racist work in any arena, including climate change, if the elements of race are disguised, devalued, and ignored.

BIPOC communities have always led climate action

And so, we look back to the original sustainability superheroes. Black, Brown, and Ingenious Americans have a lived experience of survival in the harshest environmental, mental, and physical conditions and are prime to provide innovative ideas that not only reduce food disparity but also anchor climate justice in food systems around the world. 

Indigenous environmental advocate Nemonte Nenquimo of the Ecuadorian Waorani tribe has long practiced the protection of lands while highlighting the nourishing and medicinal relationship between people and forest. She stated, 

“Our ancestral knowledge as Indigenous peoples has enormous value for the rest of the world,” she says. “But it is under grave threat and quickly disappearing. When this wisdom is lost, humanity becomes weaker, and nature is destroyed even faster.” 

A similar relationship exists among the Gullah Geechee people off the coast of the Carolinas. Sitting on the front lines of rising sea levels, floods, and extreme weather events, the island people sustained themselves with the knowledge brought with them from their native countries and respect for nature. And the best climate scientists in the world know this to be true. IPCC Working Group II Co-chair Debra Roberts says, “By bringing together scientific and technological know-how as well as Indigenous and local knowledge, solutions will be more effective. Failure to achieve climate-resilient and sustainable development will result in a suboptimal future for people and nature.”

Anti-racist work will yield climate solutions

Everyone’s work begins with abandoning the stereotypes and dispelling the myths. There is historic intersectionality of climate and environmental issues with equity and social justice issues that can be addressed. Tackling food disparity is a good place to start. These are not two separate issues but instead, two ends of a knot tangled by a history of systemic oppression and racism that overlaps food security and climate. Compassion and action for the planet cannot exist without compassion and action for all the people on it, especially the underserved and marginalized. And so perhaps the biggest myth of all to unpack and deconstruct is tied to the historic love-hate relationship between Black Americans and agriculture.  

Dispelling myths about race, food, and environmentalism

In the Black community, eating greens and vegetables has always been part of the staple diet. In 2016 the Pew Research Center found that Black Americans are more likely to identify as vegetarian or vegan compared to all other Americans. A third of Black Americans are cutting back on their meat intake versus one-fifth of white Americans. And while the United States remains at the top of meat-consuming nations in the world, among the Black American populace who are reducing their meat intake, the reasons most listed are to “improve health” and “the environment.” In 2020, Vegan enthusiast and Tiktok sensation Tabitha Brown, completely revised her role to become an overwhelmingly successful social media influencer with bacon-flavored carrots. Something about the soothing way she sprinkled garlic powder on carrots with such love that it just sounded like an incantation of the ancestors saying, “thank you for remembering the old ways…we are pleased.” 

Marketing teams took note and now even Kentucky Fried Chicken has a plant-based chicken option. Still, mainstream veganism, similar to mainstream environmentalism, is largely considered as being founded, maintained, and grown by white people. In fact, Black experts with lived experience can be a trusted voice to other Black people when it comes to a food lifestyle that is not only germane to Black history, culture, and future existence but is also central to understanding the climate crisis. So often, these voices are excluded and even disenfranchised from participating in the conversation. In 2014, the vegan food site, Thug Kitchen, faced well-founded accusations of cultural overstep. At face value, it appeared to be a Black American vegan space, full of Black American vernacular, ideas, and community. In reality, it was run by a white couple that used Black American terminology to gain an audience. Real and authentic Black vegan food experts described the debacle as a cultural food appropriation. As one expert put it, people rarely go to the second page of the Google search. 

Communities of color are disenfranchised from sustainability

If you peek through the lens of the American period of enslavement, one can begin to understand why it’s difficult for Black Americans to embody the words, “Eat more vegetables because it’s good for the planet.” It ignores our existing cultural affiliation with plant-based living and does not account for post-Civil War systemic barriers that prevented us from doing the very things we were told are good for the environment and our bodies. Most stinging is the self-inflicted victimization it presents to us, assuming that the economic and environmental position with which we find ourselves is of our own doing. How can I plant a garden in the backyard when years of systemic racist housing policies have prevented me from owning the property where the yard sits? If I am able to plant a garden, how do I keep it watered when the water source isn’t fit to drink? Mapping Inequality—a collaborative effort of the University of Richmond, Virginia Tech, The University of Maryland, and John Hopkins University–outlines a clear picture of the communities subject to discrimination yet fall victim to the growing effects of climate change.  It is victim-blaming at its worst, accusing and chastising the abused for not having sense enough to do something so obviously good for all of humanity when in fact, we’ve been well aware of the benefits but have been blocked from access to do the work. Our superpowers are ignored. The ability to bring solutions and justice is cast aside due to the construct of race and the inherent oppression it creates.

The feeling not only breed resentment but also creates yet another barrier to overcome if we are to tackle the looming climate crisis. “We” did not all poison the planet equally so why are “we” being told that “we” must change our lifestyle to accommodate something we had little part in screwing up? The very reason we’re eating what we eat is born from the traumas of slavery and the plain “old school” magic our ancestors were able to accomplish with what was given to us and the cultural accommodations made to adjust to what we had. It becomes very difficult for a person of color to resonate with white, mainstream, environmentally moved, vegan supporters of “cruelty-free” eating for the sake of the planet in the future, when at times, these same people do not exhibit the same sense of compassion for the hunger, suffering, and cruelty of minority people by the police in the here and now.  Understanding these racial-based dynamics are crucial to deploying and empowering minority communities to recover just solutions that work.  

Climate justice is a global effort

But there is a middle ground where justice and anti-racism working together has the potential for tremendous and expedient benefits if everyone is willing to listen. That middle ground is called climate justice and it is spreading. FoodPrint is a program that not only helps people understand the footprint of what they eat but also the connection between social justice, climate change, and food production. And more importantly—why it matters. Footprint Farms in Jackson, Mississippi, helps eradicate food deserts through urban farming to entrepreneurship. The shift is happening as all environmental leaders, regardless of race, class, or creed; recognize the short time left to take bold implementable actions on climate that can innovate and balance our food systems before time runs out. We all have access to climate justice as a powerful weapon to fight climate change.

Broadly adapted from the chapter entitled, “The Cultural Appropriation of Collard Greens” in Heather Toney’s forthcoming book, Before the Street Lights Come On: Black America’s Call for Climate Solutions, forthcoming from BroadLeaf Publishing April, 2023

The views expressed in opinion pieces are those of the author(s) and do not represent the policy or position of LIVEKINDLY.

Senator Marty Klyne reintroduced Bill S-241, also known as the Jane Goodall Act, in the Senate on March 22. If passed, the bill would ban new captivity of a number of wild animals—including bears, wolves, and big cats. This would effectively end the use of exotic animals in roadside zoos, giving wild animals some legal protections in a court of law. It would also phase out elephant captivity throughout the country.

The proposed bill—which is supported by anthropologist and conservationist Jane Goodall—was originally introduced by Senator Murray Sinclair back in 2020. However, the bill died after Sinclair retired from the Senate in 2021.

“Today is an important day for animals. So many of them are in desperate need of our help and the Jane Goodall Act establishes protection and support for animals under human care,” Goodall said. 

“It is a monumental step forward for animals, people, and the environment,” she added. “I am honoured to lend my name to this world-leading legislation that is supported by a wonderful coalition of government, conservationists, animal welfare groups and accredited zoos.”

Canadian bill tackles the issue of animals in captivity

The new bill would impact wildlife attractions across Canada, estimated to number between 100 and 150. 

Removed from their natural habitats, captive wild animals often suffer physical and emotional issues as a result. Insufficient or unnatural diets and lack of adequate physical activity can cause the animals severe distress and zoochosis, symptoms of which include pacing, head-bobbing, or excessive licking.

If passed, the proposed bill would act as an extension to Canada’s Bill S-203, which was passed in 2019. Spearheaded by Senator Sinclair, the “Free Willy” bill phased out the use of cetaceans like whales and dolphins in captivity.

A number of zoos—which would be exempt from the captivity ban—support Bill S-241, including the Granby Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, and the Toronto Zoo. The former, a zoo in Quebec, has announced its intention to phase out its captive elephants over the next few years.

“Given the fact we have to agree that the elephant standards are getting more and more tough to keep them in zoological institutions, and given the fact the bill is coming and we supported it, we have decided as a group in Granby to transition out,” said the zoo’s CEO, Paul Gosselin.

Since the bill bans elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn imports, Goodall said the bill would help put a stop to illegal wildlife trafficking. It would also create a new distinction for accredited “animal care organizations,” such as aquariums, zoos, and sanctuaries, which would be able to continue caring for wild animals. All other organizations would have to apply for a permit in order to breed wild animals or acquire new ones.

Women founders lead the indie beauty industry

The beauty space is a powerful example of how women are changing the status quo. While the big corporations are still largely run by men (although L’Oréal Paris got its first woman president in 2019), the indie sector is dominated by women. In the UK, a 2020 report found that in the indie beauty industry, more than 76 percent of businesses are led by women entrepreneurs. But they’re not just leading. They’re steering beauty towards a better future. Increasingly, the products we see from indie brands reject the gender binary framework of the past. They’re also far more sustainable and diverse than the big giants. 

Take Jecca Blac, for example. Makeup artist Jessica Blackler founded the UK-based vegan cosmetics brand after spotting the lack of representation of trans and non-binary people in the beauty space. “Jessica quickly built up a client base of predominantly trans women and transfeminine people, and during these lessons she realized the oversight of the beauty world in not creating user friendly products which truly recognise the needs of all makeup wearers,” explained Jecca Blac marketing manager Maxine Heron. “This included transfeminine makeup wearers first learning about makeup. She decided to launch Jecca Blac as a makeup retailer.”

Across the pond, women founders are also paving the way towards a better beauty industry. Jazmin Alvarez was frustrated with the lack of regulation around the term “clean.” She felt it needed to go beyond the elimination of toxic ingredients, and encompass sustainability and ethics too. So she created her own curated beauty platform Pretty Well Beauty, which is now home to more than 50 brands that meet her standards of what a clean beauty brand should look like.

An Afro-Latina, Alvarez is also keen to combat beauty’s lack of racial inclusion. And she’s not alone in her mission: Pholk Beauty and Kulfi Beauty are two examples of indie brands founded by women of color, who are working to create a fairer, more diverse, more sustainable, and more ethical industry. (You can read more about them here and here.)

Plastic-free brand Common Heir is yet another example of how women of color are changing the beauty industry. Founded by Asian American Cary Lin and Latinx American Angela Ubias, Common Heir offers luxury vitamin C capsules that biodegrade in hot water after use. It’s a vital innovation, considering the beauty industry as a whole is responsible for producing 120 billion units of packaging every year. “Historically, women of color have not helmed luxury brands,” says Ubias. “We want to upend people’s expectations about inclusion and sustainability in luxury.”

Women are changing the clothes we wear, too

Beauty and fashion go hand in hand. And like the former, the latter is changing thanks to women, too. But again, there’s a glass ceiling to smash. Like beauty, the big fashion companies are predominantly led by men. According to the Business of Fashion, less than 50 percent of well-known womenswear brands are actually designed by women. 

The biggest problem fashion faces today is its environmental impact. It is responsible for up to 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and contributes regularly to a growing mountain of textile waste. (Every second, one garbage truck of textiles is dumped in the landfill or incinerated.) But again, just like beauty, many of the smaller brands innovating to improve the situation are run or founded by women. 

Algaeing is one example. Led by CEO Renana Krebs, the startup creates biodegradable fabric and dye using algae, a renewable resource that when farmed, actually pulls carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In New York, luxury brand Sylven, founded by Casey Dworkin, is making shoes out of bio-based apple leather, which utilizes organic apple pulp waste from Tyrol, a town in the Italian alps. 

And also in New York, Stephanie Benedetto has founded Queen of Raw, a platform that buys leftover textile waste from the fashion industry and sells it onto design students and small brands. Benedetto founded the brand after spotting a gaping hole in the market. “There’s a percentage of waste material that is actually fine for reuse,” she says. “That’s as well as the material that was ordered and never used, or excess sample yardage. But historically there has been no avenue to resell it.”

OhSevenDays, another women-led startup, also finds a new purpose for old deadstock. Founded by Megan Mummery, the Turkey-based brand buys rejected or damaged materials from fabric mills and then creates new designs with it. Mummery is motivated by her love of fashion, but also a desire to do better for the future of the industry. “As a kid, I didn’t know much about sustainability, and I bought fast fashion like the rest of us,” she says. “But once you learn, you try to make up for it.”

Women are transforming the food on our plates

When we’re talking about industries with a huge environmental impact, we can’t ignore meat. Animal agriculture is not only responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but it also wastes huge amounts of water. In fact, 23 percent of the US’s water consumption goes toward cattle feed. The industry is also destroying rainforests. Beef, in particular, is the world’s leading driver of deforestation.

Again, women-led brands are making a huge impact in this space. In South Africa, Tasneem Karodia is the co-founder of Mzansi Meat, a company striving to feed the African continent with protein grown in labs. Cultivating meat with cellular agriculture could cut the need for farming animals altogether. That’s what motivates Karodia. “My main mission is to help solve the inefficiencies in the food system,” she says. “To feed the next billion in Africa, with better meat.”

Getting to this point has been tough for Karodia. As a woman working in science, she’s had to jump more hurdles than her male counterparts to get to where she is. But she’s hopeful that alongside others like her, she can pave an easier path for future generations of women in tech. “Women aren’t taken as seriously as men, we have to work twice as hard to be recognised in most environments,” she says. “But I think those that are in the space are really passionate about making a contribution. With the right passion and motivation we can see past these challenges and hopefully make it easier for other women that will move into this industry.”

New Breed Meats is another example of a women-led company trying to shape a more sustainable future of food. The brand offers non-gmo, protein-packed plant-based products. But New Breeds Meats’ environmental mission is intertwined with its social goals. Co-founder Samantha Edwards is passionate about improving education and access to nutritious food. Because, in the US, millions of people live in places where access to fresh healthy food is limited, the majority of them people of color. And according to 2018 research from Stanford University, the problem isn’t just distance, it’s a lack of food education too.

New Breed Meats hosts health education programs, nutrition enrichment workshops, and healthy lifestyle residential retreats, and 10 percent of its profits goes to their overarching mission. “For too long minorities have needlessly suffered for lack of education on what constitutes health and have been burdened with many lifestyle diseases as a result,” Edwards says. “We want to open these conversations and offer real solutions.”

Supporting mission-focused, women-led companies

From beauty to fashion to food, women are changing the way we consume for the better. And as shown in every example given here, they’re not just motivated by profit, but by purpose and passion too. Each brand has a mission, a drive to scale that is rooted in doing good.

Women have come so far in so many industries, but they still need support. And again, women are leading the way in giving their peers a leg up. Jennifer Stojkovic is the founder of Vegan Women’s Summit, an events and media organization focused on supporting women in sustainable business. Every year in Los Angeles, the organization passes the mic to women at its annual event. It hosts speakers from a variety of businesses, who specialize in everything from sustainable fashion to plant-based meat to cellular agriculture.

This year, actor and vegan activist Alicia Silverstone will give the keynote speech. She will be supported by a long list of influential speakers in the sustainability space, including Deborah Torres, the founder of the  award-winning vegan fried chicken brand Atlas Monroe, bestselling cookbook author and influencer Joanne Molinaro, and Maggie Baird, the founder of Support + Feed, a plant-based nonprofit tackling food insecurity.

But the impact of the Vegan Women’s Summit isn’t limited to one day. With its pitch competition Pathfinder, the organization consistently helps women founders access resources, connections, and funding. The overall aim is to help them expand their networking ecosystems and, ultimately, grow their world-changing businesses. So far, it has helped more than 1,000 women founders in 31 countries.

“This is the existential crisis of our lifetime,” says Stojkovic. “We know that we have about 10 years to get this right before we reach the point of no return. Quite simply, the longer we leave the talent and skills of women on the table, the longer we leave animals on the table. We know that there are tremendous solutions on the horizon.”  She adds: “I tell women all the time, there is still a place for you among the giants. The ship hasn’t sailed here. We have the opportunity for this to be a women led industry.”

There is no doubt, if we can utilize the talent, intuition, and passion of women to grow sustainable businesses, as a consequence, we can change the future of the planet for the better. Find out more about the Vegan Women’s Summit here. This year’s event will take place on Friday April 8.

Carbon Crusher combines recycled asphalt with plant-based glue to repair the blacktop instead of using traditional bitumen—a viscous form of petroleum that has a significant environmental impact and even continues to emit air pollution once in place on the road.

According to the company, the over 40-million miles of roads worldwide emit approximately 400 million tons of CO2 per year through both construction and maintenance. One study, published in 2019, reported that each kilometer of road produced around 65.8 kilograms of CO2 equivalent.

In addition to being more sustainable than traditional methods, Carbon Crusher says that its process is faster, more cost-effective, and even sequesters carbon once implemented. The company also believes that its road surfaces are more durable than others.

“We’re making roads that are part of the solution to the climate crisis, not part of the problem,” Carbon Crusher cofounder Haakon Brunell told Fast Company. “And it also happens to be a cheaper, more durable way of rehabilitating roads.”

Building carbon-negative roads out of… Old roads

When a road needs resurfacing, Carbon Crusher uses a heavy-duty machine to break up the existing, damaged top layer of the road. Once this material is sufficiently broken down, the company mixes through lignin, a class of complex organic polymers that make up the supporting tissue within plants. (It adds strength, stiffness, and waterproofing to the plant cell wall.)

Lignin, which is particularly important in trees’ wood and bark, is what enables these resurfaced roads to store carbon in the same way that plant life does. Furthermore, lignin is a common byproduct of paper production, and the Norwegian industry frequently burns it for energy.

So damaged roads get an extension to their useful life and virgin construction materials are avoided at the beginning stage. Then, high-impact bitumen is swapped for carbon-busting lignin, which would otherwise be burned and produce additional CO2 in the paper industry. It’s a neat, efficient, and sustainable example of the circular economy in action.

Carbon Crusher’s technology can also be used to repair concrete surfaces, providing they are not reinforced with steel. Overall, the construction industry accounts for approximately 38 percent of CO2 emissions. Repairing and reusing what already exists—from road surfaces to other materials to whole buildings—will likely be the only way to reduce the industry’s footprint sufficiently.

“The world doesn’t necessarily need new roads,” adds Brunell. “It needs better roads.”

The EU plans to introduce the world’s first carbon dioxide emissions tariff on imported and high-polluting goods to encourage sustainability at home and abroad.

A San Antonio architectural firm has just released plans for a binational park on the US-Mexico border, to be built along the Rio Grande river.

Meanwhile, Rwandan researchers have spotted an ultra-rare bat species with a particularly memorable face, and a team of US-UK scientists found a sweet solution to plastic.

Here’s this week’s good climate news.

Pigs express their complex feelings through grunts

The good news: A study published earlier this month in the journal Scientific Reports demonstrates how pigs vocalize their thoughts and feelings through the various noises they make. By using artificial intelligence, an international team of researchers developed a translator to interpret the grunts and oinks made by pigs. The algorithm was applied to over 7,000 noises made by 411 different animals from a variety of commercial and artificial settings.

The impact: This study represents a potentially significant step forward for animal welfare. The researchers’ translation algorithm could be turned into an app that would allow farmers direct insight into the welfare of their charges. Some might argue that this type of technology is not required to assess wellbeing based on contextual factors. (For example, it found that play and intimacy prompted positive emotions, while fights and physical pain caused negative ones.) But it still represents a unique study that further reveals the complexities of farm animals’ inner and outer lives.

Did you know? Pigs are sensitive, social, and intelligent animals who make nests for sleeping and huddle together to keep warm. Despite popular opinion, they are quite clean and have designated sleeping, wallowing, and toilet areas. In addition to cooling their skin, rolling in mud helps to clean off parasites. Pigs also dream, sing, and have excellent memories. (They are able to find their way home over long distances and if they find food in one location will remember to check there again in the future.)

How you can help: Learn more about pigs and the issues they face from Compassion in World Farming here. While there are some charities, farms, and shelters that cater specifically to pigs—such as the UK’s Pigs in the Wood or Pigs’ Peace in the US—there is likely a local or regional group rescuing a variety of farm animals near you. Also in the UK, there is the Dean Farm Trust and FRIEND Animal Sanctuary, while US sanctuaries include Animal Place, Woodstock Farm Sanctuary, and countless others. (Learn more about Dan McKernan, the founder of Michigan’s Barn Sanctuary here.)

The EU is set to introduce the world’s first CO2 tariff

The good news: The EU plans to introduce the world’s first carbon emissions tariff on high-impact imported goods by 2026. The importation tax will affect imports such as steel, cement, fertilizers, aluminum, and electricity—all potentially high-impact industries that must shift towards sustainability in order to mitigate climate change.

The impact: While the details are yet to be finalized, the tariff will hopefully encourage stronger environmental rules and more sustainable practices overall. The three-year transition phase will begin in 2023, and the details will likely be discussed and approved by the end of the year. French finance minister Bruno Le Maire says that a “sizeable majority” supported the decision.

Did you know? The EU hopes to cut its collective emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels by the end of the decade, which will require further investments in green energy, technology, and sustainable infrastructure. But an import tax would help to create a “level playing field” to prevent the undercutting of EU companies by those operating elsewhere. Le Maire explains: “We’re making the effort to reduce carbon emissions in industry. […] We don’t want these efforts to be of no avail because we import products which contain more carbon.”

How you can help: Learn more about the potential impact of carbon tax from the Center For Climate and Energy Solutions here. Several websites offer a free personal carbon footprint calculator, such as Carbon Footprint, to give you some idea of what your own impact is. Avoiding carbon-intensive transportation, eating more plants (and less meat), and shopping ethically, locally, and minimally, all help to reduce your personal carbon footprint.

The US-Mexico border is getting a binational park

The good news: Overland Partners, a San Antonio-based architecture firm, just released its plans for a US-Mexico binational border park. The park will be built along the Rio Grande river (known south of the border as the Río Bravo del Norte), stretching across 6.3 miles of land along both sides of the water, as reported by Dezeen. It will also connect the cities of Laredo, Texas, and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, just four miles away. (The transborder region is popularly known as “the Two Laredos.”)

The impact: The new project was conceived as a way to restore the area’s ecosystem, celebrate the joint culture of the Two Laredos, and to help revitalize the economy. While the two cities practically operate as one day-to-day—including an essential flow of workers in both directions—US authorities closed the border between March 2020 and November 2021 due to COVID-19, meaning that both cities’ economies took a significant hit.

Did you know? The Rio Grande is at the heart of the Chihuahuan Desert, one of the three most biodiverse places in the entire world. Covering parts of northern Mexico and the southwestern US, the desert is home to over 130 varieties of mammal, 110 freshwater fish, and well over 3,000 plant species, to name just a few of its inhabitants. Its also home to five million people, many of whom are directly reliant on the 172,000 square mile Rio Grande basin. (It provides freshwater to at least 16 million people from both sides of the border.)

The new project will combine ecological conservation with new infrastructure in order to best serve all of the inhabitants of the Two Laredos and the Rio Grande Basin. It will also specifically embrace the idea of two cities living as a single community. It notably runs contrary to the aura of nationalism surrounding the Trump administration which led to the controversial, harmful, and widely derided border wall. 

How you can help: Learn more about conservation in the Rio Grande from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) here and here, or read on to hear more about the catastrophic impact of the border wall on humans, wildlife, and biodiversity here and here. Support the Trust For Public Land and learn about its ongoing projects in the area here. 

Ultra-rare bat species spotted in Rwanda

The good news: Researchers just caught a Hill’s horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hillorum) in Nyungwe Forest National Park, Rwanda. This is the first time that the nocturnal mammal has been seen since 1981. The region, located in southwest Rwanda, is extremely biodiverse and contains the largest remaining piece of woodland in the country. It’s what’s known as an old-growth “cloud forest,” meaning its characterized by canopy-level vapor clouds.

The impact: Now that researchers have confirmed the survival of this rare bat species, they can track its movements using non-invasive acoustic monitoring. It’s likely that the bats are concentrated in a core area. The researchers believe that focusing conservation efforts in the Nyungwe Forest National Park means that the remaining population could be protected.

Did you know? Rhinolophus bats are thought to be critically endangered, but because of their elusiveness, the scientific community knows surprisingly little about the species’ behaviors, habitats, and conservation status. They have a unique appearance, with prominent folds called “nose leaves” occupying the majority of their faces.

“When we caught it, we all just looked at it and said, ‘You look ridiculous. Look how big your nose leaf is,’” said Jon Flanders, the director of endangered species interventions at Bat Conservation International, as per Mongabay. “We feared the species may have already gone extinct.”

How you can help: Learn more about Nyungwe Forest National Park and its work here, and learn more about Rhinolophus bats from Bat Conservation International here. You can also donate to support the NGO’s valuable work directly.) You can also volunteer at or donate to the Bat Conservation Trust, the only UK charity that is solely dedicated to protecting bats. 

Sugar alcohols can be used to make sustainable plastic

The good news: A study produced by a UK-US research team and published in the scientific journal ACS reveals how to improve petrochemical-free sustainable plastics. Whereas many plastic alternatives can be brittle, with limited application, using sugar alcohols can give sustainable alternatives “properties comparable to commercial plastics.”

The impact: The team created two compounds from the sugar alcohol: isoidide and isomannide, which can then be used to create polymers, the basis of many man-made materials. While the two compounds have similar compositions, they can each be used to create a variety of useful and sustainable plastics. For example, the isoidide-based polymer is both stretchy and strong, while the isomannide-based variety behaves like rubber. Between them, they could be used in products ranging from milk cartons to fishing lines and tires to sneaker soles.

Did you know? The science behind this study could also be used to create polymers with completely different properties and characteristics, and potentially can be used in the creation of sustainable materials with “unprecedented mechanical properties.” Traditional plastic is a huge problem. (In fact, in the last Good Climate News we covered the new “Paris Agreement of plastic pollution.”) Around eight million pieces of plastic pollution enter the ocean daily, and in a single week each of us could be eating up to five grams of microplastics via food, water, and even air.

How you can help: Read on and learn about more scientific solutions to plastic pollution here. You can also cut back on your own plastic waste as much as possible by recycling, reusing, and shopping sustainably. (Litter-picking is always a good idea, too.) Learn more about how to Zero Waste your kitchen here, and read about how California’s Mango Materials is producing a sustainable plastic alternative by capturing and using methane here.

Looking for more good climate news? Read the previous installments here.

The Italian luxury car brand has announced the launch of an entirely electric range, called Maserati Folgore. By 2025, the company plans to offer electric versions of every model in its lineup.

Maserati’s first EV in the range will be its new GranTurismo. The car will feature 1,200 horsepower and is set to debut in 2023. Up next, the company will release an all-electric Grecale SUV and GranCabrio GT convertible, followed by electric versions of the MC20 “super sports car,” the Quattroporte sport sedan, and the Levante SUV. 

Moreover, the brand—which is owned by multinational automotive manufacturing corporation Stellantis—revealed that by 2030, all new cars developed by the company will be fully electric.

“Maserati stands for performance and luxury, and that will be protected for sure in the future,” said Maserati’s CEO Davide Grasso. “As we move toward electrification, you will see more dedicated architecture focused on delivering the best in range and performance.”

Maserati goes electric, but at what cost?

Maserati joins a number of other luxury carmakers in ditching fossil fuels, including Bentley, Audi, and Mercedes-Benz.

The move to go all-electric is a “defining moment” for the 107-year-old brand, noted Grasso. It’s also part of the company’s revamp, which was unveiled in September 2020 at its “MMXX: Time to be Audacious” event at the Modena Circuit race track in Italy. 

In addition to widespread electrification, Maserati’s relaunch, which has been in the works since 2018, includes an update of its iconic Trident logo, now ​​”more modern, balanced and elegant.” ​​“We’re proud to inaugurate our new Era,” explained Grasso. “For our Brand, this is a time to build: the time to be forward-looking and construct our future.”

While Maserati’s plans to electrify its entire range are a step forward in terms of mitigating the transportation sector’s leading role in climate change, it’s hard to ignore the brand’s high price tag. A 2022 GranTurismo coupe runs about $300,000. Tack on an extra $35,000 for the new GranCabrio. While information is limited about the release, the starting price for Maserati’s first electric car is also expected to be in the six figures. 

Prohibitive cost is one downside to electric vehicles. In recent years, the likes of Tesla have become status symbols for the elite, rather than clean-fuel solutions. On the low end, a 2022 Tesla Model 3 goes for about $45,000. And on the high end, a new Tesla Model X runs about $105,000. Other luxury electric vehicles are just as pricey. The MSRP for a new Porsche Taycan starts at $82,700; a BMW iX starts at $83,200. Even non-luxury electric vehicles like the Polestar 2, which starts at $45,900, typically feature high price tags. Put simply, they’re inaccessible to most consumers. In order to expand accessibility, the private sector and the government must increase incentives and tax discounts. Without that, electric vehicles will likely remain out-of-reach for the average person.

But, the fact that more countries are pledging to achieve carbon-neutrality by 2050 has resulted in an uptick of car manufacturers like Volvo, Ford Europe, and Honda going all-electric. And as the electric vehicle market broadens and sales volumes surge, conversely, the production costs of electric cars will eventually go down. (For example, the 2022 Nissan Leaf starts at $28,425.)  

Automotive experts predict that electric vehicles prices will drop and reach price parity with their gas-powered counterparts—perhaps even as soon as 2025. “On an upfront basis, these things will start to get cheaper and people will start to adopt them more as price parity gets closer,” said Colin McKerracher, BloombergNEF’s Head of Advanced Transport. Overall, the shift towards electric vehicles is a good thing, so long as it remains equitable.

BlocPower, a Brooklyn-based clean-tech startup, received a $5.5 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund in December. Bezos launched the initiative in February 2020, pledging $10 billion in grants to companies and organizations working to fight the climate crisis. BlocPower was one of 44 grant recipients—which the fund dispersed $443 million to in total.

“The goal of the Bezos Earth Fund is to support change agents who are seizing the challenges that this decisive decade presents,” said Andrew Steer, the fund’s president and CEO. “Through these grants, we are advancing climate justice and the protection of nature, two areas that demand stronger action.”

In January, Microsoft invested $30 million to BlocPower through its Climate Innovation Fund—a $1 billion investment initiative that works to develop climate innovations. 

“The funding provided through Microsoft’s Climate Innovation Fund will fuel BlocPower’s efforts to make a meaningful impact on climate change and bring environmental and economic justice to frontline communities across America that need it the most,” said Donnel Baird, CEO of BlocPower.  

BlocPower tackles climate change

Founded in 2014, BlocPower is on a mission to make American cities greener. 

To date, it’s retrofitted 1,200 buildings in New York City with electric heating, cooling, and hot water systems. Through its no money down leasing and low-interest loan options, the company is helping homeowners decarbonize and electrify their homes, focusing on underserved communities.

The average American household spends $2,000 a year on energy expenses, according to the US Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. And residential energy is responsible for approximately 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the US.

Older buildings are particularly pollutive, according to BlocPower. Aging buildings produce more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire US transportation sector. By decarbonizing and electrifying these buildings, the company has reduced building energy costs by 30 to 50 percent. Its current projects have also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 percent. 

BlocPower currently has projects underway in a number of cities, including Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Oakland. It’s also spearheading Ithaca, New York’s transition to become carbon-neutral by 2030.
“We’re going to decrease the amount of oil and gas and fossil fuels that these buildings consume, decrease the amount of emissions that are created,” said Baird. “We’re going to save the building owners money.”

The history of recycling

Modern recycling programs were founded out of concern for the environment. They first began appearing in the US in the 1960s and 1970s, but their history goes back much further than that.

Before the industrial age and mass production, products could not be made as cheaply or rapidly as they can today. As a result, most people practiced recycling in one form or another, though perhaps not in the way we associate most with the word today.

For example, during the 19th century, fast-fashion and the concept of a “throw-away society” did not exist. Most people reused, repaired, and upcycled clothing, household items, and anything else that could be salvaged rather than discarded.

It is also likely that people had a much more direct relationship with the creation and maintenance of their possessions, perhaps understanding more of the work and materials that went into creating them, leading to greater respect for their cost and value.

Rationing and scrap collection during World War II led to increased recycling efforts in the 1940s. Households were encouraged to sort their tin cans and metals, nylon, rubber, and paper to contribute to the war effort. Garbage collection had already begun in the US in the late 19th century, so workers sorted the usable from the unusable on conveyor belts—much like they do today.

However, the 1950s saw the birth of throw-away-culture, and by the 1970s, landfills began to overflow. Some environmentalists began recycling by taking their own sorted waste to private recycling centers themselves.

While admirable, this was deeply inefficient and created its own carbon footprint via each individual’s transportation, and the inconvenience of traveling to recycle items also discouraged many. But in 1980 the addition of curbside recycling in some cities and regions helped to encourage more widespread participation in recycling efforts.

Today, recycling is much more mainstream.

Recycling today

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the disposal of waste to landfills has decreased from 94 percent of the total amount generated (1960) to approximately 52 percent of the amount generated (2017). But proportionally, the US recycles much less of its municipal waste than other wealthy countries.

Analysis by global risk consulting firm Verisk Maplecroft estimates that the US produces around 12 percent of global municipal solid waste. On average, Americans recycle just 35 percent of the total waste produced. This equates to approximately 234 pounds (106.2kg) per person, per year. For many, the lack of convenient access is a major impediment.

However, if you’re able, here are some general tips on how to recycle properly and effectively.

What can be recycled?

A common source of confusion is not knowing exactly what can be recycled, or how. The best way to find out what your local recycling services are is to check with your local municipality. There are also plenty of general guides and other resources available online to help figure out what to do with both everyday and unusual items and materials.

Food recycling company EcoScraps offers a simple overview of recycling rules, boiling it down to three main tenets: recycle all bottles, cans, and paper, keep everything as clean as possible and make sure plastic bags are kept separately.

In the US, there is no national law that refers to recycling services or processes. As a result, state and local governments typically design and operate their own recycling requirements and services.

American businesswoman and lifestyle icon Martha Stewart has a state-by-state guide shared on her website. It even includes contact details for each relevant government body and how to get in touch for further clarification.

Some cities, including San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Seattle, and states, including New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts, have compulsory recycling legislation.

Many proponents of national legislation claim that the reason that the average recycling rate in the US has plateaued at approximately 34 percent is the discrepancies between different state’s recycling infrastructure.

What can’t be recycled?

Some items simply can’t be recycled, no matter where you live. These include plastic-based hygiene products such as floss and disposable razors. Cling film is impossible to recycle, as is the netting used to wrap citrus fruits. The best thing to do is to avoid buying items packaged in these materials, and opt for loose, bulk items instead.

While avoiding plastic bags and similar packaging might seem like an obvious choice, it’s also worth looking into the sustainability of the available alternatives, including the overall environmental cost of recycling them.

For example, while paper may seem like the perfect replacement for plastic, recycling paper-based packaging still has a significant carbon footprint. Also, there is frequently a limit to how many times a material can be recycled.

Recycling is infinitely preferable to landfill. But generally, it’s still better for the environment to swap disposable and single-use packaging of all kinds for long-life reusable alternatives. Canvas bags, textile sandwich wraps, and washable containers are all increasingly commonplace, and far more sustainable in the long run than any single-use items. (Providing you do keep and use them long-term.)

Can fabric and clothing be recycled?

In addition to the increased production and consumption of clothing—around 400 percent in just the last 20 years—the quality of clothes is also deteriorating. This means that their fibers can’t be reused as effectively, and, much like plastic and paper, there is usually a finite number of times that textiles can be recycled at all.

Modern fabric, in particular, is extremely difficult to recycle. The blended nature of most current, cheaply-produced clothing means that it is difficult to separate into its distinct parts. Globally, just 12 percent of the textiles used to produce clothing is effectively recycled, and the EPA estimates that almost 85 percent of all discarded textiles in the US are either burned or deposited into a landfill.

The average American person is thought to throw out approximately 37 kg (81.5 pounds) of clothes per year. While around £140 million worth of clothing goes to landfill in the UK per year, according to British charity the Waste & Resources Action Program (WRAP).

A report by WRAP estimates that the annual footprint of a typical household’s newly bought clothing—plus washing and cleaning—is equivalent in carbon emissions to driving an average car for 6,000 miles or filling 1,000 bathtubs with water.

The most effective way to combat this waste and its impact on the environment is to repair, reuse, and pass on clothing before it has to be recycled into its constituent parts. Looking after clothes and repairing them when they break significantly extends each item’s lifespan.

Buying second-hand

Repairing, reusing, and upcycling clothing can also save you money, particularly if you buy better quality or harder wearing items second-hand. COVID-19 has contributed to a boom in online thrift, vintage, and charity shops. Many people are now also choosing to buy and sell old clothes online via websites such as eBay.

By purchasing second-hand items already within the waste supply chain—and then selling, donating, or recycling them—the reduction of your impact on the environment is twofold. There are a variety of local and national resources online which advise where to pass on your unwanted clothing. Zero Waste lifestyle blog Trash is for Tossers has compiled a list of item-specific organizations.

While the fashion industry is still far from perfect, it has come a long way. Today, many major brands are looking to incorporate sustainable processes into their business models. Thinking about your own role as a consumer—for example, whether you support sustainable brands, shop second hand, or repair and reuse your clothes—contributes to its progress towards a more sustainable future.

The future of recycling in fashion

There are many innovative new trends that aim to minimize waste, particularly in the global fashion industry. This move towards sustainability is one of necessity. In 2018, the clothing sector was responsible for more greenhouse gases than France, the UK, and Germany combined—a huge 2.1 billion tonnes of CO2, and approximately four percent total global emissions.

Even mainstream brands such as H&M—which has previously been criticized for its use of child labor and burning unsold clothes (as recently as 2017), as well as union-busting (2019)—are now attempting to incorporate the idea of a circular economy and sustainable fashion into their business models.

H&M is currently part of The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Make Fashion Circular Initiative, and even launched an in-store clothing recycling system in Stockholm called “Looop.”

Recycling presents a unique challenge to sports brands, many of whom have also received criticism for their labor practices and use of synthetic fibers and microplastics. Several companies, including Nike, Adidas, Vivobarefoot, ON, and Salomon, are working on recycling programs.

Some brands also incorporate recycled materials such as ocean plastic and textile waste into production, others are working on fully recyclable products, and outdoor labels such as Patagonia and North Face are already offering to buy-back used clothing to refurbish, upcycle, and sell it on at a reduced price.

Across the fashion industry as a whole, there is an increased emphasis on switching to sustainable and biodegradable materials such as hemp, bamboo, and even soybeans, in place of high-impact textiles like cotton, synthetic blends, and animal-derived materials.

Why is recycling important?

Overall, the impact of reducing, reusing, and recycling—a mission statement with unknown origins but by 1970s environmentalists—is huge. First and foremost, it reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills and incinerators, thereby conserving energy, natural resources, and land.

It also prevents pollution, which impacts both local communities and the world’s natural ecosystems. Finally, recycling creates jobs. The EPA’s 2016 national Recycling Economic Information (REI) Study revealed that recycling created 757,000 jobs and $36.6 billion in wages over the course of a single year.

In general, there is an increased awareness of inefficiency in the production, use, and disposal of some everyday items, and many environmental and social experts suggest a global move from a linear economy to a circular one.

In short, this means keeping resources in use for as long as possible with regular upkeep, then recovering and recycling the component materials at the end of their useful life. Maximum efficiency, and minimal waste—something that we can all strive towards.

If you’re interested in cutting back on your household waste, check out this guide to zero waste kitchen and pantry essentials.