0:00

Hi. I'm Akshatrati, a

0:02

senior climate reporter for Bloomberg Green

0:04

and host of the podcast Zero. It's

0:07

a show about the tactics and technologies

0:09

that take us to a world of zero emissions.

0:12

Every week I talk with influential people

0:14

like Bill Gates, Justin Trudeau, and Kim

0:17

Stanley Robinson, and also

0:19

people you may not know but who

0:21

have world changing ideas like Briani

0:23

Worthington on the UK's pioneering climate

0:26

law, Gail Whiteman on bringing

0:28

climate to Davos, and George Monbio

0:30

on fixing the food system. Today,

0:33

I'm sharing with you a conversation I think

0:35

you might like. It's an interview with Andrew

0:37

Steer, who heads the ten billion

0:39

dollar Bezos Earth Fund. It's

0:41

a huge amount of money, but it has

0:43

to be spent wisely to make a real

0:46

difference. Andrew has worked for

0:48

decades on climate solutions, and

0:50

I wanted to know what role philanthropy

0:53

plays in the climate flight and.

0:54

Where it fails.

0:56

If you like what you hear, subscribe to Zero wherever

0:58

you get your podcasts. New episodes

1:01

drop every Thursday. Welcome

1:06

to Zero. I'm Akshatrati. This

1:09

week my money, your money,

1:11

and Jeff's money.

1:25

In February twenty twenty, Jeff Bezos,

1:28

then the richest person on the planet, posted

1:30

a picture to his four million Instagram followers.

1:34

It showed the Earth from space, the

1:36

North American continent peeking out from

1:38

behind the clouds, and accompanying

1:40

the post was a big announcement he

1:43

was committing ten billion dollars

1:45

to launch the Bezos Earth Fund. It

1:48

is the largest commitment to climate philanthropy

1:50

ever made, and the fund is due

1:53

to give out all the ten billion dollars

1:55

by twenty thirty. That

1:58

money, as Bezos outlined, will

2:00

fund and I quote scientists, activists,

2:03

and geos, any effort that offers

2:05

a real possibility to help preserve

2:07

and protect the natural world. Already,

2:10

the Fund has given out about one point

2:12

six billion dollars to more than one hundred

2:15

projects around the world, from the

2:17

Congo Basin to the mainland US.

2:20

About a third of that money has gone

2:23

to nature and conservation spending, but

2:25

the fund has also given out grants to projects

2:27

involving food security, decarbonization

2:30

of industry, and climate tech. Bezas

2:33

has made appearances at high profile events

2:35

like COP twenty six and the New York Climate Week

2:38

to announce how the money will be spent.

2:40

I'm pleased to announce a two billion

2:42

dollar pledge allocated directly

2:45

to restoring nature and transforming

2:47

food systems. This is part

2:49

of the Bezos Earth Funds ten

2:51

billion dollar commitment to fight climate

2:54

change, enhance nature,

2:57

in advance environmental justice and

2:59

economic opportunity.

3:01

By most measures, ten billion dollars

3:04

is a lot of money, but it is

3:06

also a small fraction of the three

3:08

point five trillion dollars that is needed

3:10

annually to hit net zero by twenty

3:12

fifty. To make an impact,

3:15

it needs to be spent strategically and

3:17

attract a lot more money from governments

3:19

and corporations. My

3:21

guest today is Andrew Steer, the CEO

3:23

of the Bezos Earth Fund. With Bezos,

3:26

he decides where that ten billion dollars

3:28

is allocated and how to measure its

3:30

impact. Before taking on

3:32

this role, Andrew was the head of the World

3:34

Resources Institute. He also worked

3:37

as a Special Climate Envoy for the World

3:39

Bank and as Director General of the

3:41

UK's Department for International Development.

3:45

I sat down with Andrew at the World Economic Forum

3:47

in Davos to ask how the Bezos

3:50

Earth Fund spends its billions, what

3:52

counts a success and whether climate

3:54

philanthropy is the new super yacht.

4:05

Andrew, Welcome to the show, Thank you, Akshat,

4:07

looking forward to it.

4:09

Now. What is the role of climate philanthropy

4:11

over the next few decades and how does it change

4:14

as we get closer to hitting our climate

4:16

targets by twenty fifty.

4:17

Well, philanthropy can act quickly, it can

4:19

get ahead of the game. Governments

4:21

take quite a while to get their money baid

4:24

to spend. We're able to do it quicker. We're also

4:26

able to take risks. So what

4:28

we really need to do is to look

4:30

at the challenges of this decade. They're

4:33

about forty or fifty transitions

4:35

we have to go through. We need to diagnose

4:38

those, and we need to understand how do we get

4:40

them to those positive tipping points at

4:42

which stage change becomes

4:44

irresistible and unstoppable.

4:46

At COP twenty seven, you said, I

4:48

don't think we should buy into the idea

4:50

that climate philanthropy is somehow an

4:53

alternative to government, because

4:55

governments have an obligation and they are not

4:57

living up to it to the extent they should. How

4:59

do you see the role of philanthropy and government

5:02

being different. And when do you think

5:04

philanthropy and government should work together.

5:06

I think philanthropy should often work together

5:09

with government, although sometimes philanthropy

5:11

will be supporting political

5:13

activism against governments to change government

5:16

policy. So philanthropy should

5:18

not compensate for

5:21

funding that governments choose not to make.

5:24

On the contrary, philanthropy should try to urge

5:26

governments to play the role that they should

5:28

play. Governments have an obligation

5:31

to address public goods, and protecting

5:34

the atmosphere is a pretty

5:36

important public obligation,

5:38

so to speak. And we do complement each other because

5:41

we are able to move quickly.

5:44

We're able to take risks

5:46

that perhaps they could not, and that

5:48

means that we can go into

5:51

things knowing that they

5:53

may fail if we believe

5:55

that the potential return is

5:58

large enough. In that regard a little

6:00

bit more like a venture capitalist. Venture

6:02

capitalists know that

6:05

some of the companies they invest

6:07

in will fail, but

6:09

their view is that if I invest a million

6:11

dollars and it fails, the most I can lose

6:14

is million dollars. If I invest a

6:16

million dollars in it succeeds, it may

6:18

be worth twenty million dollars very quickly.

6:21

So I can afford to fail actually

6:23

quite often and still come out

6:26

highly successful. For governments,

6:29

it's actually much harder to do that

6:32

because accountability mechanisms

6:34

are somewhat skewed, quite

6:37

honestly.

6:38

So.

6:38

For example, the Department of Energy in the United

6:40

States has played an absolutely

6:42

fantastic role in investing in

6:45

early stage technologies, and companies

6:48

like Tesla, for example, and a whole range

6:50

of companies have done very very

6:52

well based upon early research.

6:54

But it just took one investment that

6:56

went bad called Cylindra.

7:00

The US company that made solar panels.

7:02

In two thousand and nine, then Vice President

7:05

Biden announced that the company would receive

7:07

a loan of five hundred and thirty five million

7:09

dollars guaranteed by the US Department

7:11

of Energy. Cylinder ended

7:14

up going bankrupt in twenty eleven and

7:16

defaulting on that loan. The

7:18

same program also made a loan of four

7:20

hundred and sixty five million dollars to Tesla.

7:24

That company is now worth hundreds

7:26

of billions of dollars, and yet

7:28

Cylinder's bankruptcy continues to be

7:30

used by some members of the government to criticize

7:33

plans to invest in cleantech through

7:35

legislations like the Inflation Reduction

7:37

Act.

7:38

They just took one investment that

7:40

went bad for all of

7:43

the congressional committees,

7:45

all of the newspapers, the

7:47

gotcha types to give

7:50

that a hard time, and so that would illustrate

7:53

the problems that the governments

7:55

can have that philanthropy does not now.

7:58

Twenty twenty two report by Climate Work said

8:00

that only two percent of philanthropy dollars

8:03

went toward climate mitigation in twenty

8:05

twenty one. That's about twelve

8:07

and a half billion dollars depending on how you count.

8:10

But it's a tiny percentage of the eight

8:12

hundred billion dollars that is given out as

8:14

philanthropy every year. Why is

8:16

that number given to climate solo?

8:19

It is interesting how philanthropists

8:21

have over the literally the last five to

8:23

ten years, started to take

8:26

climate change seriously. I mean ten years ago

8:29

there was very little funding. There's still

8:31

not enough, and that means

8:33

that every dollar allocated

8:36

has to be used carefully.

8:38

So, for example, I have the privilege of being

8:40

the CEO of the Basos Earth Fund,

8:43

which is a ten billion dollar

8:45

grant fund that will be dispersed

8:48

entirely this decade. That

8:50

sounds like a lot of money. It is to

8:53

me and you, but it's a small amount

8:55

of money compared to the needs. So we have to

8:57

make sure that it is truly lever it,

9:00

and you can leverage in several ways.

9:02

Now, when we talk about the two percent

9:04

of total philanthropy that's going

9:07

for climate mitigation, I've

9:09

got to remember, in addition to that, there's

9:11

funding for nature, for example, which

9:13

also helps climate, And there's funding

9:16

for food and agriculture, which done

9:18

right, also helps climate.

9:20

There's funding for adaptation. But

9:22

all in all, it's still knowing there enough. I do

9:24

agree with that.

9:25

Forty five philanthropic organizations signed

9:28

up to the Giving to Amplify Earth

9:30

Action initiative at Davos.

9:32

The initiative aims to close the three

9:34

trillion dollars of annual climate

9:37

finance that needs to be met

9:39

to get to the goals of the Paris

9:41

Agreement. That's equivalent to about

9:44

three percent of the world's GDP. How

9:46

do you think philanthropic organizations

9:49

can achieve that?

9:50

So, if you think about philanthropy today, as

9:52

we discussed earlier, let's imagine

9:55

it's roughly fifteen billion

9:57

dollars a year. It would not

9:59

be inc receivable at all to double that

10:01

in the next few years. Should that happen, that's

10:04

thirty billion dollars a year. Think about

10:06

that, that's like one percent of the

10:08

total investment that is required. So

10:11

that one percent is a small tail

10:14

wagging hopefully a bigger dog.

10:16

So it needs to do it thoughtfully,

10:19

and I think that's the goal that

10:22

some of us in the philanthropic community

10:24

have had. Wouldn't it be useful

10:27

if we could bring the different pieces

10:29

of the jigs or puzzle together, the different

10:31

actors and focus on,

10:34

let's say an issue. The issue could

10:36

be preventing deforestation,

10:38

it could be getting rid of the internal

10:41

combustion engine, it could be shifting diets

10:43

towards plant based food. You

10:45

need governments at the table,

10:47

you need corporates at the table,

10:50

you need carbon credits at the table,

10:52

philanthropy at the table. And

10:54

it's only when you do that that you actually

10:57

then can get that kind of

11:00

synergy.

11:00

So one way in which institutions,

11:03

especially government institutions,

11:05

but also institutions that depend on

11:08

donors giving money, justify

11:11

their presence their work

11:13

is to sometimes measure it

11:16

in how many more dollars

11:18

for every dollar they spent were invested

11:20

for those causes famously, NASA

11:23

does that to justify

11:25

that a space program is

11:27

necessary for the United States.

11:30

And then multiplier is large.

11:32

If you're thinking of using thirty billion dollars

11:35

to get to three trillion dollars, your multiplier

11:38

is one hundred and none of the

11:40

organizations I've looked at have ever produced

11:42

that kind of number, So how do you think

11:44

that will work?

11:45

So that would be hubris

11:48

to assume that if there weren't philanthropy,

11:51

nothing else would happen. I mean a lot

11:53

of it would happen anyway, because we have some

11:55

good governments out there, we have some

11:57

good carbon credits, and we have

11:59

some to companies that are wanting

12:01

to invest in green So we don't need

12:03

to over egg this issue in terms

12:06

of overstating the importance of

12:08

the leverage that philanthropy can have. Having

12:10

said that, philanthropy can play a very

12:13

useful role, and if you think

12:15

about leverage, the easy

12:17

and obvious way to think about it is we

12:19

could de risk private investment.

12:22

So private investors at the

12:24

moment are not willing to go into certain technologies

12:26

partly because it's risky. Sometimes

12:28

it's country risk, sometimes it's technological

12:31

risk. Price risk, policy risk. Philanthropy

12:34

could help de risk that, but there are

12:36

many many other ways of getting

12:38

leaverage. I mean, an obvious one is influencing

12:41

policy. For example, we could

12:44

influence a global price

12:46

on carbon of one hundred dollars a ton. I mean,

12:49

wow, that would have leverage. But

12:51

there are many many policies

12:53

that are required. For example, something we're working

12:56

on right now is, you know, everyone

12:58

talks about green steel and cement,

13:00

which is very important. The problem

13:03

is actually not the technologist to produce it,

13:05

it's finding buyers who in the

13:07

near term will have to pay a little bit more

13:09

for it. So it turns out

13:12

that fifty percent of all

13:14

the cement in the United States is actually

13:16

purchased by governments, mainly

13:18

local government, but also federal government.

13:21

So one of the things we're doing is supporting

13:23

a program that seeks to

13:26

change procurement rules at the state

13:29

and city level, and it's being very

13:31

successful. That in turn is

13:33

creating a demand, which in turn

13:36

will drive down prices. And

13:38

once you reach a demand of a certain percentage,

13:41

you actually can cross a tipping point

13:43

because then steel

13:46

companies or cement companies understand

13:49

the direction the wind is blowing in and

13:51

really go all in sort of thing. So that's

13:54

another example of laverage.

13:56

Now you mentioned that the BISOS Earth Fund

13:58

is going to spend ten million dollars this

14:01

decade. You spend about one point six

14:03

billion dollars so far. Could you just walk

14:05

us through what kind of projects you've

14:07

funded so far and how do you go

14:09

about choosing them?

14:10

So, the way we go about choosing them

14:13

is we try to ask

14:15

ourselves what are the

14:17

big transitions that are required

14:19

this decade and next. So

14:22

that includes eliminating the

14:24

internal combustion engine, it

14:26

includes greening financial markets,

14:28

It includes shifting dyets toward

14:31

more plant pased nutrition and so on, and

14:33

they're about fifty of those. What we do

14:35

we use an initiative called the System

14:38

Change Lab, which we co run

14:40

together with the World Resource Institute

14:42

and others that are heavily involved

14:44

in it. And what it does is it measures these

14:47

fifty transitions and it asked where are they

14:49

as they seek to approach tipping points?

14:52

And then it asks what is the special

14:54

source that seems to get some of these past

14:57

those tipping points? And where

14:59

are the bar that are preventing others? And so

15:01

what we try to do is look at those and

15:04

identify barriers that we could be helpful in

15:06

removing. I'll give you an example of something

15:08

we're thinking about right now. We now

15:11

know that not only must we reduce

15:13

carbon emissions, we've actually got to take

15:15

greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.

15:18

Now. The best possible technology

15:20

for that is planting a tree, for example.

15:22

So we have a very significant

15:25

program of landscape restoration

15:28

trying to put a coalition together to

15:30

regreen or restore one hundred million

15:32

hectares in Africa. We also have

15:34

a program in the United States doing the same.

15:37

Turns out now that thirty five African

15:39

countries are really interested in doing

15:41

this. It also turns out that we have technology

15:44

that we can measure it. We're financing that as well.

15:46

It also turns out that there's quite a bit of

15:49

public and private money sitting on the

15:51

sidelines. And whilst there are

15:53

actually thousands of community groups in

15:55

Africa that are very good at this, there are no intermediating

15:58

institutions. We think is what

16:01

could we do well. We could play a role getting

16:03

the methodology and the satellite

16:05

system to measure. We also could

16:08

play a role in helping to create those

16:10

intermediating institutions

16:12

that would be an example of

16:14

how we go about it. They also though

16:17

we've you and I have come to the conclusion

16:19

that simply that technology

16:23

of photosynthesis is not enough to take

16:25

everything out. So we're actually looking at some other

16:27

ways of taking carbon out

16:29

of the air through, for example, the

16:32

possibility of ocean absorption,

16:34

the possibility of weathering, where

16:37

various chemical processes can take

16:39

carbon dioxide. And even

16:41

you know, there's some sort of frontier technologies

16:44

that are nowhere close to commercialization,

16:47

so no one's actually investing in them. For

16:49

example, how do you take methane

16:52

out of the atmosphere? Very very hard to

16:54

do, But unless we invest

16:56

now in that, we won't have the technologies

16:58

we need twenty years from now, when

17:01

it will sadly be essential.

17:03

Now you're talking about carbon removal here,

17:05

because we need to draw down carbon dioxide from

17:07

the atmosphere. It will be a big thing

17:09

that we'll have to work on. But currently

17:12

the majority of the problem is to

17:14

try and actually reduce emissions. But

17:17

given as a climate journalist covering

17:19

this subject, just the

17:21

sheer amount of intellectual capacity

17:23

that is going towards the offset problem,

17:26

which remains a very small market

17:28

billion dollars two billion dollars relative

17:30

to the three trillion dollars worth of mitigation

17:33

work that needs to be done. Why do

17:35

you think when you thought of the right

17:37

example to talk about where philanthropy

17:39

can make a difference, was carbon

17:41

offsets or carbon markets the right place

17:43

to try and invest money or even

17:46

bring that up as the star example

17:48

that philanthropy is helping improve.

17:51

Oh, maybe I was not

17:53

clear. We've allocated three

17:55

billion dollars for nature, billion

17:58

dollars for conservation, a

18:00

billion dollars for restoration, and a billion

18:03

dollars for food system transformation, and

18:05

we're still obviously allocating that

18:07

money at the base fund of that

18:09

first the conservation A very

18:12

very small fraction of that, I mean

18:14

so far it would be I don't know, maybe

18:16

ten million dollars of that would be to

18:18

help set standards for the carbon

18:21

markets. We are spending one

18:24

hundred and ten million dollars

18:26

of grants in the Congo basin

18:29

to help government and

18:32

civil society conserve nature

18:34

that carbon markets don't play a role

18:36

in that at all, and we're doing exactly the same in

18:39

Latin America and tropical Andes,

18:41

for example. I think they do have a

18:43

role, but much more important

18:46

is conserving nature, because

18:48

that's not a minor part of the issue.

18:51

Rural space is responsible

18:53

for more than a third of

18:56

emissions, and so we really have to

18:58

address that.

19:01

After the break. Should Amazon be

19:03

doing more to cut its own emissions? And

19:05

what happens to the money when the decisive

19:08

decade is done? The

19:20

visos Hearth Fund was completely new when

19:22

you started it, and the money is supposed

19:24

to be spent by twenty thirty.

19:26

What happens next, Well, yes, I

19:29

left a job where we had seventeen

19:31

hundred people, and then I

19:33

was employee number one in

19:36

my new job, and we're sort of ramping

19:38

up basically, you know, we're willing

19:40

to take risks. We should inject

19:43

funds very thoughtfully but boldly,

19:46

and we'll see if it works, and we'll do our best

19:48

to make sure it works. And if it does work,

19:50

we will then ramp that up together

19:52

with partners. And we do nothing on our

19:54

own. We don't simply write a check

19:57

and say could you come back tell us how you're doing a year

19:59

from now. So, for example, the

20:01

Congo Basin is the most

20:04

precious ecosystem imaginable.

20:07

It sequesters more carbon than

20:09

the Amazon and Southeast Asia tropical

20:11

forest combined and is massively

20:13

threatened at the moment, so we wanted to go in

20:15

there. But we've got to be honest,

20:18

this is a difficult place to work in. Some parts

20:20

of these countries are very remote and sometimes

20:23

governance is not what it should be. So

20:25

what we did we said, we'll gather

20:27

nine leading institutions,

20:29

mainly NGOs, but scientific institutions

20:31

that have deep roots there. We said,

20:33

look, we're going to finance all of you. You have

20:36

two jobs. Job number one is within your own

20:38

sphere of expertise. You have to deliver the

20:40

way we've discussed with you. Thing number

20:42

two, you've got to be part of a team with

20:44

us, so that as a team, for the first

20:46

time ever, we're able to engage at the head

20:48

of state level at any level

20:51

we like, including with other

20:53

donors. We're now working with a number of European

20:55

donors. Let's do it together

20:57

kind of thing. And then we would have full time

20:59

per person that would be

21:02

helping to oversee and drive

21:04

that joint program together. So that's

21:07

the sort of way we would work.

21:08

And so what happens after twenty thirty when the money

21:10

is all spent.

21:11

Well, of course, this is the decisive

21:14

decade, and the next decade will also

21:16

be decisive. The reason this

21:18

is especially decisive is if we don't get

21:20

it right this decade actually next

21:23

decade, it will be impossibly

21:25

expensive to do anything and will quite

21:27

frankly be too late. So

21:29

I have a full time job from

21:32

now to twenty thirty. Clearly

21:34

there will be all kinds of needs for

21:37

the twenty thirties as well.

21:38

So one example then would be COP fifteen

21:41

in December, which has been called

21:43

a Paris for nature, set

21:45

out this goal of protecting thirty percent

21:48

of land and oceans by twenty thirty.

21:51

Ambitious goal, something that had been called

21:53

for for years, and now all these

21:55

governments have come together and agreed upon it.

21:58

But as soon as that highlevel goal

22:00

is agreed upon, it becomes a minefield.

22:03

The number of questions about what does

22:05

that really mean, how do we measure

22:07

it? Does it mean no humans can do anything

22:09

in that land? How do countries

22:12

in different parts with different capabilities

22:14

and wealth work on those Is

22:17

that something that you're working on to try

22:19

and create clearer understanding

22:22

of what thirty by thirty would mean, because

22:24

it's really important that we not

22:26

just tackle the climate crisis, but the biodiversity

22:29

crisis and the solution sometimes overlap.

22:31

Yes, indeed, I mean I think you've clarified

22:34

the issue very helpfully. We need

22:36

a political commitment based

22:38

upon good science, and that's what we've

22:41

now got. Getting to thirty will be a huge

22:43

achievement. It will need to double

22:46

essentially protection on land, and

22:48

it will need to more than double protection

22:51

of the ocean. And we've got seven

22:53

years to do it. So this is difficult. And

22:55

as you say, now the real challenge

22:57

begins, which thirty percent and

23:01

what does it mean to protect? And I think

23:03

there definitions of what it means to protect

23:05

pretty well. It doesn't mean totally and

23:07

utterly no humans in it. On the contrary,

23:10

in many parts it is indigenous people

23:12

who live there that are responsible

23:14

for doing a very good job

23:16

at the moment in protection. And part

23:19

of the way of ensuring thirty by thirty is

23:21

to give indigenous people more

23:24

rights and the ability to protect those

23:26

rights. So, for example, in Montreal,

23:29

the Canadian government announced a

23:31

massive increase in its own protected

23:33

areas in four areas

23:35

that are going to be overseen by

23:37

First nations. But as you say, country

23:40

by country governments need to decide

23:42

do they want to really be part of it. If they

23:44

do want to be part of it, we need

23:47

to bring in whatever support we

23:49

can. And yesterday here in Davos,

23:51

we had ministers from Indonesia,

23:54

from the Democratic Republic of Congo, from

23:56

Bangladesh, Ghana, together

23:58

with people like John Kerry and the German government,

24:01

the British government, and then philanthropists like Based

24:04

or so A Fund, the More Foundation and others

24:06

that care about this and basically

24:09

are setting up a process by

24:11

which we would be available to

24:13

be helpful as a team to

24:16

major countries that are serious about

24:18

this.

24:19

Is climate philanthropy the new superyacht.

24:22

Will we see competition for who can do it bigger

24:24

and better.

24:25

I've been impressed by

24:28

how philanthropists are

24:30

able to work together. That's not to

24:32

say that from time to time there would

24:34

not be some competition, and I

24:36

have not witnessed that so far. I,

24:38

on the contrary, have witnessed an enthusiasm

24:41

for working together. So for example, a year ago,

24:44

when we were concerned

24:46

that this thirty by thirty political

24:49

momentum was slowing and only

24:51

like fifty countries had

24:54

said they thought it was a good idea, we

24:56

worked with other philanthropists, and as

24:58

a group we were a able to put

25:01

five billion dollars of grants on

25:03

the table, you know, in public at

25:06

the United Nations General Assembly.

25:08

We were able to say, look, we're serious,

25:11

this is funds that we would if you

25:13

guys can come up with an agreement

25:15

on thirty by thirty, we're willing to

25:17

put this totally online. And that

25:20

was remarkable. I mean, that was put together

25:22

within two months. That whole

25:25

idea. I found it quite inspiring,

25:27

and I actually think working together is

25:29

really important. Now. Having said that, one of

25:31

the great things about some modern philanthropies

25:34

is that they're based upon wealth

25:38

that came because of great

25:41

ambition and brilliance on the part

25:43

of their leaders. And actually

25:45

that's pretty valuable in our space.

25:48

For too long, environmentalism has been

25:51

very well intentioned and often excellent,

25:55

but hasn't necessarily benefited

25:57

from the kind of leadership

26:00

that some modern philanthropists can be helpful

26:02

in providing.

26:03

Amazon made Bezos fabulously

26:06

wealthy, gave him the money to be able to create

26:09

this Earth Fund, but Amazon's

26:11

emissions continue to go up. In twenty

26:13

twenty one, they increased eighteen percent, and

26:16

Bezos is the chair of the Earth Fund,

26:18

but he's also the chair of Amazon. Why

26:21

is it that Amazon continues to not go

26:24

down the path that you would expect reduce

26:26

their emissions in line with what's needed

26:28

for meeting climate goals.

26:30

Well, just to be clear, I

26:32

work for the basis Earth Fund. I do not

26:34

work for Amazon. It's

26:36

a totally different organization.

26:38

But you must have conversations with Jeff

26:41

Bezos about Amazon's progress

26:43

given the skill of the organization.

26:45

Well, one thing I would say is that

26:47

this week hearing Davos, for example, members

26:50

of the Climate Pledge, which is a

26:52

group of businesses which was started

26:54

by Amazon that is committed

26:57

to net zero, ten

26:59

years ahead of what the science tells us

27:01

we need to be.

27:02

Yes. Yeah, so that's at

27:04

zero by twenty forty four.

27:05

Amazon and each of those each

27:08

of those companies have plans

27:11

in place, and that ranges

27:13

from trying to address their scope three emissions,

27:15

which is the entire supply

27:18

chain and that's very hard to do,

27:20

to electrifying their their

27:22

delivery fleets for example. So you

27:25

know, this is a journey, and there will be times

27:27

when when emissions go up, either because

27:30

your sales go up or

27:32

for some other reason. The point

27:34

is to keep your eye on the prize

27:37

to twenty twenty five, twenty

27:39

thirty, twenty forty and so on.

27:41

Now you've worked on climate issues for

27:44

a long time, but we happen

27:46

to be at this juncture facing

27:49

two kinds of trends. One, we

27:52

hit a record greenhouse gas emissions

27:54

in twenty twenty two. Two we

27:56

have never spent more money, more

27:58

effort, more talent, more

28:01

people power on trying to

28:03

tackle the climate crisis. How do you

28:05

live in this two track world?

28:08

It's very well put. If you take two

28:11

experts, well meaning, good

28:13

people and you say how we doing,

28:16

one will say it's fantastic,

28:18

you know, I mean, the price of solar

28:20

energy has fallen ninety nine

28:22

point six percent since Jimmy

28:25

Carter put solar panels on the

28:27

roof of the White House in nineteen seventy

28:29

nine. And they'll give many

28:31

statements like that. And one hundred

28:34

and twenty countries are committed to net zero,

28:37

one hundred and thirty trillion dollars

28:39

of assets under management are committed to net zero.

28:41

Unbelievable. And then you talk to the other one.

28:44

They say, you know, we're

28:46

heading off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings

28:49

more call Wilm.

28:51

They never put out more greenhouse gas emissions.

28:53

There's never been more tension in the world

28:56

in the last thirty years of knowing. That's right,

28:58

that climate change is a problem, geopolitics

29:01

is fragmented, the immediate

29:03

crises are growing in number,

29:05

and terms like polycrises

29:07

are being created.

29:08

That's absolutely correct. Last

29:12

year, what two point five

29:15

trillion dollars were invested

29:17

in the energy sector as a whole. Of

29:19

that, two point five one

29:22

trillion was in fossil fuels, and one

29:24

point five trillion was in

29:26

clean energy, including energy efficiency

29:29

and all the renewables so to speak. You

29:31

can look at that number and say that's incredible.

29:33

I mean, and well over half of the new

29:35

generating capacity last year was from renewables.

29:38

Unbelievable. But if

29:41

we're going to stay within one point five

29:43

the renewables need to be three

29:46

times as fast, and we need

29:48

to close nine hundred and twenty five

29:50

coal plants every single year.

29:53

So sort of the analogy is sort

29:55

of it's you know, the dog chasing

29:57

the bus, and the dog is

30:00

running faster and faster. That's us trying to solve

30:02

the problem. And we've never run so fast, and we're

30:04

we're so pleased with ourselves.

30:07

The bus is accelerating away, and

30:09

of course the dog could

30:11

keep trying, running harder and harder, but will never

30:14

catch up. And so, you know, continue

30:17

the analogy. The dog needs,

30:20

you know, an electric bike or something to we

30:22

need a new way of doing things, and

30:24

that's exactly what we you know,

30:27

we and many others are focusing on. It's

30:29

yesterday we when we launched this idea

30:32

of could we work together on the thirty

30:34

by thirty, you know, so instead of

30:37

you know, thirty different NGOs

30:39

and twelve different governments and

30:42

six different multi national organizations

30:44

and so many developers of carbon

30:46

markets, all trying to be helpful

30:49

to the democratic Republic of Congo or

30:51

Brazil or Indonesia, and

30:53

you know, all doing their best, and some of it is excellent, not

30:56

adding up. What would it take to

30:58

actually get it to add up. That's

31:00

what we have to That's the electric bike for

31:02

the dog chasing the bus. This

31:08

was a great conversation. Thank you very much, Thank

31:10

you very much.

31:11

Indeed, philanthropy's

31:23

relationship to climate is a complicated

31:25

one. It feels like we shouldn't have

31:27

to rely on the whims of billionaires to fund

31:29

projects that are necessary for humans

31:31

to thrive, and yet when not

31:33

enough money is available for those projects,

31:36

we need all the help we can get. That

31:39

shouldn't mean that where the money comes from

31:41

or goes to gets less scrutiny. Thanks

31:45

so much for listening to Zero. If you liked

31:47

this episode, please take a moment to rate,

31:49

review, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts

31:51

or Spotify, Send it to a

31:54

friend, or send it to someone who subscribes

31:56

to Amazon Prime. Get

31:58

in touch at zero pod at Blomberg dot

32:00

Net. Zero's producer is Oscar

32:03

Boyd and senior producer is Christine

32:05

driscoll Ar. Theme music is

32:07

composed by Wonderly Special.

32:09

Thanks to Kira Bindram and Robin Pomeroy

32:12

at the World Economic Forum for letting

32:14

us use the podcasting studios in Davos.

32:17

I'm Akshatrati back next

32:19

week.