SPEAKER_02 0:38

Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rodri Davis, and this week we are joined by a guest, Dr. Edouard Morena, to talk about climate philanthropy. So Edouard is a senior lecturer in French studies and international politics at the University of London's Institute in Paris. And he's also the author of a number of papers and books about climate and particularly the role that philanthropy and philanthropic foundations play in climate, particularly 2016 book, The Price of Climate Action: Philanthropic Foundations in the International Climate Debate. And I sat down with Edward just this week, in fact, so this is a very hot off-the-press uh edition of the podcast to talk about the whole question of the intersection of climate and philanthropy. So we talked about how much philanthropy is actually focused on climate at the moment, as a proportion of philanthropy overall, and also how much of the overall activity around climate is uh kind of driven by philanthropy and philanthropic funders. And given that relatively small scale of philanthropy in relation to the size of the problem, we talked about whether philanthropy can play a meaningful role with respect to an issue of the scale of climate. We also talked about what kind of form the action that philanthropy is involved in doing and funding takes. Is it primarily downstream activity? Is it kind of addressing the symptoms of climate uh issues, or is it upstream activity kind of research and advocacy uh designed to address uh some of the underlying issues at a systemic level? Um We also talked about um the current context politically, where obviously the election of Donald Trump in recent months has raised new challenges for climate, um, with him pulling uh the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement and also making it clear that his administration is taking a kind of hard line uh against climate uh policies. Um we talked about whether this poses a challenge for funders in terms of whether they decide to go along with uh with that in the interests of kind of staying on the right side of government or whether they lean into it to some extent and decide to um to kind of fund counter to government policy, and whether that raises uh kind of theoretical issues in terms of the democratic status of philanthropy, and whether it kind of raises uh practical challenges in terms of those funders opening themselves up for uh criticism. We also talked about the way in which the uh the world of technology has influenced how we think about climate as an issue and how that relates to philanthropy, and whether the kind of the worldview of people who've made their money in technology naturally leads them to see technology often as the solution to lots of the world's problems, including climate problems, um whether that's kind of skewed the emphasis of efforts within the climate space to kind of technological fixes rather than issues that are more political in nature or approaches that are more political. We also talked about whether the US's stance on climate issues under the administration might uh open up space for funders from other parts of the world to step in and take a lead on climate issues, and if so, what that might look like. And and then we also discussed the issue of climate justice and what that means, firstly, but also um why in recent years there's been something of a kind of emphasis on the need to shift from traditional approaches to addressing climate issues through to more justice-focused ones, and whether again that was something that we had seen go back in back in the other direction in recent months and what that would mean for the the climate space overall. Um without further ado, let's get into the conversation. Um I thought it was a really fascinating one, so I hope you all enjoy it and it's a really timely issue, I think you'll agree. Um I'll be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping and tidying up. But for now, here's Edward. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Edward Morena. Hi there, Edward. Hi. Oh, well, great to have you on the podcast. Yeah, really looking forward to having the chance to talk. Um, so I mean, maybe the best place to start. The the subject that we're going to be talking about is kind of uh climate philanthropy, in particular, you know, the role of philanthropic funders and actors in the in the climate space. Maybe you could just say a bit about your own interest in that topic and kind of how you came to be studying in that that area.

SPEAKER_03 5:18

Yeah, I mean, I became interested in climate philanthropy by chance, really. I mean, initially I was more interested in studying um NGOs. I was also interested in kind of I focused a lot on the climate justice movement. Um, so it was really kind of while doing research on non-state actors and in particular kind of actors within the climate justice movement, that I kind of stumbled. Uh I came across uh philanthropy really through conversations I was having with different actors in um in the climate justice space. Um so this was in the period leading up to uh to COP21. So in 2015, when I was kind of involved in uh kind of a collective research project, it was kind of an ethnographic essentially uh study of kind of COP21 and so different actors and how they engage in that in that particular space. So so yeah, so as I say, I'm I I didn't really have any prior expertise on philanthropy, and I yeah, really kind of discovered it through kind of actors who engage with uh philanthropy.

SPEAKER_02 6:15

Great. Um, and yeah, I guess I mean there's there's a lot to cover. I guess an interesting starting point would just be to get a sort of a snapshot from you of your sense of what role philanthropy is currently playing in terms of climate issues. I mean, are philanthropic funders and actors meaningful players in this space at the moment? Or actually are they only bit part players? And I guess from the point of view of philanthropy, how much philanthropy overall is focused on on climate? Is it a meaningful proportion or is it still only a small amount?

SPEAKER_03 6:45

Yeah, I mean, it's it's always a difficult question to answer. And I would imagine that that applies for anyone working on philanthropy, really, kind of what is philanthropy's impact? Because I guess, I mean, first of all, philanthropy sometimes, depending on uh the context, it will kind of either overstate or understate its role and its influence. And uh and at the same time, obviously, the nature of philanthropy itself and how kind of philanthropic actors engage uh makes it also very difficult to kind of identify kind of a linear connection between what a philanthropy wants and uh and an outcome, uh especially as they don't kind of directly engage necessarily with policy actors, they kind of go through grantees, but also it's not just a question of money, you know, it's also about kind of how they uh their capacity to also kind of create you know connections between actors. So I guess again, that this this and uh again, as I'm really not an expert on the matter, I'm sure that people have you know within kind of the philanthropy kind of studies field have tried to kind of identify um kind of benchmarks or or uh uh criteria upon which to evaluate their impact. But that that being said, I I would nevertheless argue that you know philanthropic actors did play an important role and continue to play quite an important role within the international climate space. And the reason why I would argue this is that um if you just look at um the particular kind of non-state actors involved in the international climate policy space, first of all, there aren't that many. Uh, and when you look at who funds them, uh it's actually a fairly small number of philanthropic foundations that are kind of supporting these organizations. So just simply from that perspective, in terms of just even allowing kind of non-state actors, NGOs, movements to exist and engage within the international climate policy space, I would say that philanthropy is a very important actor in that respect. Because they're what they're they're clearly the dominant funder of a number of um non-state actors involved in the international climate conversation.

SPEAKER_02 8:49

And and picking up on what you were saying there, I mean, in terms of thinking about what sorts of things philanthropy is currently doing, should we be thinking of it in terms of you know, some of that work being essentially kind of downstream work that is in the climate field, but addressing maybe you know the impact of climate, and some of it being upstream, which is more focused on you know advocacy and research that's that's kind of intended to address some of the underlying causes? Do you get do you have any sense of what the the split between those things is um you know across the sector as a whole?

SPEAKER_03 9:19

Yeah, I mean, I would say it kind of mirrors as well uh what you know where the kind of climate conversation is right now. I mean, uh there's always this kind of debate on, you know, do we focus more on mitigation or on adaptation? You know, do we try and uh you know put resources into kind of preparing ourselves like collectively for the uh impacts of climate ch of the climate crisis, or should we try to kind of focus more on policies to try and mitigate, you know, to reduce emissions and to ensure that we stay within kind of a uh a global kind of a temperature increase that is kind of manageable? I would say that at least until recently, the the the main focus of climate philanthropy has been on mitigation, and that's taken different shapes. So it's been both focusing on policy, uh trying to kind of push through policies. Uh, again, it can be through the work that they did around the kind of Paris Climate Agreement, for instance, but also you know, work more on the national or the regional level. So in the US, you know, pushing for the Inflation Reduction Act, for instance, you know, getting kind of the federal government, at least under Biden, to kind of massively invest uh in uh the low-carbon, uh, the low-carbon transition, but also at the European level, for instance, you know, the through the work that they did around the Green Deal, for example. So there has been historically kind of a tendency to focus a lot on influencing policy. And and the main argument and the main reason for that is that, and this is something I've always found quite interesting, is that from the outset, you know, the the philanthropies who are the most involved in the climate debate, they they acknowledge the fact that you know we will really, you know, the low-carbon transition will require massive government investment and it will require kind of policies, government policies. So, you know, it it it so it's not the it's not so so essentially you know, through philanthropy by itself or you know, businesses or you know, economic actors by themselves will not be able to uh uh bring about the required transition. We're gonna need kind of a policy environment that enables that to happen and that also kind of nudges you know private uh actors, investors, companies to kind of engage in the transition. Uh, but we'll also need public money and a lot of public money uh to ensure that that transition uh actually takes place. So that's why, again, from the outset, there's been quite a big focus on policy. But also what we're seeing uh and what we've started to see as well over the past maybe five, 10 years, um, and this is something, for instance, that Bill Gates has been particularly interested in, is this kind of idea of also the kind of focus on technology. Um, you know, through his work on kind of breakthrough energy, you know, through breakthrough energy, for instance. Uh, you know, he's been um funding research, for instance, on kind of new technologies, you know, relating to sometimes kind of connected to either kind of nuclear or geoengineering or things like that, uh carbon capture. And this is also something that uh philanthropy has also been invested in. And sometimes actually it's it's actually even funded, uh, and I don't know exactly how they've done that from just a legal standpoint. They also funded actually for-profit companies as well or startups, you know, so kind of direct investment into startups, you know, developing kind of new technological breakthroughs around uh around clean energy in particular.

SPEAKER_02 12:37

Yeah, absolutely. And I I don't know, but my suspicion would be, I mean, increasingly one of the sort of trends within the philanthropy world is this kind of hybridization where people are using non-traditional structures for funding like um LLCs, and then you can have a combination of funding for-profit entities and not-for-profit.

SPEAKER_03 12:53

I think that's the case, for instance, with the Bezos Earth Fund. I think it is an LLC, uh, which also obviously raises another series of questions relating to the question of transparency because it makes it also more difficult to actually know what exactly they're funding, uh, because they don't have to provide uh uh any information essentially on who they're who they're making grants to, uh, which from a research perspective uh is obviously also kind of an issue. So you have to kind of guess basically, well, you can get information, but it's more difficult, I guess, to get that information.

SPEAKER_02 13:24

Yeah, absolutely. And that there's a couple of things I wanted to pick up on there. One of them is a sort of a wider point that gets raised in philanthropy is at the moment, we're sort of at a point in time where tech wealth is having a sort of disproportionate impact on shaping philanthropy because so many of the big um fortunes have been made in that way. And you know, some people sort of then put argue that actually that shapes their thinking when it comes to addressing social problems or environmental. So, you know, you you have a tendency to assume that the way in which you made your own success is likely to be the answer to the world's problems. Is there any sense that the kind of the interest in technological solutions to climate from climate funders reflects that to some extent?

SPEAKER_03 14:06

Yeah, I mean, I I would tend to say yes. Uh, I mean, again, if you even, I mean, but again, it in a way, it's not even restricted to philanthropy. I would say that our understanding of the climate issue um has been kind of largely shaped by, you know, California, Californian environmentalism essentially, and in particular the one that kind of grew out of you know, Palo Alto and the Silicon Valley. And uh, you know, and I think that's really, you know, I think that's really interesting as well when you analyze, you know, philanthropy, uh, or as I say, the environmental movement more generally, uh, and the kind of the dominant narratives and dominant approaches to environmentalism, I think it's it's always important to also obviously connect them to the broader kind of picture in the broader context. And as you mentioned, you know, the rise of tech, uh, which is kind of a phenomenon that actually actually is actually, you know, we can even trace back to the 60s and 70s, you know, it's uh uh uh uh is really important in order to also understand why we shape the environmental problem in or the environmental issue in the way we do, you know. And I always like to use the um the the is that kind of blue marble picture. I think it was, you know, the first time we took a picture of Earth from space, you know, and the impact that that had on us. Well then you can see how, again, kind of how the technology and tech and innovation, you know, by providing us this ability to kind of view the earth from space as kind of an entity, that also in a way contributed to shape our understanding of the environmental problem as a global problem, you know, and this kind of idea that we're all in this together, you know, this kind of idea of spaceship, earth, et cetera, et cetera. But at the same time, even if you look at the Club of Rome report, again, it's it's also largely due to the development of cybernetics. It was the first time that we were starting to do kind of uh computer modeling. Uh, so there is for me that real kind of connection between, you know, the way we frame the climate issue and the role of technology, both as I say, as an economic actor, but also as a cultural actor. And so, in a way, it's not it's not really surprising as well to see that you know, a lot of the climate philanthropy, or at least the most active climate philanthropy, is also climate philanthropy that is based in many ways, in in in many cases, on the west coast of the US and more specifically in the Silicon Valley. Historically, you know, foundations like Hewlett and Packard, for instance, you know, they they have historically played a big role and they continue to play a big role. But also more recently, you know, uh a number of kind of either you know, uh tech entrepreneurs, uh, but also uh uh um uh how do you say like financial uh um investors, you know, who made their or built their fortunes by investing in tech, uh they are also big players in the um in the climate philanthropy space. And again, I think that's kind of a reflection of these kind of broader trends that uh uh that we've been seeing, uh, which again are not just economic, because I think there is an economic dimension to all this, because I think that, you know, at least in the past, addressing the climate crisis was also seen to an extent as an economic opportunity for tech firms in particular, uh for the tech sector more generally, but there's also kind of a cultural element as well uh related to that, uh, which is also this kind of yeah, the kind of the narrative around tech, you know, and this kind of idea that tech is politically neutral, that you know, tech is uh a tool, you know, uh that uh uh that uh tech essentially is uh something that you know can serve the purpose of addressing the world's biggest problems. Uh uh and that's something, again, that I find a lot of within the uh the climate philanthropy space, but as I say, the environmental you know movement more generally.

SPEAKER_02 17:52

Yeah, and it feels like it's a particular example of something that you see a lot kind of more widely within philanthropy, which is this a tension you often get between pragmatism on the one hand and the sort of reality that you need to work with the world as it is to some extent in order to drive change, and the the kind of more idealistic version of no, you know, actually this might require fundamental change to the structures and systems that operate. Within the world of um sort of climate at the moment, what what's your sense of that balance between whether seeking technological fixes or pragmatic solutions in the here and now, whether that's helpful and necessary or whether it kind of actually gets in the way of the necessary momentum for more fundamental change to society or the economic structures that we we use?

SPEAKER_03 18:40

Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really interesting question. I would say maybe that the the in a way, what's what's kind of interesting as well, and what I feel is also indirectly being kind of asked for your question is is this kind of idea that um uh technology is a pragmatic solution. Uh uh when actually, you know, I think that's actually, you know, it's not necessarily that pragmatic as a solution. Uh so I think that's also what I find really interesting, is to see how, you know, um these climate philanthropies in particular have kind of succeeded in um imposing this idea, or at least normalizing this idea that kind of technology is a pragmatic solution. You know, and we've seen that, as I say, we we're we're increasingly seeing that even with things that even five years ago were not considered as pragmatic solutions, like you know, geoengineering, for instance. You know, now it's presented as you know a pragmatic solution to the climate issue, when just five or ten years ago it wasn't. It was considered as something that was completely outrageous in a way. Uh but also even just before Trump's election, what was kind of fascinating to see is how AI was also presented as a pragmatic solution, as a as a tool to address the climate issue, as something that was really useful for the climate, uh for addressing the climate crisis. But now, you know, with the election or the re-election of Donald Trump, suddenly that kind of narrative has just completely disappeared, you know, because essentially they don't that narrative is no longer necessary, you know, uh uh um because you know, we you have a government that is willing to use kind of fossil fuel energy to kind of use to power uh uh the uh uh the data centers that will be required for the expansion of AI, for example. Uh so so yeah, so I think that connection between pragmatism and technology um is is really uh for me, it's something that's completely constructed uh uh when uh when you think of it. Yeah, I think, I mean, I don't know if I was really answering your question. I think it just made me think of that.

SPEAKER_02 20:39

I think it's a really no, it's a really good point, though. I think it it is easy, and I guess I mean in in many ways deliberate that that is the way in which technology is presented, both as if it is neutral, as you said earlier, but also as if you know it is pragmatic and makes sense, and it's actually just sort of, you know, uh pragmatically minded people getting down to solving problems, whereas actually sometimes these things are presented as much more fully formed than than they actually are, and they're a lot more speculative than we think. Um you mentioned there about the obviously the kind of the election of of Donald Trump and the way in which that's had an impact. And I wanted to ask, actually, in terms of something you said before around the fact that um you know the limitations of philanthropy mean that there's only a certain amount and a relatively finite amount you can do just with direct philanthropic funding. And actually, you always then have to start looking at how you uh influence external actors, and that usually means governmental uh involvement. I guess that has always been a challenge, not just in the US, but in lots of places, because you know the reality is the sticking point for a lot of the big changes that are necessary to address climate, it feels as though are political ones. But that that um context has obviously shifted even more with with the election of Trump. What's your sense of the kind of additional challenges that this will pose for? Philanthropic funders interested in this space. Will they have to adapt their strategies and approaches?

SPEAKER_03 22:04

Yeah, I mean, I think we're already seeing it. I mean, I think uh the you know recent announcements by the Bezos Earth Fund, for instance, that it would stop funding. And I can't even remember the name of the initiative, but it was to be perfectly honest, it was it was literally just an initiative that was really centered around, you know, very kind of pro-business, kind of market-based approach to addressing the climate issue. But again, you know, I guess that's kind of sending kind of a first kind of strong signal of, you know, what's what will what's you know what might happen. You know, if you if your Bayos Earth Fund is defunding these organizations, again, that are very kind of uh quite mainstream in terms of their approach, uh, I mean, what's going to happen to the climate justice groups that the Basel Earth Fund is also funding, because it is funding certain grammar justice groups in the US, you know. So, so yeah, I think, I mean, my my impression right now is that it's still kind of early days, and I think there's kind of a almost kind of a paralysis, uh, which is, I mean, I wouldn't I wouldn't say it's restricted to the climate, to the climate philanthropy space, it's just the general paralysis that we're seeing in the face of, you know, these kind of the the the this massive, like constant flow of announcements that we're seeing from from Trump. And uh, and I think obviously so so it makes it difficult to kind of identify kind of a clear kind of response. But it's true that what we are seeing is that, at least amongst the climate climate philanthropy crowd, either there's a form of silence where you're kind of seeing like no one's anywhere to be seen. There's another group that is kind of now clearly positioning itself as supporters of Trump or at least as being kind of, you know, and we we we all saw them at the Capitol uh uh when at the inauguration. Uh so you know, obviously Bezos is the the the best example of that. And then there are there are a few, but they they seem to be very limited, uh, people who who are kind of resisting in a way. And I think that's what, you know, so the example I would say is Michael Blue is is Bloomberg, who you know who announced that he would be stepping in uh you know to fund the UNFCCC secretariat because the US is uh you know no longer or is defunding the the UNFCCC. So I mean, I guess at the same time, again, for when it comes to Bloomberg, I guess that's something that was to be expected also given the fact that he you know he he he also built his own kind of uh image and status uh through the critique of uh of Donald Trump. Uh uh but yeah, so I think the the so if we take if we leave aside those two extremes, so Bezos on the one hand and and Bloomberg on the other, you have this kind of big kind of center, which again, I I we still haven't really heard. Uh I think we're starting to get a few indications. I mean, I was able to, you know, I've been kind of following a few interventions by people within some of the kind of mainstream climate philanthropies like Hewlett or Climate Works, for instance. Uh what they, you know, the narrative that I'm starting to see is this kind of idea that, uh, and this is kind of interesting, is this kind of idea that, well, actually, you know, it's it we shouldn't be too worried or it's not that big a deal because the United States is not, is only kind of nine or 10% of global emissions. So essentially, you know, even if the US, you know, decides to kind of increase its emissions, you know, what counts is the other 90%, you know. And so again, I find that interesting because for so many years, these are the same people who have been pushing at the international level this idea that we have to, we, we, we, we can't solve the crisis without the United States. Uh, so suddenly now like the United States is no longer a problem, you know, and we don't need the United States as we don't need them anymore. Um, so that's something that I'm starting to see. And this is, I say, is the case for this is something that a guy from Hewlett mentioned and a person from Climate Works as well. And what they're also saying is that that also means obviously that we need to start investing in um other regions. Um, so that's something maybe also to look out for. I mean, I I'm I mean maybe they're I mean what I'm what I'm guessing is they might redeploy their funding to other regions where they see potential, but at the same time, you know, uh disin the uh stop reducing their investments as well at the international and the multilateral level uh in particular. Uh uh because I don't think, you know, obviously the the big impact of all this is that it's weakened the uh multilateral climate system. You know, the fact that the US is no longer in it, uh, you know, it it it it yeah, it does weaken that that space. So I I would, you know, so one possibility is that climate funders also disengage from the international space and have a more kind of targeted, you know, um region-specific approach.

SPEAKER_02 26:46

Yeah, that's that's really interesting. I want to come back to that idea of of sort of shifting emphasis geographically about some of these debates, because I think that mirrors something interesting that's happening in uh in philanthropy as well. Um just before I do that though, I wanted to come back to what you were saying there. Because I think that point about the you know, those potentially different approaches at at either end of the spectrum to to the um uh uh to Trump being elected, I think there genuinely is that dangerous to say that with the example of Bezos, you have you know the kind of Timothy Snyder's idea of people obeying in advance and actually kind of doing what they think that the administration wants them to do before they're even asked to. And then you've got um people like Bloomberg potentially doing things that can be framed as if they are resistant in some sense. On on that latter one, what I wanted to ask was I I noted the the example of Bloomberg as well, and I guess whilst it wasn't that surprising with with Bloomberg, because it's you know very much his track record and he's built his reputation around that, it does raise quite an awkward question about the democratic legitimacy of philanthropy. Because it's it's it's easy if you're you know, if you care about climate issues to to cheer and say, hooray, you know, somebody stepped in and is covering these, but actually from a fundamental point of view, it's quite anti-democratic if that if the elected government has a different agenda. Is there any way of squaring that circle?

SPEAKER_03 27:59

No, no, I completely agree. And I think that's that's obviously the the the other side of the picture that I think um yeah is is also really significant, as you say. I mean, I think the fact that he is effectively uh stepping in and you know, uh stepping in for an elected government, you know, even if you disagree with it.

SPEAKER_00 28:18

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 28:18

Uh it is, it does raise, I think, serious, serious issues. And in a way, it kind of validates this idea that actually, you know, there is kind of a plutocracy that is extremely powerful, that is extremely influential, uh not just in national political affairs, but in global political affairs as well. Um and just the whole thing, I mean, just the the whole kind of staging of uh Bloomberg's uh intervention is what was also kind of interesting to see. You know, so the fact that he he took out a statement, and in the press statement itself, you have a quote of the current kind of executive director of the UNFCCC thanking him for his support. In a way, you know, you could see that as kind of a power move as well, in a way. You know, it's also about asserting your authority, you know, over the UNFCCC, but also over the kind of the pro-climate camp. Uh and I think that's kind of a yeah, that that that I think is a really kind of big question that I think uh needs to be needs to be needs to be addressed. You know, it's uh um because what we're seeing, I think, with Trump is this kind of idea that they're kind of the good and the bad billionaires in a way. Um and you know, I think uh again, Gates is is I think also trying to kind of frame himself as the kind of the good billionaire. And we're seeing this as well with the kind of the all the stuff he's doing around his memoirs right now. Uh the kind of the responsible, the you know, the normal, the the you know, just the kind of the, they're trying to, it's sort of almost a question of image, you know, how they present themselves as almost uh the opposite of you know Elon Musk in a way, uh, in terms of their style. Uh, but fundamentally, you know, they are also very powerful as a result of the money that they have. Uh and they have historically, and especially when it comes to climate and climate policy, they have exerted a lot of you know, uh, a lot of influence on the direction that the climate debate has taken, uh, both at the international and you know the domestic level in the United States. So I think that's the challenge, I think, for people who's who are kind of observing all this is that we don't lose track of that either, you know, and we don't necessarily fall into that idea that there are kind of good and bad billionaires. Uh, um, because obviously that's, you know, I think that that's a risk that we're kind of seeing right now, uh, that we kind of start categorizing billionaires, you know, and that we lose track of the fact that good billionaires are also extremely influential in terms of you know politically. Uh uh and therefore that we should uh kind of come back to your question, also think about how do we ensure that they are accountable in some way or another. You know, how do we kind of ensure that their power is kind of contained or at least you know um abides by a certain number of basic rules, your democratic rules.

SPEAKER_02 31:09

And it's and I think the challenge here is it's always in the situation where the you know the incumbent power then is doing things that lots of people think are regressive or problematic and are going to do damage, it's very easy then to say, oh, well, again, pragmatically let's just allow the billionaires that we do agree with to kind of do do what they're doing because it's a short-term fix. But as you say, kind of the diff the difficulty there is you get caught in sort of hypocrisy where you kind of you like the ones that you like and you don't like the ones that you don't like.

SPEAKER_03 31:36

Yeah. And if we come to the if we go return to the climate issue, you could, you know, to a certain extent, you could also argue that you know the political situation that the United States is in now is also partially a consequence of the types of policies and climate policies that have been pushed by people like Bloomberg and others. You know, if you look at the Inflation Reduction Act, and if you look at who benefited most from the Inflation Reduction Act, it isn't the kind of uh uh uh um you know US working class who benefited most. Uh uh, it's actually either uh the kind of the richest people in the in the in the in the country, so the people who had kind of the highest kind of levels of income, or you know, like the corporations and the investors who you know were also kind of, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, able or benefited from various types of federal support to uh to fund uh clean clean energy or clean technologies. Um so I think that's something we shouldn't lose track of. And obviously the risk, I think, in the current moment is that we kind of return to a very kind of facile kind of division between pro and anti-climate, between this kind of idea that, you know, uh essentially, you know, we're we're we're Bloomberg and everyone else, we're all in the same team. You know, we're all kind of we're all on the same side. Uh um when yes, obviously we are in the sense that we both agree, we all agree that we need to do something about the climate issue and that it's an important issue. However, I think there are fundamental differences when it comes to the types of solutions and the types of answers that we can bring, and also how those answers affect other kind of questions, such as questions of justice, inequality, et cetera, et cetera.

SPEAKER_02 33:22

Yeah, and I guess that becomes more difficult to do when the political moment is so sort of centered around creating very clear binaries and divisions and trying to kind of allocate people into for and against camps on issues like climate. Um I wanted to come back to what you were saying before about the potential sort of shift in emphasis in thinking about climate issues away from the US to other areas, because one of the things that's interesting in philanthropy over certainly the last decade or so has been the sense that there is potentially a pretty fundamental shift in the sort of sense of the gravity of global philanthropy, as we get new senses of wealth emerging in China and Asia and also to some extent in Africa these days. And I guess, you know, even more recently, the fact that the US seems to be willing to kind of seed some of its top power in terms of uh global issues with the dismantling of USAID. Actually, you know, what do you think that's going to mean in terms of where not just the emphasis of the kind of philanthropic efforts from the US and UK go, but is there also going to be space opened up for climate-focused philanthropy from other places? And do you think that might look different in nature?

SPEAKER_03 34:30

Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really, really good question, uh, to which I don't have a really good answer, unfortunately. But I think it is a possibility, absolutely. And as you rightly say, I think we might see something that's quite similar to uh, you know, what we might see as a result of um the dismantlement of USAID. Uh, you know, these are all instruments of soft power fundamentally at the end of the day, you know, and I think that's and that's something as well that you actually find in the in the in some of the responses that we're seeing from some of these climate funders to to Trump's election. They're saying, well, you know, it's the United States that's going to lose out of this. You know, uh, we are, you know, as the US, we're gonna lose out. And I think that kind of obviously comes, you know, reconnects with what historically philanthropy is and how essentially, you know, US philanthropy is US philanthropy. So it is also an instrument that is in many ways, you know, historically has been aligned with a particular perception of what the US interests are at the international level. So, yeah, so their disengagement uh um and the disengagement of the US in general, you know, and potentially also the disengagement of certain funders from the climate uh from the climate space, yeah, I would imagine that it might create a vacuum that will be filled by by other uh by other philanthropists uh from other regions. I guess, yeah, what still is unclear for me, and again, that's probably why because I haven't really done enough research on the matter, but uh is is uh on at least on my radar, and maybe that's again because I'm very focused on the US and and Europe, I haven't really seen any of major kind of non-US or non-European climate funders emerge so far. Uh it doesn't mean to say that they don't exist. And it actually, you know, as I say, as you say, and they might actually seize this moment as an opportunity to uh uh um uh to to to engage. But uh but I I haven't, I mean, I I'm not able to kind of give you any names, for instance, of you know, uh big climate philanthropies from Africa, Asia, even Latin America, you know, uh who you know who who would potentially be in a position to kind of fill the vacuum that's currently being uh currently being created.

SPEAKER_02 36:43

No, I mean, I can't think of them either, but I think it's a really interesting thing to potentially keep watch for. And I wonder also if part of the challenge here is one that I guess you get more widely with climate philanthropy, in that you know, the paradigm that we have of climate philanthropy is the kind of bezel's earth fund and and the work you know Gates does, which is very clearly positioned as climate philanthropy. Whereas there is lots of other philanthropy that ostensibly focuses on other issues, but actually is to some extent about climate. And I wonder whether there's more of that going on in other parts of the world and whether it might become more overtly climate.

SPEAKER_03 37:16

Yeah, completely. And I think again, that yeah, that yeah, that's I think that's a good point. And that obviously also connects to this kind of constant difficulty of defining what climate philanthropy is, essentially. Uh, that's also why I'm always quite cautious about even data that's produced about you know the scale of climate philanthropy, because as you as you point out, I mean, I guess you you can work on health, you can work on an education, you know, but you could say in that in a way that that is also, you could also connect that and also present that potentially as a form of climate philanthropy as well, you know. So, so yeah, uh so absolutely. I think that's that's also maybe something that you know um we might also see in that, you know, including in places like Europe or the US, is that you know funders who are not traditionally kind of labeled as climate philanthropists start to maybe more directly engage um on the topic or you know, through the work that they're already doing, maybe kind of highlight more how that kind of relates to the climate issue.

SPEAKER_02 38:11

Yeah, it'll be really interesting to see. Um and I guess a related question touched on something that you've mentioned a couple of times already, which is the idea of focusing more on climate justice than maybe um kind of more traditional ideas of kind of addressing climate issues directly. Maybe I know this is something you've done work on, and it seemed to me, at least maybe a few years ago, that there was starting to be a kind of shift within the climate space towards uh recognising the need to get the right balance. Again, I wonder if that's something that will uh you know be slightly more difficult in the current climate. Um sorry, no pun intended there. Uh political climate I meant there. Um maybe you could just say a bit about what it actually means to talk about sort of justice-focused efforts when it comes to climate and what that distinction is.

SPEAKER_03 38:58

Yeah, I mean, I think the question of justice, I think, you know, historically, at least within the international climate debate, it's been very much framed in terms of historical responsibilities of countries. So, you know, this kind of idea that, you know, historically, European countries, uh, the United States, they have kind of contributed most to uh greenhouse gas emissions. And as a result of that, you know, they should also do more when it comes to addressing the climate, the climate, the climate issue. So that's kind of a fundamental principle, in fact, of the UN and Framework Convention on Climate Change, is just this idea of uh uh historical with different differentiated responsibility. So we acknowledge the fact that you know we all have a responsibility, but those responsibilities are historically differentiated depending on the country. Uh, but what we've seen, uh, especially from the late 90s and 2000s onwards, and this again is in the context where we saw the emergence of an anti-globalization movement, you know, the World Social Forum, a growing kind of critique of neoliberal globalization, um, there was an increasing focus on questions of justice that were no longer restricted to north and south, but that were also actually centered on the rich and poor. Um, and so this kind of focus on the responsibility of wealthy people or the the the the top 10% or the richest 10% of the world's population, regardless of where they're situated, you know, in the global north or the global south, and saying, you know, if you look at the emissions of those 10%, they represent about 40 or 50% of the emissions of the of the poorest 50% of the population. And therefore, you know, at the same time, those poorer 50% are also the ones who are the most vulnerable in the face of the climate issue. So that, you know, and that has also had quite a big impact, let's say, on how we frame the climate issue, because it's put forward this idea that, well, again, if you emit more, if you have a greater responsibility as an individual, then you should also uh be contributing more to address uh to address the problem. Um, obviously the problem with that framing when you come to philanthropy is that obviously philanthropy is largely a product of extreme wealth accumulation. So that's also you know, explains why there's always been quite an uncomfortable kind of connection, a relationship, let's say, between especially the kind of the mainstream, the big funders, and in particular, and this is, I think, an important, another important distinction, you know, the climate philanthropies like Bezos, who are uh still run and owned by the rich individual who's built up his fortune, uh, and legacy foundations like Ford or Rucklefeld, where it's actually quite a different story. Um, but those, you know, those those foundations that are still managed by uh um uh the rich individual, uh obviously, you know, with you start talking about this question of you know responsibilities of rich people and how they should pay more, that potentially becomes more problematic. Uh but I think they, you know, even Bezos, they were kind of forced to kind of acknowledge this question, especially you know, on the back of all the mobilizations that we've been seeing since really since late 2018, with you know, Extinction Rebellion, you know, Greta Thumb, there was this kind of moment, I think, within the history of the kind of climate debate where suddenly kind of questions of justice became kind of really uh really central. But I think now, unfortunately, what we're seeing is that that's no longer really the case. Um, and that's also for me why essentially the question of climate justice is has also largely disappeared, I would say, from uh uh um from the narratives and the discourses of these, as I say, these big climate funders in particular.

SPEAKER_02 42:48

Yeah, absolutely. I mean it's it is, yeah, I mean, that's worrying, I guess. I mean, in in practical terms, then you've mentioned there about um the sort of impact that the emergence of um movements um like Extinction Rebellion and and um activists like Greta Thunberg had. Is that in a sense kind of it where philanthropy seeks to be more focused on climate justice? Is it is part of what it means to think about not funding sort of traditional nonprofits and sort of large international NGOs and actually think about funding activists and movements? And uh and you know, is is that both a challenge, as you say, in terms of the fact that you you as a funder have to kind of accept the implicit critique of you and how you made your money, and essentially if you're an individual donor, you know, literally you as a person. And is it also a challenge because it's even more difficult then to get any sense of the direct attribution of where you're putting the funding and the impact that it has? Because I guess you know, funders often like to say we put X amount in it produced you know, Y outcomes we could measure this. Whereas if you're funding movements and activism, you know, the results might be incredible, but it's very hard to measure. And even more difficult to attribute them. Do you think that's that's potentially a challenge?

SPEAKER_03 44:05

Yeah, I think it is. I mean, I think there, yeah, I mean, there's always this obsession with um metrics and uh kind of ability to actually translate, you know, the money that you're putting into something into you know tons of greenhouse gases that you're not emitting fundamentally. And I think that's at least that's that's how uh the kind of climate philanthropy, especially from the the early 2000s, again, very much influenced by you know the kind of entrepreneurial kind of culture of that period, how that's you know, yeah, it's definitely something that's very present within climate philanthropy and continues to be to an extent. At the same time, I think you know, when it comes to movements, and in particular when you think of like groups like Extinction Rebellion or uh or others, I think what was the the reason why some philanthropies, including kind of very mainstream philanthropies, in invested in them, is that for very little money, because it didn't, it was really a small amount of money that they could throw at these organizations, they could potentially have quite a big impact, in particular when it comes to getting the climate issue to be kind of a top priority in a way. Uh and I think that's, you know, uh, yeah. So without, you know, being kind of you know, without having kind of very detailed data, I think they saw that, and I think that's one of the things with Extinction Rowan is how a movement that was quite self-organized that did kind of really things on the cheap, you know, if you compare it, if you compare them to, I don't know, Greenpeace uh doing kind of an action uh, you know, uh that costs you know hundreds of thousands of pounds to do. In this case, you know, it costs literally nothing, and they were all over the place, they were all over the news, and you know, everyone spoke about them. Uh, so so I think that's what they saw. I think they they saw that there was, even if it was it was difficult to quantify, they still saw that there was a really good kind of return on investment when it comes to funding these groups, even though they had sometimes a very kind of critical kind of narrative and discourse, you know, what they saw is that this put climate on the map. You know, this meant that we were talking about climate, climate change. And also they they didn't really, I don't think fundamentally they saw these movements as a threat to them, because these were movements that were also very focused and they were pushing the in many ways the same kind of narrative that they were pushing, you know, narratives like follow the science, you know, is something that you also find, you know, uh in kind of uh Extinction Rebellion rallies or you know, Greta Thunberg, she was saying literally the same thing. And that's exactly what you know um some of the big climate philanthropies were also saying, you know. Um so you know, in in a way, I don't think they saw them as a threat, but they did see the potential, they did see them as a way of you know um ensuring that climate was uh the the priority uh uh was high on the agenda. And then when it came to influencing actually policy, well, that's when they were, you know, they would use the other organizations that they also fund that were pushing for policies in a way that were more aligned with you know what they believe to be the right course of action to address the climate issue.

SPEAKER_02 47:14

Yeah, which I guess is the classic sort of balance of insider and outsider influencing, isn't it? Um and this in what you were saying there, there's something there is something really interesting about you know the idea that funding some of these groups or activists is very cost effective in many ways because it's relatively cheap and you can get sort of outsized results. But whether that needs to be balanced against the the risk tolerance of the funder, because often the way in which those organizations get that outsized uh influence is by doing things that the funders would presumably be relatively uncomfortable with doing themselves. Um so I think it's that interaction is is fascinating and kind of how much of that risk they're willing to take.

SPEAKER_03 47:52

No, it is. I mean, they were. I mean, I remember with uh, you know, when it was with Extinction Rebellion, it was just interesting to see how a lot of these people were actually expressing support for civil disobedience, you know, it's kind of uh it wasn't a problem. I guess the one thing that they've always been critical of, and I think that's the thing that they wouldn't fund is when there was violence, essentially. So there's always this question of violence, has always been an important one. But when it comes to you know peacefully kind of occupying a street, for example, or whatever, uh that's that's acceptable.

SPEAKER_02 48:26

Yeah. Although I guess again, a calculation about the you know the point at which public opinion shifts against that and whether it's an effective.

SPEAKER_03 48:33

And they follow, I mean, and obviously they always align. It was a time at a time when public opinion opinion was globally supportive of the movement, you know. And again, that's also why it's interesting to see how now it was kind of we're kind of in a yeah, we're in a moment, I think, where you know climate more generally is not considered as a central issue, or at least in in public opinion. Right now it's the kind of cost of living crisis. I mean, there are so many other pressing questions. Uh, and I think that also goes in a way to explain why there's also less interest, I think, in movements, in climate movements from climate funders. At least that's the impression that I have.

SPEAKER_02 49:10

Yeah, interesting. Um I'm aware we're we're coming up on the time that we've got. I just wanted to ask uh one more, well, possibly two more questions. One was just um, we haven't really touched on it yet, but one of the things I think that will inevitably come up in conversations around climate and philanthropy is the UN SDGs. Um I'd be just really interested in your sense of you know, whether they are still relevant and useful, and you know, in what way are they useful, either as a benchmark or as a way of kind of directing philanthropic um resources effectively.

SPEAKER_03 49:41

I I think that for a long time the SDGs, at least the impression I've had is that they've been kind of overshadowed by climate. I think in a way that's also reflected in the philanthropy space. I mean, I but again, maybe that's because I'm just I've been working on philanthropy more than anything else. So so then that's also probably a bias that I have. I don't know if the SDGs are still in a way, I yeah, my general impression is that the SDGs have never occupied the the front of the stage. Um and so as a result, they've continued to be like to exist and to be referred to by a range of different actors. But I I don't know, I don't I don't think that they that they will become kind of more or less important in the in the coming uh in the in the in the you know in the coming weeks or months. Yeah. I I mean again, but as I say, I I'm really I don't think I've followed enough the SGG conversation to be able to have like a clear kind of sense of like where where where that's going.

SPEAKER_02 50:37

No, fair enough. And and I guess one of the challenges when it comes to the SGGs in particular, I think, um potentially for philanthropy, but perhaps even more so for the the way in which they affect the um activities of corporates is a sense that it's perhaps too easy to retrofit you know into the framework of the SGGs things that you're essentially already doing anyway. Is there, you know, is that a concern within the climate space as well, that actually you any measure that you create or any sort of framework that you create that's intended to guide behavior or activity in one way, the the challenge is also people, you know, if people could just simply redefine what they were already doing in order to make it look as though they're meeting those requirements.

SPEAKER_03 51:15

Yeah, I think that's that's potentially that's that's that yeah, that's probably true. Like for the SDG conversation, I think it might be slightly more difficult for climate because obviously the the benchmark for climate is you know, it's it's the science of climate change and it's the question of, you know, like essentially it's like where are we at in terms of global emissions? I mean, there's that element where, in a way, for climate, you know, there are ways of kind of measuring uh uh fairly precisely, you know, um uh both like global emissions, but even more specific emissions relating to a country or relating to a specific sector. So I don't know if it's yeah, I don't know, potentially that makes it a bit more difficult as well to present kind of a to to to project this kind of image of being uh you know uh active on climate change or of doing things on climate change when you know obviously your narrative is kind of contradicted by the reality of your emissions in a way. Uh so I don't know if that has something to do with, yeah, that that might be something that yeah, differentiates the the climate debate more specifically from the kind of the broader uh uh SDG uh SDG conversation.

SPEAKER_02 52:27

Yeah, it's interesting. Yeah, maybe those measures are actually, as you say, kind of harder to fudge in a way. You just kind of that they are what they are, and the science kind of tells you whether or not you're having an impact on them. Which which I guess leads me to my final question, which is I mean, it's slightly a kind of big picture looking ahead one, which is you know, given the the current context, I mean, around uh, you know, the recent changes um politically, but also just the way that debates and action on climate have been going in recent years, you know, how optimistic should we be? And I guess in particular, you know, what can philanthropy meaningfully be doing from this point, you know, at this point in time, um, in your view, that could genuinely kind of have an impact in driving things in the direction they need to go?

SPEAKER_03 53:09

The answer I usually give to that to that question is I think it for me it's it's a big part of the answer lies in kind of philanthropy in a way reconnecting with uh what it was maybe 30 or 40 years ago, at least when it comes to the environmental conversation. I mean, when I when I you know when I looked at the work of you know uh the Rockefeller uh Brothers Fund or you know uh Ford in the 1970s and 80s when they started to work on environmental issues, you know, and by I'm by no means am I saying that what they're doing is is ideal or is perfect, but at this at the time at least I felt that there was there was still kind of a recognition of um the need to not necessarily kind of carry a ready-made answer or to kind of uh but to create the conditions for kind of a conversation and a debate, you know. And I think uh I think that's possibly what philanthropy can do, uh, is to to to create those the conditions for that conversation, not on the science of climate change, because I think we all agree what that science what the science of climate change says, but more on you know how we translate that science into action, you know, uh what are the different options you know that exist, you know. Uh uh and I think the the yeah, because that that's really for me the the main critique I would I I have as well towards you know the kind of climate, the Bezos style climate philanthropy is that they they have a very like clear idea of what they want. Uh uh and they're they're they have such a clear idea of what they want that to an extent they're also you know trying to kind of marginalize alternative voices or critical voices. Uh when I when in fact I think in this particular moment I think it's it's it's really necessary as well to to allow kind of alternative views to also exist, you know, uh uh to be listened to. Um and so so yeah, so so my hope is that you know those kind of spaces are created and also that you know we don't fall into the trap of saying that you know the urgency of the climate crisis means that we don't have time to kind of have these conversations, you know. I think they are worthwhile conversations, and and I would say that they're also they're they're worthwhile conversations because um yeah, I think had we had them earlier, uh, we would probably not be in the situation that we're in now. Um, and just maybe a final point, then when it comes to what philanthropic actors might play a big role, at least in the climate space, I think that kind of comes back to maybe that's where also those legacy funders are going to be more important now than ever. Uh, because I think they're less um directly um yeah, I mean, they're they're they're less tempted uh to align themselves, you know, with whoever's in power. Uh, you know, as we're seeing with all these kind of billionaire philanthropists, you know, uh Bezos in particular, you know, uh they don't have they don't have to align themselves, you know. Uh uh they're completely, you know, they're independent in a way. And I think that independence uh will be extremely valuable uh uh going forward. Uh and hopefully that will also enable them to actually support and fund things that, again, are not necessarily, you know, are not just kind of blindly aligned with uh uh both you know the people in Washington or you know what the mainstream wants when it comes to when it comes to climate action.

SPEAKER_02 56:50

Yeah, that's really interesting. And I guess I'm very timely because that's a moment where there's a lot of debate, particularly in the US, understandably, about what the role of philanthropy and particularly foundations should be at this this moment. And I think some quite sort of you know, almost an existential crisis for the philanthropy world as a whole. And I think for you know, thinking about uh climate, that's uh you know, really good argument that you've given there for a role that they they could play if they're willing to you know accept that with a bit of bravery. Um just remain to say thanks ever so much, Edward, for finding time to come on the podcast. It's really great to have a chance to talk. I think a really timely issue and lots of fascinating ideas in there. Um I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find more on you and your work. Um and you know, hope to be able to pick up the conversation at some point in the future.

SPEAKER_03 57:36

Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the invitation.

SPEAKER_02 57:48

Okay, well, my thanks again to Edward for finding time to come on the podcast. It was really great to have a chance to talk to him. Uh really, really interesting conversation, I thought, and as I said before, very timely, uh sort of depressingly timely in many ways. I will put links in the show notes to places where you can find things that Edward's written about this and also uh any things that I've written or previous episodes of the podcast that might be relevant and of interest. Uh if you're interested more broadly in discussions like this about philanthropy and civil society, then check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com. If you've got ideas of people I could talk to or topics we could cover on this podcast in future, uh do get in touch. You can find my email at the website. If you want to keep up to date with things that I'm doing and my general musings on all things to do with philanthropy, uh feel free to follow me on social media. I'm on LinkedIn and Blue Sky primarily these days. Uh, other than that, just like, subscribe, tell all your friends about it. If you're so minded, please do leave us a nice review wherever it is that you get your podcasts, and I will see you next time. Bye.