ChangeNOW 2025: From promise to planet-saving impact
A decade after the world cheered the Paris Agreement, its bold promises now face a harsh 2025 reality: geopolitical shifts, inflation, and a rapidly changing climate. As CNN's Anna Stewart reports from ChangeNOW, the "World Expo of solutions for the planet," the question isn't just if innovators can "talk the talk," but if they can finally turn optimism into undeniable, real-world impact.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
What do you do when you're the lone Democrat on Trump's FCC? You go on tour
Anna Gomez, soon to be the lone Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission, has been sounding the alarm about President Donald Trump's 'weaponization' of her agency against the press. And now she's taking it on the road. Gomez has embarked on a 'First Amendment Tour' of planned speeches across multiple states, saying Trump has shown a 'pattern of censorship and control' threatening free speech rights. Under Trump-appointed Chairman Brendan Carr, the FCC has conducted what she calls 'sham investigations' against news outlets. Last week, Gomez gave a speech at California State University in Los Angeles — her first tour stop outside Washington, DC. She'll soon make appearances in Kentucky and Illinois, and the tour is expected to last through the end of the year. 'I want to speak out, make sure we get the message out about what is happening and how this is a threat to our democracy,' Gomez told CNN. The FCC's efforts to investigate news outlets — including NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS and NBC — 'is a threat to the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press,' she added, 'and I want to encourage others to join me, to speak out and to push back against this violation of the First Amendment.' Get Reliable Sources newsletter Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your inbox. Gomez suggested she could be fired for openly criticizing her agency. However, she said she's 'more worried about our democracy and the folks standing up to defend it.' (The FCC is an independent agency, and the president cannot fire a commissioner without just cause. If Trump removed anyone from the panel, it could trigger a legal fight.) 'I will continue to speak out, regardless of what happens, because I think it's important that we bring attention to these actions that are so contrary to our constitutional freedoms,' Gomez told CNN. After this week, Gomez, a 2023 Biden appointee, will be the only Democrat left on the five-seat commission. Her fellow Democrat, Geoffrey Starks, who was appointed by Trump and reappointed by Biden, will step down on Friday. Republican commissioner Nathan Simington, a Trump appointee, will also exit the agency at the end of this week. The departures will leave just two commissioners on the bench: Gomez and Carr, the latter of whom has openly signaled a willingness to pursue media outlets deemed unfavorable by the president. The FCC will be unable to vote on any matters until it fills a vacant seat and fulfills a required three-commissioner quorum. In the meantime, Gomez said she plans to be vocal about her chairman's actions. Since Trump returned to the White House, Carr has reopened probes into NPR and PBS over their sponsorship practices and into CBS over alleged 'news distortion.' He's reinstated complaints against ABC News for its handling of a 2024 presidential debate and opened new probes into NBCUniversal and Disney over their diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Those actions, Gomez said, have been justified by Carr using 'an undefined public interest standard,' which she translated as 'things we don't like to see.' These are 'sham investigations,' Gomez bluntly told CNN. 'They are intended to affect how these broadcasters and companies are doing their business, whether it's how they make their editorial decisions or how they change their fair hiring practices.' Gomez has also used the tour to delve into Trump's lawsuits against media companies — a tactic that has FCC connections, in the case of CBS News. The broadcaster's parent company, Paramount, is seeking the FCC's sign-off on its lucrative merger with Skydance Media. At the same time, Trump is suing CBS, accusing '60 Minutes' of deliberately mis-editing its October interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris to manipulate the election. Even though experts have deemed the lawsuit bogus, CBS is reportedly considering settling the lawsuit. Pressure to settle the case and clear the way for FCC approval has trickled down to the network. CBS News president Wendy McMahon, a '60 Minutes' ally, stepped down last month. 'It's become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward,' she wrote in her farewell memo. Weeks before that, longtime '60 Minutes' producer Bill Owens resigned because he felt he could no longer make 'independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes,' as he wrote in a memo to the show's staff. Days later, the newsmagazine's anchor Scott Pelley said that Paramount had started 'to supervise our content in new ways' amid the political pressure, and that Owens felt 'he had lost the independence that honest journalism requires.' 'That, to me, is completely against the public interest,' Gomez said of Owens and McMahon being pushed out, 'because what it says is that they are making news editorial decisions for reasons that have nothing to do with journalistic integrity, but everything to do with the corporate parent's desire to get their transaction done.' While Gomez is using her speeches to sound alarms, she said there are glimmers of hope. The audience at last week's Los Angeles show, she said, was thrilled to see press freedom groups pushing back against the administration. However, Gomez said, the overall takeaway from the L.A. event was just how pervasive the sense of fear for press freedom has become. 'There's a lot of fear about these actions being taken against broadcasters, in particular, and frustration,' Gomez said. 'We heard from a wide variety of people — reporters, broadcasters, professors, public media — and they all had the same message, which is that they are very nervous about the actions that this administration is taking.'
Motor Trend
an hour ago
- Motor Trend
Volvo Invented a Safety Device You Use Every Day—and Now It's Improving It
Here's a quick quiz: What's something you wear every day (or should), but you can't take it with you? If you guessed your car's seatbelt, here's a cookie. The modern three-point safety belt, specifically, owes its existence to Volvo, the Swedish carmaker renowned for its car safety innovation. In 1959, an engineer working for Volvo, Nils Bohlin, developed the three-point belt—and then Volvo effectively released that patent by vowing not to pursue infringement claims or charge royalties on it. After all, what better way to ensure widespread adoption than to, in essence, open-source a lifesaving technology? Of course, widespread adoption took a few years—okay, decades—but Bohlin's design, which locates two sections of seatbelt over the strongest parts of the body (the pelvis and chest) while also being easy to use by requiring only one hand to grab, pull across one's body, and buckle, eventually became the standard globally. Some innovations have altered the basic design somewhat over the years, both from Volvo and other automakers, namely retractable inertia-reel functions, those irritating motorized track-style units popular in the early 1990s, and more recently, belts with built-in airbags to better distribute crash forces across the body. ZF even came up with heated seatbelts—no mere luxury, this was said to reduce heater use (or need) in EVs, where using the heater can drastically affect range. Now Volvo is announcing another step forward for the three-point belt Bohlin invented 66 years ago: A "multi-adaptive" safety belt. A Multi-Adaptive What Now? This "world-first" technology, according to Volvo, introduces sensor feedback to the seatbelt's action in a crash, allowing the restraint leeway in "adapting to traffic variations and the person wearing it." What this means in practice is that the belt is plugged into sensor data from both inside and outside of the vehicle that can, apparently, gauge an occupant's overall size—including their height, weight, and "body shape"—and match that to their seating position. Using that information, Volvo says the seatbelt can adjust to a "higher belt load setting" for a larger occupant or more severe impact or a "lower belt load setting" for a smaller rider or a fender-bender. But those are only two examples; as Volvo points out, traditional seatbelt pretensioners have only a few load settings at most—the multi-adaptive setup, in Volvo's words, "significantly increases the number of so-called load-limiting profile variations," adding that the technology can improve over time by way of over-the-air (OTA) updates. Volvo doesn't specify how, exactly, the seatbelt pulls off this fine control, but it would seem the load-limiting mechanism for the belt—you know, the part that jams the belt if you try and lean forward too quickly while wearing it, or that locks it after unwinding the belt all the way with the intention of locking it to hold a car seat in place—has been transitioned from somewhat passive to active control. (The exploded view of the seatbelt reel below looks pretty complex.) This gives the belt the ability to more precisely modulate its lockup, we gather, in order to better restrain passengers in certain situations, while allowing some cushioning in others, thus reducing unnecessary belt-related injuries such as rib fractures. In some ways, this technology seems to be tackling the same basic issue that seatbelt airbags attempt to combat: Namely, secondary injuries from the restraint itself. The seatbelt airbag inflates in a crash to effectively increase the safety belt's surface area, spreading the load forces across a broader section of the body. Volvo is attempting the same trick, just not by way of increased belt surface area, but rather control over the belt's load limiter.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Does Elon Musk's Borrowing Show A Super Low Tesla Stock Valuation?
CANNES, FRANCE - JUNE 19: Elon Musk attends 'Exploring the New Frontiers of Innovation: Mark Read in ... More Conversation with Elon Musk' session during the Cannes Lions International Festival Of Creativity 2024 - Day Three on June 19, 2024 in Cannes, France. (Photo by) A practice of Elon Musk and Tesla's board raises questions about the company's governance and the possible low valuation that private capital markets are putting on its shares. At the heart of the issue is how the company's CEO borrows money and whether he pledged an astoundingly large percentage of his shares — close to 7% of all outstanding stock — as collateral for a sum under 4% of the market value. The question is also not just about Tesla, but all public companies where executives and directors might pledge stock for borrowing in ways that could affect the market caps of the corporations. Because this has been a potential and actual problem across companies over time. Chief executive officers often borrow money against their shares as a tax-avoidance measure. Borrowing doesn't typically trigger income recognition requirements, so it is a mechanism for gaining liquidity without causing a taxable event. The interest paid on the loan is likely far less than the capital gains tax that would otherwise be required. Boards accept the approach for two major reasons. Generally, stock is considered to be a way to 'align the interests, ' as typically put, of executives and shareholders. But executives don't want to sit on shares without access to their value. Stock as collateral offers a balance. The other reason is to avoid a company's leader dumping shares. Such a situation could affect the stock's price, both because of supply and demand, and also from the psychological impact of an assumed loss of confidence by leadership. However, a problem appears if the market value of the shares falls and the lender makes a margin call in which the borrower must increase the amount of collateral against the loan, whether that is more shares, other assets of value, or cash. The board won't want a large sale of shares because of the effect on the overall stock price, and yet they may also be concerned about the executive tying up even more shares as collateral. In 2016, The Wall Street Journal wrote about margin debt on company stock held by the CEO of trucking firm Swift Transportation. A share price downturn in 2015 left him with margin calls, some of which he met by pledging more company shares. The board had to raise its limits on pledging multiple times and approved a stock buyback to raise share prices as part of the response. The CEO had pledged what was a quarter of all outstanding shares. Sumner Redstone sold 20% of his stake in Viacom and CBS in late 2008 to meet margin calls. Aubrey McClendon, founder and former CEO of Chesapeake Energy, had to sell 94% of his shares to cover loans. In 2015, Goldman Sachs called in $100 million of share-backed loans to Valeant's CEO, the Journal separately reported. Business Insider in 2022 wrote about 'cash-poor but equity-rich tech founders' who borrowed heavily and then faced a stock plunge. They mentioned eight such people who pledged more than 10% of their stakes and then were hurt by falling share prices. The potential for an executive to get caught out by falling share prices and the need to backstop collateral for loans they've taken is broader than one might think. Michael Chadwick of Fiscal Wisdom Wealth Management says that many corporate executives amass an overconcentration in their companies' shares. 'We have a [client] who's a director for a big pharmaceutical company,' Chadwick says. The person bought a house and got a loan from a non-bank lending company with his shares as collateral. Now the share price is down sharply, and he received a margin call. Tesla's stock plunged about 8.5% by 2:20 p.m. on Thursday. As Forbes reported, this seems to be a result of the relationship between Must and President Donald Trump appearing to unravel, with each attacking the other. The Tesla 10-K for fiscal year 2024 cites Musk's borrowing as one of its risk factors: 'If Elon Musk were forced to sell shares of our common stock, either that he has pledged to secure certain personal loan obligations, or in satisfaction of other obligations, such sales could cause our stock price to decline.' In the eyes of some, that might not be enough. 'The valuation issue is a really important one,' says Nell Minow, an expert in corporate governance and chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an institutional investor advisory firm. 'Were representations made to the lenders contrary to what is being told to the shareholders?' She adds that 'stock valuations should recognize any restrictions on a significant portion of the stock.' And the amount of collateral that lenders, including big banks, want could be an indicator of concern over the stability of share prices, the direction of the company, and how much they can trust the CEO. Page 20 of Tesla's 10-K/A, filed January 30, 2025, for the company's fiscal year that ended December 31, 2024, explains the board's rules for 'directors and executive officers to pledge Tesla stock for personal loans and investments' as something 'inherently related to their compensation due to our use of equity awards and promotion of long-termism and an ownership culture.' Directors and executive officers can pledge stock (not including warrants, options, restricted stock units, or other rights to purchase stock) as loan or investment collateral. Everyone other than the CEO is limited to borrowing no more than 15% of the total value of the pledged stock. Musk, by name, has a more complex limitation: the lesser of $3.5 billion or 25% of the total value of the pledged stock. 'It's an area where boards play a critical role, because there aren't any laws or rules that regulate pledging of shares by CEOs,' says Larry Cunningham, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. 'All the rules that exist are disclosure rules. The SEC requires companies to disclose information about a CEO pledging shares.' Tesla's board explicitly notes on page 21 that 'such pledging does not indicate the extent to which there may be actual borrowings against such shares as of such date, which may be substantially less than the value of the shares pledged.' The total amount collateralized by all directors and officers 'was less than 1% of the total value of the pledged shares.' According to Tesla public documents, the company's management 'monitors compliance with the policy by regularly reviewing and requesting updates from the applicable director or executive officer on his or her pledged stock amount and loan amount.' Then, 'if necessary,' management reports to the board or its committees the extent of pledging. 'We believe that this monitoring is effective and includes appropriate controls, and we have confirmed that each of our directors and executive officers who have pledged stock are and have been compliant with this policy since our last confirmation,' they further said. Tesla did not respond to multiple requests for more insight into the situation. Also, PwC, the audit firm involved with the 10-K, said that it doesn't comment on organizations or clients. On page 23 is the list of beneficial owner names with at least 5% of shares, as well as named executive officers and directors, who may have less than 1%. As of December 31, 2024, Musk owned 714,754,706 shares, or 20.3% of all shares. That includes 410,794,076 shares in the Elon Musk Revocable Trust dated July 22, 2003, and 303,960,630 issuable on exercise of options within 60 days after December 31, 2024. As of then, all of the shares that Musk owned outright were in that revocable trust. They include 235,998,721 shares pledged against his personal loans. The opening value Tesla shares on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, was $347.35. The value of the shares pledged is $81.97 billion. Round it to $82 billion. A quarter of that amount is $20.5 billion. According to the board's rule, Musk can have borrowed no more than $3.5 billion against all that stock, or 4.3% of the shares' total value. Furthermore, the shares he's pledged are 6.7% of all Tesla shares. If the board approved the borrowing because the loaned amount was far lower than the value of the shares, the question of potential impact on the valuation of the company's market cap remains. Not just for Tesla, but any company whose executives could pledge significant amounts of stock for low valuations. 'Banks typically require 50-70% loan-to-value ratios on stock collateral, with daily mark-to-market,' says Giacomo Santangelo, a senior lecturer in economics at Fordham University. 'A 20% stock decline on a 60% loan-to-value loan means the borrower must immediately post additional collateral or face forced liquidation. This creates cascade risk, where small declines trigger margin calls, forcing either more pledging or open-market sales, putting more pressure on the stock.' Santangelo adds that from a share valuation perspective, 'traditional models miss this entirely' as they typically assume continuous liquidity. 'But pledged shares behave more like restricted stock with embedded put options held by creditors,' meaning there are two constraints. One is on the shareholder's ability to turn the shares into cash through a sale. The other is of a potential forced sale. Depending on the circumstances, banks can look for other assets, whether securities, real estate, cash, or even alternative assets like art. If an executive is caught on a margin call from borrowing, where the equity of the stock pledge is worth less than a set baseline, the person will have to pony up more cash, offer alternative assets, or sell off additional shares to cover the balance. This can happen when a stock's price drops. Tesla has seen downward pressures on its shares. As Yahoo Finance reported, Tesla electric vehicle registrations (a proxy for sales) were down 49% year-over-year in Europe even as overall EV registrations were up 34.1%. Citi Analyst Jeff Chung noted that recent sales in China were down about 16% year over year, as Barron's reported. Shares did jump on Tuesday, May 27, on Musk saying that he would return to the office rather than spending more time in politics. In 2022, Forbes reported that out of the Forbes 400 list of 2021, 32 billionaires pledged shares of public companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq where they were either directors or significant shareholders (at least 5% of total shares of a company). Musk reportedly pledged a greater amount than the other 31 billionaires combined. He was fueling business deals like the Twitter takeover. According to that Forbes report, he pledged $62.5 billion in Tesla stock as collateral for margin loans of $12.5 billion. In the 2022 proxy statement, the board wrote that it limited loans with stock collateral to 25% of the pledged stocks. 'We believe this cap places sufficient limitation on any potential risk attendant to pledging stock, while still allowing flexibility in the use of equity awards to promote long-termism and ownership culture,' they wrote at the time. Also, the statement noted that a proxy advisory firm had 'concerns about the Board's risk oversight with respect to Tesla's policy regarding pledging of shares by directors and officers.' The proxy advisory was also concerned over 'hypotheticals of increasing share pledges.' In 2023, the board added the $3.5 billion cap to Musk's borrowing. Whether that applied in retrospect is unclear. If so, it would suggest that Musk had to repay a massive sum to keep within the new bounds. There seems to be nothing to indicate that his previous borrowing was grandfathered. If it were, there should be some documentation to that effect. Had he repaid that money, it would seem unlikely that vast number of shares would still be pledged. If he did repay the previous amounts, then under the Board's rules, the value of the shares to the maximum he could borrow, $3.5 billion, would be a roughly 23-times collateral coverage. According to Santangelo, that would signal that the lender saw an extreme risk in the pledged shares. What is clear is that in 2023, Musk had 238,441,261 shares pledged — 2,442,540 shares more than in 2024. That was a big jump from 2022, when Musk had pledged 92,331,125 shares, just under 39% of the 2023 figure. Also, the total shares he had in 2022 was 172,608,251, 21.2% of the total shares. There a large increase in the total number of shares as well, from 1,033,507,611 in 2022 to 3,164,102,701 in 2023. 'The whole point of caring about how much stock the executives and directors have is so investors can assess how well the interests of insiders align with theirs,' Minow says. 'Using stock as collateral arguably provides even more of an incentive to keep the price up, unless, as apparent in the Twitter purchase, the board is willing to open the spigot to make up for any squeezes.'
