Full Transcript: This is Climate Summit: Tipping Points (2024)

That's led to some incredible reporting that we're very proud of, like this that you see on the screen behind me, this amazing interactive graphic. This image of our planet is the closest we get, we think, to a real-time view of how carbon dioxide builds up in our atmosphere. It's interesting that you can see how emissions are concentrated in the northern hemisphere in this graphic.

Our climate team has also produced powerful stories like this, a deep look literally into Canada's Crawford Lake, where scientists have uncovered the record of more than a thousand years of history. By digging into the sediments, we can see how humans have transformed the planet's climate and chemistry at a pace that has never seen before.

Today you'll hear more from some of the top leaders and thinkers in the climate space in our world, people who are grappling with this problem in real time, including--we're very happy to have John Podesta, the new senior advisor to President Biden for International Climate Policy. We're very thrilled to have WTO Director Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who's going to talk about the intersection of international trade and the climate crisis, and Maryland's Governor Wes Moore will also be joining us. He's looking to pursue a cleaner agenda while investing in underserved communities and, of course, even as he deals with the devastating impacts of the collapse of Baltimore's Key Bridge.

There's lots more also that we'll be bringing you today. You'll see a dynamic presentation from The Post's climate coach, Mike Coren, who will help us navigate the choices we face when making decisions about how we handle sustainability in our daily lives. And we'll have a live food demonstration after the summit over lunch with The Post's food and dining editor, Joe Yonan, as he creates an unexpected plant-based treat for all of you after this show. You'll also be able to meet The Post reporters who cover this important issue face-to-face after today's programming wraps, just outside these doors.

And whether you are with us remotely in the room or watching online, we hope today's programming brings you information, helps inform you, and also empower you.

Now I'm going to hand it over to my colleague, The Post's chief communications officer, Kathy Baird. We're so glad you're all joining us today. Kathy?

MS. BAIRD: Thank you so much, Sally. Good morning, everyone. Very excited about today, and the food demo sounds amazing.

So anyway, all of it is great, great information, but I'm so glad you're here with us today. As Sally said, I'm the chief communications officer and the general manager of Washington Post Live, and my name is Kathy Baird. It's really wonderful to have you all here with us in person, and to those of us who are watching online, great to have you as well.

Before we get started, we want to thank our presenting sponsors 3M and Ecolab.

And now after this brief video, my colleague Juliet Eilperin will be here with the senior advisor to the President for International Climate Policy, John Podesta.

Thank you.

[Video plays]

A National Climate Agenda

MS. EILPERIN: Good morning, everyone. I'm Juliet Eilperin, Deputy Climate and Environment Editor here at The Washington Post.

I'm pleased to be joined by John Podesta, who is Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy, a role he took on in January this year. He's also overseeing implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden's signature climate bill.

John Podesta, welcome to The Washington Post.

MR. PODESTA: Good to be with you, Juliet. Thanks for inviting me.

MS. EILPERIN: Of course. You added a new role to your portfolio and replaced John Kerry who is U.S. Climate Envoy at the end of January, as if overseeing the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act wasn't enough and the hundreds of billions of dollars that are attached to it.

so, briefly, if you could give us a sense of what your conversation was like with President Biden about this new role and what are your top priorities?

MR. PODESTA: Well, look, no one can really replace Secretary Kerry. He did just an amazing job, and I think the President in both reentering Paris, showing that he was prepared to make a commitment to cut emissions in half by 2030 on behalf of the United States and then appointing Special Envoy Kerry to that role sent a powerful signal that we were going to be leaders again in this fight globally to tackle the climate crisis. And the secretary did an amazing job.

Now, I joke that I now have two full-time jobs but I'm continuing to oversee the Inflation Reduction Act implementation. I think that's going really well. We're seeing private sector investment boosted all around the country, which is what the President intended. But there's also a significant role in the international sphere to keep ambition high, to move forward, particularly this year is sometimes referred to as the finance COP because we need to work through how we're going to increase the availability of finance, particularly for the least-developed countries to be able to create sustainable patterns of development based on clean energy resources rather than dirty fossil fuels. So, that's a big task and there's a terrific team at the State Department that Secretary Kerry assembled. And I am still at the White House but coordinating with them in these international negotiations.

There's also just a lot--the Japanese Prime Minister met with the President yesterday. He's here with the President of the Philippines today. So, there's a lot of work to be done at the bilateral level, as well.

For example, we just significantly created a ministerial-level dialogue between the Japanese so-called GX program, which is a little bit modeled after the IRA, I think it's sort of a form of flattery that countries around the world are saying this investment-led strategy is important. And so, the Minister of METI and I started a dialogue on how we could coordinate the development and the push towards innovation that's going to be necessary to meet our goals by--you know, it's an audacious effort to try to get to net zero by 2050, as you well know.

MS. EILPERIN: Right. And one question about just this push of different countries, including the United States, in terms of investing in clean energy here, I'm curious to know if and when the priorities of the agendas of your two roles to some extent come into conflict, for example, European leaders have criticized that "buy American" provisions within the IRA--French President Emmanuel Macron said the IRA might fragment the West and declared a need for--like, for example, a more "made in Europe" strategy.

And to what extent has the IRA made global cooperation--which is obviously essential to addressing global climate change--harder and diverted money more--you know, potentially equally importantly or even more important that could have gone to the Global South, which obviously needs to push in terms of decarbonization.

MR. PODESTA: Well, look, we've got to do both things. We've got to transition the U.S. economy towards one that's built on clean energy. You know, today, later today--jump it a little bit--we'll announce that we've permitted 25 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands.

I mean, the whole-of-government effort here to reduce emissions, to move towards clean energy, to build out the electrification of heating and cooling. There's just a lot of moving parts in that. And we need to do that and, quite frankly, at least when they close the door and talk to me, leaders around the world respect and admire the fact that the President has become so--such a leader and so ambitious in trying to create an investment-led economic strategy that's building the kinds of investments that are going to be critical. So, that's job one: Put your money where your mouth is and get the job done here, cut emissions here.

We're doing that both through the powers we have to reduce emissions in the transportation and power sector, et cetera, but we're also doing--creating that virtuous cycle of innovation. On the other hand, we also have to pay attention to what's going on around the world, and the United States is a leader in that regard, as well. I think the President went to UNGA in the first year--the UN General Assembly--and the first year that he was elected and pledged that the United States would try to move $11 billion of financing from direct U.S.-supported financing to this project of trying to deploy clean energy around the world. We went from 1.5 billion when he made that announcement to over 9, and we're, I think, on our way to make the commitment of $11 billion worth of funding.

We've been a leader in trying to reform the international financial institutions to make them fit-for-purpose at this time when their first mission is, of course, development, but it has to be done in light of what's happening to societies that are being pressed and pressured by the effects of climate change. And I think we have very good--Secretary Yellen's been leader at our--Treasury Secretary on that. We have very good relationship with our international partners in trying to move that forward.

So, look, this, as you know, the nation's birthday, July 4th, was the hottest day on record. July was the hottest month, followed by the hottest August, the hottest September--I can go up. You just reported the hottest March on record.

MS. EILPERIN: Right.

MR. PODESTA: We have a crisis and we're seeing it in the effects that are taking place on livelihoods, on food and water systems, on extreme weather, on forest fires, et cetera. We've got to get on with this project and we have to do that at home and we have to do it abroad.

MS. EILPERIN: Okay. And just one quick question on that and then we'll move to the domestic front. But last month, the World Meteorological Association found that in 2023, obviously, concentrations of greenhouse gas continue to rise. You know, we had record hot oceans, and that the rate of increase is accelerating.

At what point do you think we face the prospect that the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius has been breached and we've entered a new era?

MR. PODESTA: Well, look, you know, if you look at what's happening just now--and the way the scientists measure this, it's over a longer period of time.

MS. EILPERIN: Right.

MR. PODESTA: But if you look at what's happening just now as the introduction noted and I noted, we're beginning to reach that number as we're sitting here. Now, that's partly the effect of El Nino and other factors. It's likely to probably dip and rise a little bit. But there's no question that we--in order to maintain a livable planet, we have to cut emissions, and that is a global challenge. The United States is still the world's largest historic emitter, but we're--you know, China has far surpassed us, now. They're--almost twice as many emissions in China. And other countries are, I think, engaged in this process but we have to move forward if we're going to have a livable planet for our children and grandchildren.

MS. EILPERIN: Okay. And speaking of China, which has obviously flooded global markets with low-priced goods, whether it's electric vehicles or solar panels. If climate change is this obviously urgent existential threat, as you lay out, why shouldn’t the U.S. embrace, for example, cheap solar panels and EVs, especially at a time when U.S. adoption of EVs is--

MR. PODESTA: Look, we have multiple challenges. One is our own economic security. We're way overdependent on Chinese supplies for critical minerals, for batteries, for upstream solar technology. I think the President recognized that and basically created a strategy through the Inflation Reduction Act to reshore and friend-shore those technologies to become less dependent.

If you need any example of why this is critical, just look at European dependency on Russian fossil fuels and what the illegal invasion of Ukraine did to those markets and did to the economic security of European nations to know, we cannot be dependent on a single source of supply with a country that's fully prepared to use that as leverage and, by the way, built some of that leadup, if you will, through nonmarket practices and practices that weren't--that were discriminating against other technologies, other countries, et cetera.

So, I think our plan is to be ensured that we are secure and to do it in a way that's making massive investment in the U.S. economy. It's probably the strongest part of our economy right now are these investments in these clean technologies. We've seen $383 billion worth of announced investments in batteries, in EVs, in file assembly, in solar, in deploying renewable energy across the country. That's good for the economy; that's good for jobs; that's good for wages; and it's good for the economic security of the United States.

MS. EILPERIN: Okay. We have a question from the audience, from Rebecca Flora from Maryland. She asks, "How can we ensure that the growing EV market will not create a whole new set of social and environmental issues associated with mineral extraction, road safety, and maintenance due to heavier vehicles, proper disposal or reclamation of batteries, and a lack of access by lower-income populations?"

MR. PODESTA: Well, look, I think we're focused on the circular economy. At one level, one of the ways to meet the challenge of critical minerals is to do more effective recycling of existing resources, and that is available, I think, in this space. Batteries can be recycled, et cetera. We've spent a significant amount of money both demonstrating new technologies through the Department of Energy grant programs and also through the Loan Program Office in providing companies in the United States the ability to stand up recycling operations.

So, I think it's an important question. But at the end of the day, we've got to--transportation is now the number one emitter in the United States. We've got to move forward with cleaner forms of transportation and the faster way to do that is through electrification. The American public has the choice of deciding what kind of vehicles they want to purchase, but we're seeing rapid adoption of electric vehicles, and that's a good thing for the planet.

So, one has to do that with care, with the highest standards. That's true in mining where I think we're seeing an effort to try to provide assurance and reassurance that mining will be done in an environmentally effective way, but we also need to see those applications happen.

so, for example, the Loan Program Office I just mentioned just did a major loan to a lithium extraction company in northern Nevada.

MS. EILPERIN: Right.

MR. PODESTA: We need that lithium and I think it can be done and extracted in an environmentally sensitive way. There are other projects in the Salton Sea and other places that have great promise. But the--if you pay attention to detail, if you get permitting right, if you do it rapidly, if you let the public participate in that process, you could make good decisions. You could do it--you know, we got just really slow at permitting projects.

MS. EILPERIN: Right.

MR. PODESTA: We forgot how to build things in America. We're back to the business of building, and that's good, again, for our future.

MS. EILPERIN: And as charging infrastructure stalls--we've not seen, as you know, rapid deployment of public chargers, states are quick to expand highways, often with federal funds. Twenty to 30 percent of all public highway spending goes to the expansion rather than programs to fix and repair existing roads.

How can the administration make sure that the infrastructure bill isn't working against the climate goals of this--

MR. PODESTA: Well, look, I think that we need to ensure that we're--first of all, that we're being sensitive in adapting to the effects of climate. So, I think one of the things that's gone into the planning and deployment of those resources is ensuring that we're planning for the future that we're going to have, not the one that we, you know, just live through. So, I think that's a very important feature.

But I think significant resources are going to building more resilient infrastructure that's doing it at a time when we're also trying to reduce emissions, for example, through reducing emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, at ports, and other installations that can be heavily polluting and really are some of the largest sources of environmental injustice in the country because of how much both shipping and trucking goes through those ports.

So, I think if they do it in a smart way, we can get the balance right. People want to move; they want to be involved in transportation; but we're just going to have to do it in a cleaner way, and whether that's air travel through the use of sustainable aviation fuel or whether it's ground travel through electrification and the plug-in hybrids and other kinds of vehicles. We have got to get emissions out of these sectors and that's a process that will take place over some period of time.

But I think the American public, if you look at J.D. Power's, other surveys, are really deciding this is the way to go and we're seeing the tick-up, particularly as the price of electric vehicles comes down, the tick-up of public acceptance and the consideration of purchasing electrical vehicle, because it's good for the planet and it's good for the pocketbook. We're reducing costs overall for consumers.

MS. EILPERIN: Okay. I want to talk about the grid for a minute. An Energy Department study found that the U.S. must double its regional transmission capacity to meet its 2035 clean energy goal.

MR. PODESTA: Yeah, this is a huge challenge.

MS. EILPERIN: To what extent is that--yeah, is that possible without permitting reform?

MR. PODESTA: Look, I think we've done everything we can to both implement the modest changes that were made as part of bipartisan legislation that passed last Congress. We've deployed $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act to increase both the personnel and the technical capacity of federal agencies to permit. We've put money out to the states to try to improve their permitting policies as a multilayered process and multi-jurisdictional process in the U.S.

But we got to get on with it, and those numbers are--not only do we need to double the amount of transmission, we need to cut the time in half on how long it takes to get transmission permitted. I think we're doing that with authorities. We will issue final rules soon, giving the Secretary of Energy more capacity and authority to set hard deadlines for--particularly for transmission and permitting that was available to us and we were the first administration to take advantage of that. It was in the Federal Power Act.

We're doing--this is something that occupies--I've been around the track a little bit, here. So, first administration I've been where this is, from the president and chief of staff on down, run by our deputy chief of staff, we meet regularly at the cabinet level on permitting, on specific projects to break through gridlock and roadblocks. And a lot of things get stuck down in the bowels of agencies, and when the political leadership of those agencies can take a look at them, we can make progress.

MS. EILPERIN: Okay, we only have a few more minutes. I need to get through some more questions.

MR. PODESTA: Okay.

MS. EILPERIN: So, The Post has reported on how the AI boom and the rise in clean tech majority are pushing America's power grid to the brink. So, should conditions be put on some of these operations, given that they threaten to undermine the U.S. climate goals?

MR. PODESTA: Look, I think--you know, it doesn't seem to me that that's the way to approach this problem. I think AI has significant applications that can help on the climate front. It also has significant concerns and the president has addressed some of those in terms of privacy, et cetera.

But I think that the promise of building this out is a generally good thing for the United States, but we have to have the power resources to do it. That's putting more pressure on utilities to do things like advanced reconductoring of existing power sector lines to be able to--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last fall put some new rules out to deal with the problems of interconnection, of getting renewable resources tied into the grid. That's improved the process there. Other utilities are looking at that around the country, but there's no question we're going to have to build a lot of clean power in the U.S.

There's a place--and we're investing in small, modular nuclear reactors. So, that's been moving forward again. And but, we need a lot of power; we need it to be clean; we need it to be zero carbon; and we need a lot of transmission capacity to move that power to the applications.

MS. EILPERIN: And this, I believe, will be my last question. Obviously, you're dealing with a Republican-controlled House. The Ukraine aid bill is a top priority. Republicans have raised the prospect of lifting the pause on liquified natural gas exports in order to push that bill through. To what extent is the administration open to that?

MR. PODESTA: Yeah, I think we--look, I think we have said now many times in the last several weeks they should pass the bill. It's got bipartisan support. I think clearly there are votes in the House to pass the bill, the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate, and they should do it and do it quickly and promptly and not lard it up with other issues.

With respect to the pause, that's smart policy; we stand behind it. We're now the largest exporter of natural gas. We're building twice the capacity we currently have. What we're doing and secretary of energy is doing is looking at the economics and environmental aspects of going further, and we're going to stick with that.

MS. EILPERIN: Okay. In 15 seconds, you've made a hallmark of your career protecting open public spaces in the United States. To what extent can we expect the president to use his authority to do more conservation--

MR. PODESTA: Oh, I think you'll--you'll see some more, Juliet. You know, the President's pledged 30--to protect 30 percent of lands and waters in the United States. We're on track. He's been an amazing president in the first term. You know, I worked for President Clinton, for President Obama. They both had tremendous conservation records. President Biden is just surpassing that in terms of what he's able to do in the first term.

And I think we've got more to come, including better use and better protection of public lands, getting the balance right between being able to deploy renewable energy on public lands. You will see more about that today. And conserving public lands--but yeah, I think we have a few more coming.

MS. EILPERIN: Okay, and we will continue to follow this important story. Unfortunately, we're out of time. John Podesta, thank you so much for joining us.

MR. PODESTA: Great, thanks very much.

[Applause]

MS. EILPERIN: Please stay with us. My colleague, David Lynch, will be interviewing the WTO director general about trade, climate change, and global development.

[Video plays]

Climate, Trade, & Global Development

MR. LYNCH: Good morning. I'm David J. Lynch, The Post's global economics correspondent, and I have the pleasure of being joined today from Geneva by the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. Director-General, nice to see you. How are you?

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: I'm fine. Thank you. Nice to see you too.

MR. LYNCH: Welcome to the show.

So let's get right to it. How can trade policy help us meet our climate goals, the goals that we're doing a fairly poor job of meeting so far?

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: Well, thank you, David, for that question. I've always maintained that trade is part of the solution to getting to net zero by 2050. People always see trade as part of the problem, but it's actually part of the solution. And to that effect, for COP28, we developed a kind of toolkit at the WTO Secretariat, a set of policies or actions that members, countries can take on the trade side if they want to try to lower carbon emissions.

I'll just mention two or three just as an example, so we're very specific. If you look at the import tariff regimes of many countries, you'll often find that you have lower carbon--lower tariffs on internal combustion engines than on electric vehicles, when it should be the other way around in order to incentivize and lower the cost of electricity. So one of the things, just as we say, look at your import regime to make sure you're not incentivizing things that are actually adding to carbon emissions. And in many developing countries, they import secondhand cars that have even more emissions than new cars. So that's one quick action that you can take. Review your import tariff regimes for renewables and cars to make sure that they're well aligned with net zero by 2050.

I think the second is looking at government procurement. We have a government procurement agreement here, and many people may not know, but governments spend about $13 trillion on public procurement annually. And this is about 13 percent of global GDP, and all this procurement contributes about 15 percent to emissions worldwide, to greenhouse gas emissions. So just think about it. If you can use that power of procurement to purchase green, it could actually drive decarbonization of the economy. So that's another type of action that governments can take.

And then the last one I want to mention, the last example is repurposing harmful subsidies. We say we want to move to net zero, but we have a lot of [inaudible] in the world that are actually incentivizing greenhouse gas emissions or other types of actions that are not really helping decarbonizing our environment. We have almost $2 trillion in these kinds of subsidies; agriculture, $640 billion in subsidies that are trade distorted and not really helpful to agricultural trade. We have fossil fuel subsidies, depending on the estimates, sometimes direct subsidies of $1.2 trillion. And we have harmful fishery subsidies that we're working on here at the WTO to remove of about $22 billion. So if you keep totaling subsidies, you can get up to $2 trillion. So we're saying, why are we incentivizing the wrong thing? Why don't we remove these subsidies so that they can help us?

MR. LYNCH: Right. On your point about the tariff structure effectively discouraging the adoption of renewables, we seem to be on the verge of perhaps moving in the wrong direction, given concern in the U.S. and Europe about a potential flood of low-cost, subsidized Chinese green energy products, solar panels, electric vehicles, et cetera. Is it your position that U.S. and European leaders should keep tariffs low and accept these Chinese products, even at the cost of their own domestic industries and hopes to grow jobs in these sectors?

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: That's a very tricky one, David. Of course, you would throw such a tricky question.

MR. LYNCH: Thank you. My work here is done.

[Laughter]

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: I think that [inaudible] concerns that perhaps the goods are coming in at cheaper costs, their market jobs are being taken away. You know, normally, you would say yes. If we are to adopt kinds of new technologies, we want to get them at as low a cost as [inaudible] consumers to buy them. But I think there are two different concerns. The concern about protecting jobs, rightly or wrongly, but the concern is there. I think that's what's driving U.S. and European positions that they also want to manufacture. So we have to balance. We want to make sure we don't encourage adoption of these new technologies so that we can get to net zero fast but at the same time, balancing [inaudible] you could talk about. It's also something we should pay attention to. Let me leave it at that.

MR. LYNCH: And how about the climate impact of trade itself, the physical movement of goods, trillions of dollars of goods moving all over the world from Asia to the United States, the United States to Europe, et cetera? Are the maritime fleets, railroads, the trucks themselves doing enough to decarbonize?

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: Well, that’s the part of trade that many focus on, and actually, I’m quite encouraged by what is going on. If you look at the shipping industry, the aviation industry, the trucking industry, everyone is looking for how they can decarbonize and lower greenhouse gas emissions. So new technologies are coming up all the time, ships that are looking at green hydrogen and how to use that to power ships. Aviation industry [inaudible]. So I’m very excited at what is going on and how these industries are trying to change the way that they put from one part of the world to another. So I think we will come up with solutions to those problems.

MR. LYNCH: And you and other global leaders--the head of the IMF, for instance--have warned about the dangers of fragmentation of the global economy and the global trading system. And I think you've said that we can't achieve our climate goals if that fragmentation is allowed to happen, the division of the world into sort of competing trade and economic spheres. Do you have the political support that you need from the Biden administration at the WTO to continue to do what you can to prevent that fragmentation? Has the Biden administration been any more supportive of your organization than its predecessor?

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: What I can tell you is that we have a very constructive dialogue with the Biden administration and with the USTR, and that certain reforms that we're trying to carry out at the WTO [inaudible] are supportive of that. So let me put it this way. We have a positive dialogue with them, and we'd like to make sure that their concerns as well as listening to the concerns of other WTO members. But yes, we are working constructively.

MR. LYNCH: How do you assess the current state of the fragmentation issue? Do you feel like we're at the point where some split in the global economy is baked in, given the trends in U.S.-Chinese relations, or do you feel like over the last year or so, the world has made progress in preventing that?

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: I think we're seeing signs of increasing fragmentation in the world economy, and we--two years ago, we actually began to point that out. We did some work here to show that if the world were to decouple into two trading blocs, we would see a loss of global GDP of about 5 percent in the longer term. That's a big loss. And the IMF and others have done subsequent work that also points in the same direction, sometimes with slightly larger numbers. And since we did that work, we have seen emerging signs of fragmentation.

We don't see any big signs of decoupling yet in the economy, but there are emerging signs of fragmentation. We looked at simulations looking at two blocs of like-minded countries trading within those blocs as well as across the bloc. And in the past, we saw that the growth of trade across these two blocs was about the same as within the bloc. But now we are seeing people trading more with like-minded countries than they are trading across those not so politically like themselves. So this is some emerging concern that like-minded trading is going on much more than we saw in the past.

We also see in certain sectors, like semiconductors, the tech industry, of course, emerging signs of fragmentation because of some of the measures that are being put by countries, the U.S. certainly, China itself, and others. So we're beginning to see some difference there in terms of the smooth flow of trade across.

So yes, to your question, the answer, we are beginning to see emerging signs of fragmentation in the world, and that concerns us, because I think for the rest of the world--I've given you one number--if we begin to fragment, it will be costly globally for all countries, both large and small, rich and poor. I'll just give you one more, one more example of fragmentation. We normally look at what is happening with global value chains and the trade in intermediate goods. That is those goods that are used to manufacture other goods. And we've seen in this year of 2023, a 6 percent decline in global trade of non-fuel intermediate goods, and this just indicates a contraction in global value chain. So that's another sign that something is happening with respect to fragmentation that we need to watch. So grosso modo, no huge sign of decoupling, but emerging signs of fragmentation that we need to watch.

MR. LYNCH: Let's talk about developing countries for a moment, who obviously want to exploit their fossil fuel resources to try and grow their economies, give their peoples a better life. Should they be asked to prioritize the climate fight instead, and if so, what are the prospects for such countries getting the financial assistance that they require with interest rates being as high as they are?

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: Well, David, I think that given the temperature rises we have seen in the world, every country should be concerned about how to lower greenhouse gas emissions and how to get to net zero by 2050. But I think it's a question of pace. As you know, developing countries feel that they didn't contribute to the present situation we're in, and they contribute much less to greenhouse gas emissions. Africa, for example, contributes 3 percent or less to global greenhouse gas emissions, and historically, they've not been the ones contributing. So they feel that they also need to be given the policy space to be able to develop their population and improve income.

So what does all that spell? At the Paris Agreement, because there was a built-in recognition that developing countries--there should be common but differentiated responsibility, meaning that developing countries would also need the time to adjust. And so what we see is a situation in which, yes, developing countries should contribute, but they should be given more time to do so. And you will note that some of them have said, look, we cannot reach net zero by 2050, but maybe it's 2060 or 2070. So a just transition; so one, time to adjust. They can't phase out of fossil fuels immediately. They need time to do that, but they need to move in the right direction, maybe gas as a transition fuel for many of them.

Two, they need the money and the technology to adjust. So one, where we have these green technologies, the free flow of technologies and trade really does enable the flow of technologies at scale. So that’s why we need fair, open, and predictable trade underpinned by the WTO. We need that. We need transfer of technology. So IP issues and how we share technology is important.

And then lastly, finance. They need financing to be able to adjust, and that's where the world has not really come up with the promises it made. A hundred billion was promised per year to developing countries to help with this. It's been very difficult to come up with that. I think the developed countries are just about there now. But if you think about the fact that Africa will need $2.8 trillion by 2030 to be able to adjust, that's a lot of money. So how to get this financing is very important. How to account for loss and damage when events take place and where that money will come from is very important. Some progress was made at COP28, but more is needed.

MR. LYNCH: We have less than two minutes left, but I do want to go to a question that we've received from an audience member. Cheryl Fernandes asks, what actions can be taken today to address global displacement resulting from climate change? And are there any venues that are particularly promising for holding these discussions? I would just add, how might an increase in the flow of so-called "climate refugees" affect coastal megacities like Lagos?

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: I think that's a very thoughtful, thoughtful question, and I think it's one that is not really being discussed adequately in the world. And we need to find fora to do that, because we have to contend that this is going to be the case, that we will see climate displacement.

We're already seeing it, actually, within the African continent, from the Sahel. As conditions get very difficult, people do migrate south with their animals, and we've seen it in Sudan, and we've seen it in other places. Both climate change and conflict together are resulting in a lot of migration.

But the world has not yet come up with an answer. I think it's a problem that we all need to confront together and to try to be very thoughtful about solutions that could work. How do we invest in developing countries such that when they have this kind of climate event, they'll be able to absorb their population in another part of the country and don't have to migrate elsewhere? But when they do have to migrate, how do we handle that? The world has not really had that kind of conversation, and I think we need to do that.

MR. LYNCH: Well, a sobering thought to end on. I'm afraid we are out of time. Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, thank you so much for being with us today.

DR. OKONJO-IWEALA: Thank you, David.

[Applause]

MR. LYNCH: Now, next, my colleague Juliet Eilperin will be back up here with photographer Cristina Mittermeier, and I think you're going to want to stay put to see her stunning photography from all over the world. Stay with us.

[Applause]

[Video plays]

Uncharted Oceans

MS. EILPERIN: Good morning and welcome back. For those of you just joining us, I'm Juliet Eilperin, Deputy Climate and Environment Editor at The Post.

Joining me now is marine biologist and photographer, Cristina Mittermeier, who traveled to D.C. from New Zealand to join us here, today. Cristina, thank you so much for joining us here at The Post.

MS. MITTERMEIER: Juliet, thank you.

MS. EILPERIN: So, to start, for years, wildlife photographers have spoken out for conservation. You were a pioneer in the development of conservation photography. Can you tell us what you're trying to communicate through conservation photography?

MS. MITTERMEIER: Yeah, conservation photography was an idea borne out of the necessity for action. I was part of a community of nature photographers, and there's this, you know, tendency to just go and take pretty pictures. You want to get published; you want to be in magazines. But I understood that if you put those photographs along with the stories that they come with in front of the people that may or may not know about issues, you have a chance to influence the way people think. And so, it's the advocacy work that goes with photography.

MS. EILPERIN: Got it. You grew up pretty far from the closest ocean. When and why did you turn your attention more specifically to protecting the oceans?

MS. MITTERMEIER: You know, books are so important in the formation of a child's mind. And to me, I read two books that were very influential in my life. One was Paul Erlich's "The Population Bomb." I don't know if you were scared along with me in the 1980s.

And the other one was just Jacques Cousteau and the invitation to adventure, the mystery of this ecosystem we know so little about.

MS. EILPERIN: Yeah, and The Post has reported on the unprecedented streak of ocean heat, entering a second year, that scientists say could potentially cause an irreversible change to earth systems. Are we reaching a tipping point with the oceans, whether you're talking about coral reefs or other key components in the ocean?

MS. MITTERMEIER: You know, one of the things that frustrates me about scientists is their reluctance to just tell us what's what. And for those of us who spend a lot of time in the ocean, absolutely, it is getting warm all around, and in places like the eastern coast of Australia, the Great Barrier Reef, it's several degrees warmer than it should be. So, as a result, we're losing things that we can see, like coral reefs. But it's the things that we cannot see, like the planktonic communities that, you know, through photosynthesis, provide oxygen, those are the terrifying ones.

To me, the most scary part of the whole story, Juliet, is that we know so little about how things work and how these tipping points are going to be interconnected with another. We're basically piloting a spaceship through the universe that we know very little about.

MS. EILPERIN: Yeah. Now, you said, as we saw at the beginning with the video, that oceans are both a victim and a solution to climate change. Can you give a specific example of how they can be a solution?

MS. MITTERMEIER: Yes, I mean, anything that is doing the work that is a quarter--you know, 25 percent of a solution is pretty important. You cannot drive a vehicle with just three tires; you need the fourth one, too. The ocean is absorbing 25 percent of emissions. It does this naturally. We don't pay it to do it; we don't ask it to do it; it just does it. But it's also producing 50 percent of the oxygen we breather and it absorbs 90 percent of the excess heat in the atmosphere. So, it lends us an incredible service, and it can only do it if it's alive. And people think that ocean is just saltwater; but no, it's a living broth of microorganisms, algae, that is where life emerged from in this planet and it's what keeps this planet alive.

So, as we ignore it--you know, and that's shockingly the most underfunded of all the Sustainable Development Goals, by a lot. And conservation, in general, environmental work in the ocean is severely underfunded as well. So, we need to keep it alive.

MS. EILPERIN: And news broke recently about indigenous groups in New Zealand, Tahiti, and the Cook Islands signing a treaty that recognized whales as legal persons. How might this--and we've also seen this in Panama with leatherback turtles, how might this help lead to further legal protections?

MS. MITTERMEIER: I love spending time in the company of societies that I don't understand, including societies like whales. They are fellow passengers on spaceship earth, and we know very little about how they communicate, how they operate, but they absolutely lend an incredibly valuable service to humanity. And we're learning more about the role that not just whales but biomass in the ocean in general plays in the carbon cycle. We need these animals to help us tar--you know, things like--think about a whale, how big it is. I'm looking at these photographs. The amount of carbon in the body of a whale--and when it dies, of course, it sinks to the bottom of the ocean. But throughout its life, this whale is feeding in the depths and it's eating very mineral-rich nutrients, and then it poops on top--on the surface of the ocean. And this is fertilizer that promotes the growth of plankton that, of course, you know, produces oxygen, sequesters carbon, the whole cycle.

I think that the fact that indigenous people not just in New Zealand, not just in the Cook Islands, in all over the world, really, are taking a leadership role in reminding us that we need these biodiversity elements to survive. And I believe firmly that whales deserve personhood. They are valuable assets, not just on economic terms, but just culturally and I mean, I want to live on a planet where there's whales.

MS. EILPERIN: A recent piece about you and your partner, Paul Nicklen said that because the two of you spend your lives on the frontlines of the climate crisis you could be compared to wartime photographers.

I wanted to know what you think of that. Is that a fair comparison? Would you challenge part of that?

MS. MITTERMEIER: You know, you feel very humbled when you're out in nature and when you witness what happens, for example, with the industrial fishing fleet. I mean, it is a war on nature. It is so unsustainable to think that we can exploit any resource in that manner. But it happens out there in the middle of nowhere. It's invisible to most people.

And a lot of us, we only understand fish because we see it swimming, you know, in a sea of butter, a plate of butter. But fish are wildlife and you start understanding the destruction of the bottom of the ocean through deep sea mining. Yes, there is a need for minerals, but we cannot just wholesale destruct entire ecosystems that we know so little about.

So, yes, I feel like we are reporters out in the middle of nowhere bringing stories about the most important ecosystem on planet earth, and it's a pretty lonely job, Juliet.

MS. EILPERIN: And as you said, you go out into the world and take these photographs. How do you track what impact conservation photography--whether yours or others--have on the world?

MS. MITTERMEIER: I think it's the hardest part of the job. We never know the impact that our photographs have. I firmly believe that photography is a great way of inviting people into what I think is the most important conversation of our times, really: the survival of our planet. And a lot of people don't feel competent enough to enter the conversation on climate. You know, they don't know enough about it. Nobody wants to feel ignorant.

Photography lowers the price of entry. It invites people to ask questions. And it's just a way for us to make the audience larger. But to track the impact is almost impossible. I just hope that we are having impact.

MS. EILPERIN: And one related question, which is what are the kinds of images that you think have the biggest impact on the public consciousness? Would it be uplifting images or images that create an uproar, because you've obviously shared both.

MS. MITTERMEIER: Oh, this is such a good question. I derive a lot of inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King. You know, he didn't start the famous speech by telling us he had a nightmare. Here, he told us that there's a dream, right, and creating aspirational images of the kind of planet that we want to live in, I think, is valuable.

At the same time, we need to remind people that we are in a lot of trouble, and those images need to be very carefully punctuated throughout the conversation, because don't want to feel hopeless; they don't want to feel despair. And so, you have to keep this narrative going.

MS. EILPERIN: Yeah, and we have a couple of photos that the audience is seeing. Could you tell us just a little bit about both of them, so they have a sense?

MS. MITTERMEIER: Yeah, so, we have a stellar sea lion, a beautiful animal that's taken in front of my home in British Columbia. And this urchin, you know, it can be a beautiful thing, but when you lose the ecological balance in some places like the coast of California where we have removed a lot of the top predators, urchins can become a massive problem. We're seeing this in New Zealand, in California, and British Columbia, but you try to tell these stories in a way that's whimsical.

On the other side, we have a polar bear that we encountered on expedition to the Canadian Arctic. And we are seeing more and more bears stranded on land. They don't get enough food. They are starving. It's a very, very sad thing to watch. The funny thing about this image is how much controversy it caused. It really created this narrative that there's too many polar bears, because now polar bears are so hungry that they're going to villages or we see many more. That doesn't mean there's more polar bears. I think they are in a lot of trouble and facing issues like climate but also trophy hunting.

MS. EILPERIN: Got it. Now, we have an audience question from Amy Loeffler in Alaska, an amazing state. "What would you tell aspiring climate journalists who might feel like the reporting falls on deaf ears?"

MS. MITTERMEIER: You know, as a reporter, you really never know who's going to see your work, who's going to read your words. And the job is not to be paying attention to that; the job is just to tell the story, right? So, don't go out there worried about how many people are reading it. You just have to do the work. And you know what? We need an army of storytellers and photographers and journalists out there reporting on the state of the planet. So, just go do it.

[Applause]

MS. EILPERIN: You and I spoke over a decade ago, because we've known each other for a long time, about the intersection of your work and politics. You said that politicians are afraid of conservation images. Is that still true today?

MS. MITTERMEIER: I don't think so. I think things have changed dramatically, especially in this country. It's so rewarding to see an administration like President Biden's administration who really cares about these things.

The concern is that politicians are not always well-versed in these subjects. You know, you have ministers of the environment that are appointed, and they're politicians; they are not biologists. What I think is important is that they listen to the scientists. Scientists are the pilots. They're the ones who know how planet earth works. Let's not ignore their advice, and politicians should be sitting always next to a scientist.

[Applause]

MS. EILPERIN: And then, related, while we're on policy, what message would you want to communicate to American officials here while in Washington?

MS. MITTERMEIER: The most important thing I can say is I travel all over the world; I talk to politicians all over the world. And yes, everybody is watching America. What we do or don't do really matters. And so, let's just engage in American conservation environmental work with a knowledge that the rest of the world is following us or not.

MS. EILPERIN: And again, once you're done, you're going to go back to Down Under, to Australia. Could you talk a little specifically about what you're doing there, and kind of how you do your work. What does it mean to actually be out doing both photography and conservation?

MS. MITTERMEIER: You know, I went to New Zealand first, the boat was there, for three months. And I was so excited because I thought of New Zealand as a country that cares about conservation. But a country that's 93-percent ocean has barely protect 0.3 percent of their waters. And I thought that was pathetic. And you can see the effects that this is having. You know, there's just rampant fishing. Everybody has a right to fish.

And so, you want to tell them, you know, I've seen what happens to countries that do this. Be warned. From there, we're going to Australia; our boat arrived yesterday. We are there because the water is so warm that the scientists we're working with are saying, we're going to lose 90 percent of the Great Barrier Reef this year. Ninety percent. I mean, let's just stop for a second and think about this is a habitat--this is something that we can see from space.

And people say things like, oh, we can restore it. You can't. Losing these types of ecosystems, what we need to know is that it's irreversible and it is catastrophic and it's going to have tremendous impact for the communities first where the coral reefs are, but eventually for all of us. This causes all sorts of issues with increased storms and migration, and it's devastating. So, I feel it is really important for journalists to be there to make sure it's not just a blip in the news cycle. You know, this is a big deal.

MS. EILPERIN: And you know, there--obviously, we have seen in recent months both a global treaty on biodiversity, these goals of 30 by 30. We're right now in negotiations over whether there's a possibility to reach a global plastics treaty, which obviously has critical implications for the planet. What do you--and you know, the ocean specifically--what do you think of these efforts and what will it take to actually make them not just a paper agreement but have real impact.

MS. MITTERMEIER: I think these treaties are so important: climate treaty, biodiversity treaty, now this global plastics treaty. What they require is a lot of public support. We need a population that is informed and engaged and pushing politicians to keep doing the right thing. Because if these treaties are negotiated in dark rooms in some obscure conference, then nobody cares, but they are critically important. I mean, the future life on earth depends on these treaties and they really outline how humanity is going to go forward or not.

MS. EILPERIN: And is there anything--and when you--how have you encountered, for example, plastics in the ocean and that impact as you've been out in the field?

MS. MITTERMEIER: The more we learn about plastics, Juliet, the more terrifying it becomes, because it's not the stuff that we can see. Of course, plastics break down and we think about micro plastics and we know we're all eating it. It is the chemicals in plastics that are devastating.

You know, I learned yesterday, 16,000 chemicals go into plastics. We only know what three of them do to human health. All of these chemicals leaching into the environment have an effect not just on humans, on our babies, our children, but also on these ecosystems. New studies are saying that these chemicals are impacting ecosystems like reefs, as well. And we have a chance with the upcoming negotiations on the global plastics treaty to actually, you know, create language that is strong enough to say, let's turn the tap off and not create any new plastic. Let's learn how to reuse the plastic that we have and use alternatives.

So, I hope these negotiations go well.

MS. EILPERIN: And this will be our last question. So much in the literature out there about climate change is, of course, about doom and gloom. So, to provide us with a little optimism. In one sentence, what makes you hopeful people will take action to be better caretakers for the planet?

MS. MITTERMEIER: I think hope is a personal choice. There's many days when I wake up and I think, oh, my God, we're doomed. And then, I remember, you know, I cannot allow myself to feel or think that way, so I make the choice of remaining hopeful. And I think hope is a powerful motivator for all of us, so I'm doing a book about hope.

MS. EILPERIN: So, we'll have to leave it there. Cristina, thank you again for making the journey.

MS. MITTERMEIER: Thank you.

MS. EILPERIN: And best of luck to you on your next expedition.

[Applause]

MS. EILPERIN: And don't go anywhere. We'll be back in a few minutes for our next conversation. Stay with us.

[Video plays]

The Financial Reality of Corporate Sustainability

MS. MESERVE: Hello. So environmental, social and governance initiatives known as ESGs were so popular with companies just a short time ago as a way to address climate change, but they’ve become controversial, and the business case for them has been questioned. So here with us today to discuss is Tiffany Atwell. Tiffany is senior vice president of global governance at Ecolab. Ecolab is a leader in addressing the world's water crisis. It helps businesses use less water and recycle it and reuse it. So, thanks so much for coming in.

MS. ATWELL: Thanks. Happy to be here with you today.

MS. MESERVE: So as mentioned, in many quarters ESG has fallen out of favor, portrayed as conflicting with profitability and with shareholder value. Why would you say that that portrayal of ESG is perhaps a bit misleading?

MS. ATWELL: Great question. I think it's misleading because what we've seen with many of our customers that we serve, they are still working and driving ESG initiatives. They may call it something different, but ESG and sustainability leads to profitability. So we know this through the work with our customers, and we're working with customers across 40 industries, across 170 countries.

The other piece of this is Ecolab’s founding. We were founded 100 years ago, and we were founded on being more sustainable for our customers. And that sustainability mission came about and has grown even before ESG was hip. And so while I think that we are seeing a camp of people who are saying they're anti-ESG, I think that that is part of the puzzle.

But I think the other piece of what we're seeing is people don't understand that sustainability actually means you're going to be more profitable. There have been several studies that have come out--McKinsey has done a study, Drucker Institute has done a study--that show--Drucker Institute shows that of the 250 most profitable companies that are run the best, managed well, they are doing ESG initiatives today.

And so I think that this is, you know, some of what we're seeing--and there's a silver lining there that I'm hoping that today's discussion can help debunk.

MS. MESERVE: So you are saying that companies can meet their 2030 climate goals and actually improve their profitability at the same time?

MS. ATWELL: Absolutely. And we're doing it every day. So we're not just saying let's do it for our customers. Ecolab is doing it. We actually have a plan to work to save enough drinking water by 2030 that will help 1 billion people have access to clean drinking water.

And that's important because of all of the beautiful people in this room, you've never had to go to your tap and turn it on and not have access to water. But of course, we know that not just in India and other developing countries, there are people in the United States of America who do not have access to drinking water. So our mission--while we must make sure that our companies are profitable, our mission is also because we know that we can make the world a better place by doing what we're doing, and everyone has a role to play.

And the other piece of our sustainability goals that's really exciting for me and our goals for 2030 is our reduction of greenhouse gases. We know that there's an interconnectedness between water. It's a tool, as well as it’s a victim to climate change. Saving and reusing and recycling water--and this is what we plan to do--it will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 million metric tons by 2030.

MS. MESERVE: Give us a snapshot right now. Would you say that companies are on track to meet their 2030 climate goals? And if they're not, if they're lagging, why is that the case?

MS. ATWELL: I think many are just because I know our customers. When I think about Cargill, and Kraft Heinz, who are big customers of ours, I know that they're on track. I mean, but of course not every company is our customer, and different people have different views on what they should be doing.

I think the people that are lagging--because there are people that are lagging--it's because they don't understand that sustainability actually leads to more profitability. And that's where we need to educate, and we also need to have other NGOs and partners from the government to help people understand this, but also ensure that there are the resources there to ensure that they can actually take under some of these improvements to their manufacturing sites.

MS. MESERVE: Are you seeing a public response to the fact that some companies are not on track?

MS. ATWELL: Absolutely. We actually consulted a global consumer study last year with Morning Consult, and consumers care about these issues. And so this is another reason companies should care. What we found is 80 percent of the consumers in the United States expect for governments and private sector to work on water conservation issues, and so that's 80 percent of consumers. Baby Boomers really are concerned about water conservation and having access to water, and so that figure was also 80 percent. Millennials in the 70 percentile. So consumers are making decisions, buying choices based on company's sustainability practices. And so if government policy is not enough and being more profitable is not enough, understanding that your customers care about these issues, I'm hoping that that will help them understand that they need to get on board with this.

MS. MESERVE: Are there things that the public sector can do to nudge companies in the right direction?

MS. ATWELL: Well, I think we're seeing it. It comes with--you know, it comes with the decisions that they're making about who they're supporting. And of course, there could be more. But I would say when you think about what this administration has done--but it's not just this administration--if you go around the world, you'll see that in Europe, you know, and many other countries, even in China these days, you know, there's a push on these issues. So I don't think it's dead, even if it's unpopular and people aren't talking about in a very positive way, the way we've previously seen.

MS. MESERVE: Can you give us some examples of successful public-private collaboration in this area?

MS. ATWELL: Absolutely. I think that, you know, our last speaker spoke to this to a certain degree, trying to solve these issues, whether it’s climate change and using water as a tool to fight climate change, is something that has to be done not just with companies. I’m very proud to have a CEO who wants to work with other like-minded companies. We’ve joined the water resilience coalition that works through the UN Global Compact. And so you have--you know, you have the UN. You have, of course, us and you have other NGOs, water.org and Pacific Institute, that are working globally to recapture water basins. And the plan is to recapture and renew 100 water basins across the world by 2030. And that is not just a commitment of resources, knowhow, personally of what companies will do. But it’s also the work of these NGOs, who have a lot of expertise and who can help us bring in the community so they can be a part of driving this solution.

And so I think water is complicated. It's not sexy, per se. And so with this complexity, it's worth it to bring in all of these other stakeholders, which is what we've done through my CEO Christophe Beck's leadership, to try to actually make some changes here and get results.

MS. MESERVE: So let's talk about Ecolab’s own operations.

MS. ATWELL: Yes.

MS. MESERVE: What are you doing internally to drive more sustainable outcomes in your operations?

MS. ATWELL: Great question. Well, I think that there are many things that I could talk about. But of course, we're using the same technology that we use for our customers to help them reuse and recycle their water. We're using that in our own operations. We just committed to put all of our fleet in California to EVs, to switch over to EVs. Our operations in Europe now will be run off of a wind farm out of Finland, and so we'll be completely off the grid.

And so our plan is not just to try to consult for our customers so that they can do sustainability the right way, and then be profitable, but it's also driving our growth. And so we have amazing scientists and engineers that are working on these issues every day so we can be stronger and a better example.

MS. MESERVE: So how do you help your customers? What tools do you give them to do what you're doing?

MS. ATWELL: Well, we use AI. We use digital solutions. So we literally go in and we do an audit, and our customers are like our family, and we look at what they're doing great and how they can improve and how they're trying to grow. And we're trying to get them to grow using less resources, whether it's water and everything else. And so we do that audit and then we go to them and say this is how you can improve, and we're going to hold your hand and we're going to help you meet these milestones.

But we're doing this using digital solutions. We have something called 3D TRASAR, which actually helps digitally capture the movement of water, what’s needed as far as treatment of water. And all of this is done remotely.

And so we take out the human component, but it helps them be better at what they're doing. And we offer other types of solutions, even if they're not ours, to make sure that they can meet their sustainability goals, but also be more profitable.

MS. MESERVE: So AI, a valuable tool for you.

MS. ATWELL: Absolutely. And I know you're an expert on AI. So you can--

MS. MESERVE: Well, I don't know if I'm an expert, but I'm certainly intrigued by it.

So here we have this terrific audience here of a couple of hundred people. If there's one thing you would like them to walk out of this room with, what would it be?

MS. ATWELL: I would say you do not have to sacrifice profitability and being a successful business by trying to meet your sustainability goals. I know that there has been a lot of negativity around ESG, but you don't have to make that choice. And then you get to actually make more money, be more successful, but leave the world in a much better place. I think we all probably have loved ones or someone that's not here with us today, younger or older, and we can actually make a difference. And that's why I'm so proud to work for Ecolab, because every day I get to think about how we can make the world a better place, but at the same time making sure that our customers are more successful. So that would be my takeaway.

MS. MESERVE: Wonderful. Tiffany Atwell, senior vice president of global government relations at Ecolab, thank you so much for joining us.

MS. ATWELL: Thank you. Pleasure’s mine.

[Applause]

MS. MESERVE: And now we're going to hand things back to The Washington Post.

[Video plays]

Dear Climate Coach

MR. COREN: I'm Michael Coren, the climate advice columnist at The Washington Post. And so what does that mean? I am basically trying to host an honest conversation each week about the environmental choices we face in our daily lives, investigating what's possible, and what's effective. And so I try to approach this all with curious optimism and vigilant skepticism, make it clear, fun, cut through the BS, of which there's a lot, as you probably know.

So, I want to start today by taking a poll and ask you a question that I often ask people I interview. When did climate change become real for you? After an extreme weather event? When your child asked about it? The IPCC summary for policymakers given this audience? And it still doesn't feel real? And you can scan this QR code with your phone to answer those questions.

So, while I give you a moment to scan that and give those votes, I want to tell you about a moment when it became real for me, September 9th, 2020. There were 20 wildfires burning in California, and the sun never rose in San Francisco under the sea of soot and smoke. And if you ask people about that day, they'll tell you that was the moment when the fear of what climate change would bring became real for them, including me, and I've been studying this for 20 years.

So given that, let's go back to the poll and let's see what you said. And I am not alone. So almost all of you have experienced the same event, and many others haven’t. And if you haven't experienced this, you probably will soon, sorry to say.

So let me give you a sense of where this all started for me. Growing up, I wanted to be either a journalist or a scientist. And I love that both professions started with this idea of question everything. And that took me from studying forest carbon projects in Borneo to the newsroom at the Cambodia's Phnom Penh Post and the CNN studios in Atlanta.

But around 2018, when climate change was getting more attention than ever, something about the coverage bothered me, and it was that something was missing, is that we were talking about the problems, but we weren't talking as much about the solutions. And it's not that the problems weren't warranted. Of course they were. But it's that we thought that if we just gave people more information, more--talked about the problem, we would change course. And if there's something I've learned, it's that everyone wants to know how to change course. I get this question a lot as the climate coach, and I also have heard from many in the audience that this is what you'd like to submit to address.

So again, I'm going to turn this question back to you first. Let's take another poll. What do you think has the greatest impact on people's--on the way to change people's environment-related behaviors? And again, you can scan this QR code to vote.

And so while we wait for the answers to come in, I want to give you a brief interlude, something that my editor wasn't sure that we would do. These are Lamb Mowers. There is a shepherd in Northern Virginia who employs 12 of them to help people mow, fertilize, and weed their lawns. And it's not the biggest climate solution, but it's probably the cutest.

[Laughter]

MR. COHEN: So back to the poll. All right. So inform and educate, give financial incentives, vote for climate politicians. This is very expected.

So let's start it from the top. The more information thesis, although it is very attractive, is wrong. Merely supplying more information doesn't work. And it's not that information isn't essential. It is. But it's not enough. And you might have guessed this, given that you have nearly the sum total of humanities knowledge on your phone; and yet, we can't agree on basic facts. And so in fact, studies have found that if we just dispense more scientific information, it has no effect on public opinion.

Then there is the sort of the top-down thesis. People think that if we just vote that will solve the problem, or the Green New Deal or bust. And while that's not totally wrong, the social science literature also tells us that you really can't have top-down without bottom-down; it's almost as important.

And so when you think about energy-related emissions in the United States, more than a third of them are kitchen table issues. It's the machines we use to heat our homes, to drive, what we eat, and how we get around.

So given that, what I've learned has made me both more fearful and more hopeful about the future of the climate. And the reason is that the driving forces are not linear. Human culture and global warming are--both exist at this messy confluence of psychology, economics, physics, and biology. And they're driven primarily by exponential curves, social contagions, and tipping points.

So let me give you an example of what that looks like, and here's one. So tipping points are this critical point at which an unstoppable change transforms a system. And you may know this one, the Atlantic Ocean. There is a warm current that transports nutrients and warmth from the tropics to the North. As Greenland’s ice sheets melt, they cover more of the North Atlantic with cold water, potentially shutting down that current by 2025. And if it did, it would rewire weather from Africa to Europe. It would jeopardize rains that sustain crops for millions of people. It would raise sea levels on the East Coast, and it would plunge Europe into frigid winters.

And human culture has these same tipping points. So let me give you another example. In 2007, just one state had legalized same-sex marriage. And by 2015, it'd become a constitutional right. It was driven by an unprecedented shift in public opinion across political persuasions, demographics, and even religious affiliation. Less than a third of Americans supported same-sex marriage when President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. And today, 71 percent do. This pattern has since been repeated in 30 countries.

So could this happen with attitudes that are needed for drastic climate action? It may already be happening.

And then there's exponential growth. Almost every major technology over the last two centuries that has broken through has followed the same curve, from virtual obscurity to near ubiquitous adoption. And as you can see, in 1990, for example, cellphones were in the hands of only about 3 percent of Americans--about the same percent that own an induction stove today. And you can guess what happened next. By 2014, there were more cellphones in America than Americans.

And so while the timing is a bit of a question mark, clean energy technologies are now poised to follow this same curve. And we don't know when that will happen. But change, as Ernest Hemingway once joked about bankruptcy, tends to happen gradually, and then suddenly.

And then there's social contagions. So you probably are familiar with this. This is the way information, attitudes, behaviors, emotions, can spread rapidly within groups from one person to another, without reason, direction, or thought. And so the model above approximates how a virus can move through a system, or a rumor--COVID misinformation example, which mirrors the spread of the virus itself.

Yet, this also applies to positive behaviors and ideas, whether that's buying an EV, or a heat pump. And it's also an underlying driver of rapid social change. So, this is why climate change needs norm entrepreneurs. And I didn't understand that idea until I talked to a philosopher who told me about the nature of social movements, and he said that we need to stop thinking about ourselves as merely as individuals and more as influential members of a community, as entrepreneurs of norms.

The power of our individual action lies in how it affects others, and every one of you actually acts as a billboard for other people. So seeing someone on a bike actually changes what's normal, maybe even desirable. And each one of us can be one of these norm entrepreneurs.

And the reason this works is that we are evolutionarily engineered to copy one another, and we'd like to think what we do is thoughtful and reasoned. I regret to tell you that is not often the case. What is actually happening is we're often looking for social cues, we're looking for other people to tell us what to do, even if we don't realize that ourselves.

And so to give you a sense of how powerful this is, I talked to a behavioral psychologist who changed his entire career to work on bathroom behaviors. And the reason is that it's the only place humans are not exposed daily to strong social norms. If you ask someone what is the average length of a shower, they will tell you anywhere between 30 seconds to 45 minutes, and they will all be convinced they are right. And there are a lot of people who take 45-minute showers. And what happens is when you tell them that the average shower is closer to 11 minutes, people start to converge on that number. That's the power of social norms.

So with that in mind, let's go back to the poll. And I'm--you're wrong. But you are--you gave some very like normal answers which I had thought as well.

So inform, educate, give financial incentives, all interesting and important. But ultimately tell your neighbor about your new solar panels, you are the most correct out of those choices.

So let's go to the next one. I'll show you, you know, how this really works. So there's a remarkable 2023 peer-reviewed analysis--I looked at hundreds of studies--and it asks a simple question, is, what changes people's environment-related behaviors, from recycling to mode of transportation?

And the answer was clear. It was not education. That moved 3.5 percent of the population relative to a control group--not nothing, but quite small.

Social comparisons, on the other hand, moved about 14 percent of the population, and that was beating out even financial incentives.

So, the takeaway here is that it's often as much about the messenger if not more so than the message. So, green behaviors, in other words, are contagious. When it comes to climate change, we're all influential to someone, in your neighborhood, your office, your home, even the far reaches of your social network. And what that means is that someone is looking to you for advice, just as you are looking to them. And when they hear and see something enough times from a credible messenger, they may change.

So, let's take solar panels. In 2021, scientists at Nature studied and asked a question, what inspires people to put solar panels on their roof? Is it policy? Is it incentives? Is it geography? Sure. All important. But none of them were as important as whether your neighbor had solar panels on their roof. In fact, there was even a proximity effect. If a neighbor within two blocks had one, you are the most likely to put them on your roof. Solar panels, in other words, were contagious.

So when it comes to emissions in your own life, there are three things that account for the majority of the emissions: what you drive, what you eat, and how you heat and cool your home. And so you can buy an EV and eat less meat perhaps, and maybe buy a heat pump, but considered alone these are just rounding errors on rounding errors in the national account.

So I'm going to suggest something else. If you get a new EV, give your friends a test drive, volunteer to be the one to take the car on a road trip, put your car on a car sharing service to let others try it. And if you decide to eat less meat, have a dinner party, show them what you've learned, try to find ways to like share that experience. The most popular column I've written or one of the most popular columns I've written is about lentils, and I did not see that coming.

And if you decide to put solar panels on your roof, throw a barbecue on your lawn when they're being installed. Invite your neighbors to see your utility bill once they are.

So I'm an advice columnist, but really, I'm in the business of culture change. You could say I'm an entrepreneur of norms, which might be true, but I'm also giving other people to be one too. Because at the end of the day, none of us are spectators in this, and you are the most persuasive argument.

So, thank you so much for listening. I'm The Post's climate coach.

[Applause]

MR. COREN: And I'm going to leave you with this awesome video.

[Laughter]

MR. COREN: But for those in the audience, we're going to take a short break. My colleague Brady Dennis and Maryland's Governor Wes Moore will be interviewing at 11:00 a.m. And then we'll be stopping by the coffee station and Washington Post's Hannah Good and a live illustration comic artist doing a live illustration. And then join me after the programming. I'll be outside the door with a number of other Post journalists and we look forward to talking to you. So stay with us.

[Applause]

[Brief Break]

[Video plays]

Governing Green

MR. DENNIS: Hello, everyone. I'm Brady Dennis, a national environmental reporter for The Washington Post and we're pleased to be joined today by Maryland Governor Wes Moore.

Governor Moore, welcome to The Post.

GOV. MOORE: Thank you so much. Thank you.

MR. DENNIS: Obviously, a lot of climate-related questions we hope to get to you with today. But first, you were on Capitol Hill earlier this week, I understand, and back again, today, with lawmakers to make the case for federal support to replace the collapsed bridge in Baltimore.

I wanted to see, have you found a receptive audience on the Hill, and are you confident that Congress is going to come through with the amount that's needed to support these recovery efforts?

GOV. MOORE: We--and first, it's great to be with everybody and great to see you, and thank you.

We have found a receptive audience, because I think people realize that what happened two weeks ago in Baltimore is not just about Baltimore, and it's not just about Maryland.

This is the largest strike to maritime operations that our country has seen. You know, we've watched bridge collapses; we've watched ships being stuck in channels. We've never seen both. We have a vessel that is the size of the Eiffel Tower and that's the weight of the Washington Monument that is now stuck inside of the Patapsco River, with one of the most iconic bridges in Maryland sitting on top of it, where we have tens of thousands of tons of steel that is either now sitting on top of the vessel or sitting at the bottom of the river.

And so, I think we're watching a reception on Capitol Hill where people understand that rebuilding this bridge, reopening this port, this is not just because it's important to Maryland. This is important to our nation's economy. This is the largest port in the country for everything from new cars and agricultural equipment and heavy trucks and spices and sugars and roll-on/roll-off. So, we've got to get this up and going.

And so, I think we are going to see a bipartisan support for it. And ironically, when I was here on Capitol Hill before, I was there with my entire congressional delegation, Democrats and Republicans. So, I was there standing with Andy Harris from the First District and Jamie Raskin from the Eighth District. Hardly ever do I get a chance to stand with both those [unclear] together, but both--all of us locked in, arm in arm, saying that this is a national priority that we get this done.

MR. DENNIS: To that point, there have been predictions that this could well und up as the most expensive maritime disaster in history. Can you just briefly talk about the current state of the clean-up efforts and when do you expect the port to reopen. What are some of the hardest challenges that remain, ahead?

GOV. MOORE: You know, the thing that we know is that the impact that we're seeing of this bridge is staggering and the impact of the port. The Port of Baltimore is responsible for about $70 billion of economic activity--$70 billion not to Maryland's economy, but to our nation's economy.

And so, I remember that first morning when I first got to the docks and was able to see it. It literally took my breath away. I've never seen the Baltimore skyline without that bridge and to look up and see it gone, it's a moment I'm never going to forget.

And but, if someone would have said to me at that point, but listen, Governor, in two weeks from now, we're going to have two channels open, pulling upwards of about a 14-foot draft so you're able to get certain commercial ships--you know, we've had about 59 commercial ships now that have been able to move in through the Port of Baltimore through these limited-access challenges. That we would have already started the process of removing a lot of the wreckage. I mean, you see here some of the wreckage here. You know, we just pulled up a wreckage--a slab of the steel that is about a 350-ton slab, which, by the way, just in context, that is a little over the weight of the Statue of Liberty. That's what they're pulling up out of the water right now, these remarkable workers who are literally working around the clock. That we know that we have divers, dozens of divers, that are still in the water right now, doing everything from setting up and preparing for the pullouts of steel to be able to look for the still three unaccounted-for souls. Because I am fully committed, we are going to bring closure to these families and we're going to get them the closure that they need.

[Applause]

GOV. MOORE: But going back to when we think about the timeline, you know, the Army Corps of Engineers have put together something that is an aggressive timeline of saying that, by the end of this month, that we should have a draft, a channel that will be 280 feet wide, a draft of about 35 feet. The reason that is important is a 35-foot draft, a 35-foot pole, that's about the time you start getting ships big enough for things like the new cars and some of the heavy machinery. And then, by the end of May, we should have the port fully up and operational again, which is extraordinary when you consider the level of damage but that by the end of May, we should have the port going again.

and so, I just give my love, admiration, and credit to these first responders: to the Coast Guard, to the Navy SUPSALV, to the Army Corps of Engineers, to our state workers, to these Maryland State Police divers that are literally, as we're speaking, they're in the water right now. The heroism of these men and women, it cannot be overstated.

MR. DENNIS: I mean, there's obviously the human tragedy to this. There's economic questions that remain. as an environmental reporter, my mind, in seeing those images, went to the environmental--

GOV. MOORE: Absolutely.

MR. DENNIS: --impact and what that could be. And I wonder if you may talk about that for a moment, what we know thus far about any hazardous materials that may have been on board that ship and the potential for pollution in the waterway there, and what you don't know, what you're still worried about, from an environmental perspective.

GOV. MOORE: So, one of the things that we did immediately, and I want to give a shout out to our Secretary of the Environment, Serena McIlwain, who I know is here somewhere, who, you know, when we talk about from the earliest moments in the morning, our entire cabinet was up. Everybody was up moving and working and figuring out what they could do to support or how would this impact their work.

And Secretary McIlwain we saw immediately how this could potentially impact her work because there were 4,000 vessels on top of the Dali. First of all, that shows how big that vessel is. There were 4,000 of these containers. And by the way, the average container, when it's empty, is about one-and-a-half tons. There were 4,000 on the Dali, and immediately had to do an assessment and do an inventory of what was actually on the Dali, how it was impacted, because there were certain containers that you kind of see in those images, but you really see when you get up close, there are containers that, again, weigh a ton-and-a-half that literally are chopped in half like they were paper mâché.

And so, we found out that, of the 4,000 containers that were sitting on the Dali, about 57 had contents that would be considered hazmat content. And so, when we considered hazmat, it's looking at things like household cleaning items, perfumes, things along those lines, things that, frankly, when you look at them from an individual basis, would not be considered hazmat. But if you look at a combination, they then get classified in a hazmat category.

So, immediately, the work went out by the Department of Environment, by our Department of Emergency Management to put out boom around the area so we can get an assessment as to what was actually coming in the water. Still currently to this point I think we have over 3,200 feet of boom that's surrounding the ship. And so, we're able to actually take sample assessments both up river and down river. And from all the sample assessments that we have now taken, now going on for two straight weeks, there has been nothing, no form of contaminant and there's been no threat to the people of the area, to the people of that region, or to the people in the water.

MR. DENNIS: Fisheries.

GOV. MOORE: Fisheries. And so, we've been very, very grateful that God blessed us in that way that something that was a catastrophic day, that the environmental concern was not something that then also had to play into how we're talking about the recovery.

MR. DENNIS: When you took office, switching gears here a little bit, you laid out a quite-ambitious climate agenda for your state, including that Maryland will generate 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy by 2035.

Governing as I'm sure you've been very well aware, is just a set of competing priorities. Crises crop up that you don't plan for. Have things such as the bridge collapse and other things pulling you in different directions--does that impact your ability to get to where you think the state should go on climate action, and why or why not?

GOV. MOORE: No.

[Laughter]

GOV. MOORE: This is a priority. Like, if you care about the long-term health of our state, this is not something that was a "would be nice to do." Like, this is an existential crisis we're dealing with, here. And we--and from a governance perspective, we've got to make sure that we can learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time. We've got to make sure that, yes, we will deal with the immediacy of a crisis like this. And we laid out four very clear directives when we said, we've got to bring comfort and support to the families; we've got to make sure we get the channels reopened; we've got to make sure we're taking care of those who have been directly impacted; and we've got to make sure we've got to get the bridge rebuilt.

We are going to do all four of those things, and we're not going to compromise from that. But at the same time, things like having an aggressive climate plan is not going to fall to a wayside, because if you care about the long-term future--and not just the long-term future, but also the long-term economic future of our state this is going to matter.

And so, the first thing we had to do was--you know, first, you've got to make sure you have the right team on board. And I am so grateful for the--I will put the environmental and the climate change team that we have in Maryland against anyone in the country. I mean, these are hard chargers, and I love that. But I also know that we have to make sure that we're putting the right legal and policy pieces in place and also putting the right budgetary pieces in place, and then setting out what are those benchmarks that we're looking for.

So, for example, when we first came on board, we talked about the importance of offshore wind, as an example, where, in our first months, we said--we actually came in and quadrupled the goal that we have for offshore wind. Maryland now has a goal of 8.5 gigawatts of offshore wind, which will be enough to power 3 million homes, of Maryland homes, alone in that, and turn us into a net exporter of clean energy, and not just a net importer.

But we also met--we had to invest in the infrastructure to make those things happen. When we talked about things like, how are we moving towards a future for electric vehicles, incentivizing electric vehicles, it also meant we had to invest in the electrification of the grid, because you cannot have--you can't provide incentives for these new vehicles that come on board, incentives to these car makers to have those things, but you don't have an infrastructure that's prepared for that kind--for that level of growth.

That we said we are going to invest in things like, you know, sea walls. Because I love our state, but I also know our state--70 percent of our state is either water-lined or waterlocked. And so, when you have rising sea levels, we have to do a better job of having a secure and fortified infrastructure that's prepared for that. So, things like rising sea walls; being able to focus on tree planting to address the issue of extreme and extreme heat islands.

So, we had a very aggressive all-of-the-above approach when it came to the way we're addressing climate. That approach is not going to change. Being able to focus on environmental justice is not going to change. And we have to be able to deal with the crises of the day and still keep our north star focused on, let's not forget what this moment requires and let's not forget why we're in the seats in the first place.

MR. DENNIS: I'm glad you brought up environmental justice, because in looking back at what you've said about climate change over time, you've said again and again that climate justice is economic justice.

GOV. MOORE: Absolutely.

MR. DENNIS: And you proposed that, I believe, 50 percent of investments in green projects in your state will go to historically unseen or underestimated communities.

GOV. MOORE: Correct.

MR. DENNIS: I think we have a question from our audience speaks really well to that--I mean, my question would be, how do you ensure that that funding goes to those communities. But I want to give a question here to an audience member, Ellen Bomsang, which I hope I'm pronouncing correctly, who is from Maryland, who says:

"Maryland's climate is changing, with more frequent extreme weather events. Women, the youth, and people with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations suffer the impacts of climate change disproportionately. How is your administration working to ensure that state-level climate programming and budgeting take into account the needs of these populations?"

GOV. MOORE: I love that question, Ellen. Thank you. Well, the thing that we know is that it doesn't show itself equally, right? People that live--you know, oftentimes, it's people that live in disadvantaged communities, people live in communities that have historically been left behind, communities of color, these are the communities that oftentimes get hit the hardest. I remember I was having--we had a gathering during the campaign and it was in Baltimore, and I made the main focus of it on our climate policies. And I remember someone came up to me afterwards and they're like, listen, you know, it's like I came because someone told me that I should come hear you speak. And he said, but I got to tell you, I appreciate what you said, but you didn't really speak to me and you didn't speak to my issues.

And I was like, you know, what are your issues? And he's like, I really care about economics and it's not--I felt like you talked a lot about the environment. That's not really my issue. And I remember saying to him, Baltimore is the seventh-hottest heat island in this country. Why do you think that is? When you look at--the children of Baltimore are growing up with double the asthma rate of anyone else in the State of Maryland. That's not because our children in Baltimore, that when they're born their lungs are just inherently weaker. There's a problem in the way that we're dealing with environmental injustice in our society. And what I told him that not only do we have--you have to understand that health is--you talk about the economy, that health is wealth, that if you don't have health, you're not going to be able to achieve wealth.

But in addition to that, there is going to be a larger revolution that is taking place right now. And the green revolution is not just green when it comes to climate. The green revolution is green when it comes to finances. And we are going to be intentional in making sure that that revolution impacts communities, particularly communities that have been left out of these conversations before. It's the reason why in this year's budget we ended up putting together a historic $90 million package and primarily focused on disadvantaged communities, and did it with a clear throat and with a full chest, and saying that we were going to put that capital towards things like the electrification of buses in communities that do not have mass transit options; that we were going to put that towards things like lead and making sure we're removing these types of toxins from both the homes and the schools that our individuals are living in and that our children are going to school in.

And we have to be able to take that kind of approach is because the way environmental injustice shows itself is not fair nor equal. And so, we have to be intentional and deliberate about the way we're putting together our resources and our attention when it comes to issues of the environment, as well.

MR. DENNIS: And just briefly, do you think you have more of an ability to direct that funding on a state level than maybe the federal government has in sending it out to the states? I think that's been a question with President Biden's 40 percent environmental justice communities--like, can the government ensure that it gets to where it's most needed?

GOV. MOORE: Yeah, you know, it's complex in a way because I--we could not do what it is that we're doing if it were not for the Biden administration, I mean, period, full stop.

I mean, what we have and what we are putting together right now, whether everything from how we're looking at solar and wind technologies, how we're looking at both onshore and offshore, how we're looking at the electrification of the grid, that does not happen without the IRA, right? It just doesn't happen unless you have a federal partner that's not just willing to put a focus but willing to resources into those things.

And I love--one of the things I love about it personally is the amount of flexibility that it does give to the states to be able to be creative, to be able to be thoughtful, to be able to do pinpoint investments, because I'm just being honest, no one knows Maryland like I do, right? Nobody in Washington knows Maryland like my team does. Nobody knows Maryland the way that our community groups do. So, I love the fact that the federal government said, we can help provide the scope; we can help provide the air cover; we can help provide the capital, but leave it to the people on the ground, because they understand best what's going on, the same way I--for me to make an environmental policy about Oregon would be very--I don't know Oregon that well, right?

Now, I do know it does matter, then, to have chief executives and people on the ground that care about these issues, and I do know that that has been a challenge that not every jurisdiction seems to put the same level of focus on the kind of things--but I do love the fact that the IRA is built in a way and the Biden administration has taken the approach of actually empowering locals to be able to make the kinds of decisions that I think are going to be most impactful in the localized jurisdictions.

MR. DENNIS: So, I do want to come back before we run out of time, here, to the bridge collapse and what's front-and-center this week for you. And as your state recovers and tries to rebuild from this economically, on a human front, and all those angles, is there a model or historical example that you look toward to inform where the state goes from here? Is there no precedent that you can think of? Like, how do you think about this and what comes next?

GOV. MOORE: You know, I think in terms of the way I think the partnership with the federal government can work, a very interesting example for me is actually Minnesota. And if you look in 2007, they had a bridge collapse in Minnesota; it was the bridge over I-35 West. And in that catastrophe, I think they lost 12 lives and immediately cut off commerce and capital.

The reason that I look at that as an example is I think about what the response was, where you had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate turn around quickly and pass legislation and then present it to the desk of a Republican president who signed it and made it into the law. I love the fact that we have a precedent of people putting politics to the side in times of crisis, that there's a precedent of remembering who this is impacting.

And the thing that--I'll be back on Capitol Hill today, and the ask that I have for the people who I will be meeting with--because I'm meeting with both Democrats and Republicans, and my ask for them is this: Come to Maryland. Let me show you around. Let me take you on one of our DNR boats or one of those Coast Guard cutters and bring you close to see exactly what this damage is.

Let's go spend some time with the tens of thousands of workers who are now out of work. Let's go spend some time with the 36,000-plus people every day who relied on that bridge to get from where they live to where they worked; to where they live to go to school; to where they live to where their house of worship was. let's go spend some time with the people in that community. Let's go spend some time with the family members of those impacted. And so, there is a history of us putting the politics aside. There's a model of us putting the politics aside.

I think about in this most recent legislative session that we just completed earlier this week, we introduced 16 bills, our administration did. Not only did we go 16 for 16 on all the bills we introduced, we went 16 for 16 with bipartisan support on every single bill that we put forward. In Maryland, we know partnership; in Maryland, we know how to work together; in Maryland--and I'm hoping that there's a larger model that the country can see that partnership produces progress. And if we actually choose to move together on this stuff, we can actually get some pretty big things done.

MR. DENNIS: Okay. Well, that was a vitally important conversation and one I think we all wish could last longer. Lots of questions on the table, but unfortunately, we are out of time today. Governor Wes Moore, thank you for joining us.

GOV. MOORE: It's a pleasure. Thank you.

MR. DENNIS: And please stay with us. My colleague, Shannon Osaka, will be out with us shortly with a group of entrepreneurs to discuss the role of innovation and technology in the fight against climate change.

A Golden Age of Innovation

MS. OSAKA: Hi, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Shannon Osaka. I'm the climate zeitgeist reporter at The Washington Post, and today I'm so excited to be joined by this panel of innovators and entrepreneurs to explain kind of the moment that we're at in terms of emerging climate technology.

So we have Dr. Jennifer Holmgren, the CEO of LanzaTech; Matt Rogers, the co-founder and CEO of Mill; and Dr. Leah Ellis, the co-founder and CEO of Sublime Systems. Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us.

So I want to start by asking each of you to briefly explain your company's technologies. And, Jennifer, I want to start with you. You are the author or co-author of 50 U.S. patents. You have more than 30 scientific publications and a PhD in chemistry. So I'm very excited to hear your explanation here. Can you talk about the process of recycling carbon that LanzaTech is doing, and what are some of the uses that are available now?

DR. HOLMGREN: So what LanzaTech does is makes beer. We take waste carbon emissions like CO2, and we have a bacteria that eats them and converts them to ethanol. So it's basically like making beer, except that instead of using sugar, we use gases. So we've developed the technology to do gas fermentation.

What you're seeing there are pictures of our gas fermentation refinery in Belgium at the ArcelorMittal steel mill. We take gas from that steel mill that would normally go out as CO2. We convert it to ethanol. Now, the world does not need that much ethanol because ethanol--I mean, we're going to EVs, right? However, ethanol can be converted to ethylene. Ethylene can be converted to sustainable aviation fuel. Ethylene is the largest commodity chemical we use in the petrochemical industry today. Most of the things you use and have in your home come from ethylene. Polyester, the polyester in these pants, these H&M Move pants, was going to be a greenhouse gas in a plant in China, and instead of being CO2 and particulate emissions, it's polyester.

We've made running shoes. We've made all sorts of things from waste.

MS. OSAKA: Awesome. And we've all heard a lot about carbon capture and storage and thinking about that moving of CO2. Can you talk about just the decision here between carbon capture and storage versus this more recycling utilization plan?

DR. HOLMGREN: Well, first of all, we need it all. I am sure you would agree. We need sequestration. We need to take carbon either out of the air or out of a flue and put it in the ground. However, unless we use carbon, waste carbon, we are always going to be condemned to having a fossil economy. It's that simple. Everything we use comes from fossil carbon, and so the only way out of that is to use carbon that's already above ground. And that's been our focus. We believe there's enough carbon above ground, whether it's locked in trash, biomass, or in industrial waste, and we can turn that into everything. There's enough carbon above ground to make everything we need.

MS. OSAKA: And, Matt, I want to continue with you on this theme of kind of changing outputs into inputs, because that's part of what you're doing but in a very consumer-focused way. Can you talk us through what your solution is for food waste?

MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So I've been making consumer products for most of my life. I've made things like the iPod, the iPhone, and Nest, and I didn't know how bad the food waste problem was. Food waste is like 10 percent of our emissions. We spend like 2 percent of GDP on food waste, which is like a mind-blowing stat, 2 percent of GDP on food waste. So of all the things we have to solve, this feels like the easiest and dumbest climate problem we have. Can we just keep food out of trash? So that's what we're doing. We're making it really easy to recycle food at home, where most food waste comes from.

So we made this really cool new kitchen bin. It's an appliance you use in your kitchen every day. It's beautiful. It's easy to use. You put all the food you don't eat in it, and it dries and grinds the food into what looks like coffee grounds but actually is dehydrated food. It's super nutrient-rich. It's a resource that then we get back to farms to feed soil, feed animals, or you can use in your garden to grow more crops.

MS. OSAKA: And I think that some companies have tried this type of approach before and have struggled in terms of just the economics, getting it to scale. Can you talk to us a bit about the challenges there and how you see a path forward?

MR. ROGERS: The key actually is--with food recycling, is getting the water out, and what's made it challenging for large-scale municipal composting today is running those trucks to our homes every week, because food gets pretty gross. If anyone's tried composting at home, they've probably dealt with the fruit flies and the icky, drippy bags. So we've tried to make this as easy as possible. By taking the water out, it also means we don't need to come pick it up every week. And because this stuff is dry, it takes weeks to fill up. So instead of picking up the trash every week, we're coming maybe once a month to come pick it up. So it's a totally different economic structure. Makes things much cheaper.

And also, this stuff is a resource. As opposed to today, where we pay money as a society to dump things in a landfill, this is a resource that actually is valuable for farmers.

MS. OSAKA: And, Leah, in previous interviews, you had this very interesting quote, which you said that what Sublime is developing is kind of like the electric vehicle of cement. Talk to us about what that means and build up that analogy.

DR. ELLIS: Yeah. So today's cement is made in massive fossil-fueled kilns, so very high temperatures. It releases tons of CO2. So for each ton of today's Portland cement results in one ton of CO2 emissions, and this adds up to 8 percent of global CO2 emissions, because cement is the biggest man-made industry in the world. We use almost 4 billion tons of cement.

So Sublime Systems is trying to fix this problem by reinventing the process by which we make cement. So replacing the high temperature, the fossil fuels, and the combustion with an ambient temperature, electrochemical approach for breaking down minerals to make, ultimately, the same reactive cement. So it's by avoiding combustion and fossil fuels, you can actually get a more efficient and energy-efficient path. And this is important because our energy consumption is growing, and we're deploying renewables even more fast than ever before, but we're still not making a dent. And so we have to do things in a more energy-efficient way and in a smarter way as we continue to evolve.

MS. OSAKA: And you talked in the video about just how much building we're going to be doing in the coming 30 years. We're building a whole renewable energy economy. We're also developing. Many countries are developing. I mean, how important is it that we get this green cement to scale, and how fast can we do that?

DR. ELLIS: Yeah. There's a window of opportunity here where we have to move really quickly, because, of course, we need to get to net zero to mitigate the worst of climate change. But we've also got a growing and urbanizing population, and we have to build homes. I mean, cement, just like fossil fuels, is not something you can go cold turkey on. You can't replace it with other things right away, and so you really have to reinvent the process. And we also have a window of time right now where there will be many greenfield cement plants built in India, in Africa, in the developing world, and also here in the U.S. Our cement-making infrastructure has an average age of over 50 years old. So we have to move really quickly to deploy innovations to prevent 50 to 100 years of emissions, because these big capital-heavy assets are meant to last a very long time.

MS. OSAKA: I want to stay on this topic of scale-up for a little bit, and, you know, both Jennifer and Leah, I mean, you have both received funding from DOE. Climate tech is very capital-intensive. I mean, that's one of the challenges that we're facing with deployment is all of the capital that we have to put in up front in order to get these results down the line. What is the role of government assistance in this space and those government awards, and what is the balance there between public and private funding? Jennifer, let's start with you.

DR. HOLMGREN: Sure. Yeah. We call it crossing the valley of death, building demos and then building commercial plants. And the first of a kind is--by the time you risk-adjust it, it's usually too expensive to purchase, and that's why loan guarantees and grants for the government help.

What you're referring to, Shannon, is we just got a grant to take CO2 emissions and convert them to ethylene at a petrochemical complex with our partner, Technip. It's $200 million, and that's 50 percent of the cost. So the government helps you by giving you a grant that pays for half of the plant. Then all of a sudden, you're able to either get a loan for the other half or you're able to raise cash for it because the economics get so much better.

The problem is we're still focused on IRRs. We're still focused on how you get returns, and a first plant that costs, you know, half a billion dollars, which is what these are--they're refineries, right?--you know, you need to still compete with others who are building infrastructure, right? And an infrastructure fund needs the IRR to be right.

So this partnership between government and private allows you to make the economics to drive the private investment.

MS. OSAKA: And, Leah, how do you see this journey through the valley of death and coming out on the other side? DR. ELLIS: Yeah. I think to build on what Jennifer just said, like, this is so important to have funding from the government for industrial hard tech sectors, because what Jennifer and I are doing is at massive scale. So you may have something that works at pilot scale, like our process for making cement, 250 tons a year. It works continuously. We've been doing it all year. But we have to get to a million ton per year if we want to compete on cost and if we also want to have an impact at scale.

So I like to say there's the awkward teenage years of innovation where, you know, you're a startup, you're cute, everything you do is wonderful, it's impossible to make mistakes. And then, you know, there's adulthood of a company where you're making money and you're useful. But then Sublime Systems is at the awkward teenage years where, you know, your technology is very expensive, and it's no longer cute and it's not yet useful, and venture capitalists don't know what to do with this because they're used to making big bucks on software, which take, you know, three years. You're writing code. You're just paying for laptops. And this is a totally different ballgame. So you need to be patient. You need to be slow. You can't mess up. You cannot mess up a big plant like the one that Jennifer did. It's not like software where you, like, delete a semicolon and then it works, you know? Like, so there really has to be this catalytic funding.

And it's the role of government to make sure that we're making the right long-term choices. So the invisible hand of capitalism makes great short-term choices, like optimizing on a quarter-by-quarter basis. But, you know, the consequences of climate change are for the next generation. So McKinsey and Bloomberg have calculated that we need trillions to mitigate the worst of climate change through technology and adaptation, but there's quadrillions you have to spend if you blow past that. And it's really the government's job to keep this train on the rails.

MR. ROGERS: Jen, if I could jump in? Like, we've actually seen this work before. The story of solar over the last 30 years and the success we've had with driving the cost of renewables down exists because of the government. Rewinding the clock back 20 years, there were similar conversations of, oh, like, renewables will never be at cost parity. And that was the entire point of SunShot and all the government stimulus and matching dollars that eventually drove IRRs to where they need to be, where now solar is scaling, and you don't need as much government support.

MS. OSAKA: Right. I wanted to also turn to you, Matt, because you've sort of straddled the sort of software world and the more physical object tangible world, and I'm curious, like, what are the differences in terms of dealing with waste versus when you're dealing with software?

MR. ROGERS: Oh, I mean, like, it's all a human problem. At the end of the day, like, it's really about behavior change, and one of the lessons I learned back in my days at Apple and that we took with us to Nest is that actually you could change people's behavior and get people to do the right thing if you make it really easy. And it's one of the things that technology industry has done really well over the decades. Like, everyone's addicted to their smartphones, unfortunately. But what if we could use that technology and design for good? And that's what we did at Nest. We made a really addictive product. You would turn the dial and look for the green leaf, and people would save energy. And I think--you know, I've been out of Nest many years now, but probably at the point now it's at 150 billion kilowatt hours saved. That's like planetary-scale energy savings, like enough to power the grid for the entire planet for a week.

MS. OSAKA: Amazing.

MR. ROGERS: Yep. Not too bad for a thermostat.

And, like, similarly, could we use that technology and design and behavior change for waste? Today the easiest thing to do in your kitchen is put that food waste down the sink or in the trash, and if we can make it easy, addictive, fun to do the right thing, people will actually do it.

MS. OSAKA: How are you thinking about the addictive part? Because when I think about putting trash in the trash can, I don't necessarily think of that as an addictive process.

MR. ROGERS: Oh, you got to make it fun and engaging, and one of the things I took from my days at Google is this thing called the toothbrush test. Like, great products that are kind of at the top of mind are things you use at least as much as a toothbrush, twice a day, at least. Everyone uses toothbrushes twice a day, right?

[Laughter]

MR. ROGERS: So what we're seeing with our mill bins at home is that people are stepping on the pedal and opening it up just to look and see what's happening inside. It feels like magic. All those--in my house, stews and things that we're putting in, you come in, you're looking at it the next morning, and it turned into coffee grounds. How is this possible? And that triggers something in our minds where we then want to tell our family, tell our friends, and get everyone involved.

MS. OSAKA: I'm curious for each of you, what do you see as the biggest non-technological hurdle in your work? You're all very smart scientists, et cetera, but what is it? Is it consumer adoption? Is it all of the infrastructural hurdles? What do you see as the main problem?

DR. HOLMGREN: Well, from my perspective, to be honest, we all like to say no. There is power in no. And when you're doing something new, it seems everybody wants to tell you what is wrong with it. It's not the perfect solution. It's not the unicorn flying through the sky. And so they'll tell you everything that's wrong, and nobody ever sits down and says, well, the problem is that what we're doing right now is wrong. What they want to tell you is what's wrong with your solution, and that prevents progress. That prevents movement in government, right?

Government is looking for safety nets, you know, fall in love with an idea like hydrogen, but what about all the singles that get you to that home run? And because everybody's looking at the bad things, we focus on the long-term things, the magical solution, and so we make no progress on the things that take effort and time. And so really, we have to say yes. Yes, okay, this isn't the perfect solution. But then again, our alternative is using fossil carbon for the rest of our time on earth.

And so we have to get to the power of yes, not the power of no. We have to prevent the noes. And so the only thing that I would say is to all of you, every single person in this room can be an ally to people developing new technology. When you're developing new technology, we need the allies who will help you say yes, who will help you get to the yes. That's what we need.

MS. OSAKA: Overcoming that status quo bias that we are all--

DR. HOLMGREN: Yeah.

MS. OSAKA: --afflicted by.

MR. ROGERS: Yeah. Similarly, I think changing incumbent industries that have been around for 200 years is challenging, and in our space, waste is a local issue. So there's action at the federal government to move things forward, but actually, waste is a city-by-city, town-by-town issue. And that is a long journey to then go and change every town and every city's municipal infrastructure and then do that across the globe, but that's what we have to do. I mean, there are just not a lot of 10 percent climate problems out there. So I mean, it's worth putting the time and effort to do it.

DR. HOLMGREN: Yeah.

MS. OSAKA: And, Leah, what about for you? DR. ELLIS: Yeah. I mean, of course, time and money are the obvious hurdles. I'd say that it's difficult to compete on cost on day one when you are competing with industries that have had 200 years of optimization, and so it goes back to this awkward teenage point. I think you really need a village to get through that point, and you need people to say I want this when it's ready and people to sign up for it. Otherwise, the venture capitalists--and, you know, they need to see that there is a future for this, that people care. And sometimes it's not even so much putting your money down as saying I want this.

And I imagine a lot of people here own concrete or build homes or do renovations, and you would be surprised, like, how much it matters when you just ask the question. Is there a low carbon way of doing this? Because that gets heard, and those voices get amplified, and I think everybody here owns cement, whether they think they do or not.

So public procurement in the U.S. is responsible for 60 percent of cement consumption. So if the public sector and the public doesn't realize that this is important, realize that this is a huge lever, 8 percent of global CO2 emissions--and cement is one of the cheapest materials out there. It's 150 bucks a ton, approximately one ton of CO2 per ton of cement. So just think of the impact in terms of dollars per ton of CO2 emissions.

So just ask, and I think everybody should know cement is one of those things that's so invisible. And I think making it visible is part of my challenge, because nobody thinks about cement. There's been no cement innovation. My background is in lithium-ion batteries. Everybody knows that, because they've experienced that innovation over the past 20 years. So part of the challenge is bringing the invisible and making it visible. Like, CO2 is invisible, and so we can't see it. But, you know, Jennifer just made a pair of pants out of CO2. That's amazing.

[Laughter]

MR. ROGERS: It's not sexy, but a lot of the work we have to do on climate change is these kind of overlooked and unsexy things. There's not a lot of glory in trash or cement, but we have to do this work. It's really important. DR. ELLIS: I don't know. People call this unsexy, but I think it is.

DR. HOLMGREN: It is.

MS. OSAKA: It is really fricking cool. We're all sexy on the stage.

[Laughter]

DR. HOLMGREN: Yeah, yeah. Okay, there you go.

But actually, you know, that visibility is important, and this is actually why we use products, right? Everybody knows that fossils are used for making power and for making chemicals and fuels. Nobody knows that all of the materials we use are coming from fossil carbon, and so raising visibility to where does my stuff come from, we call this carbon smart, carbon-smart consumer, a consumer who knows where the carbon in their product comes from. And ask.

MS. OSAKA: Yeah. And now you're getting into part of my job, which is how to make these unsexy things more interesting, more narratively compelling.

One of the things we're sort of dancing around is the question of the green premium and how sustainable technologies are costing more, whether it's in the form of cement, maybe whether it's in the form of, you know, your home wastebasket. I mean, can you talk about how we can get over that hurdle, get through that awkward teenage stage, and to the point where those premiums are lower?

MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it's all about achieving scale. So like you got to start somewhere, and my experience has always been you always can start premium. And it's hard to go up. It's easy to go down. So finding the tastemakers for your industry--and in our case, the folks who are willing to pay a little bit extra to have a better experience in their kitchen, to not have fruit flies in their kitchen and not to take out the trash every day, like, there are people out there that will do that. Then get the flywheel spinning so that we can get to where we are now with EVs and solar.

Again, like, I was an early adopter of EVs years ago, and buying a Tesla Roadster for $125,000 felt crazy at the time, but now you can get an EV for $30,000. And at the time, we thought that would be impossible. But with those early tastemakers and early adopters, with government subsidies, you eventually start getting the flywheel going at the scale.

MS. OSAKA: Yeah. Jennifer, how do you think about that in terms of the premium?

DR. HOLMGREN: Exactly the same way. The more you build, the cheaper each unit gets, right? The first unit has a lot of belts and suspenders, more expensive, but it goes down in size. It goes down in cost. The more you build, the cheaper it gets, the more you build.

But you have to also be very grateful to the Roadster guy, to the early adopters, right, because they're the ones that buy it at the premium initially and then are able to drive it down.

But you also have to remember that the polyester in this is not what drives the cost, and so we're able to work with partners, early adopters like H&M, who say I'll absorb the cost to help you get to scale.

MR. ROGERS: Yeah. Similarly, with a green premium, I mean, cement is a fraction of the total installed cost of concrete, which is 80 percent labor. And then concrete is a very small part of the cost of a building, which is mostly HVAC and windows. So when you roll it up and you look at the product that you buy, the premium can sometimes be very small for the impact that you're making.

And then in a macroeconomic level, there's--you know, getting to scale, of course, often erases the premium, and so you can do that the way the U.S. government is doing by subsidizing the demo stage of these most promising innovations like Sublime, like LanzaTech, and making sure these first commercial modules are fully validated, so then you can explode to full scale once that's done.

The other way is the way Europe is doing it, where they're putting a price on carbon, and many corporations are doing this too. And they're not just doing it because they're altruistic. They want to de-risk their supply chain. They've seen this. Like, you know, you know, in Europe, they want to make sure that they're pricing in these negative externalities before they get surprised.

And then the other thing about the green premium and going back to what Jennifer said is you can often surprise yourself by saying, like, what if? So, you know, I’m a lithium-ion battery chemist. And, you know, at the--when I started, got into this, we never thought that lithium-ion batteries could be below $100 a kilowatt hour. And I don’t think that was driven down by subsidies. That was just Elon being, like, bring this back cheaper, like make it--you know, squeezing it down and asking people for the impossible. I think oftentimes there is a way when you when you set yourself an unrealistic goal and then just push because you know it’s urgent and important. You will find a way.

MS. OSAKA: Thank you. And this has been a wonderful conversation. Jennifer, Matt, Leah, thank you all so much for joining us.

[Applause]

MS. OSAKA: And thanks to all of you for joining and for watching. The program will continue shortly, so please stay with us.

[Video plays]

Innovating for Impact

MS. CLARKE: I'm Torie Clarke, head of--new head of Public Affairs for 3M, and I'm thrilled to be here.

I hate following panels like that, because they were so smart, and it was so interesting. And we're back in the green room, coming up with 50 other questions. But I've got a pop quiz for you all. How many of you attend 10, 15 conferences in a year? Hands up.

[Show of hands]

MS. CLARKE: Used to? Smart man.

And you look at the agenda, and you come in, and you're going, "Okay. That speaker looks interesting. I'm really interested in that. Maybe not that one as much. Maybe that's when I'll go get coffee," and then you see what I call the excess speaker. I'm an excess speaker.

[Laughter]

MS. CLARKE: I promise to keep my excess very, very short, but--and I'll tell you why I'm at 3M and my ask of you today.

So I've had a lot of jobs. But many years ago, I wanted to be a vet. Loved animals, my father was a doctor. It made sense. I go off to college, and I took organic chemistry. How many in this room--somebody laughs.

[Laughter]

MS. CLARKE: Who's taken organic chemistry? How many people?

[Show of hands]

MS. CLARKE: I got a C-minus. It's like yeah. So I go off and do other things, a lot of jobs, public sector, private sector. Late last year, I get a call from this company, 3M, and I went, huh, I like Post-it Notes, which is--

[Laughter]

MS. CLARKE: I promise you, it is all I knew about 3M. Started to learn some things, and I thought, okay, like the people, like the products, like how they're trying to change the company. So I sign up, and about two weeks in, I went holy cow. I said this is about a lot more than Post-it Notes. It's about material science, and my chemistry background is not going to help me here.

So I'm drinking from the fire hose. I'm learning a lot. I know just enough to be dangerous. So I know we've got some phenomenal, phenomenal, brilliant people working hard on so many different products. I know we're making really, really good progress on areas that everybody in this room cares about in terms of how we operate as a company. Carbon, water, plastics. I know we make some fantastic products that are making the world a better place. Just a few. Again, I'm learning a lot. Don't hold me to the details. But we make these films that go into greenhouses, and they reduce the energy cost, the greenhouses, and increase the yield. Great stuff. We make technologies that make EV batteries safer and lasting longer, also a good thing.

My personal favorite might be what got me over the hump, made me go work for 3M, Cushion Lock. There's some outside there for you. It's free. Just say no to bubbles, people. I have three kids. I got 13, 14 nieces and nephews, and I ship and pack a lot. And there will never be bubbles in my house again, and I encourage you to take a look.

Now, here's the ask before I bring out two very, very smart people to tell you what's really going on. I'm learning a lot, and every week, I go, wow, I didn't know that about 3M. We're making progress. We've got a long, long way to go. But today, tomorrow, in the weeks, months ahead, reach out to us. Learn more about us. I think you'll be surprised and pleasantly surprised.

So let me bring out two brilliant people. Kathleen Koch, iconic award-winning journalist, who I've known for so long, I won't tell you, because we would embarrass ourselves. And I have to say, we got to know each other when we were five.

[Applause]

MS. CLARKE: And Gayle Schueller, who is one of my colleagues at 3M, she is brilliant. She is our chief sustainability officer. She is one of the reasons--she is the primary reason that 3M has made so much progress. And until you've spent a lot of time deep in the weeds with engineers and scientists, 3M hires--what is it?--40, 50 PhDs a year? I think that's about the number, a year. Until you have sat in a room and been on the receiving end of their brilliant minds, you don't know how hard it is to really move things forward. And we've made the progress we've made because of Gayle.

So I'm going to turn it over to the smart people, clean up anything that I screwed up, and thank you very much. Thanks, everybody.

[Applause]

MS. KOCH: Well, thank you, Torie. It's pretty cool to be introduced by someone who you used to quiz in the Pentagon briefing room. So it's good to see you again.

And, Gayle, it's great to see you again, because it's been about a year since you and I sat here to have this conversation about the difference that corporations like yours can make when it comes to climate change.

And you did a recent survey, which I think is really interesting. Just a couple months ago, 2024 State of Science Insights Survey found that 81 percent of people around the world said they think climate change is one of the biggest threats to humanity. So let's talk about the multi-pronged approach that 3M has really come up with to begin to tackle this issue.

DR. SCHUELLER: Yeah, thanks. And thanks, Torie, for the comments. There are actually 85,000 people around the world who contributed to 3M’s results, and another piece of that data from that survey was that 85 percent of the people responding from all around the world told us that they thought science was key to making a difference to addressing climate change.

So as a science-based company, which Torie nicely pointed out, we're really focused around science and everything we do in sustainability, whether it's science for circular, science for climate, or science for communities in what we're doing. There's so many things that can be done. That's why we focus our portfolio. We do things on our own footprint. We do things with our portfolio, and we use our technology platforms that are based on science to really make a difference, whether it's those greenhouse gas or those greenhouse films that Torie mentioned, that they started as things that you're probably all carrying right now in cell phones and monitors to make those energy efficient, the way they manage light. That same light technology is now used in different films that help improve the energy efficiency of greenhouses by dividing the light so that there's one spectrum of light that's helping the plants grow better and another segment of light that's helping drive solar energy to run them in the off time when the solar is not working.

It's also similar baseline technology to what we used to make the world's first self-powered communications headphones.

So yes, it can be solar outside, but even ambient light in the room can be used. So this is for our safety products that help workers all around the world.

Just one example, so science in so many different ways. I think that's the key, and we've heard great things so far this morning. I love Michael Coren's talk of S-curves, and there's a lot that can be done with science. And there's a lot of progress already being made. It's a matter of adopting and maybe talking with your neighbors about solar panels.

MS. KOCH: Well, let's dig into some details. When you look at these amazing solutions that you're coming up with, which ones do you think that 3M has created could have the greatest impact if you were able to really apply them around the world?

DR. SCHUELLER: Yeah, you know, John Podesta told us this morning that the largest piece of the United States greenhouse gas emission is the transportation industry. Closely linked to that is the electric grid. Both of these are really important areas for 3M to be contributing more. Whether it's about modernizing the electric grid--worldwide, that's usually what people point to first is the electric grid, especially as we electrify transportation--we see that we have solutions that help make it smarter using data science and artificial intelligence to detect signals and predict failure before it happens, ways to make them more resilient against various types of climate and weather issues and ways to help build renewable energy on the grid. So grid and electrification of the transportation industry, we heard a lot about that today.

MS. KOCH: I wanted to talk about the grid, though, a little bit--

DR. SCHUELLER: Okay.

MS. KOCH: --because there's a very cool thing you have come up with. Aluminum composite-reinforced, overhead transmission lines have twice the capacity of a typical steel line. So tell us about those and the difference those can make.

DR. SCHUELLER: Yeah. Well, they're huge, and in fact, they're having twice that capacity and a fraction of the weight, okay? So this means that when you're going into--I'll give you a couple of examples. You can keep the existing towers. So you're not disrupting the nature. You're not disrupting the communities. Now, that's inconvenient in most parts of the United States. In central Mumbai, that's people's lives, and so people have homes that are right at the base to power a tower. So when Mumbai wanted to increase the electrification in the city, because more and more people were getting electricity into their homes, they were able to use these--we've got to work on the name, maybe--the aluminum composite conductors, that because of being aluminum rather than conventional materials, they carry more, and they have lighter weight. So they were able to greatly add to the city's electrical capacity.

Another example would be in South America in the port where the transmission lines are going across the entrance to the port, and this is a major cargo port where the number of containers that a ship could carry was actually limited by how the transmission lines dipped. So now--in addition to being able to carry more, now the less weight means that they could add, actually, an additional carrier to--every initial carrier piece to every ship that's going in and out of that harbor. And so the impact of that is beyond the electrification. It's really in the efficiency of the transportation from ships.

So, I mean, we work on a lot of really different things that--I mean, I love that the folks before us, whether it's Sublime or LanzaTech, they were talking about they work on sexy things. These are really sexy things, you know? The way these things can change are pretty profound.

MS. KOCH: And those are the kind of organizations, companies, that you partner with, right?

DR. SCHUELLER: Collaboration--if you picked up things today, sustainability is fundamentally reliant on collaboration, because each of us brings our own expertise, whether it's profound expertise in working with large organizations like the Pentagon, or scientific expertise or the brilliant ideas that are coming from startups and new ways of looking at things.

In addition to some of the folks that--in natural pozzolans to help reduce the carbon footprint of concrete--or sorbent on a roll is a technology that we've brought forward. It uses our filtration technology. You may think of Filtrete or N95 respirators, oversimplification, but that same type of filtration technology can now be used in partnership with a small company, in this case, Svante, who we work with to help capture carbon dioxide out of the air, and then things like what the previous speakers were talking about from LanzaTech, they can do things with the carbon dioxide and the carbon that's already above the ground. You know, so the world is really changing.

And I love the concepts also discussed previously from Sublime about there are so many things that can be done. It's a matter of tapping into it and figuring out how to do things.

MS. KOCH: Well, you're also taking your science and your innovations, and you're applying them to yourself, to your own 3M carbon footprint, because you have a very ambitious goal. You hope to be carbon neutral by 2050. So talk about that. How's that going?

DR. SCHUELLER: Yeah. So I think there were some questions earlier about how do you know that companies are doing it, and how do you have confidence in that? We're very serious about our science. We have a lot of fun with it, but we're very serious about it. And we need to have the math and the path and that plan according to the time. When are the investments going to be made? What is the carbon impact? How do we go about doing this? So we require ourselves to do that, and it's been quite a successful approach.

Since 2019, we developed our latest math, path, and plan, and we've reduced our absolute emissions more than 43 percent. Now, we're not new at this. Since 2002, we've reduced our Scope 1 and Scope 2 absolute emissions more than 80 percent. We have big goals. There's a lot more to be done, but we have that math, path, and the plan identified to do that. It's about things that we do to identify how we make our products. What processes do we use? What raw materials do we use? What facilities do we use? How do we source the electricity?

We currently have more than 56 percent of all our global electricity comes from renewable energy, and we're working to raise that even more.

So there's multi-pronged approach, and this is just talking about carbon, because we're here talking about climate. But we do the same for water, for plastics, and for any other public goal that we put out there.

MS. KOCH: As you look at the progress that you have made and then you look at just around the world, in industry, at corporations in general, what gives you hope? Are you optimistic?

DR. SCHUELLER: Well, Kathleen and I talked in the break room. I am optimistic. Fundamentally, I'm a scientist. My parents were both schoolteachers. I'm a gardener. You know, people don't do these things if they're not optimistic.

And I think one of the things that has struck me is how the conversation has changed in the last decade or so. I've been to a number of the UN climate conferences and a number of conversations like this, and there's so much more to be done. But there's so many solutions out there, and you see people moving on it.

I love the S-curve that Michael Coren showed earlier today, showing how technologies get adopted. We can see those signals today, whether it's electric vehicles or renewable energy or so many things that we've seen examples of in the presentations. We're coming up those technology S-curves. There are tremendous challenges ahead, but we can see the ways to do it. And I love the point about it's all about people and how do you influence those that you know, because what people see becomes normal and becomes more comfortable.

MS. KOCH: I thought it was interesting in the last panel, Matt Rogers said you have to make it easy.

DR. SCHUELLER: Yes.

MS. KOCH: You and I were talking about that, about it's not that the technology isn't there. It's the will. Easy--

DR. SCHUELLER: It's the will and aspirational.

MS. KOCH: Yeah.

DR. SCHUELLER: I think he was also talking about the Tesla Roadster. I mean, you know, that became an aspirational vehicle, and then the Model S and then others from there to the point where now we're much more affordable. And every car maker, I think, around the world has some sort of offering in this space, and how that--I don't know how that would have been done if you didn't make it easy and aspirational. So I think those are the keys, and I think we're getting there. I really see so many examples.

MS. KOCH: So what do you think, as we leave here today--we, those making the change, like those at 3M, but people in the audience and our viewers at home. What do we need to remain focused on to reach the target that we need to?

DR. SCHUELLER: Yeah. I mean, I think we need to--so much of what we know is available to us. So I think we need to act with urgency. We need to base it on sound science. We need to understand what the trade-offs are. We need to collaborate together. And I think the thing that has maybe been missing in the last several years in some of the conversation is really about bringing people along. We talked about environmental justice. How do we make sure everyone is coming forward, and how do we win the hearts and minds of people to really want to make this change?

So I think there's a lot that we can be doing, and I'd ask you to join us.

MS. KOCH: Gayle Schueller, senior vice president and chief sustainability officer at 3M, thank you so much--

DR. SCHUELLER: Thank you so much.

MS. KOCH: --for this fascinating conversation.

DR. SCHUELLER: Thank you.

MS. KOCH: And if you would like to share your thoughts on this, feel free to tweet #PostLive.

Now, please stay put. Our friends at The Washington Post will be right back.

[Video plays]

Shaping New Narratives

MS. GIVHAN: Good afternoon, and I'm Robin Givhan, senior critic-at-large here at The Post. And today I'm joined by two young activists who are using animation, fashion, and their own stories to shape new narratives about climate change.

Quannah Chasinghorse is a land protector and model, and Maya Penn is an environmentalist, filmmaker, and founder of the fashion line, Maya's Ideas.

Thank you so much for being here.

[Applause and cheering]

MS. GIVHAN: So, Quannah, I thought I would start with you. You're a fourth generation, correct, land protector, and I'm hoping that you can, first of all, just sort of define what land protector means and perhaps how it differs from being an environmentalist and how that shapes your approach to climate change.

MS. CHASINGHORSE: Yeah. I feel like that's a really great way to start this conversation, because I feel like a lot of people are like, "What's the difference between an activist and a land protector?" And it's a little bit more complicated than a lot of people think, but it really waters down to the fact that a lot of Indigenous people contribute the least to a lot of these climate catastrophes, yet we, you know, are most affected by it--or like BIPOC communities are most affected by it. And to really just show up and, like, explain that our people are always at the forefront, our voices are always at the forefront. There's so many, I would say, not just, like, protests, but, you know, Standing Rock, for instance, like, there were so many land protectors there showing up, doing the work, putting their lives at risk for this work to defend our land and our ways of life and to really show the world that, like, what's happening in our communities is, like, detrimental, not just to us, but to everyone else. What happens in our communities will affect everyone else in their communities.

And, you know, for me, I can just be, like, oh, I'm an activist. But when I think about it, like, my ways of life are at risk. Like, back home in Alaska, we're facing so much climate catastrophes every single year. You know, the salmon are almost extinct. Our people are banned from fishing, and that's how we sustain our communities and are able to feed our families, because a lot of the stores in the villages, it's like $15 for a bag of chips. So a lot of our people don't have the money to pay for groceries like that, if a carton of milk is like $20 to $30. And so it's so important that we are able to sustain ourselves and live off the land continuously, because it's not affordable, and living out in the bush of Alaska is a hard way of life. But that's who we are as a people. That's what keeps us grounded and showing up and being able to voice our experiences, because our experiences are at the forefront. So it's not just like, oh, I'm passionate about this work and I see how it's affecting other people, but I see how it's affecting my family, myself, my mom's dog team, and my people.

And so I think that's just like--you know, a line that I walk where it's, like, you know, I can claim to be an activist, but at the end of the day, I'm a land protector, because it waters down to the importance of I'm protecting my own ways of life and my culture and my identity as an Indigenous person.

MS. GIVHAN: That's really powerful. Thank you for that.

Maya, you've talked a lot about how animation and art have always been your first loves, and you've been working--excuse me--on your animated directorial debut with a film called "Asali." Am I pronouncing that correct?

MS. PENN: Yes.

MS. GIVHAN: "Asali: Power of the Pollinators." And you've got some pretty powerful executive producers, Viola Davis and Julius Tennon. Can you talk a little bit about the story that you're wanting to tell through this film?

MS. PENN: Absolutely. Well, so I've been an environmentalist and I really focused on solutions-based work in the environmental and climate space since I was eight years old. So now being 24--well, this year, I'll be in this space for 16 years, and I've always been--

MS. GIVHAN: OG at this point.

MS. PENN: I am. I am an OG.

[Laughter]

MS. PENN: I'm a pathfinder in the Gen Z, like environmentalist space, right? Because I started at a time before the climate strike and, you know, when we started to really have a larger platform on a more mainstream scale. And the reason why I'm very passionate about utilizing multiple different mediums for environmental education as well as really reshaping the narrative of what climate media is, is because media and storytelling are absolutely critical to saving our planet, to not only educating people, because I feel like in many ways, we're past an awareness standpoint and now it's time to zero in more onto some of the more underserved areas within environmentalism and translate powerful storytelling into real-world, tangible action for people of all ages.

So being an animator, I've--animation is one of my favorite mediums of storytelling. It's very universal, and it's so flexible, and you can, you know, reshape someone's perspective on what's happening in reality while also creating a world that's, you know, imaginative and that can really expand your mind on what's possible, right?

So I started my own production company called Upenndo! Productions, and we are focused on job creation for next-gen artists, especially Gen Z and Black, brown, Indigenous, women, disabled, queer artists, et cetera, around the world. Even just on "Asali" alone, we are working with amazing--

MS. GIVHAN: Can I just interrupt for a quick second?

MS. PENN: Yes. Mm-hmm.

MS. GIVHAN: You mentioned "Asali" again. Can you tell us just specifically what that is about, just a little thumbnail?

MS. PENN: Yeah, absolutely. So "Asali" is an environmental action adventure. It is focused on--oh, there she is. "Asali" is an environmental action adventure. It is centered around the--

MS. GIVHAN: See how I did that?

[Laughter]

MS. PENN: It's centered around some of our most crucial creatures for our planet, pollinators, not only bees but a variety of pollinators. And, you know, they're so intrinsically linked to human life. Without them, we would really have a complete agricultural and ecological collapse.

So pollinators has always been something I've been really passionate about. I actually created this story. I showed it during my TED Women talk, one of my three TED talks that I gave when I was 13 years old. It was a concept at the time. That talk went viral worldwide. It was translated into over 100 different languages, and to this day, people ask me, when are you making, like, more "Asali"? Like, I showed this to my students, and they thought it was awesome, and they want to see more, right? And this is like a 30-second-long animation I made when I was 12.

And so now it's coming to life, showcasing the connection not only between pollinators, humans--there's an environmental scientist character in here voiced by Monique Coleman. There's a forest guardian voiced by Whoopi Goldberg, a number of, you know, various--kind of showing the interconnectedness.

MS. GIVHAN: I'm curious. You mentioned that you started when you were eight years old.

MS. PENN: Mm-hmm.

MS. GIVHAN: Was there sort of a precipitating event that made you really wake up to the climate crisis? Was it something that was always a conversation in your family? Like, what sparks an eight-year-old not just to think about it but to actually want to take action?

MS. PENN: Yeah. Well, I, you know, really come by it--honestly, I grew up in a very eco-conscious household, and, you know, both my mom and my dad have always, you know, had a connection with the environment. So my mom was the first person to--we started an organic garden together because that's something that she did with her mom when, you know, she was, at the time, like eight, around my age and getting me really communing with nature.

And then my dad, when he was a teenager, he was creating solar energy projects for science fairs and getting awards from NASA for them, and, you know, we've really felt the impact of environmental issues and environmental disaster.

When my mom was around my age, she actually experienced Hurricane Hugo and experienced homelessness as a result of living through that hurricane. Coming outside and seeing your neighbor's house looks like a dollhouse because the whole front is ripped off, you know.

MS. GIVHAN: So it's really rooted in your family and kind of in your DNA.

MS. PENN: Yes. Absolutely. Yes.

MS. GIVHAN: Quannah, you've been to D.C. before. You've lobbied on Capitol Hill to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I know that you've done work protesting the Willow Project. Can you talk a little bit about how much of climate solution is up to governments and how much do you think is really up to individuals to simply say no to certain ways that they've become accustomed to that are damaging to the environment?

MS. CHASINGHORSE: Yeah. I mean, I feel like a lot of people from Alaska, even people from outside of Alaska, that I've been seeing, you know, what's been unfolding in Alaska. But I will say, like, when I first started this work, it was really just, like, a bunch of youth and a lot of our Tribes that was supporting the youth and being like, you know, you're from here, share your experiences, and, like, just get them connected to the humanness of this issue, because, you know, you can look at the data. You can see the science in front of you, but if someone isn't going to sit there and tell you their lived experience in the climate crisis, how are they going to really care about it?

And so, you know, a lot of the lobbying and a lot of the work that we've done has just been, you know, getting people to realize that this work is rehumanizing us as Indigenous people and BIPOC people in our communities that really face these, you know, catastrophes. Like, your family, you know, that lived experience, that's telling in itself.

And so, you know, just getting people not just aware of it, but to learn about not just the data but the humanness--and there's people that live on the front lines that have to deal with this on a day-to-day basis.

And we've lost lives in Alaska to the climate crisis. There's people that went out thinking that it was safe to go out, but they lost their life due to the climate crisis.

MS. GIVHAN: They go out on the ice or--

MS. CHASINGHORSE: Yeah. And, you know, there's specific times and points in the year where it is safe to go out on the ice. You usually measure it. You usually can tell there's actually, you know, certain paths and certain routes that we take that we know are safe because that's how we were built into it. But they're not safe anymore.

And so being on Capitol Hill and visiting with some of the, you know, change makers, the people that really are voting on these laws and bills, getting them connected to that humanness and hearing our stories and not just being a statistic, but being a person, you know, that is really a big part of the work that we do, because I feel like a lot of the time, our voices are so overlooked, because they're like, oh, they don't know this science. They don't know this; they don't know that. Well, we do know way more than a lot of people like to admit because we have that lived experience.

MS. GIVHAN: Well, your description of, you know, a familiar pathway onto the ice no longer being safe, it's a little bit like describing a roadway that you've always used that suddenly collapses under you.

MS. CHASINGHORSE: And that's actually what has happened a lot in Alaska as well. So that's another thing. And, you know, with the Willow Project, that was honestly really scary for us because we weren't sure how that was going to unfold. You know, there's a lot of people that were on the fence. There's a lot of people that were like, you know, the economy, this and that. But it's, again, like, at the end of the day, if you really see the effects that these projects are going to have in long term, it's honestly going to be way more detrimental to our ecosystem and our economy as a whole, because then there's going to be nothing left.

And I think being so young and not just listening in on these conversations but having a voice in it has really opened my eyes to so many different other perspectives, and being in D.C. and, you know, sharing my story but also listening to other people and their experiences, it has honestly given me so much more knowledge. And I'm able to share that with them as well. So it's, you know, a lot of emotional labor to, like, really sit there and try to explain to them how much our people and the animals and our ways of life are suffering, but we have to do it because there is no other way to get people to care about it.

MS. GIVHAN: Maya, I know you've been out there protesting during Climate Week. I mean, are there ways that you see the climate emergency, as you've referred to it? Sort of have you seen it personally versus existentially?

MS. PENN: I really love that question because I think that one of the most crucial things about this movement in this space is to make it personal. When people ask me, "Maya, you know, what advice do you have for me? I feel so helpless with all of the environmental issues and climate change and everything that's happening. What can I do?" And my first piece of advice is always to make it personal. It doesn't matter who you are, what your background is, where you're from, what industry you're in. There is a very good chance that climate connects to it in some way. Climate is the multiplier, right? It is the umbrella for everything that we care about as human beings. Any cause that we care about or industry that we're working in on this earth is impacted or will be impacted by climate change in some degree.

And so I definitely agree with your point. For me, I'm using my work as someone who's certified in circular economies and sustainable strategies, also as an entrepreneur with sustainable fashion, with filmmaking, with animation, with my books that are being used in curriculum in schools from Cincinnati to India. And so it's really important to think about where you already are. Take that as your stepping stone to start and connect it. Look for those overlaps and those intersections between who you are, what you care about, what your work is, and climate because there already is one that exists. And everyone has, you know, a voice in this space. And it's really about taking the initiative to just take control of how you want your voice to be heard and how you want to show up, right?

And I think, too, again, like, just an example of making it personal, I'm someone who does a lot of work also in women and girls' rights. And, you know, that's something that's been incredibly crucial to me with my nonprofit organization, Maya's Ideas for the Planet. And we've done a lot of work since 2011, 2012 in period poverty in the U.S., in Haiti, in Senegal, Cameroon, et cetera, and a number of other works around getting more women and girls into nontraditional fields with an environment and climate. And initially, most people might feel like that's somewhat disconnected, but per the UNDP, women and children are 14 times more likely to die in an environmental disaster. And numerous studies have also shown the impact that girls and women having access to education, funding, and resources creates more climate resiliency for entire communities, right? So everybody wins. So that's just like one example of how everything that we care about is interconnected with climate because we all live on this planet, right? Yeah.

MS. GIVHAN: So, Quannah, I want to get in at least one more question to you, and it's about sort of how to--about allyship. And I know that you're involved in the fashion industry. You're kind of in the belly of the beast of one of the notorious polluters. So how do you find allies within that space, or how do you bring allyship to work for you when you're in that space and you're dealing with designers and production companies and all of those things?

MS. CHASINGHORSE: Man, it's been a journey. It's been a challenge. I've been only doing this--well, in fashion specifically for three years. I've been doing advocacy work like hers since I was really young. But man, it's--yeah, it's been a journey. But I think the best thing is to, you know, like, address these things with compassion and understanding, because a lot of the time--like, the fashion industry knows what they're doing. But a lot of the time, like, it's hard to get people to see it clearly because they're so--like, the fashion industry is such a fast pace, like, everywhere. Like, it's just--it's not organized, and it can be disastrous at times. But I've been very fortunate to work with really influential people in the fashion industry, because before--

MS. GIVHAN: Do you find that they will listen to what you have to say--

MS. CHASINGHORSE: Oh, yeah.

MS. GIVHAN: --about where they may be going wrong?

MS. CHASINGHORSE: Yeah. And I think the best way that I was able to kind of enter the fashion space was to, like, hold on tight to my advocacy work and not let up and to not compromise. Like, if you want to work with me, you compromise for me. I don't compromise for you. These are what I stand for. These are the things that I'm working on. These are the things that I will not, you know, work with you on because of your, you know, sustainability practices to, you know, social issues and whatnot.

But it's been definitely--I've had conversations that were really awkward. I've had conversations that were really tough and like really just not very focused, because every time that you try to have these conversations, they want to redirect it to something, because they don't want to be so focused on the negative. That's always the thing. They're always trying to be, like, oh, this is so negative. There's so many good things in the world. But it's like, yeah, but we can't have those good things if there's also so many bad things happening. We need to recognize and address these bad things so that we can continue to have these good things.

And it's like--it's also like that in the outdoor industry. I'm also in the outdoor industry. I'm a snowboarder. I was just hanging out with Burton and their athletes, and, you know, a lot of them are, you know, trying to get into advocacy space because they're realizing, oh, our seasons are getting shorter. We're not getting enough snow. And I'm just like, okay, well, if that's what you care about, I can help you on that journey.

And so it's really just finding a like mind, making sure that they understand who you are, where you come from, and don't let up, because if you let up, it'll just show that they can take advantage of you and your voice and your work, because like activists like us, you know, I think--we were just talking about this back there. Like, we have shown up ten toes down fully, like trying to make the fashion space, you know, accessible to everyone, including activists. And that's how we create change is by sitting at the table, having those conversations. Whether it be harder or like awkward, they have to--you have to talk about them.

MS. GIVHAN: Well, I have the hard news to say that we are out of time, I'm afraid.

[Laughter]

MS. GIVHAN: But I appreciate all that you both said so much. Thank you all for listening, and stay with us. My colleague, Bina, will be back shortly with a conversation with Rockefeller Foundation President Raj Shah about what a greener century could look like.

[Applause]

Imagining a Greener Century

MS. VENKATARAMAN: Hello, and welcome back, everyone. Welcome to Washington Post Live if you're just tuning in. I'm Bina Venkataraman. I am a columnist here at The Post and I write on the future. And I'm very pleased today to welcome Raj Shah, who is the president of the Rockefeller Foundation. Thanks for joining us.

MR. SHAH: Thank you, Bina. Thanks for having me.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: So we have a little bit of time to talk about a lot and a very big problem. You have led--you lead the USAID in a former life. You're now leading one of the world's largest foundations. You literally wrote the book on “Big Bets,” and by which you may have meant large transformative innovation solutions that can solve large scale problems and really make traction.

So here we are today talking about the climate crisis, one of the most urgent crises we face. What would you say is the top big bet we should be making on climate change?

MR. SHAH: Well, it's great to be with you, and thanks for your exceptional reporting on climate and its impacts around the world, and certainly at home. And I think the biggest message I'd have for listeners today is that although the climate crisis is extraordinary, although the early observations of how fast we're crossing these irreversible tipping points makes it feel like solving climate change is somewhat impossible, it is actually possible to win the fight against global climate change, and it is possible to prevent 1.4 billion people from going hungry because climate change takes away their agricultural productivity. It is possible to prevent future pandemics that are going to be far more likely if we allow climate change to proceed unchecked.

However, to win the fight, we have to change the mindset of what we're doing. And we can't really go after incremental solutions only in wealthy economies. Instead, we have to actually understand that this is a global problem, that 75 percent of future emissions will come from 81 countries, excluding China, that are today housing 3 and a half billion people who are living in relative energy poverty. And if they power their future and their prosperity with diesel and coal, which is what's happening today, no matter what we do in wealthy economies, the world will not succeed in the fight against climate change. So our big bet is to build an alliance that can finance the rollout of new renewable technology for energy production and energy infrastructure throughout the developing and emerging world and to do that with a long-time horizon and a sense of absolute commitment.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: How do we get there with respect to climate financing? Because we know that the oil industry is still reaping trillions in profits, that coal is still on an upward trajectory in China and elsewhere in Asia. Climate finance sounds like a great bet. How do we make it commensurate with the kind of investment that can be put back into the fossil fuel infrastructure we

have?

MR. SHAH: Well, that's a great question because, you know, we live in an economy that's north--a global economy north of $100 trillion. In that context, we have, by most estimates of what's required, is about $4 trillion of annual investment for the next 20 years. So that's four-ish percent of the global economy.

Of that 4 trillion, about two-and-a-half trillion is what's needed in the 81 countries I mentioned, the energy poor economies, to build infrastructure that allows people to rise up while also allowing us to tamp down global emissions.

So, the question is, where do we get two and a half trillion dollars a year? And that's a great, great question. Next week world leaders, the heads of the multilateral banks will all come together and debate whether we should continue to--continue business as usual with a Bretton Woods post-World War II financial architecture that was built to rebuild Western Europe, and frankly, has only been reformed incrementally since then, or whether we should fundamentally rethink that infrastructure so we can get hundreds of billions of dollars of additional investment out of the multilateral institutions we already have.

The Rockefeller Foundation, it has partnered with the prime minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, and many, many other global world leaders, William Ruto from Kenya and elsewhere, to propose a set of reforms we think can generate hundreds of billions of dollars of additional concessional capital.

We've worked with the UAE to launch their effort called Alterra, which is a new sovereign wealth platform designed to invest in climate finance. UAE, like many other Middle Eastern countries, have benefited from windfall profits in oil and gas, and they should be plowing a lot more of that capital into concessional capital that can finance the infrastructure needs of the developing world.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: From a global political standpoint, coming out of Dubai and COP28, it seems at least that there's now a consensus or there's an agreement that came out of that, that we need to transition away from fossil fuels, which was at least some measure of progress. How would you comparatively assess where we are with those multilateral institutions and those financiers in changing the paradigm there?

MR. SHAH: Yeah. Well, I'd say the general political statement that we need to transition away from fossil fuels is welcome, is necessary, is long overdue, and is not yet backed up by a set of meaningful instruments that would provide the financing to do so.

One such instrument the Rockefeller team helped create with our partners--and it's called the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet--and we put in $500 million dollars; the Bezos Earth Fund, the IKEA Foundation matched those commitments. Then we raised about $10 billion in investment commitments on top of that. That platform has allowed us to launch about 22 projects in just over a dozen countries that will bring energy access for the first time to 40 million people that live in energy poverty, using renewable infrastructure. Solar mini grids tied to batteries with distribution systems and smart meters in eastern Congo that will reach hundreds of thousands of people. Partnerships with companies like Tata Power in India to build out 10,000 of these rural mini grids to reach 25 million people in India and transform their lives in a clean and efficient way.

Those are good initial investments, but we need to get from hundreds of millions to trillions, and that's going to take a recommitment from political leaders. We're hoping to see some new commitments at the G7 this year. It's going to take more domestic investment from emerging economies. We're hoping to see in the G20 this year the large emerging economies commit to investing more of their public finance in that space. And frankly, it's going to take an honest conversation about how to wipe out the debts of primarily African economies where more than almost 40 economies are experiencing a post-COVID debt crisis. So as we're sitting here talking about investing in renewable energy, they're spending 60, 70 cents on the public dollar repaying debt because interest rates have tripled in those settings, and that cripples any real investment to make the kinds of public investments you need to power an energy transition.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: You and I share a passion for trying to harness the best of science and technology to solve public problems. But in this case, I'm hearing you talk a lot about the financial instruments and the political will. How much can we rely on technology to make game changing leaps in terms of the climate crisis versus these other sort of brass tacks?

MR. SHAH: Yeah. Well, this whole thing is only possible because of technological innovations, you know? So when Rockefeller started innovating these small solar mini grids for communities where people frankly were producing--consuming less than a couple hundred kilowatt hours of energy per capita per year, which is not enough power to have a light bulb and a small home appliance operating for the course of a year--I mean, these are folks trapped in poverty because they don't have access to energy and electricity. These systems would provide power at $1.00, $1.20 a kilowatt hour 10 years ago. But thanks to innovation, smart meters from SparkMeter here in D.C., batteries from China and Korea and elsewhere around the world, and including lithium-ion batteries, and new technologies that allow you to manage these systems remotely using artificial intelligence, we now see the cost down to around 15 to 18 cents a kilowatt hour at which price point it is a more efficient way to provide productive electricity to many, many, many communities. So we think you can reach a billion people around the world with those types of technologies alone.

That's not going to be enough. We also need real technology innovation in nuclear fission and fusion in order to provide better baseload power to economies. We need better grids and smart grid technologies. We're partnering with technology companies in the U.S. and partners around the world to help build digital twins of energy infrastructure in developing countries so you can create a viable model for how you would power an energy transition that's technically sophisticated. So there's a ton of opportunity for technology and innovation.

And without that innovation, frankly, all the financing in the world wouldn't really have anywhere to go, you know, to make a difference. So it's a precondition to our capacity to be successful.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: Do you also worry about the flip side of that, though? We know that generative AI, for example, is going to have a huge amount of energy demands and how that changes the landscape for what we need to actually accomplish?

MR. SHAH: Yeah, I mean, this is--I'm so glad you asked that. This is the thing people I think are just starting to realize. The theme has generally been if you look at the NDCs, or even from the Paris Agreement, the underlying modeling and assumptions have been that wealthy countries will plateau their energy demand, and because of energy efficiency, will meet their needs through largely efficiency gains, and developing countries will grow dramatically their energy demand. Now everybody knows quite clearly that that's not the case. Energy demand is going to skyrocket everywhere. And frankly, to meet that demand in a clean, efficient way, that is just and equitable, that pulls billions of people out of poverty, you have to do this in a much more cooperative manner on a global basis. You need much more public investment. And you need the kinds of public-private partnerships that through our Global Energy Alliance we're trying to seed in economies around the world.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: So going into COP29, and with what you just said about the need for more global coordination and cooperation than we've ever seen before to achieve this scale of change, how concerned are you? There are a lot of geopolitical headwinds in the world right now. The falling back of democracy, two wars, the debt crisis which you mentioned that faces so many developing nations--how realistic is it to think about coordination geopolitically to achieve these aims?

MR. SHAH: Well, I actually think it's quite realistic, and here's why. This isn't--you know, and I say this running a foundation--this isn't something that is solved by charitable endeavor. This is a core strategic priority for every head of state that I have spoken to, you know, that they know they need to provide renewable and always-on productive power at lower price points to their economies. They know that they can't move people out of poverty without doing so. And they know that the technology frontier makes things possible today that go well beyond coal and diesel, even though as we speak, there’s 6,500 coal plants that are going to produce 200 billion tons of carbon emissions over the course of their life that, frankly, need to be retired and replaced.

And so to me, it's a self-interest project for every national leader on the planet. And the question is, to be successful, we have to cooperate. You know, it's very unlikely that a modest sized African country is going to have access to the battery supply chain on a global basis without some pooled procurement. So, we've launched a battery energy supply coalition that allows countries to come together and acquire batteries together for their grids so they can take more intermittent power.

In Kenya alone, they have the largest East African wind project is sitting at 16, 17 percent utilization--it's called Lake Turkana Wind--because the grid can't take intermittent power. And they can't solve that problem without global cooperation.

So, we just need to change the mindset. And it's not about charity. It's not about trying to get wealthy countries to just give money to less wealthy countries. It's about coming together and creating a better future for all of us.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: I’m going off script here because when you say it's in the self-interest of these countries, there's almost an argument that an autocrat who's going to stay in power politically in these countries has more of a self-interest than some of our democratic political leaders. Do you have confidence in democracies to see this as a self-interest?

MR. SHAH: That's a great--it's a great honest question, you know? And look, if you are a democratically elected leader, you have to serve your constituents. I mean, I'm telling every leader I sit with who wants to know, can I provide--what am I going to do to change the rural livelihoods in India or in Malawi or in Zambia?

As we speak, we're rolling out a thousand of these solar mini grids in Zambia. The Zambian government for political reasons is investing in local farmers to help them build small businesses to take that energy demand to professionalize their post-harvest management of crops and markets, and to improve their incomes.

And what we've seen--and we now serve a few million people with these mini grids, what we've seen when we study the impact is small businesses drive demand. Those small businesses, whether it's a seamstress in northern India, or a farmer in Zambia, once they start using electricity to improve their livelihoods, they're creating jobs, creating income, and moving their communities out of poverty.

And if you do it fast enough on a politically relevant cycle, that's what leaders want to see. They almost never say, hey, should I--is this an important project? Everyone knows it's an important project. They want to know can you deliver results before the next election.

And that's where our mindset has to change. It's why when we get together next week for the World Bank-IMF Annual Meetings, we can't just have conversations about incremental reforms that seven years from now will give us 6 percent more capacity in a system that's been constrained for the last 50, 60 years. We have to be bolder than that, and we have to move with much, much greater urgency.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: Well, I'm ready for the field trip to Zambia. I'm in.

So we have a question from the audience.

MR. SHAH: We’re go together.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: In a year or two, whenever there'll be ready for results.

So we have a question from the audience. It's about the next generation and climate change. This is from Brian Coon from Maryland. And he wants to know, "How do you see the role of education in addressing the climate crisis and preparing young people for the green jobs of tomorrow, and how can we support climate education on a federal level?"

MR. SHAH: Well, you know, first, I think, climate education should be a part of everyone's education, right? If you like when I--I have three kids. They find subjects like physics and chemistry interesting sometimes and less interesting sometimes.

But when you say, hey, this is actually the key to unlocking, you know, a new form of electrification that can transform the planet and end poverty, all of a sudden, they're like super interested in wanting to learn more, as opposed to just sort of learning the basics without that applied mindset. So I just think, overall, we have to see this as the greatest opportunity we have to inspire people to learn a set of disciplines that are going to be part of saving our planet and ending poverty simultaneously. And what could be more inspiring or more important than that task?

It reminds me a little bit of when we had the moonshot and when Kennedy set the goal of going to the moon. We didn't know how to build the rocket. We didn't know half of the underlying physics of how to do that project. But the goal itself mobilized a different sense of inspired commitment to learning and development, and we need that kind of a mindset in our education system across the board.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: Well, you raise a great point with that, because there was an imagination that--it captured the imagination to say, let's put a man on the moon and let's put a person on the moon and have them walk on the moon. Can you paint a picture for us of what a greener century would look like? What should we be imagining?

MR. SHAH: Again, it's so exciting. You could imagine that for the first time a billion people on this planet that live in extreme absolute poverty, where girls collect firewood and don't go to school and are often abused in the cover of dark, are moving themselves out of poverty through access to solar and wind and local micro grids that are economically and commercially viable in their own right and power small businesses that create rural livelihoods that lift up the poorest people on the planet.

I can imagine countries expanding their school meal programs at scale to make sure that no kid on this planet goes hungry, and then tying the public procurement of those school meals to sustainable, renewable, regenerative agriculture so we begin to change the way we produce food and in the sector that is the second biggest production of carbon shifts from producing carbon to sequestering carbon.

I can imagine a financial infrastructure where we're selling green bonds and doing innovative financial instruments. And our smartest bankers in the world are using all that wizardry and skill instead of just purely making money, to make money and make lots of it, but do it in a way that allows us to make the single most important upfront investments now to build infrastructure that will scale and scale these technologies and save our planet.

And I think the greatest chance we have for inclusive growth and development--and I say this as someone who helped in a small way contribute to the negotiations around the Sustainable Development Goals and now see us falling behind year after year in lifting people out of poverty, out of hunger, out of ill health--the single greatest opportunity we have to turn that trend around and achieve those goals is to see the climate transition as the biggest opportunity humanity's had to make a difference in our economy, for our people, and for our planet, and that's what I think is at stake.

MS. VENKATARAMAN: Thank you so much for sharing such a fascinating green dream and for this conversation. Unfortunately, we're out of time. It's been great to have you here.

MR. SHAH: Thank you, Bina. It's great to be with you.

[Applause]

MS. VENKATARAMAN: I want to thank everyone else for being here. And hang on for just a moment because my colleagues Michael Coren and Joe Yonan are going to come up here to tell you about some special happenings out in the lounge. And thank you all for being part of these important conversations on the climate.

[Applause]

[End recorded session]