365: Can $30k Change the World? The Power of Climate Giving

00:15:43.760 --> 00:15:51.540

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Yeah, I mean the prime movers in climate will always be businesses and governments. And philanthropy will never be big enough to actually move at the way those two kinds of organizations do. So philanthropy has a role to play.

00:16:00.960 --> 00:16:02.960

Christiana Figueres: Because of the scale that's possible, is that right?

00:16:02.960 --> 00:16:04.340

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Because of the scale, yeah. But philanthropy, when played impactfully and in a leveraged way, can help things go as fast as we need them to. And the best way to see that, and so can investing, by the way, right? You know, one of the things I think we're all called to do is use all the pockets of money that we have. What is the right tool for investing, impact or otherwise? What is the right tool for philanthropy? And how do we use our voices and our votes and our talents, all the things that we have for this cause? So one of the best ways to answer a question like that, where you're trying to figure out how philanthropy helps, is just to share an example. And this is one actually you know pretty well, from the road transport world, the Drive Electric Campaign. So in that one, you know, if you look at the speed and scale charts or you look at the Systems Change Lab charts or any of them, there are a couple places where we have momentum, where things are going more quickly than we expected and almost as quickly as we need. Renewables and EVs are two of those places. And it took until 2015 to sell the first million EVs globally. But now, more than a million are sold every month. And that didn't just happen.

00:17:17.880 --> 00:17:19.040

Christiana Figueres: Every month?

00:17:19.040 --> 00:17:19.540

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Yes. And that didn't just happen based on market forces. Philanthropy helped that transition happen decades faster than anyone thought possible, including the NGOs who were working on it. It even surprised them.

00:17:33.020 --> 00:17:34.600

Christiana Figueres: How did philanthropy do that? That's just amazing. How?

00:17:36.360 --> 00:17:36.800

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Yeah. So it started with a group of maybe 25 non-profits who were working across the world and they realized that they were all working on the same issue and they were all going to be stronger if they came together. And so they started to form a loose coalition maybe 10 years ago. And they went against the four major markets for EVs. If they could get China, India, Europe, and the US to begin to take up this new then technology, then the market would begin to help them. And so they came together, they created shared strategies, they made their own objectives and KPIs that would help them coordinate. And they began to use tools like technical assistance to governments so that those governments would pass strong policies to make the market. They engaged communities who were breathing bad air from diesel trucks in their communities to demand change. They encouraged businesses to put in charging infrastructure for their employees and to buy EV fleets which also helped to make the market. And about five years ago, they had scaled up their plan enough that they could actually see to an outcome of market uptake. And they worked with the Ted Audacious Project and my organization and got an infusion of about three, a little bit more than $300 million all in one year. And that scaling allowed them to move the needle decades earlier. And that was 200 NGOs by the time they were done benefiting. So they've moved much faster than their original goals. And one of the things that we worried about when we helped them scale for those four major markets is what would happen in the developing countries. But there wasn't enough philanthropy to work outside the four major markets. Now, because they're decades earlier, they have actually switched to working with the developing nations to leapfrog the polluting tailpipe. And even just last year, there was a 60% growth in new EV sales in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. So that wouldn't have happened with the market alone. And you can see how philanthropy, paying for just those kinds of things that I mentioned and helping a coalition of NGOs come together, can move the needle. Because a lot of what we're doing is racing against time.

00:19:53.340 --> 00:19:54.200

Christiana Figueres: Absolutely. Well, but there are two pieces there in that amazing story. One is the coalition itself, i.e. coordination among so many NGOs. But the other is a coalition of funders. So I would love to know, how did you bring so many disparate funders, all of which have their own brilliant ideas about what they want to fund? How did you shift that? How did you move those families over to something that was bigger than themselves? And were they have very little, say, control?

00:20:35.220 --> 00:20:36.280

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Yeah. One of the most beautiful things that I have noticed when I came into climate seven years ago, was how unifying the purpose was for the nonprofits and the donors. I have never seen a field with such eaglest leaders, actually. For the 200 organizations to come together and drive electric, or the dozens and dozens I've seen in other coalitions and other collaborative projects, they have to actually be working in a really collaborative way. This is almost never about one shiny leader in this field. It's usually about servant leadership. And so I have to say, it's interesting that you asked that question because it's different than other places that I've worked. And maybe it's the mission, I don't know. The donors have all learned that it's more important to collaborate than to do their own thing. They experience climate donors. And that's because there's so many things to do that you have to know that your peers are doing parts of it. And so across these areas, there tends to be collaboration because it's just clear that we will never have enough resource to do it alone and we have to work together.

00:21:47.980 --> 00:21:56.420

Christiana Figueres: Well, I must say, Jennifer, that is, in the best of all cases, that is the brilliant example that we all celebrate. I'm going to push back on you a little bit because my sense is that it's not always so, that we have some billionaires who have their own foundations, who have their own ideas about what they want and what they believe is the most successful theory of change, and they go out and find and fund NGOs to deliver that for them, and that those NGOs have very little leeway to sidestep anything that the funder is directing them to.

00:22:35.740 --> 00:22:44.200

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Yeah, I would say the more expert the funder teams are, the more that can happen to the folks on the ground, the nonprofits on the ground. If you have a highly expert team who has a sense of what the strategy is, there has to be a real thoughtfulness about how you're going to be led by and with the field and be listening carefully. And there's often really important authentic dialogue about that going back and forth. And in fact, many of us survey the NGOs every year or so, so that we can hear better what they might have to say to us in order to avoid doing that to them. So I will say that is a real challenge. It tends to be with the community of more experienced donors as opposed to the ones that we work with who are newer.

00:23:25.160 --> 00:23:34.260

Christiana Figueres: But if it is true that the more they understand about the field, the more they have their own opinions about this, then what are you going to do? You bring new ones in and are you telling me that by the time you have educated them and they know what they are doing, they are actually going to go rogue on you?

00:23:44.560 --> 00:23:48.740

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Well, if only everyone listened to me, Christiana.

00:23:49.600 --> 00:23:50.300

Christiana Figueres: Always.

00:23:54.240 --> 00:23:58.540

Jennifer Kitt (guest): The way that we think about this is that the climate is our client. We are free. We are an onramp. We don't work with families forever. We help them come in and find their place. But the obligation that comes with that for us is to help families and foundations coming into the space, understand what truly matters. And then we will ask them what they care about there, what's exciting to them, what draws them, and help guide them to the place of biggest impact for them. Along the way, we'll be helping them understand that the NGOs need this long-term funding, they need it to be unrestricted, that these are best practices to help them do their best work. And that collaboration with the experienced funders and with the NGOs is necessary and what that looks like. And by and large, I mean, I would say we've seen about two to three billion dollars move after we've graduated people to independence from leaving Climate Lead that they've done on their own. And the pattern is that they tend to continue to collaborate and be generous and increase their giving once they've gotten into the community and understand how to support it.

00:25:05.980 --> 00:25:07.140

Christiana Figueres: So they don't go rogue. Tom, come in.

00:25:08.360 --> 00:25:08.740

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah, yeah. I just want to, Jennifer, this is great. Thank you. And I really want to ask you, you gave an amazing example of Drive Electric. I want to ask what the next big thing is. But before I get to that, I have a quick question that's just a click deeper on what Christiana said. So first thing I should say and ask this question is this podcast is largely funded by philanthropy. But let me just charge in and ask the question anyway. There is a saying that you can't solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it. And in the 20 years I've been involved in the climate movement, one of the biggest shifts has been the emergence of very wealthy living donors. 20 years ago, it was largely grassroots activists putting money in. It was much more oppositional and confrontational. And now the climate movement has become much more of an ally. It sits alongside business and government. And you can make the case that's because we've shifted to implementation and a different set of challenges have appeared. But you could also argue that it's become the device of the way of thinking of the billionaires. And I just wonder if you think there's anything we need to be a bit concerned about in that.

00:26:11.180 --> 00:26:16.440

Jennifer Kitt (guest): In the seven years I've been doing this work, Tom, I have heard, I might get emotional here. I have heard the most extraordinary stories from people about how their children won't have children, how their grandchildren have asked them to engage, how they don't know what to do. I've heard families feeling guilty about the amount of money they've made in their businesses. So I think that there is an increasing number. The good news is there is increasing philanthropy, even though it's less than 2% of global philanthropy now of global giving, it is increasing over time. And the motivations are the ones that you would expect when you see floods and droughts and El Nino crazy weather coming and all kinds of things, right? So I do see thoughtful motivation in families. Do they understand people power and movements and the role of strategic litigation to get change and the fight kind of stuff in addition to using markets? Some of them do depending on what they've been doing before we met them. And if they don't, we explain it to them. When you are trying to help the world move to clean and healthy alternatives to fossil fuels, you have to understand that there is so much money to be made in inertia, so much money to be made by slowing us down that there are forces trying to confuse us. And those forces confusing us also affect the philanthropists, right? So the Drive Electric Campaign needed to use lots of citizen committees, like neighbors telling neighbors what it was like to have EVs because of that kind of pressure coming at them. So in order to understand this problem, you actually do have to understand those things as well. It may not be what you choose to fund, but there are plenty of families that I've met that will fund it. And when you think about a big project, like a stopping deforestation project we've worked on, there are pieces of it that are trying to fund that people power, various versions of people power. So maybe as the work expands in the time that you've been working on Climate, Tom, we just see that there's hopefully scaling up of all the things that we need to get the flywheel effect of change.

00:28:54.480 --> 00:28:54.920

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah. That's a great answer and a very humanizing answer. So thank you for sharing that about the people that you're dealing with and seeing their motivations. And I would love to also ask, I mean, your example on drive electric was fabulous. What's the next big thing? What are the areas that we're struggling with that we now need to see go through an inflection point?

00:29:11.260 --> 00:29:14.540

Jennifer Kitt (guest): I mean, I'm kind of excited about the built environment. I mean, I'm excited about a lot of things. But the built environment is an interesting run, right? So our homes, our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, our schools, our roads, our bridges. The carbon emissions today coming from those things, if you kind of try and count it all together, something like 30 percent of global emissions. And there's just a tiny amount of philanthropy going into that work right now. So that's today. And yet we know that the developing world needs to still have more buildings built. Like their building boom is upon us. And some of the stats that I've heard from the experts are that the growth coming is the equivalent of the city of Paris every week being built for the next 45 years. So if that happens, and we haven't decarbonized some of the materials and built the markets for those, or helped people understand how to move from gas in their buildings and cooking to electric and what that means for them and the atmosphere, we're going to miss that opportunity. And there are two incredible coalitions of nonprofits that have come together, one to work globally, primarily focused on the Global South, and one that's working in the US to prove how you do it in a developed context. Those are both incredibly exciting projects. There are also things like the kinds of things that come up just based on what's happening in the world. The global conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have shed light on how reliant we are on oil, gas, and fertilizer coming through the Strait of Hormuz. And this presents an opportunity to do things differently. So philanthropy is starting to support efforts to use much fewer and higher quality fertilizers that can be applied in microdoses to improve ecosystems, water around them, but also avoid the catastrophe that can happen when this body of water closes down and we can't get what we need for the world out of it. And that matters for climate as well, given that fertilizer is a huge emitter.

00:31:21.500 --> 00:31:22.560

Paul Dickinson: Jennifer, thank you. Let me ask just one question, if I may. The history, and I've seen it before, I know you have as well, is that perhaps an individual or a family will make money in an area. And they'll kind of say, well, we're going to improve social and environmental conditions in our area. And you somehow get them to say, friends, think about the entire world, the climate, the whole system. You get them into climate change. What's your secret to take them out of the locality where they've lived and get them to think globally about the challenge?

00:31:53.300 --> 00:31:55.000

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Well, everybody's a little different. To help people come into climate, usually, what I do and what my team does is try and help them see how climate is a threat multiplier for anything that they love. It will make people sicker. It will create more war and more scarcity of resource. It affects places that they love and hold dear, right, like physical places in the world. So just inviting people to tell us what's important to them and helping them see the intersections. They don't have to be climate donors. They don't have to make them define themselves that way. Some of the people we work with do. They become, you know, that's what they do exclusively. But actually, just making it a part of your portfolio and being part of the solution is all we need to bring in more resource. And we start from the place of where people already care and show them the impacts because sadly climate will impact everything. And then we show them the path to action, of course, because there's so much we can do and there's joy in the doing. And in the inertia, there's no joy. There's just stuckness. So that's how.

00:33:07.100 --> 00:33:24.380

Christiana Figueres: Jennifer, the other thing that I think is very exciting about philanthropy and bringing them into climate is the fact that there is such a huge turnover of wealth from my generation to much younger generations right now. How are you experiencing that?

00:33:29.140 --> 00:33:34.540

Jennifer Kitt (guest): I mean, the younger generations, unlike mine and yours, they grew up learning this in school. They actually were taught the science in school, hopefully, in most places. And so they do understand it. I have noticed a trend maybe in the last three or four years only, where some of the families' children have gotten old enough now that they are trying to help bring their families into this work. And some of the most generous families that I know, it was the young adults in the family who took the mantle of learning and meeting peers and meeting experts and thinking about what would be their pathway to giving. And the parents, the older generation, often have much wisdom to share from what they've already done in philanthropy or investing or business. But the combination is a little bit magical, right? To see that experience combined with this new energy for a cause that can feel so overwhelming. I mean, part of why we don't have enough donors in this space is that the cause feels overwhelming to people and they need some help, they need some trusted guides to get in. And sometimes the young people in their lives are the trusted guides. I'm definitely seeing that more and more.

00:34:45.320 --> 00:34:45.780

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yay. Yay.

00:34:47.160 --> 00:34:51.360

Christiana Figueres: That is definitely a reason for celebration.

00:34:51.840 --> 00:34:52.120

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of reason for hope. I do see growing excitement about climate philanthropy even in this moment of headwinds.

00:34:59.160 --> 00:34:59.900

Christiana Figueres: Amazing. Jennifer, and thank you for being so generous with your time. We have to wrap up soon, but I personally cannot let you go without asking you about the role of philanthropy in the ICJ case. It was so exciting to watch what happened at the UN just last week. Can you go behind the scenes for us? Because we have done many stories on the ICJ case, mostly from the perspective of those acting on and leading the legal battle. But can you take us behind the scenes and share with us the role of philanthropy in this amazing, amazing battle and victory, frankly, last week at the UN?

00:35:48.280 --> 00:35:48.720

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Yeah. I have listened to your joyful coverage of that impactful legal decision and the incredible students who are at the very beginning of the ideas. What I can tell you is that philanthropy is often there as a quiet partner and it should be a quiet partner for so many entrepreneurial leaders like those students. As you shared in your podcast, it was those 37 Pacific Islands students who came together to inspire countries to ask the ICJ for that opinion. Philanthropy was there when they needed help. Sometimes what philanthropy needs to do is to be watching for the bold leadership and the courageous next steps and then respond. The very first thing that philanthropy did for that group of students was just like a $30,000 planning grant so that they could meet together and see each other and have some support. And so you can see that it doesn't always have to be big numbers to make a big difference. And so over time, philanthropy has responded to the need that came to them in a sort of nimble, attentive and humble way. And can you just imagine what it feels like to be one of the donors that quietly did that? Wow. Wow.

00:37:04.640 --> 00:37:06.160

Paul Dickinson: That's a great feeling. When you see that from this, like the dream of the students to like the world's court. Wow.

00:37:13.080 --> 00:37:13.520

Jennifer Kitt (guest): Yeah. And it is important to remember, yeah, we need scaled giving. I mean, right now, if I look in my database at Climate Lead, we have several hundred solutions. The top most urgent 80 of them could scale tomorrow at $5 billion. We've diligent it for good work globally, right? There's tons of good work to do. And a $34,000 grant got those students what they needed at a moment where they were probably going to have a hard time getting to the next stage. So it's what a privilege, what a privilege to be part of their journey in any way and philanthropists can have that privilege in a quiet, humble way.

00:37:53.460 --> 00:38:00.460

Tom Rivett-Carnac: So what a great interview that was and Jennifer Kitt, an amazing leader and how grateful we all are to have her in the climate movement. Christiana, you conducted much of that interview, although we chipped in with thoughts. What did you think of the discussion?

00:38:05.380 --> 00:38:07.920

Christiana Figueres: Well, first of all, the Jenner is absolutely brilliant. Thank heavens that we have Jennifer there. She's just such a star and she's always so positive.

00:38:15.900 --> 00:38:16.260

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah.

00:38:16.260 --> 00:38:18.180

Christiana Figueres: She's always so joyous.

00:38:19.100 --> 00:38:25.400

Tom Rivett-Carnac: I have seen her in moments of quite significant stress and she's the same in those moments. It's really impressive.

00:38:26.340 --> 00:38:26.580

Christiana Figueres: Yeah. Yes, exactly. Yeah, it is very impressive. It is very impressive. Anyway, so she has done really an amazing job of bringing families in to the possibility of them giving into the climate community. And it's a very tough job. And I have watched her. I have watched her operate how she explains the impact of climate on the world, of course, but also personally on those families, and then brings them into the conversation with full respect for what those families have done in the past and with bringing forward the potential of what they can further do. She does just a brilliant job with this.

00:39:22.360 --> 00:39:23.580

Paul Dickinson: No, I have to agree with that. I find the notion of the role of philanthropy so important, at different levels, at the structural level, if I'm not mistaken. Philanthropy is currently paying for the shortcoming in UNFCCC income with the US pullout of the UNFCCC. I mean, that's a really important piece of global infrastructure, just being supported by philanthropy.

00:39:45.280 --> 00:39:47.440

Tom Rivett-Carnac: So I think that there's a few things. Just on Jennifer, one of the things that I've seen her do, which I think is really hard to do actually, is to start from the outcome rather than start from where we all are in the movement. And climate is so big, it's really hard to start from the outcome. Because a lot of people in NGOs go around saying, well, we're $10 million this year, we hope to be $12 million next year. And we see our trajectory of growth and kind of where we'll get to. Whereas Jennifer, I've seen several times start from the question of, what would it actually take to solve this problem? Like, let's stop thinking about, what's the incremental growth from where we are, and that we've gotten used to over the last few years? But if we actually want to solve this problem in a timely fashion, let's put that as the vision and be audacious. Because it's a non-linear process of getting more resources into this space. If you can actually be audacious and bold and set the vision of where you want to go, that drives collaboration. It inspires people. And you can then do things that are bigger than you thought were possible. So I've learned that from Jennifer, that actually you should think about it through the other end of the telescope and say, what's the ultimate expression of the outcome? And not be afraid to dream that big. So that's been, I think, a very important role that she's played kind of in the movement. And then I just want to say a few things about the state of philanthropy. And maybe it will disperse some conversations. The climate movement is quite odd in its reliance on philanthropy. I mean, I think maybe the development community is similar, but most other spaces which are so wide-reaching and developed would be more of a blend of for-profit and not-for-profit investments. And what we've seen over the last 20 years, and we talked a bit about this with Jennifer, is a massive scale up of additional money coming from living donors. As we've seen this proliferation of billionaires putting more money into the climate movement because they're getting really worried about what they're seeing. And all credit to them. And I should presage this by saying, we should all be grateful for that, because I think on that basis, the opportunity we have to make a difference in the world resides. But it creates a series of strange dynamics in the space. As we said before, the NGOs now act more like consultants to philanthropies. The philanthropies have a theory of change, and they engage the NGOs to deliver their theory of change. And so strategy development has moved from NGOs to philanthropies. That has many benefits of coordination, of collective action, of having a big vision. But it has changed fundamentally the nature of how NGOs operate and how they think about their role in the world. And the whole of the NGO world is now trying to basically deliver the theories of change of a few foundations that give large amounts of money. And as I said, there are a lot of plus sides, but I think we should also talk about the downsides.

00:42:31.560 --> 00:42:33.180

Christiana Figueres: So Tom, let me ask you a question. Yes, I totally agree with that analysis. And is it any different than the previous scenario that we had before? Let me just pick up USAID, which doesn't exist anymore. But was the climate movement not being directed by USAID funding?

00:42:56.740 --> 00:42:57.100

Tom Rivett-Carnac: True.

00:42:57.640 --> 00:43:05.120

Christiana Figueres: My question is, is it not a fact that whoever pays the orchestra chooses the music? Because so Jennifer, as we heard, she's mobilized six billion over six years. Good on her. And between 2015 and 2019, just those four years, the US had provided 10 billion in climate-related development finance. And so you can see that the fact is that at least at that time, government funding, philanthropic or donor funding into climate was larger than private philanthropy. But the question that I have for you is, is Jennifer not up against a double challenge? One is to make up for that government funding that is no longer going in, and how many, how many NGOs have had to close doors or substantially cut down on their staff because they don't have the government funding that they did. So A, that's one of her challenges. And the other one is to move away from the ownership of programming because that was had already been established. You know, we're not here to pretend that while AUSAID did a great job, you know, putting money out into the world on climate and other development issues. But it always came with very clear terms of reference. And so I don't think we should be astounded that now there is a similar dynamic in which those who are putting the money on the table now, A, not able to make up for the numbers, but they're still holding the decisions on what gets funded and what doesn't.

00:44:55.060 --> 00:45:00.460

Tom Rivett-Carnac: And the other perspective I would say is that, as we all know, foundations are all very different. So some of them might say, we're going to give you a grant, but for that you need to do the following 10 things. And we want you to report on them, give us very specific responses. We need to know exactly what it is because we're conducting a master plan and when it needs to fit into that. And other foundations will say, you know what, we trust you. You've got 20 years experience in this space, we're going to give you some resources, go and knock our socks off and do something really impressive. And I think that in a way, I'm not sort of saying one is better than the other or that we have a different theory of how things will work, but I think there's a lot of complexity and a lot of power dynamics that emerge as a result of all these different ways of doing things. And we largely don't talk about it. I mean, I can walk around a COP because I've spent 20 years in climate and I can see the theory of change of five or six foundations represented in the organizations that you see existing in those COP. You can say, oh, that's the theory of change of that foundation and that's the theory of change of that foundation. And I think that's just really interesting. And that's kind of a hidden thing that we don't really notice. Is it good or is it bad? I don't know. But it's certainly a major part of how we're responding to this existential crisis.

00:46:09.700 --> 00:46:10.060

Christiana Figueres: Yeah. And I would also agree with you that that has had actually a huge positive effect.

00:46:16.640 --> 00:46:17.220

Paul Dickinson: Huge.

00:46:17.220 --> 00:46:17.660

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah.

00:46:17.820 --> 00:46:19.920

Christiana Figueres: It's not like it's just negative. It's just it is what it is. And at the same time, side by side, I think Jennifer is, you know, so brilliantly making the case for the fact that NGOs need unrestricted funding and multi-year funding in order to be able to step up into their knowledge and their experience and be able to have some leeway to adapt to changing conditions. And we all know that conditions are changing very quickly these days. So it's not about this being right and that being wrong. It's about how do you manage to balance this? Obviously, you know, established foundations have their priorities because they've been at it for many, many years and they, you know, have established preferences. And it's all based on experience. They're not doing it out of ignorance.

00:47:15.800 --> 00:47:17.020

Tom Rivett-Carnac: And they're very smart.

00:47:17.020 --> 00:47:20.800

Christiana Figueres: And they're absolutely very smart and with a lot of experience. So obviously, that is a positive. And also, how do you allow other activities to come up that you don't completely control? It's all about a balance. How much flexibility? And I would argue, however, Tom, that in the days where we're in, we do have to make a bigger effort for flexibility in the funding overall, because circumstances are changing so quickly that those that are with their feet on the ground, with their dirty boots on the ground, they need that flexibility. Now, do they get the flexibility when they go back and they say, oh, we're not doing A any more, we would like to do B, because these are the changes that have occurred? Can they get that flexibility?

00:48:10.160 --> 00:48:10.980

Paul Dickinson: Three tiny things. Once I was on a call with one of you two, with a new philanthropist who had quite a bit of money, and this person said, first off, I'm not going to fund anything anyone else is funding. And I thought that was a really indicative attitude. And you end up this fireworks display, a philanthropy, everything new is good and everything existing kind of withers on the vine. The second one is restricted funding. Imagine Apple issue bonds to expand the company Apple, and you give Apple some money, but you say to Tim Cook, I only want you to spend this on the watchers division. I don't think the corporations would put up with it, but it's very normal in philanthropy. And the third one, and this is a true story, I was once with a great big global bank that we all would have heard of. And they said that they were stopping funding the water program that I was involved with because we didn't have enough photographs of children. And so that corporate philanthropy can have all these other different dynamics. There are so many complex things. Financial is like a little world of politics that belongs to the donors and is delivered by the NGOs. And it's sort of beautiful and tragic in different ways. And I guess we're only just getting to know it even after all these decades.

00:49:11.460 --> 00:49:29.100

Christiana Figueres: I also think, though, Paul, that there is in philanthropy from the perspective of these wealthy families who have made their money on whatever manufacturing industry, where they have little say, personal say. They're actually, you know, in the market and they have to obey the policies of the market and what is, you know, what is going to be successful in the market. When they turn around and they start doing philanthropy, of course they want to do something that is personally important to them. Because they don't always get to do that in their entrepreneurial world. I, you know, I love whatever. I love children and therefore I want to put money into the well-being of children. That's where they feel like they have more of a emotional presence with their wealth than in their entrepreneurial activities. So can't really, I am of many opinions on this. I don't have one.

00:50:19.360 --> 00:50:24.920

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Just, I know we need to wrap in a minute, but just to just build on that one, Christiana, I know you sit on the board of many organizations. I sit on the board of ClientEarth. I know I've mentioned that podcast before. In our most recent board meeting, the woman who had been given the original grant kind of said her goodbyes. And her name is Winston Macintosh. And she gave a very small grant to create ClientEarth more than 20 years ago. And to just double down on Jennifer's experience of, you know, imagine having given that 34,000 to the ICJ. She gave a little speech at the end. And in the course of this 20 years, she'd lost her husband and life had moved on. But this sense of satisfaction, she looked around at these hundreds of people delivering these incredible breakthroughs, being super brave in the legal system.

00:51:02.840 --> 00:51:03.400

Christiana Figueres: So beautiful.

00:51:03.400 --> 00:51:06.400

Tom Rivett-Carnac: And she'd taken a chance at a moment when no one was doing that. That level of, you know, connection to the past, the decision she'd made with her husband, what it had turned into. You can't buy that in any other way. So I just think it's such a call to philanthropists to be brave, to take a chance. To have the opportunity to do something that is fundamentally meaningful and transformative to our future, all of our futures.

00:51:29.640 --> 00:51:32.680

Christiana Figueres: And can be in line with their passion.

00:51:32.680 --> 00:51:33.220

Tom Rivett-Carnac: All right.

00:51:33.220 --> 00:51:38.640

Paul Dickinson: I give the last word to the rock and roll band The Clash, who spoke about Marx and Engels in one of their songs. You're familiar with Karl Marx, who changed the world, and his partner Engels. And the line goes, Marx was smart, but he had sense. Engels lent him the necessary pence, which is a British determination similar to a cent for those working on the dollar.

00:51:52.520 --> 00:51:55.900

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Looking forward to an impact report on what happened next in that.

00:51:55.900 --> 00:51:58.880

Paul Dickinson: China's still running off with Karl Marx, so a big impact.

00:52:00.380 --> 00:52:01.960

Tom Rivett-Carnac: All right, lovely to see you guys. It's a great topic.

00:52:02.720 --> 00:52:03.540

Christiana Figueres: All righty, guys. Thank you.

00:52:04.220 --> 00:52:05.120

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Talk to you all next week. Bye.

00:52:05.460 --> 00:52:05.780

Paul Dickinson: Bye.

00:52:05.780 --> 00:52:06.140

Christiana Figueres: Bye.