Thirteen years ago, I was living
in Washington, DC.
I was working
with the Department of Energy
to identify breakthrough technologies
to help solve climate change.
And I remember one particular day,
sitting in a windowless room,
in massive concrete buildings,
and talking with colleagues
about how this particular wind technology,
or solar, or battery technology
could solve climate,
if only we had enough resources.
And then, I met my mentor, Maurice Kaya.
And he had a very different perspective.
He lived 5,000 miles away, in Hawaii,
and he'd been working on the ground,
implementing clean energy technology
with communities.
He'd been doing it for more than 30 years.
And he asked me,
"What if we brought this decision-making
on breakthrough technologies
closer to the ground,
closer to people who are actually
being affected by new technologies.
What would that unlock?
What would that look like?"
And he invited me to move to Hawaii
to figure out just that.
And so I did, I moved to Hawaii.
And all of a sudden,
it wasn't just my job to identify
interesting new technologies from DC,
but to actually wrestle
with some of the challenges on the ground.
I was right in the thick of it.
This was 2009.
Electricity prices in Hawaii
were three times those in other states,
and people couldn't afford
to pay their bills.
At the same time, solar energy,
electric vehicles,
were just starting to come into their own,
and it was actually cheaper
to use these than burn oil.
So Hawaii presented
this perfect opportunity
to demonstrate how to transition
an entire economy
off of fossil fuels.
It was all getting real.
The battery that we’d written
a check for, in DC,
was now on a ship on its way to Hawaii,
ready to be installed
just a few miles from my home.
And so Maurice and I,
seeing this transition was happening,
and the fact that we needed
many new technologies
in order to make it work,
started a nonprofit called Elemental,
an investment platform.
We've now invested in over 100 start-ups,
and we've funded more than 70 projects
that are first-of-their-kind
technology projects
to actually implement these technologies
on the ground, in communities.
And we’re testing this thesis:
Can we actually make
better investment decisions
if we're closer to communities
and the places where we're
implementing these new ideas?
And what we've learned
in the last dozen years
is that, yes, while technology
brings half the solution,
the community brings the other half.
But there is a huge gap in the amount
we're investing in the technology
to reach this transition
and the amount we're investing
in the communities
and the community capacity
and infrastructure
to actually deploy
these technologies at scale.
Last year, globally,
about 500 billion dollars was invested
in the technology side
of the decarbonization equation.
And while this is really
necessary and needed --
and in fact, it needs to increase
four to 10 times
in order to get where we need
to go in emissions --
we're not keeping up
on the community side,
and the gap is only growing.
Last year, nonprofits working
on community-based climate solutions
received less than
nine billion dollars in funding.
This gap is widening quickly,
and it's putting our ability to deploy
new climate solutions at risk.
So let me be more specific.
Over the last dozen years,
we've tested and experimented
with many, many ways to actually try
to rebalance this equation,
to bring community investment
more in line with technology investment.
You're probably wondering what we actually
mean by community investment.
Obviously, [it] looks really different
from investing in a start-up.
What I mean is investing time,
political capital and resources
in government,
particularly local government,
and the ability to permit,
plan for, integrate,
work with new climate technology
that's coming to all these
local jurisdictions.
And on the community side,
what I mean is investing in nonprofits,
in education,
and in hiring locally
so that we actually have
the capacity in local places
to implement these technologies,
and then investing in the bridging
between these different sectors.
What we found is that investing
in this more holistic way,
on government, communities and technology,
not only increases our impact
but also leads to better
financial outcomes.
The companies that we've worked
with in our portfolio
have now raised over five billion dollars
in follow-on funding,
and they're operating
in more than 60 countries globally.
I'll give you two examples
from the portfolio,
one in concrete and one in water.
These happen to be the two
most abundantly consumed materials
on the entire planet.
So first, concrete.
In 2018, we invested in a start-up
that introduces captured
carbon dioxide into concrete.
And the CO2 is then mineralized
in the concrete
and stored forever
in our bridges and buildings.
But inventing this very cool
new technology alone
wouldn't do that much
to solve the climate crisis.
Real people have to use it.
So in addition to implementing it
with architects and concrete operators
in Hawaii, on the ground,
and the Department of Transportation,
in a real highway,
we brought in local government,
to create demand for this new concrete.
So with the start-up and our mayor
and our city council,
we passed a resolution to prefer
low-carbon concrete in all new projects.
Now you may ask,
"Well, what does this one specific policy
in this specific place
have to do with really solving
global climate challenges?"
Well, a few months
after we passed that resolution,
our mayor brought this to 200 mayors,
who passed the same policy
for cities all over the country.
So now --
(Applause)
So now, this one project,
that stores about 700 tonnes
of carbon dioxide in Hawaii,
which is about the equivalent of taking
150 cars off the road per year,
is scaling to cities around the country,
and also around the world.
But this isn't just about investing
in the local government capacity
that can meet technology
and help scale it.
It's also about investing in communities.
So I'll give you an example from water.
Last year, there was a community leader
who started a nonprofit
to specifically address water pollution
and pollution on reefs, beaches
and Hawaiian fish ponds,
like the one in this picture.
They didn't have the technology
to figure out how to deal
with the polluted water
that was coming off
all of these different buildings.
So we scoured the globe
and found a start-up that turns
polluted water into clean water
and clean electricity,
by using methane from the process
and reinjecting the facility.
See, like in so many cases,
the nonprofit and the start-up
actually have similar goals.
The nonprofit, though,
can't really reach its goal
of addressing water pollution
without technology
to address at the source.
And the start-up would have
a much harder time
implementing its technology locally
without the local relationships
and trust and know-how
that the nonprofit brings.
Now I won't pretend
that bridging these two is easy,
or that working together is easy.
Start-ups and grassroots organizations,
community organizations,
they speak very different languages,
and a lot of bridging
is required between them.
But this is the kind of work
we need to do,
if we're going to start
rebalancing the equation
between technology investment
and community investment.
We, as the investor,
often actually pay the nonprofit
to do this kind of work.
We think this is a key part
of the equation:
paying the nonprofit for their expertise,
just as you would pay
an electrical contractor,
a general contractor on a project,
for their value.
(Applause)
And really importantly, then,
building this kind of financial mechanism
into every single project
so that, as we’re scaling climate projects
that are working,
we're also scaling investment
in the communities at the same time.
In our experience,
it's been particularly important
in honoring Indigenous communities,
bringing them into
the cocreation process early,
rather than asking for free advice.
Now we, as investors, often pay
the nonprofit partners and ourselves,
and we also train start-ups to do this
so that, as they become big companies,
as they scale globally,
they're doing this
around the world as well.
And this isn't happening nearly enough,
but it's one tool we can use
to start rebalancing the equation
between community
and technology investment.
So these cannot be one-off examples,
if we are to meet the challenge
of climate change.
Globally, we will need
700,000 electric busses,
25 million solar panels,
400 million vehicle chargers,
to meet this challenge.
Just imagine all of the decisions
that need to be made,
all the physical things that need to be
installed in real places.
Global climate progress
relies on local action.
And this truly is
where it gets really hard.
It's actually relatively easy to invest
from a windowless room
and not really think
about all the consequences
of implementation on the ground,
as I did when living in DC.
It's much harder for us and me
to walk into an unfamiliar situation
and acknowledge that we really
don't have all the answers.
I remember early in this work,
bringing a new
transportation app to parents
who'd said that transportation access
was one of their key challenges.
We were in this beautiful space,
open-air -- didn't even need
to open the windows, all fresh air.
I was demonstrating this new app to them,
and saying, "Do you think
this would help you?
What's your feedback?
Do you think you would use this?"
And they looked at me
kind of perplexed, and said,
“Well, this is a sort of
an interesting, fancy new app,
but we wouldn't use this.
What we really want
is our after-school shuttle back,
that was cut from the city
budget last year."
And I was turning red,
and I could feel the heat
rising in my face.
I mean, talk about uncomfortable.
But it's conversations like these
that have changed completely
the way that we invest in start-ups.
Yes, we do technical due diligence
and financial due diligence.
But can we be better investors
by actually asking the communities,
which we ask every time now,
before making an investment decision,
"Would you use this?
Is this something that you actually want?"
It's what Maurice taught me, early on.
You need to get out of the office,
get on the ground
and listen to what people really need.
Technology can only bring
half the solution.
The community brings the other half.
And we have to fix this imbalance now
if we want to fix climate change,
and we do.
For any of these new solutions
to work for climate,
they have to have
at least these two ingredients:
the technology that scales
and the relationships
and empathy that we share.
This is what we'll need to create
a future where our children can thrive.
And I have a particularly large
stake in that.
(Laughter)
Thank you.
(Cheers and applause)