Galvanize Climate Solutions LLC Co-Executive Chair and Co-Founder Tom Steyer discusses innovations in the energy sector and outlook for climate investment. He speaks with Bloomberg's Jonathan Ferro, Lisa Abramowicz, and Annmarie Hordern.
We're lucky this morning. Joining us around the table is Tom Stein of Governize Climate Solutions. Tom, it's good to see us, sir, Welcome back.
Good morning.
It's been a fantastic week of conversations, many of them energy and climate related. I know you've had similar conversations this week. Are you walking away from these meetings this week more optimistic, more constructive about the future?
Well, I came in pretty optimistic about the future, and I'm leaving even more optimistic. I think we're in the middle of a new industrial revolution. I think that the energy transition has a lot of momentum, so I feel very good about where we're going from a business standpoint.
What's encouraging the most right now? What are you hearing that's giving you the most encouragement.
Well, I think the.
Big thing that's happened is that clean energy and the new technologies are winning in the marketplace, and they're winning in the marketplace around the world, so we can talk. I think most people think that at some point we're going to start going through an energy transition, but the actual truth is we're right in the middle of a very fast energy transition around the world, and really nothing's going to stop.
We're also in the middle of an election cycle.
Are you disappointed that Kamala Harrison a two policy document was actually touting US record fossil fuel production.
I really think that the Harris Wall's campaign is trying to talk about energy and meet voters where they are, which is about economics. We know that Kamala Harris has been a strong advocate of clean energy for decades. We know that Governor Walls has a very strong climate record. But when they're talking to voters on the campaign trail, it's not about what you want to talk about, it's what they are able to hear. And what everybody in the United States is worried about right now is economics. Is about US succeeding, is about jobs and costs, and that's what they're talking about. And I think that's entirely appropriate.
If that is accurate, which I think you do.
Everyone is talking about this, then why put the brakes on some projects that could.
Fuel all of this.
We spoke to the Rio Tinto CEO yesterday who basically said it was a Biden administration who put a pause on a mega comper mine in Arizona. Part of this has to do with politics.
I know that there's a lot of talk about critical minerals, and I know that people are pointing out different ways that this revolution can be slowed or can be he can lose his momentum, And I believe all of those conversations are overblown. I believe that in fact, what we're going through is a huge business transformation, that it has amazing momentum. Will there be problems with it about permitting and the grid and critical minerals, absolutely, and people talk about them all the time, but they're missing the big picture, which is if you look at twenty twenty three, globally, eighty three percent of new electricity generation was renewable. Was anybody doing that to be nice?
Nobody.
They did it because it's a better deal. You know, we're really in the time of cheaper, faster, better. In fact, the new technologies are better and they're cheaper, and people around the world are adopting them for that reason, not to be nice, not to save the world, because it's a better deal for them.
Just to pick up on that shot of crude production to thirteen million mirros a day in America was certainly less reliant on opek. We've had some guests on the program this week making the suggestion that we're becoming more reliant on China for some of those critical minerals. I want to pick up on Amory's point because I think it's important. The Rio Tinto CEO was talking about resolution copper. It's a comper deposit that could meet twenty five percent of American demand year after year, four years. I want to understand from your perspective, do you believe that US authorities have actually had a sufficient reality check to understand where we need to get this stuff from and what we need to start doing now to make sure we can meet that demand a decade out.
Look, there's no question that a lot of minerals are dispersed around the world and in countries that don't aren't necessarily as stable as ours is. But let's take a step back on that one, because what we're the alternative and what we're talking about is fossil fuels. And if you look at the world stage and how many of the wars over the last fifty years have their heart been about fossil fuels, have been in fossil fuel countries. How many of the wars that we're going through right now are led by people who are in oil rich countries. I think it's really clear that moving to renewable energy, which is dispersed around the world, where people can get it in their own countries and use it in their own countries, something that will dramatically drive down the conflict in the world and make us much more secure.
Just to build on what John was talking about, or in the middle of an energy transition that hinges on products from China. Basically, solar panels mostly come from China. A lot of the products that go into batteries of electric vehicles also from China.
Is that the path forward?
It doesn't have to be. I mean, there's a real question here, and I believe this is one of the big questions for the United States in this campaign, and it's a big partisan divide in the United States. And I regret to say it. China doesn't have any oil and gas. They are all in on the energy transition. They are electrifying ten times fast than the rest of the world. If you talk about the new energy movement, half of it is in China. For the whole world, the United States, we're the biggest oil and gas producers. We have a huge people who are pushing to stay the same, to move backwards, to rely more on fossil fuels. Let me give you an analogy electric cars. The first people to develop an electric car in the United States was GM. GM makes a lot of money selling SUVs. They looked and said, electric car, We lose money on everyone. We're not going there. Tesla, who has no internal combustion engine capability, went all in on electric cars. They were the upstart. That's kind of where we are with China. China is all in, and we have people who are asking us to tap the brakes, slow down, let's stay with the nineteen fifties. Absolutely, we can win this competition, and absolutely we have to be in this competition. But if we decide that the future is fossil fuel, then we will basically draw a mode around ourselves and not compete in the critical industrial revolution. And that is terrible for us because this is absolutely where the world is going. We absolutely can compete and win in this, and if we choose not to, that's a terrible outcome for the United States of America.
You made an analogy about this week as being like a shoe convention for shoe manufacturers, for people in green energy space. How many people who came to this shoe convention or energy convention or big tech executives a lot.
You know, there is a look, I live in California. The center of the tech industry in the United States is in California. And in general, as we look at the scaling up of AI and data centers in the United States and around the world, one of the key elements to how fast that can happen, and for every one of those companies that wants to lead in AI is the ability to get energy. So they're all over this and you know, they are focused on doing it, and they have high expectations about clean energy and being good corporate citizens. But they are as you know, people think Californias are laid back surface who smoke a lot of dope. Let me say serious business people who are competitive governo.
There's a bit of that Kevanon as well.
You know, life is about balance, Tom.
When it comes to the Tolisa's point about these A data centers, what we saw from Microsoft with three mile Who is better at this the tech companies in the private sector or the US government.
Well it's interesting because let's just take an example one of the things that is changing. I mean, people are looking at a lot of new technologies for generating clean electricity, and one of them is enhanced geothermal. Okay, enhanced geo thermal is basic geothermal is the equivalent of Old Faithful hot water and steam from the earth, and traditionally it's been done very close to the surface, within five hundred feet and you know that's why Old Faithful it's so close that people can go and it's always spouting. Enhanced geothermal is going down ten times deeper using oil and gas technology, oil and gas rigs, oil and gas workers to get the same thing, but a much bigger size. So the question is, Okay, did the US government make that happen? Did the private sector make that happen? Did the tech companies make that happen? And the answer is yes.
To put a bow on that, how much are big tech companies looking to buy directly energy assets to own them, to be owners and funders of these types of projects and infrastructure.
I think they're doing something different. I think what they're trying to be is direct buyers from the producers of clean electricity. What you saw at Three Mile Island, it wasn't that Microsoft wants to own energy assets. It wants to have a direct contract and be the off take so that they can develop energy assets. And that's the role they're trying to play and I think that's a super constructive role. And I think that buy and large they're doing a very good job.
So this was a small conversation and we always appreciate your time, sir. It's good to see you again.
Great to see you guys.
Thank you. Tom stand there of Galvaniced Climate Solutions,