Welcome to zero. I'm akshatrati this week, my money, your money, and Jeff's money. In February twenty twenty, Jeff Bezos, then the richest person on the planet, posted a picture to his four million Instagram followers. It showed the Earth from space, the North American continent peaking out from behind the clouds, and accompanying the post was a big announcement he was committing ten billion dollars to launch the Bezos Earth Fund. It is the largest commitment to climate philanthropy ever made, and the fund is due to give out all the ten billion dollars by twenty thirty. That money, as Bezos outlined, will fund and I quote scientists, activists, and geos, any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world. Already, the Fund has given out about one point six billion dollars to more than one hundred projects around the world, from the Congo Basin to the mainland US. About a third of that money has gone to nature and conservation spending, but the fund has also given out grants to projects involving food security, decarbonization of industry, and climate tech. Bezas has made appearances at high profile events like COP twenty six and the New York Climate Week to announce how the money will be spent.

Welcome to zero. I'm akshatrati this week, my money, your money, and Jeff's money. In February twenty twenty, Jeff Bezos, then the richest person on the planet, posted a picture to his four million Instagram followers. It showed the Earth from space, the North American continent peaking out from behind the clouds, and accompanying the post was a big announcement he was committing ten billion dollars to launch the Bezos Earth Fund. It is the largest commitment to climate philanthropy ever made, and the fund is due to give out all the ten billion dollars by twenty thirty. That money, as Bezos outlined, will fund and I quote scientists, activists, and geos, any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world. Already, the Fund has given out about one point six billion dollars to more than one hundred projects around the world, from the Congo Basin to the mainland US. About a third of that money has gone to nature and conservation spending, but the fund has also given out grants to projects involving food security, decarbonization of industry, and climate tech. Bezas has made appearances at high profile events like COP twenty six and the New York Climate Week to announce how the money will be spent.

I'm pleased to announce a two billion dollar pledge allocated directly to restoring nature and transforming food systems. This is part of the Bezos Earth Funds ten billion dollar commitment to fight climate change, enhance nature, and advance environmental justice and economic opportunity.

I'm pleased to announce a two billion dollar pledge allocated directly to restoring nature and transforming food systems. This is part of the Bezos Earth Funds ten billion dollar commitment to fight climate change, enhance nature, and advance environmental justice and economic opportunity.

By most measures, ten billion dollars is a lot of money, but it is also a small fraction of the three point five trillion dollars that is needed annually to hit net zero by twenty fifty. To make an impact, it needs to be spent strategically and attract a lot more money from governments and corporations. My guest today is Andrew Steer, the CEO of the Bezos Earth Fund. With Bezos, he decides where that ten billion dollars is allocated and how to measure its impact. Before taking on this role, Andrew was the head of the World Resources Institute. He also worked as a Special Climate Envoy for the World Bank and as Director General of the UK's Department for International Development. I sat down with Andrew at the World Economic Forum in Davos to ask how the Bezos Earth Fund spends its billions, what counts a success, and whether climate philanthropy is the new super yacht. Andrew, welcome to the show.

By most measures, ten billion dollars is a lot of money, but it is also a small fraction of the three point five trillion dollars that is needed annually to hit net zero by twenty fifty. To make an impact, it needs to be spent strategically and attract a lot more money from governments and corporations. My guest today is Andrew Steer, the CEO of the Bezos Earth Fund. With Bezos, he decides where that ten billion dollars is allocated and how to measure its impact. Before taking on this role, Andrew was the head of the World Resources Institute. He also worked as a Special Climate Envoy for the World Bank and as Director General of the UK's Department for International Development. I sat down with Andrew at the World Economic Forum in Davos to ask how the Bezos Earth Fund spends its billions, what counts a success, and whether climate philanthropy is the new super yacht. Andrew, welcome to the show.

Thank you, Akshat, looking forward to it.

Thank you, Akshat, looking forward to it.

Now. What is the role of climate philanthropy over the next few decades and how does it change as we get closer to hitting our climate targets by twenty fifty.

Now. What is the role of climate philanthropy over the next few decades and how does it change as we get closer to hitting our climate targets by twenty fifty.

Well, philanthropy can act quickly. It can get ahead of the game. Governments take quite a while to get their money bad to spend. We're able to do it quicker. We're also able to take risks. So what we really need to do is to look at the challenges of this decade. They're about forty or fifty transitions we have to go through. We need to diagnose those, and we need to understand how do we get them to those positive tipping points at which stage change becomes irresistible and unstoppable.

Well, philanthropy can act quickly. It can get ahead of the game. Governments take quite a while to get their money bad to spend. We're able to do it quicker. We're also able to take risks. So what we really need to do is to look at the challenges of this decade. They're about forty or fifty transitions we have to go through. We need to diagnose those, and we need to understand how do we get them to those positive tipping points at which stage change becomes irresistible and unstoppable.

At COP twenty seven, you said, I don't think we should buy into the idea that climate philanthropy is somehow an alternative to government, because governments have an obligation and they are not living up to it to the extent they should How do you see the role of philanthropy and government being different and when do you think philanthropy and government should work together.

At COP twenty seven, you said, I don't think we should buy into the idea that climate philanthropy is somehow an alternative to government, because governments have an obligation and they are not living up to it to the extent they should How do you see the role of philanthropy and government being different and when do you think philanthropy and government should work together.

I think philanthropy should often work together with government, although sometimes philanthropy will be supporting political activism against governments to change government policy. So philanthropy should not compensate for funding that governments choose not to make. On the contrary, philanthropy should try to urge governments to play the role that they should play. Governments have an obligation to address public goods, and protecting the atmosphere is a pretty important public obligation, so to speak. And we do complement each other because we are able to move quickly. We're able to take risks that perhaps they could not, and that means that we can go into things knowing that they may fail if we believe that the potential return is large enough. In that regard, we're a little bit more like a venture capitalist. Venture capitalists know that some of the companies they invest in will fail, but their view is that if I invest a million dollars and it fails, the most I can lose is a million dollars. If I invest a million dollars in it succeeds, it may be worth twenty million dollars very quickly. So I can afford to fail actually quite often, and still come out highly successful. For governments, it's actually much harder to do that because accountability mechanisms are somewhat skewed, quite honestly. So, for example, the Department of Energy in the United States has played an absolutely fantastic role in investing in early stage technologies, and companies like Tesla, for example, and a whole range of companies have done very very well based upon early research. But it just took one investment that went bad called Clindra.

I think philanthropy should often work together with government, although sometimes philanthropy will be supporting political activism against governments to change government policy. So philanthropy should not compensate for funding that governments choose not to make. On the contrary, philanthropy should try to urge governments to play the role that they should play. Governments have an obligation to address public goods, and protecting the atmosphere is a pretty important public obligation, so to speak. And we do complement each other because we are able to move quickly. We're able to take risks that perhaps they could not, and that means that we can go into things knowing that they may fail if we believe that the potential return is large enough. In that regard, we're a little bit more like a venture capitalist. Venture capitalists know that some of the companies they invest in will fail, but their view is that if I invest a million dollars and it fails, the most I can lose is a million dollars. If I invest a million dollars in it succeeds, it may be worth twenty million dollars very quickly. So I can afford to fail actually quite often, and still come out highly successful. For governments, it's actually much harder to do that because accountability mechanisms are somewhat skewed, quite honestly. So, for example, the Department of Energy in the United States has played an absolutely fantastic role in investing in early stage technologies, and companies like Tesla, for example, and a whole range of companies have done very very well based upon early research. But it just took one investment that went bad called Clindra.

Soleindra was a US company that made solar panels. In two thousand and nine, then Vice President Biden announced that the company would receive a loan of five hundred and thirty five million dollars guaranteed by the US Department of Energy. Cylinder ended up going bankrupt in twenty eleven and defaulting on that loan. The same program also made a loan of four hundred and sixty five million dollars to Tesla. That company is now worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and yet Cylinder's bankruptcy continues to be used by some members of the government to criticize plans to invest in clean tech through legislations like the Inflation Reduction Act.

Soleindra was a US company that made solar panels. In two thousand and nine, then Vice President Biden announced that the company would receive a loan of five hundred and thirty five million dollars guaranteed by the US Department of Energy. Cylinder ended up going bankrupt in twenty eleven and defaulting on that loan. The same program also made a loan of four hundred and sixty five million dollars to Tesla. That company is now worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and yet Cylinder's bankruptcy continues to be used by some members of the government to criticize plans to invest in clean tech through legislations like the Inflation Reduction Act.

They just took one investment that went bad for all of the congressional committees, all of the newspapers, the gotcha types to give that a hard time, and so that would illustrate the problems that the governments can have that philanthropy does not now.

They just took one investment that went bad for all of the congressional committees, all of the newspapers, the gotcha types to give that a hard time, and so that would illustrate the problems that the governments can have that philanthropy does not now.

Twenty twenty two report by Climate Works said that only two percent of philanthropy dollars went toward climate mitigation in twenty twenty one one. That's about twelve and a half billion dollars depending on how you count. But it's a tiny percentage of the eight hundred billion dollars that is given out as philanthropy every year. Why is that number given to climate solo?

Twenty twenty two report by Climate Works said that only two percent of philanthropy dollars went toward climate mitigation in twenty twenty one one. That's about twelve and a half billion dollars depending on how you count. But it's a tiny percentage of the eight hundred billion dollars that is given out as philanthropy every year. Why is that number given to climate solo?

It is interesting how philanthropists have over the literally the last five to ten years, started to take climate change seriously. I mean ten years ago there was very little funding. There's still not enough, and that means that every dollar allocated has to be used carefully. So, for example, I have the privilege of being the CEO of the Basos Earth Fund, which is a ten billion dollar grand fund that will be dispersed entirely this decade. That sounds like a lot of money. It is to me and you, but it's a small amount of money compared to the needs. So we have to make sure that it is truly leveraged, and you can leverage in several ways. Now, when we talk about the two percent of total filmilanthropy that's going for climate mitigation, I've got to remember in addition to that, there's funding for nature, for example, which also helps climate, And there's funding for food and agriculture, which done right, also helps climate. There's funding for adaptation. But all in all, it's still knowing there enough. I do agree with that.

It is interesting how philanthropists have over the literally the last five to ten years, started to take climate change seriously. I mean ten years ago there was very little funding. There's still not enough, and that means that every dollar allocated has to be used carefully. So, for example, I have the privilege of being the CEO of the Basos Earth Fund, which is a ten billion dollar grand fund that will be dispersed entirely this decade. That sounds like a lot of money. It is to me and you, but it's a small amount of money compared to the needs. So we have to make sure that it is truly leveraged, and you can leverage in several ways. Now, when we talk about the two percent of total filmilanthropy that's going for climate mitigation, I've got to remember in addition to that, there's funding for nature, for example, which also helps climate, And there's funding for food and agriculture, which done right, also helps climate. There's funding for adaptation. But all in all, it's still knowing there enough. I do agree with that.

Forty five philanthropic organizations signed up to the Giving to Amplify Earth Action initiative at Davos. The initiative aims to close the three trillion dollars of annual climate finance that needs to be met to get to the goals of the Paris Agreement. That's equivalent to about three percent of the world's GDP. How do you think philanthropic organizations can achieve that?

Forty five philanthropic organizations signed up to the Giving to Amplify Earth Action initiative at Davos. The initiative aims to close the three trillion dollars of annual climate finance that needs to be met to get to the goals of the Paris Agreement. That's equivalent to about three percent of the world's GDP. How do you think philanthropic organizations can achieve that?

So if you think about philanthropy today, as we discussed earlier, let's imagine it's roughly fifteen billion dollars a year. It would not be inconceivable at all to double that in the next few years. Should that happen, that's thirty billion dollars a year. Think about that. That's like one percent of the total investment that is required. So that one percent is a small tail wagging hopefully a bigger dog. So it needs to do it thoughtfully, and I think that's the goal that some of us in the philanthropic community have had. Wouldn't it be useful if we could bring the different pieces of the jigs or puzzle together, the different actors, and focus on, let's say an issue. The issue could be preventing deforestation, it could be getting rid of the internal combustion engine, it could be shifting diets towards plant based food. You need governments at the table, you need corporates at the table, you need carbon credits at the table, philanthropy at the table. And it's only when you do that that you actually then can get that kind of synergy.

So if you think about philanthropy today, as we discussed earlier, let's imagine it's roughly fifteen billion dollars a year. It would not be inconceivable at all to double that in the next few years. Should that happen, that's thirty billion dollars a year. Think about that. That's like one percent of the total investment that is required. So that one percent is a small tail wagging hopefully a bigger dog. So it needs to do it thoughtfully, and I think that's the goal that some of us in the philanthropic community have had. Wouldn't it be useful if we could bring the different pieces of the jigs or puzzle together, the different actors, and focus on, let's say an issue. The issue could be preventing deforestation, it could be getting rid of the internal combustion engine, it could be shifting diets towards plant based food. You need governments at the table, you need corporates at the table, you need carbon credits at the table, philanthropy at the table. And it's only when you do that that you actually then can get that kind of synergy.

So one way in which institutions, especially government institution but also institutions that depend on donors giving money justify their presence their work is to sometimes measure it in how many more dollars for every dollar they spent were invested for those causes. Famously, NASA does that to justify that a space program is necessary for the United States. And then multiplier is large. If you're thinking of using thirty billion dollars to get to three trillion dollars, your multiplier is one hundred and none of the organizations I've looked at have ever produced that kind of number, So how do you think that will work?

So one way in which institutions, especially government institution but also institutions that depend on donors giving money justify their presence their work is to sometimes measure it in how many more dollars for every dollar they spent were invested for those causes. Famously, NASA does that to justify that a space program is necessary for the United States. And then multiplier is large. If you're thinking of using thirty billion dollars to get to three trillion dollars, your multiplier is one hundred and none of the organizations I've looked at have ever produced that kind of number, So how do you think that will work?

So it would be hubris to assume that if there weren't philanthropy, nothing else would happen. I mean, a lot of it would happen anyway, because we have some good governments out there, we have some good carbon credits, and we have some terrific companies that are wanting to invest in green So we don't need to over egg this issue in terms of overstating the importance of the leverage that philanthropy can have. Having said that, philanthropy can play a very useful role, and if you think about leverage, the easy and obvious way to think about it is we could de risk private investment. So private investors at the moment are not willing to go into certain technologies partly because it's risky. Sometimes it's country risk, sometimes it's technological risk. Price risk, policy, risk, philanthropy could help de risk that. But there are many many other ways of getting leverage. I mean, an obvious one is influencing policy. For example, we could influence a global price on carbon of one hundred dollars a ton. I mean, wow, that would have leverage. But there are many many policies that are required. For example, something we're working on right now is you know, everyone talks about green steel and green cement, which is very important. The problem is actually not the technologist to produce it, it's finding buyers who in the near term will have to pay a little bit more for it. So it turns out that fifty percent of all the cement in the United States is actually purchased by governments, mainly local government, but also federal government. So one of the things we're doing is supporting a program that seeks to change procurement rules at the state and city level, and it's being very successful. That in turn is creating a demand, which in turn will drive down prices. And once you reach a demand of a certain percentage, you actually can cross a tipping point because then steel companies or cement companies understand the direction the wind is blowing in and really go all in sort of thing. So that's another example of leaverage.

So it would be hubris to assume that if there weren't philanthropy, nothing else would happen. I mean, a lot of it would happen anyway, because we have some good governments out there, we have some good carbon credits, and we have some terrific companies that are wanting to invest in green So we don't need to over egg this issue in terms of overstating the importance of the leverage that philanthropy can have. Having said that, philanthropy can play a very useful role, and if you think about leverage, the easy and obvious way to think about it is we could de risk private investment. So private investors at the moment are not willing to go into certain technologies partly because it's risky. Sometimes it's country risk, sometimes it's technological risk. Price risk, policy, risk, philanthropy could help de risk that. But there are many many other ways of getting leverage. I mean, an obvious one is influencing policy. For example, we could influence a global price on carbon of one hundred dollars a ton. I mean, wow, that would have leverage. But there are many many policies that are required. For example, something we're working on right now is you know, everyone talks about green steel and green cement, which is very important. The problem is actually not the technologist to produce it, it's finding buyers who in the near term will have to pay a little bit more for it. So it turns out that fifty percent of all the cement in the United States is actually purchased by governments, mainly local government, but also federal government. So one of the things we're doing is supporting a program that seeks to change procurement rules at the state and city level, and it's being very successful. That in turn is creating a demand, which in turn will drive down prices. And once you reach a demand of a certain percentage, you actually can cross a tipping point because then steel companies or cement companies understand the direction the wind is blowing in and really go all in sort of thing. So that's another example of leaverage.

Now you mentioned that the Basos Earth Fund is going to spend ten million dollars this decade. You spent about one point six billion dollars so far. Could you just walk us through what kind of projects you've funded so far and how do you go about choosing them?

Now you mentioned that the Basos Earth Fund is going to spend ten million dollars this decade. You spent about one point six billion dollars so far. Could you just walk us through what kind of projects you've funded so far and how do you go about choosing them?

So, the way we go about choosing them is we try to ask ourselves what are the big transitions that are required this decade and next. So that includes eliminating the internal combustion engine, it includes greening financial markets, It includes shifting dyers toward more plant pased nutrition and so on, and they're about fifty of those. What we do we use an initiative called the System Change Lab, which we co run together with the World Resource Institute and others that are heavily involved in it. And what it does is it measures these fifty transitions and it asked where are they as they seek to approach tipping points? And then it asks what is the special source that seems to get some of these past those tipping points? And where are the barriers that are preventing others, and so what we try to do is look at those and identify barriers that we could be helpful in removing. I'll give you an example of something we're thinking about right now. We now know that not only must we reduce carbon emissions, we've actually got to take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Now. The best possible technology for that is planting a tree, for example. So we have a very significant program of landscape restoration trying to put a coalition together to regreen or restore one hundred million hectares in Africa. We also have a program in the United States doing the same. It turns out now that thirty five African countries are really interested in doing this. It also turns out that we have technology that we can measure it. We're financing that as well. It also turns out that there's quite a bit of public and private money sitting on the sidelines. And whilst there are actually thousands of community groups in Africa that are very good at this, there are no intermediating institutions. So what we think is what could we do well. We could play a role, getting the methodology and the satellite system to measure. We also could play a role in helping to create those intermediating institutions that would be an example of how we go about it. They also, though we've you and I have come to a conclusion that simply that technology of photosynthesis is not enough to take everything out. So we're actually looking at some other ways of taking carbon out of the air through, for example, the possibility of ocean absorption, the possibility of weathering where various chemical processes can take carbon dioxide. And even you know, there's some sort of frontier technologies that are nowhere close to commercialization, so no one's actually investing in them. For example, how do you take methane out of the atmosphere? Very very hard to do, But unless we invest now in that, we won't have the technologies we need twenty years from now, when it will sadly be essential.

So, the way we go about choosing them is we try to ask ourselves what are the big transitions that are required this decade and next. So that includes eliminating the internal combustion engine, it includes greening financial markets, It includes shifting dyers toward more plant pased nutrition and so on, and they're about fifty of those. What we do we use an initiative called the System Change Lab, which we co run together with the World Resource Institute and others that are heavily involved in it. And what it does is it measures these fifty transitions and it asked where are they as they seek to approach tipping points? And then it asks what is the special source that seems to get some of these past those tipping points? And where are the barriers that are preventing others, and so what we try to do is look at those and identify barriers that we could be helpful in removing. I'll give you an example of something we're thinking about right now. We now know that not only must we reduce carbon emissions, we've actually got to take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Now. The best possible technology for that is planting a tree, for example. So we have a very significant program of landscape restoration trying to put a coalition together to regreen or restore one hundred million hectares in Africa. We also have a program in the United States doing the same. It turns out now that thirty five African countries are really interested in doing this. It also turns out that we have technology that we can measure it. We're financing that as well. It also turns out that there's quite a bit of public and private money sitting on the sidelines. And whilst there are actually thousands of community groups in Africa that are very good at this, there are no intermediating institutions. So what we think is what could we do well. We could play a role, getting the methodology and the satellite system to measure. We also could play a role in helping to create those intermediating institutions that would be an example of how we go about it. They also, though we've you and I have come to a conclusion that simply that technology of photosynthesis is not enough to take everything out. So we're actually looking at some other ways of taking carbon out of the air through, for example, the possibility of ocean absorption, the possibility of weathering where various chemical processes can take carbon dioxide. And even you know, there's some sort of frontier technologies that are nowhere close to commercialization, so no one's actually investing in them. For example, how do you take methane out of the atmosphere? Very very hard to do, But unless we invest now in that, we won't have the technologies we need twenty years from now, when it will sadly be essential.

Now you're talking about carbon removal here, because we need to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It will be a big thing that we'll have to work on. But currently the majority of the problem is to try and actually reduce emissions. But given as a climate journalist covering this subject, just the sheer amount of intellectual capacity that is going towards the offset problem, which remains a very small market billion dollars two billion dollars relative to the three trillion dollars worth of mitigation work that needs to be done. Why do you think when you thought of the right example to talk about where philanthropy can make a difference, was carbon offsets or carbon markets the right place to try and invest money or even bring that up as the star example that philanthropy is helping improve.

Now you're talking about carbon removal here, because we need to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It will be a big thing that we'll have to work on. But currently the majority of the problem is to try and actually reduce emissions. But given as a climate journalist covering this subject, just the sheer amount of intellectual capacity that is going towards the offset problem, which remains a very small market billion dollars two billion dollars relative to the three trillion dollars worth of mitigation work that needs to be done. Why do you think when you thought of the right example to talk about where philanthropy can make a difference, was carbon offsets or carbon markets the right place to try and invest money or even bring that up as the star example that philanthropy is helping improve.

Oh, maybe I was not clear. We've allocated three billion dollars for nature, a billion dollars for conservation, a billion dollars for restoration, and a billion dollars for food system transformation, and we're still obviously allocating that money at the BASEOS fund of that first, the conservation a very very small fraction of that, I mean so far it would be I don't know, maybe ten million dollars of that would be to help set standards for the carbon markets. We are spending, you know, one hundred and ten million dollars of grants in the Congo basin to help government and civil society conserve nature that carbon markets don't play a role in that At all, and we're doing exactly the same in Latin America and tropical Andes, for example. I think they do have a role, but much more important is conserving nature, because that's not a minor part of the issue. Rural space is responsible for more than a third of emissions, and so we really have to address that.

Oh, maybe I was not clear. We've allocated three billion dollars for nature, a billion dollars for conservation, a billion dollars for restoration, and a billion dollars for food system transformation, and we're still obviously allocating that money at the BASEOS fund of that first, the conservation a very very small fraction of that, I mean so far it would be I don't know, maybe ten million dollars of that would be to help set standards for the carbon markets. We are spending, you know, one hundred and ten million dollars of grants in the Congo basin to help government and civil society conserve nature that carbon markets don't play a role in that At all, and we're doing exactly the same in Latin America and tropical Andes, for example. I think they do have a role, but much more important is conserving nature, because that's not a minor part of the issue. Rural space is responsible for more than a third of emissions, and so we really have to address that.

After the break. Should Amazon be doing more to cut its own emissions? And what happens to the money when the decisive decade is done? The Visas Art Fund was completely new when you started it, and the money is supposed to be spent by twenty thirty. What happens next?

After the break. Should Amazon be doing more to cut its own emissions? And what happens to the money when the decisive decade is done? The Visas Art Fund was completely new when you started it, and the money is supposed to be spent by twenty thirty. What happens next?

Well, yes, I left a job where we had seventeen hundred people, and then I was employee number one in my new job, and we're sort of ramping up basically, you know, we're willing to take risks. We should inject funds very thoughtfully but boldly, and we'll see if it works, and we'll do our best to make sure it works, and if it does work, we will then ramp that up together with partners. And we do nothing on our own. We don't simply write a check and say could you come back tell us how you're doing a year from now. So, for example, the Congo Basin is the most precious ecosystem imaginable. It sequesters more carbon than the Amazon and Southeast Asia tropical forest combined, and it's massively threatened at the moment. So we wanted to go in there. But we've got to be honest, this is a difficult place to work in. Some parts of these countries are very remote and sometimes governance is not what it should be. So what we did, we said, we gather nine leading institutions, mainly NGOs, but scientific institutions that have deep roots there. We said, look, we're going to finance all of you. You have two jobs. Job number one is within your own sphere of expertise. You have to deliver the way we've discussed with you. Thing number two, you've got to be part of a team with us, so that as a team, for the first time ever, we're able to engage at the head of state level at any level we like, including with other donors. We're now working with a number of European donors. Let's do it together kind of thing, and then we would have full time person that would be helping to oversee and drive that joint program together. So that's the sort of way we would work.

Well, yes, I left a job where we had seventeen hundred people, and then I was employee number one in my new job, and we're sort of ramping up basically, you know, we're willing to take risks. We should inject funds very thoughtfully but boldly, and we'll see if it works, and we'll do our best to make sure it works, and if it does work, we will then ramp that up together with partners. And we do nothing on our own. We don't simply write a check and say could you come back tell us how you're doing a year from now. So, for example, the Congo Basin is the most precious ecosystem imaginable. It sequesters more carbon than the Amazon and Southeast Asia tropical forest combined, and it's massively threatened at the moment. So we wanted to go in there. But we've got to be honest, this is a difficult place to work in. Some parts of these countries are very remote and sometimes governance is not what it should be. So what we did, we said, we gather nine leading institutions, mainly NGOs, but scientific institutions that have deep roots there. We said, look, we're going to finance all of you. You have two jobs. Job number one is within your own sphere of expertise. You have to deliver the way we've discussed with you. Thing number two, you've got to be part of a team with us, so that as a team, for the first time ever, we're able to engage at the head of state level at any level we like, including with other donors. We're now working with a number of European donors. Let's do it together kind of thing, and then we would have full time person that would be helping to oversee and drive that joint program together. So that's the sort of way we would work.

And so what happens after twenty thirty when the money is all spent.

And so what happens after twenty thirty when the money is all spent.

Well, of course this is the decisive decade, and the next decade will also be decisive. The reason this is especially decisive is if we don't get it right this decade, actually next decade, it will be impossibly expensive to do anything and will quite frankly be too late. So I have a full time job from now to twenty thirty. Clearly there will be all kinds of needs for the twenty thirties as well.

Well, of course this is the decisive decade, and the next decade will also be decisive. The reason this is especially decisive is if we don't get it right this decade, actually next decade, it will be impossibly expensive to do anything and will quite frankly be too late. So I have a full time job from now to twenty thirty. Clearly there will be all kinds of needs for the twenty thirties as well.

So one example then would be COP fifteen in December, which has been called a Paris for nature, set out this goal of protecting thirty percent of land and oceans by twenty thirty. Ambitious goal, something that had been called for for years, and now all these governments have come together and agreed upon it. But as soon as that high level goal is agreed upon, it becomes a minefield. The number of questions about what does that that really mean? How do we measure it? Does it mean no humans can do anything in that land? How do countries in different parts with different capabilities and wealth work on those Is that something that you're working on to try and create clearer understanding of what thirty by thirty would mean, because it's really important that we not just tackle the climate crisis, but the biodiversity crisis and the solution sometimes overlap.

So one example then would be COP fifteen in December, which has been called a Paris for nature, set out this goal of protecting thirty percent of land and oceans by twenty thirty. Ambitious goal, something that had been called for for years, and now all these governments have come together and agreed upon it. But as soon as that high level goal is agreed upon, it becomes a minefield. The number of questions about what does that that really mean? How do we measure it? Does it mean no humans can do anything in that land? How do countries in different parts with different capabilities and wealth work on those Is that something that you're working on to try and create clearer understanding of what thirty by thirty would mean, because it's really important that we not just tackle the climate crisis, but the biodiversity crisis and the solution sometimes overlap.

Yes, indeed, I mean I think you've clarified the issue very helpfully. We need a political commitment based upon good science, and that's what we've now got. Getting to thirty will be a huge achievement. It will need to double essentially protection on land, and it will need to more than double protection of the ocean. And we've got seven years to do it. So this is difficult. And as you say, now the real challenge begins which thirty percent and what does it mean to protect? And I think there are definitions of what it means to protect pretty well. It doesn't mean totally and utterly no humans in it. On the contrary, in many parts it is indigenous people who live there that are responsible for doing a very good job at the moment in protection. And part of the way of insuring thirty by thirty is to give indigenous people more rights and the ability to protect those rights. So, for example, in Montreal, the Canadian government announced a massive increase in its own protected areas in four areas that are going to be overseen by first nations. But as you say, country by country governments need to decide do they want to really be part of it. If they do want to be part of it, we need to bring in whatever support we can. And yesterday here in Davos, we had ministers from Indonesia, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, from Bangladesh, Ghana, together with people like John Kerry and the German government, the British government, and then philanthropias like based Ors, Earth Fund, the More Foundation and others that care about this and basically are setting up a process by which we would be available to be helpful as a team to major countries that are serious about this.

Yes, indeed, I mean I think you've clarified the issue very helpfully. We need a political commitment based upon good science, and that's what we've now got. Getting to thirty will be a huge achievement. It will need to double essentially protection on land, and it will need to more than double protection of the ocean. And we've got seven years to do it. So this is difficult. And as you say, now the real challenge begins which thirty percent and what does it mean to protect? And I think there are definitions of what it means to protect pretty well. It doesn't mean totally and utterly no humans in it. On the contrary, in many parts it is indigenous people who live there that are responsible for doing a very good job at the moment in protection. And part of the way of insuring thirty by thirty is to give indigenous people more rights and the ability to protect those rights. So, for example, in Montreal, the Canadian government announced a massive increase in its own protected areas in four areas that are going to be overseen by first nations. But as you say, country by country governments need to decide do they want to really be part of it. If they do want to be part of it, we need to bring in whatever support we can. And yesterday here in Davos, we had ministers from Indonesia, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, from Bangladesh, Ghana, together with people like John Kerry and the German government, the British government, and then philanthropias like based Ors, Earth Fund, the More Foundation and others that care about this and basically are setting up a process by which we would be available to be helpful as a team to major countries that are serious about this.

Is climate philanthropy the new superyacht. Will we see competition for who can do it bigger and better?

Is climate philanthropy the new superyacht. Will we see competition for who can do it bigger and better?

I've been impressed by how philanthropists are able to work together. That's not to say that from time to time there would not be some competition. I have not witnessed that so far. I, on the contrary, have witnessed an enthusiasm for working together. So for example, a year ago when we were concerned that this thirty by thirty, political momentum was slowing, and only like fifty countries had said they thought it was a good idea. We worked with other philanthropists and as a group we were able to put five billion dollars of grants on the table, you know, at the United Nations General Assembly. We were able to say, look, we're serious, this is funds that we would if you guys can come up with an agreement on thirty by thirty, we're willing to put this totally online. And that was remarkable. I mean that was put together within two months, that whole idea. I found it quite inspiring, and I actually think working together is really important. Now Having said that, one of the great things about some modern philanthropists is that they're based upon wealth that came because of great ambition and brilliance on the part of their leaders. And actually that's pretty valuable in our space. For too long, environmentalism has been very well intentioned and often excellent, but hasn't necessarily benefited from the kind of leadership that some modern philanthropists can be helpful in providing.

I've been impressed by how philanthropists are able to work together. That's not to say that from time to time there would not be some competition. I have not witnessed that so far. I, on the contrary, have witnessed an enthusiasm for working together. So for example, a year ago when we were concerned that this thirty by thirty, political momentum was slowing, and only like fifty countries had said they thought it was a good idea. We worked with other philanthropists and as a group we were able to put five billion dollars of grants on the table, you know, at the United Nations General Assembly. We were able to say, look, we're serious, this is funds that we would if you guys can come up with an agreement on thirty by thirty, we're willing to put this totally online. And that was remarkable. I mean that was put together within two months, that whole idea. I found it quite inspiring, and I actually think working together is really important. Now Having said that, one of the great things about some modern philanthropists is that they're based upon wealth that came because of great ambition and brilliance on the part of their leaders. And actually that's pretty valuable in our space. For too long, environmentalism has been very well intentioned and often excellent, but hasn't necessarily benefited from the kind of leadership that some modern philanthropists can be helpful in providing.

Amazon made Bezos fabulously wealthy given the money to be able to create this Earth Fund, but Amazon's emissions continue to go up. In twenty twenty one, they increased eighteen percent. And Bezos is the chair of the Earth Fund, but he's also the chair of Amazon. Why is it that Amazon continues to not go down the path that you would expect reduce their emissions in line with what's needed for meeting climicals.

Amazon made Bezos fabulously wealthy given the money to be able to create this Earth Fund, but Amazon's emissions continue to go up. In twenty twenty one, they increased eighteen percent. And Bezos is the chair of the Earth Fund, but he's also the chair of Amazon. Why is it that Amazon continues to not go down the path that you would expect reduce their emissions in line with what's needed for meeting climicals.

Well, just to be clear, I work for the Baseos Earth Fund. I do not work for Amazon. It's a totally different organization.

Well, just to be clear, I work for the Baseos Earth Fund. I do not work for Amazon. It's a totally different organization.

But you must have conversations with Jeff Bezos about Amazon's progress given the skill of the organization.

But you must have conversations with Jeff Bezos about Amazon's progress given the skill of the organization.

Well, one thing I would say is that this week hearing Davos, for example, members of the Climate Pledge, which is a group of businesses which was started by Amazon that is committed to net zero, ten years ahead of what the science tells us. We need to be yes.

Well, one thing I would say is that this week hearing Davos, for example, members of the Climate Pledge, which is a group of businesses which was started by Amazon that is committed to net zero, ten years ahead of what the science tells us. We need to be yes.

Yes, So that goal is to reach net zero by twenty one for Amazon and each.

Yes, So that goal is to reach net zero by twenty one for Amazon and each.

Of those each of those companies have plans in place, and that ranges from trying to address their scope three emissions, which is the entire supply chain and that's very hard to do, to electrifying their their delivery fleets for example. So you know this is a journey, and there will be times when when emissions go up, either because your sales go up or for some other reason. The point is to keep your eye on the prize to twenty twenty five, twenty thirty, twenty forty and so on.

Of those each of those companies have plans in place, and that ranges from trying to address their scope three emissions, which is the entire supply chain and that's very hard to do, to electrifying their their delivery fleets for example. So you know this is a journey, and there will be times when when emissions go up, either because your sales go up or for some other reason. The point is to keep your eye on the prize to twenty twenty five, twenty thirty, twenty forty and so on.

Now you've worked on climate issues for a long time, but we happen to be at this juncture facing two kinds of trends. One, we hit a record greenhouse gas emissions in twenty twenty two. Two we have never spent more money, more effort, more talent, more people power on trying to tackle the climate crisis. How do you live in this two track world?

Now you've worked on climate issues for a long time, but we happen to be at this juncture facing two kinds of trends. One, we hit a record greenhouse gas emissions in twenty twenty two. Two we have never spent more money, more effort, more talent, more people power on trying to tackle the climate crisis. How do you live in this two track world?

It's very well put. If you take two experts, well meaning, good people and you say how we doing, one will say it's fantastic. You know what I mean. The price of solar energy has fallen ninety nine point six percent since Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House in nineteen seventy nine. And they'll give many statements like that. And one hundred and twenty countries are committed to net zero. One hundred and thirty trillion dollars of assets under management are committed to net zero. Unbelievable. And then you talk to the other one, they say, you know, we're heading off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings.

It's very well put. If you take two experts, well meaning, good people and you say how we doing, one will say it's fantastic. You know what I mean. The price of solar energy has fallen ninety nine point six percent since Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House in nineteen seventy nine. And they'll give many statements like that. And one hundred and twenty countries are committed to net zero. One hundred and thirty trillion dollars of assets under management are committed to net zero. Unbelievable. And then you talk to the other one, they say, you know, we're heading off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings.

Never use more call they never put out more greenhouse gas emissions. There's never been more tension in the world in the last thirty years of knowing that's right, that climate change is a problem, geopolitics is fragmented, the immediate crises are growing in number, and terms like polycrises have been created.

Never use more call they never put out more greenhouse gas emissions. There's never been more tension in the world in the last thirty years of knowing that's right, that climate change is a problem, geopolitics is fragmented, the immediate crises are growing in number, and terms like polycrises have been created.

That's absolutely correct. Last year, what two point five trillion dollars were invested in the energy sector as a whole. Of that, two point five one trillion was in fossil fuels, and one point five trillion was in clean energy, including energy efficiency and all the renewables so to speak. You can look at that number and say that's incredible. I mean, and well over half of the new generating capacity last year was from renewables. Unbelievable. But if we're going to stay within one point five the renewables need to be three times as fast, and we need to close nine hundred and twenty five coal plants every single year. So sort of the analogy is sort of it's you know, the dog chasing the bus, and the dog is running faster and faster. That's us trying to solve the problem. And we've never run so fast, and we're we're so please with ourselves. The bus is accelerating away, and of course the dog could keep trying, running harder and harder, but will never catch up. And so, you know, continue the analogy. The dog needs, you know, an electric bike or something to we need a new way of doing things, and that's exactly what we you know, we and many others are focusing on. It's it yesterday when we launched this idea of could we work together on the thirty by thirty, you know, so instead of you know, thirty different NGOs and twelve different governments and six different multi national organizations and so many developers of carbon markets, all trying to be helpful to the democratic Republic of Congo or Brazil or Indonesia, and you know, all doing their best, and some of it is excellent, not adding up. What would it take to actually get it to add up. That's that's what we have to that's the electric bike for the dog chasing the bus.

That's absolutely correct. Last year, what two point five trillion dollars were invested in the energy sector as a whole. Of that, two point five one trillion was in fossil fuels, and one point five trillion was in clean energy, including energy efficiency and all the renewables so to speak. You can look at that number and say that's incredible. I mean, and well over half of the new generating capacity last year was from renewables. Unbelievable. But if we're going to stay within one point five the renewables need to be three times as fast, and we need to close nine hundred and twenty five coal plants every single year. So sort of the analogy is sort of it's you know, the dog chasing the bus, and the dog is running faster and faster. That's us trying to solve the problem. And we've never run so fast, and we're we're so please with ourselves. The bus is accelerating away, and of course the dog could keep trying, running harder and harder, but will never catch up. And so, you know, continue the analogy. The dog needs, you know, an electric bike or something to we need a new way of doing things, and that's exactly what we you know, we and many others are focusing on. It's it yesterday when we launched this idea of could we work together on the thirty by thirty, you know, so instead of you know, thirty different NGOs and twelve different governments and six different multi national organizations and so many developers of carbon markets, all trying to be helpful to the democratic Republic of Congo or Brazil or Indonesia, and you know, all doing their best, and some of it is excellent, not adding up. What would it take to actually get it to add up. That's that's what we have to that's the electric bike for the dog chasing the bus.

This was a great conversation.

This was a great conversation.

Thank you very much, Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Thank you very much.

Indeed, philanthropy's relationship to climate is a complicated one. It feels like we shouldn't have to rely on the whims of billionaires to fund projects that are necessary for humans to thrive, and yet when not enough money is available for those projects, we need all the help we can get. That shouldn't mean that where the money comes from or goes to gets less scrutiny. Thanks so much for listening to Zero. If you liked this episode, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, Send it to a friend, or send it to someone who subscribes to Amazon Prime. Get in touch at zero pod at Bloomberg dot Net. Zero's producer is Oscar Boyd and senior producer is Christine Driskell. Our theme music is composed by Wonderly Special. Thanks to Kira Bindram and Robin Pomeroy at the World Economic Forum for letting us use the podcasting studios in Davos. I'm Akshatrati back next week.

Indeed, philanthropy's relationship to climate is a complicated one. It feels like we shouldn't have to rely on the whims of billionaires to fund projects that are necessary for humans to thrive, and yet when not enough money is available for those projects, we need all the help we can get. That shouldn't mean that where the money comes from or goes to gets less scrutiny. Thanks so much for listening to Zero. If you liked this episode, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, Send it to a friend, or send it to someone who subscribes to Amazon Prime. Get in touch at zero pod at Bloomberg dot Net. Zero's producer is Oscar Boyd and senior producer is Christine Driskell. Our theme music is composed by Wonderly Special. Thanks to Kira Bindram and Robin Pomeroy at the World Economic Forum for letting us use the podcasting studios in Davos. I'm Akshatrati back next week.