SHOW NOTES
For centuries, humans have made money taking life out of the ocean. Can we build profitable businesses helping keep it alive?
TIME journalist Justin Worland has been reporting on entrepreneurs and investors who think the answer is yes. In his recent feature, he explores a growing effort to turn ocean protection into a business opportunity, from replacing plastic with seaweed to protecting coastlines.
Justin and I have known each other for more than a decade, dating back to his reporting on the treatment of egg-laying hens. In this conversation, we turn our attention underwater.
We discuss how Notpla, a past guest on this show, found a market for its seaweed packaging in sports stadiums, where buyers can order large volumes and tolerate a small premium. We also explore why some environmental solutions need a better business model more than they need a scientific breakthrough, and why a company shouldn’t have to become a billion-dollar unicorn to count as a success.
And I ask Justin about something not in his story: alternative seafood. Given fishing’s impact on marine life, should replacing fish—or simply eating fewer of them—be a bigger part of the ocean-protection conversation? That leads us into a discussion of the price, performance, and perception challenges facing alternative meat, and why some investors have grown wary of the sector.
From coastal protection to fish-free seafood, this is a conversation about what it takes to turn concern for the ocean into a business that can help protect it.
DISCUSSED IN THIS EPISODE
Justin’s TIME cover feature on ocean-saving technology.
Justin recommends reading the IPCC’s reports.
He also recommends following Sarah Kapnik’s Climate Advisory for JP Morgan.
A 2015 TIME story about laying hen welfare Paul and Justin worked on.
MORE ABOUT justin worland
Worland is a senior correspondent at TIME, based in the Washington, D.C., bureau and the founder of TIME’s Future Proof newsletter and platform for understanding the climate and energy economy. He received Covering Climate Now’s inaugural Climate Journalist of the Year award in 2022, among other awards. He is the Outrider Foundation fellow at TIME.
TRANSCRIPT
Justin Worland 0:00
It's not so much a technology problem as it is a business model problem.
Paul Shapiro 0:04
Welcome to the Business for Good podcast, where we spotlight people making money by solving some of the world's most pressing problems. I'm your host, Paul Shapiro, author of a nationally best-selling book on food sustainability and CEO of a company in the same space. On this show, I speak with founders, investors, and thought leaders who prove that doing good and doing well can go hand in hand. The biggest challenges facing humanity are solvable and are often profitable too. My hope is that this podcast informs, inspires, and maybe even helps repel you to build a business that makes the world a better place. I'm glad you're here. Welcome, friend, to episode 201 of the Business for Good podcast. I really appreciate the kind messages folks sent about the 200th episode with philosopher Peter Singer. I heard from some folks saying that they loved the interview, others saying they wished I'd pressed harder on certain topics, and others who were new to Singer's work altogether and are now reading some of his books. So no matter what you thought of it, I am glad you are listening and always appreciate your feedback. Okay, here is your random wild fact for this episode. You may have already known that platypuses are mammals who lay eggs. That's weird enough, but their weirdness does not stop there. Platypus mothers have no nipples. That's right. Instead, milk seeps through pores onto their bellies, and the babies slurp it off their fur. Breakfast is basically like a furry milk buffet. Pretty wild. Okay, now speaking of aquatic animals, or at least semi-aquatic animals, in the case of the platypus, for centuries humans have made money taking life out of the ocean. Could we build profitable businesses though by helping keep it alive? Time magazine journalist Justin Warland has been reporting on entrepreneurs and investors who think the answer is yes. In his recent cover feature for Time Magazine, he explores a growing effort to turn ocean protection into business opportunities, from replacing plastic with seaweed to protecting ocean coastlines and more. Justin and I have known each other for more than a decade, dating back to his time reporting on the treatment of egg-laying chickens. In this conversation, though, we turn our attention underwater. We discuss how Notfla, a past guest on this show, found a market for its seaweed packaging in sports stadiums, where buyers can order large volumes and tolerate a small premium. We also explore why some environmental solutions need a better business model more than they need a scientific breakthrough, and why a company shouldn't have to become a billion-dollar unicorn to become a success. And I asked Justin about something that is not in his cover feature for Time: alternative seafood. Given fishing's impact on marine life, should replacing fish or simply eating fewer of them be a bigger part of the ocean protection conversation? That leads us into a discussion of the price, performance, and perception challenges facing alternative meat, and why some investors have grown wary of the sector, while others are still betting on it. As always, here are your three key takeaways from this episode. First, protecting the ocean can be a business, but the crucial question is who is going to benefit enough to pay for it. Second, sometimes the technology already exists. What's missing is just a business model that gets it deployed. And third, and finally, start with customers who can pay a premium. Nikola, for example, found its early market for seaweed packaging in sports stadiums, buying large volumes where they could indeed sustain that premium. From coastal protection to fish-free seafood, this is a conversation about what it takes to turn concern for the ocean into a business that can help protect it. I will let Justin tell you the rest. Justin, welcome to the Business for Good podcast.
Justin Worland 3:22
So so good to be here. Thanks thanks for having me on, Paul.
Paul Shapiro 3:24
Yeah, you know I was looking through my email records of how long we have known each other, and I saw a feature from 2015 that you had written in time that we had worked on together about the treatment of egg laying hens. Then I saw that in 2016 I organized a conference in Washington D.C. called the Future of Food and invited you as a moderator, so you moderated one of the panels at this conference, and we have communicated back and forth over the past more than a decade since. But it's great to have you on the show because I think this is the first time, from what I can tell, that you and I have ever done any more long form conversation together. So I'm glad to have you on.
Justin Worland 3:58
Yeah, it's so it's so good to be here, and it's funny to think back. I mean, I remember that conference well, so it's good. It's good to be here.
Paul Shapiro 4:03
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So when I read your feature in Time, you had this great cover feature recently about companies that are working to save the ocean, and it struck me as something pretty interesting because for a long time humanity has extracted a lot of value from the ocean, right? Like we have extracted animals from the ocean, products from the ocean, and so on. But you're making an interesting argument that actually there can be money made in protecting the ocean, not just extracting from it. So, for people who haven't read your feature, and of course we'll link to it in the show notes for this episode at businessforgoodpodcast.com. What's your argument? What is there to be? Where is there money to be made not in extracting from the ocean, but in protecting it?
Justin Worland 4:42
Yeah, well, I mean, I think underpinning all of this is this this idea that we, you know, in some circles recognize, which is that oceans have value. I mean, obviously, we see that in extracting from them, but oceans underpin a lot of economic activity. You can look at numbers that are in the trillions, and you. You know, there's sort of an old school group of conservation folks who would say, you know, oceans have trillions of dollars in ecosystem services or this wonky sort of thing. But more recently, you have people like or places like firms like J.P. Morgan saying, you know, the oceans underpin trillions of dollars in economic activity. They called it the annual marine gross product, and you know, connected to that, there are firms that are thinking about the value of oceans not just as a as an opportunity to extract, but to also protect some of that value that underpins economies and really the origin of this story. I mean, I spend a lot of my time talking to people, just trying to like keep a finger on the pulse of of trends, and I just noted all of these startups that are thinking about oceans in new ways, paired alongside I mentioned J.P. Morgan or Standard Chartered, you know, sort of big institutional financial firms that are also thinking about it in new ways, and you know, I suppose the sort of crux of it is, is that you know you can you can try to do both. You can try to be both more sustainable and also you know find value without being extract extractionist.
Paul Shapiro 6:14
Yeah, you know it's interesting you mention J.P. Morgan because in addition to them talking about this trillions of dollars of ecosystem value that you're referring to, I noted that they reported in 2025 that ocean climate startups had raised over $5 billion in the preceding decade. So 2015 through 2025, $5 billion put into these ocean climate startups. Now that, of course, measures financing, not profits or ecological recovery. But where is that money going? What do you think? Like, are there, you know, is there? If you look at AI, so much of the money is going, for example, to Anthropic and and and OpenAI. Is there equivalent in ocean technology of folks who are collecting a lion's share or a plurality of that $5 billion?
Justin Worland 6:57
Well, it's really distributed across a wide range of companies. I would say that the few sort of bigger companies right now that have that have that are sort of most exciting for the venture space tend to be, you know, using or thinking about oceans from an intelligence perspective. I mean, this is not surprising given some of the geopolitical conversation, the Strait of Hormuz, et cetera. But you know, how do we think about oceans as a place where we can, you know, use it for intelligence gathering, and so those have gotten sort of outsized investment lately. But I would say, broadly speaking, and particularly when that that figure was published, it really runs the gamut. So oceans can be anything from, you know, offshore wind technology. It can be adapting coastlines and finding ways to monetize, you know, coastline protection. It can mean you know using seaweed not in a sort of seaweed grows very quickly. There's a lot of sort of burdensome seaweed that washes ashore. It can it can mean using that as a as a feedstock for other products. It really runs the gamut. I think one of the interesting challenges is to get people to sort of grapple with what it would mean to think about oceans as a category, right? So all those things require different sort of expertise, different sort of subject matter expert experts. But it so it runs the gamut, right? But but this $5 billion figure reflects. all these different things.
Paul Shapiro 8:24
So you cover a few different companies in the feature for time. One of which is Notflow. We had them on the show before. They're basically harnessing seaweed to replace plastic. Plastic is, of course, a major problem for the ocean. So it's got a twofold effect on the ocean: one through seaweed farming, and two through plastic prevention, which hopefully should help the ocean, but tell us what is Napla up to? What are they doing, and how have they done?
Justin Worland 8:46
Yeah, so Napla, sort of this is a fun story. I know you said listeners of the podcast will remember it, but they it's kind of like that college dorm room type of vibe where they were looking for plastic alternatives, realized that seaweed has a lot of the same properties, and so what they've done is found ways to take excess seaweed or seaweed that's, you know, sort of well. Eventually, they're going to use seaweed that is sort of brushed up in places where it's it's you know sort of become a burden, and turn that into a plastic solution that currently they're you know sort of using in sports facilities and sort of high volume places where perhaps there's an ability to pass along a little bit of the extra cost to you know to to consumers, but their you know vision is like this could this could really scale given the sort of volume of of seaweed you know around around the world, that's just kind of being. I mean, people are paying to get rid of. So that's the that's the vision.
Paul Shapiro 9:47
And how have they and how have they done as a company? You know, startups notoriously fail. They haven't though. Most startups will fail so far. They're still going strong. How have they done?
Justin Worland 9:56
Yeah, I mean, I think. Look, I would say it's it's an interesting question because you know depends who what sort of venture investor you're asking, right? I mean, so are they a unicorn that everybody's like throwing money at, like Anthropic? No, but they've they've survived quite a while. They have a business, as far as I can tell, is still growing, and so I mean, you know, in my personal opinion, we need to stop judging the success of companies on, you know, are they a unicorn? But you know, say that to you know certain venture capitalists, they might they might you know sort of balk. But I mean, I think they they have a they have a sustainable and growing business. So I mean, I think I think that's worth noting. This is not just some, you know, air vapor sort of idea. It's a real business.
Paul Shapiro 10:45
Sure. Yeah. Well, yeah. They have product that's actually in the market, so it's certainly not vaporware. The question I think, not just for Napla, but you know, for all these companies, is yes, of course, there's the financial metrics, but also, are they accomplishing the mission? Right? Are they actually cutting the amount of plastic that needs to be manufactured. Maybe we'll have Napla back on when we can talk to them and see how they've done since they were on the show. I do want to ask your story.
Justin Worland 11:10
Quick thing I think is worth noting, though, is just figuring out like you know talk about product market fit. Like who are the buyers who are perhaps willing to take a chance on something that's different. Who are the buyers who are willing to pay what is ultimately a small premium? And one of the things I find very interesting is that they found a niche in you know sports stadiums where there is a a buyer that buys a lot of volume, where they can afford to experiment a little bit, where there is enough of these sort of aligned interests to really get them off the ground, rather than I think a lot of consumer products. They try to start with the consumer, and there's just so many ways in which that can be really challenging. And so that that's the thing that I find is is interesting about how they're scaling their business.
Paul Shapiro 11:55
Yeah, it's also a good way to start with somebody who's willing to pay that green premium, right? Like we know with clean energy that when it was a green premium, it was niche, and now that some types of clean energy have become cost competitive or even a green discount, you see solar really taking off and wind really taking off, and and hopefully nuclear electricity taking off now with some of the regulatory easing on that as well. But hopefully Napo will be able to achieve that type of green discount soon as well, but of course we need to start somewhere. So I want to ask you, Justin. Your story did not include any mention of like the alternative seafood market. I want to ask you know, did you consider companies making any of the plant-based seafood or fermentation-derived or even the cultivated meat seafood? You know, what's what's going on there, and and why are they not featured?
Justin Worland 12:42
I mean, it's a good question. I mean, I think largely my the the stories or the companies that I mentioned were driven by what the investors I talked to mentioned a combination of things. One is the investors and what their portfolios looked like, and then two, you know, the people that sort of I would meet in my the course of my reporting, and you know for whatever reason, I mean there's a lot of reasons that you could speak to better. I mean I think this is an area that has been challenged. I think the sort of perception among investors right now is that this is a really hard space, and and so I think for that reason, there's been less of, at least in my experience, there have been fewer investors who are like, let me tell you about you know the cultivated seafood space. I'm curious what you think.
Paul Shapiro 13:36
Yeah, sure. I mean, well, first I'm happy to give my opinion. I'll just note first of all, you know, probably about half of all of the plastic that's in the Great Pacific garbage patch comes from fishing nets, right? It's it's not coming from Heinz ketchup packages that Not Blood might be replacing. It's it's coming from fishing gear. You look at like all these North Atlantic white whales or this highly endangered species; they are getting entangled in fishing gear to the point where NOAA estimates that 85% of this one species of whales have been entangled in fishing gear. So you know the argument that we have to do something about fishing and and crabbing and so on seems very compelling to me for for not only for the fish and the whales, but excuse me, not just for the oceans, but for the fish and the whales as well. And so then the question is what? And you mentioned that cultivated meat has really struggled. That's definitely true. Like there, you know, there are some cultivated seafood companies like Wild Type and Blue Nalu, both of which have been guests on this show in the past, but they're not really commercialized in any meaningful sense. On the other hand, you do have some plant-based seafood companies like Oshi O S H I, who's also been a guest on the show, that are really doing quite well and that are taking off. And so, while you know, it's kind of like talking about alternative seafood. There's a lot of the times people. Focus on the cultivated meat or real meat grown without animals, but the plant-based alternatives. Some of them, not all of them, but some of them are actually growing, and I've been impressed to see their growth. And I hope there's more of it. But I do think, like you know, when I watched that documentary, I don't know if you saw it called Sea Spirity on Netflix, but you know, like it seemed odd to me that the environmental groups, especially that advocate for the oceans, don't have more of a focus on encouraging people simply to eat less fish. I don't know. I don't know. Do you do you have thoughts on this? I'm now shifting toward the NGOs, not to the startups. But like, it seems like one of the best things that we could do for the ocean would simply be to eat fewer fish.
Justin Worland 15:40
Yeah, I mean, I mean, I think it maps on to the same conversation we could have about cultivated meat more broadly in the environmental community. I mean, this is obviously, you know, particularly as as you alluded to earlier, the you know the sort of picture in the energy system is changing due to markets and investment, and in some ways, that's kind of a train that's left the station. So one of the big levers for climate is of course meat, ag, and yet you know the environmental community isn't paying attention. So I think it maps onto that you know pretty squarely. I mean, I would I think it's a few things. I think it's culture, and I think that it's also you know unfortunately some of the not just cultivated meat, but the sort of meat alternatives have the the companies and the sort of high profile challenges that they face has scared you know people away, and it's one of those classic things I just I find you know frustrating as an observer is that actually the amount of capital needed to really make a dent isn't that high, but you know people are scared, particularly if you're trying to build a commercial product.
Paul Shapiro 16:47
Yeah, I would I would suggest that alternative meat has really suffered from what I call like the three Ps, right? The price, it's too expensive; the performance, it often doesn't taste as good as animal meat, and then the third is is perception, right? There's this perception that it's like this processed food, and I don't know whether the high-profile struggles that you reference are the reason why. Like when somebody, let's say, somebody walks into Burger King and they have a choice between an Impossible Whopper and a regular Whopper, I don't know why don't they choose the Impossible Whopper? My guess is because it's more expensive and they think it may might not taste as good. I don't know. I do think that where plant-based meat has competed on price, like for example, there are companies like Rebellious Foods and other startups that are actually starting to compete on price. They've done pretty well, and and it's it's it's very it's hard to compare it to energy because like an electron is an electron. Like people don't care if they walk into a room whether the light is coming from solar or wind or gas or oil like or coal, it's just light illuminating the room. It's the same exact light no matter what. Whereas when you eat meat, you're getting a different experience of the meat. But I do think there is some similarity in that there may be some people who say you know I demand that an animal was raised for this product. But I think there's a lot of people who just probably don't think about the fact that an animal was raised for them. They don't maybe care, or maybe they would prefer not to have an animal if they could. If they could think, I'm going to save money doing this as well. So I think that that's really the biggest barrier for these alternative fish companies and alternative meat companies in general is is just getting it price competitive, if not cheaper, and getting it to a point where people think it tastes good enough or better than the conventional incumbent product.
Justin Worland 18:26
What what I and I so I agree 100% with everything you said. Of course, you are the expert on this, but I I guess my bigger point was in terms of raising capital to solve some of those problems, right? Like if you know you put enough money against the problem, the sort of taste improves. Though I mean, I you know I I'm a pescatarian, but I eat Impossible Burgers all the time. I think they taste fine. But you know, you put more money against the problem, then the the the the quality improves. You know, you can work on marketing. You can work on some of the public policy issues, whatever. But it requires investment, and I think, I think in the investor community, folks have been scared off by you know the sense that there was this moment where these companies were high flying, and then they sort of went back down to earth. And so, like, where are the returns, particularly given everything else? What are the right? You know, it feels like that's the challenge for investors. I mean, I think consumers. I think you're right. I mean, I think it's you know you get the price right and everything changes.
Paul Shapiro 19:23
Yeah, yeah, I think that that's right. Is I think you have identified the exact reason why we have seen a flight of investors from this space, which is frankly lack of exits. You know, like there were really there were great exits for some time. Field Roast, Light Life, Beyond Meat, Oatly, all of them had really stellar IPOs or acquisitions, and then you saw Beyond Meat and Oatly in the public markets really struggle after flying very high. Like people, you know, who were early investors in them did excellent in their IPOs. But since 2021, which was Oatly's IPO, there hasn't really been any. Impressive exit in the alternative meat space, and and that you know you need to offer some hope. You know, venture capital is is basically hope, right? You're you're you're betting that there is like some hope that this company is going to defy all of the odds and and make it happen. But in the absence of any really good exit, I think it's very difficult for investors to look at this space and think, "Oh yes, I'm going to be the one who is that first big exit in the last five or so years." Okay, what else are you excited about on ocean technology, Justin? So maybe alternative seafood will become something to be excited about in the year to come. I hope, but we've talked a little bit about replacing plastic with seaweed. What are some of the other ideas that folks are pursuing that you think are newsworthy and worthy of making sure people know about?
Justin Worland 20:48
Well, I mean, I think I think there's maybe two things I would flag. I mean, one is is is coastal protection and finding ways like getting the business model right, which involves getting a lot of the sort of public policy questions, getting the sort of you know insurers in the in the picture, but finding ways to you know monetize, you know providing coastal protection, which could be anything from mangroves to sort of physical infrastructure built along the coastline, and so I think I think that's an exciting, important space, and I think you know, given the sort of realities of climate currently, like an urgent one. And and I think you know the other thing I'll say on it, I mean, it's just that it's it's not so much a technology problem as it is a business model problem. And I oftentimes gravitate in my storytelling to elevating companies that don't necessarily have this like breakthrough technology that that you know may or may not scale that may or may not you know actually work when push comes to shove, but really companies that are like solving you know a business model problem with a technology that might exist already. The other thing I would flag, which I think is like sort of in a complicated moment, but I think I just I hope that people don't lose sight of is that you know that offshore wind still has a lot of potential. That the picture in the U.S., which is very you know dire as a result of the current administration, is not the picture globally, and and may not be the picture in the U.S. forever. It is more expensive in the U.S. than you know other energy technologies currently. But you know, I think that's an area that I just I love to keep in the mix, even though it's easy to sort of dismiss it given the administration.
Paul Shapiro 22:39
Yeah, you know, obviously the Trump administration is hardly known for its climate action, and their antipathy toward wind is highly publicized. I have been pretty surprised, pleasantly so, of the of the administration's support for nuclear energy, though. Like this is like this, you know, strange way that for some reason they love this clean energy, and it's obviously not for climate reasons. It's not because nuclear is queen. But if you look at a company we had on here recently, Oklo, you know the Trump administration really was quite helpful to Oklo in helping to get them closer to commercialization with their new generation of nuclear. So you know nobody's going to accuse the Trump administration of being a green administration for sure, but this is like one of these areas where it's like a strange bedfellows one to me, at least. I'm not sure. Have you have you thought about this at all, like on the the nuclear front with the Trump administration?
Justin Worland 23:35
Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, it's it's it is interesting. I mean, I think there's an interesting question of of why you know is that the case. That's like the first thing, which I think you know. One, I think it's there's a cultural element, and and nuclear is like perceived as being you know I don't know scientifically difficult. It's like a really rigorous thing. You know, it's manly or something like that. So I think that's part of it. I mean, of course, there's also, you know, I mean, Chris Wright and and others have been like they're they're familiar with the industry. They want to support and back the industry. I mean, I think I do think there's a certain irony to it, of course, because it's expensive and it's challenging, you know, from a cost perspective, which of course is one of the legitimate complaints about things like offshore wind. But I, yeah, I mean, I think it's, I think it's interesting. I think it's a bright spot. I guess the other thing I would just say is, you know, offshore wind is like this really dramatic, you know, area where they've pushed back. But at the same Time, yeah, you know, would things have been better for solar with a different administration? Sure, but for the most part, you know, most energy technologies have kind of, you know, continued to have a relatively bright picture, and of course, that's the demand picture as part of that. But but offshore wind really is an outlier.
Paul Shapiro 25:03
Yeah, yeah. My sentiment is very similar to yours, to be honest with you. Like there's a lot of rhetoric, and there are definitely you know for the climate it would be better. But at least on some of these things, I don't know how different it is on some of them. One other area I wanted to ask you about, Justin, is on fertilizer because we have these massive dead zones in various massive waterways that are caused by fertilizer runoff, and there's a crop of startups (pun intended) like Pivot Bio and others who are working on replacing synthetic fertilizer with some type of microbiological way to help plants synthesize nitrogen, and I want to ask you about this because it's it's an upstream way to try to protect the waterways by reducing fertilizer. And I should note it's not just synthetic fertilizer. Even you know organic farms use tons of fertil, literally tons of fertilizer that comes largely from animal inputs like blood meal or animal manure and bone meal and so on, but either way, the nitrogen and phosphorus is still very high and it eutrophies waterways. So, you think there's a pathway toward oceanic protection through fertilizer innovation as well?
Justin Worland 26:15
Well, I mean, you sort of you you sort of said it in the in the in the framing of the question. I mean, I think if we're talking about a broader conception of what it means to invest in oceans or to do ocean-related investment, dealing with you know fertilizer runoff, you know, sort of things that have a downstream effect on the oceans would be would be obvious. I do think it's important, though. Like this is the large part purpose of the story, like how do we broaden our horizons about what it means to invest in oceans? And you know, I say this about climate all the time: climate is everything. Oceans are interconnected with everything, and so absolutely, we need to think about the sort of upstream, you know, causes of ocean degradation. I agree with the premise.
Paul Shapiro 26:59
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sure. And and I like I would suggest to put it more provocatively that probably fertilizer innovation it may not be as sexy as plastic prevention, but it may considering you know plastic is a nuisance to aquatic life, whereas fertilizer runoff creates entire dead zones where no wildlife can exist. It feels like a very compelling thing for me. But let me move on, Justin, and ask you what companies that you wish existed don't yet exist. Right. So you have written a lot about the environment, about climate, about the oceans. Not just in this cover feature for time, but really throughout your whole career, you have been focused on this. But things have gotten worse, not better, right? And that's not that's in spite of your great coverage, obviously not not because of it. But the question is, what do you think the world still needs? Like, if there are companies that haven't yet solved a problem, is there something that you wish existed that maybe you'll report on in the future.
Justin Worland 28:01
Yeah, I mean, I think, like I said earlier, the biggest challenge that I often try to find sort of companies or or people who are working on the challenge is often like is not the technology question, but the the business model question. And so, I mean, I think in sort of every space, you could find you know lots of lots of sort of problems with ready-made technologies where the you know the the sort of business model, the sort of links haven't haven't been made. I mean, I think I was talking about about oceans and sort of their coasts and coastal protection. You know, I think an area I've spent a lot of time on is fires as well. What are the the companies that can find a way at scale to you know work with insurance to have people you know, paid for their work to adapt, basically. And I think there are some companies that are sort of nascent in doing that, but everything is so jurisdiction specific that it's hard. And so one of the things that I'm looking for, and maybe this company exists, and if you listen to this podcast and know it, please let me know. But a company that can at scale be a a you know an aid to homeowners to property owners to help them pay for adaptation upfront at scale, right? So it's not just about a local jurisdiction. So you know I don't know. That's a that's maybe sort of random and specific, but that's a that's a company that you know it's it's frustrating because you see this where we know how to fix something, we know how to adapt something in many cases, and yet like just the the business model, the link to finance, the link to insurance, it becomes so. Complicated that the insurer just pulls out the homeowner is just like I guess I'll just do what I'm doing and then you know you have you have disaster so you know if I had a better way to tee up that company I would do it myself I guess but that's kind of like a sort of a vague notion
Paul Shapiro 30:17
interesting yeah actually it's funny you mentioned that I shouldn't say it's funny. It's coincidental that you mentioned that because right before this, I was looking at this story in the news about a temple in India that had fallen into the Ganges. Right, so this is like this holy place. People went and prayed to this temple alongside the Ganges, and now it's literally in the Ganges, and it's just a sign of what is to come. And adaptation is certainly going to be important for anybody who lives coast away, or for who builds even temples near near waterways as the world continues to warm. Finally, Justin, let me ask you: What resources are there? Obviously, we're going to link to your writings in the show notes for this episode@businessforgoodpodcast.com. But are there other resources? Are there books or anything else that you have found useful in your own work reporting on climate and the environment that you think would be helpful for anybody who wants to make a difference.
Justin Worland 31:06
Yeah, I mean, I always say that anybody who wants to work in this space should ground themselves in the IPCC reports. Right, like this is obvious, but I think it's something that's you know it's very easy to reference without actually reading them or at least reading like the executive summary summary for policymakers, which I think can give people a real grounding and you know how serious this is. Also, like about how much we know and what the sort of science tells us about solutions. And so, I I always recommend people start there. I also would flag I I've been sort of interested in following Sarah Kapnik at J.P. Morgan's Climate Intuition series, which you know a lot of the work I'm trying to do is like at a very high level connect the dots between climate and some of the sort of conversations in business and finance, et cetera. And a large part of that is like, how do we? What is the language that we use to discuss these things, and I think she does an excellent job of of connecting those dots from a you know financial institution perspective. Like, how do we keep this conversation going in that way? So those are those are two things I think are useful to your listeners, though they perhaps are familiar with them already.
Paul Shapiro 32:18
I don't know. We'll find out, but we'll certainly include links to those in the show notes so that people can check them out and become more familiar with them for sure. So, Justin, thanks so much. It's been a pleasure knowing you for more than a decade now, and it's been a pleasure getting to read your writings about the environment. It's so important that we have people who are actively working to protect the planet, and also to have journalists who are covering that important work, and I was grateful to see your coverage of the companies that are hoping to do something for the oceans. And look forward to reading more of your work in the future. So, thanks so much, and we'll talk with you soon.
Justin Worland 32:51
Thanks, thanks for having me. Good to be here.
Paul Shapiro 32:53
Thanks for listening to the Business for Good podcast. To explore more conversations like this one, visit businessforgoodpodcast.com, and be sure to subscribe so you don't miss future episodes with founders, investors, thought leaders, and more, turning global problems into powerful opportunities. And if this episode resonated with you, please share it with your network. You never know who you might inspire to be in the business of doing good.