Reframe

Greg De Temmerman is building a bridge between science and decisions on climate.

In this episode of Reframe, show host Jeff Nichols widens the aperture to explore how global climate-focused philanthropies are making a difference and helping to clear a path toward a more sustainable future. One such organization is the Quadrature Climate Foundation which has provided over a billion dollars to help communities prepare, adapt, and respond to the impacts of climate change. You’ll meet Greg De Temmerman, Quadrature’s Deputy CEO and Chief Science Officer–with decades of science and climate research experience, he knows how and why we need to shift our focus to climate readiness, resilience, and action.

A Marathon, Not a Sprint
 
Greg also knows that sweeping change is never easy–the path ahead will be bumpy and the pace of change will be slow.  He reminds us, like all major technological and societal shifts, that “one system has to die before another one is born.”  Given this reality, we gain a deeper perspective into Greg’s focus and the mission of his organization. Find out how Quadrature measures the impact of their philanthropic grants, what factors determine positive results, and why heading in the right direction may be good enough.   

Signals and Noise
 
Today’s environment is full of mixed messages and differing views on climate, energy, and the role of science in these conversations. For Greg, it’s hard to see the future of global climate policy through all the signals and noise.  As a scientist, how do you communicate the reality of the journey ahead without confusing or alienating people? Greg walks us through his perspective on how to adapt these conversations to the new climate reality. He explains why science needs to play a larger role in advising and informing decision-makers who may be reluctant to take action.  

Yet, despite the noise, the effects of climate change are becoming clear to everyone, especially those who have been directly impacted. Greg explains why more collaborative partnerships between science, governments, communities, and businesses are vital for taking action and making meaningful progress towards the future. Like several of our previous podcast guests, Greg is seeing signals from both private and public entities, suggesting that the path forward may be a little less bumpy. Tune in to hear real stories of progress and discover more about what gives Greg hope. 



Listen and Connect
 
 
If you have questions or feedback for the Reframe team, email reframe@pilotlight.ai. You can also follow the podcast through your preferred app to stay updated on future episodes.
 
Reframe is hosted by Jeff Nichols and presented by Pilotlight.ai 

Creators and Guests

Host
Jeff Nichols
Jeff is the Host and Co-Producer of Reframe, founder / CEO of Pilotlight and a passionate advocate for building sustainability.
Producer
Eric Opel
Eric is Co-Producer of Reframe and Marketing Director @ Pilotlight
Guest
Greg De Temmerman
Greg is a scientist, researcher and thought leader who, throughout his career, has focus his expertise on addressing the impacts of climate change. He is the Deputy CEO and Chief Science Officer @ Quadrature Climate Foundation, a visiting researcher at Imperial College and Mines Paris PSL and an author of more than 240 scientific articles.
Producer
Robert Haskitt
Robert Haskitt is the Producer and Creator of The Reframe Podcast

What is Reframe?

Reframe is the podcast about building sustainability.

Commercial and public buildings are among the biggest producers of carbon emissions. It’s a problem of massive scale. But, for building owners, engineers and contractors, solving it may actually be more of an opportunity than a challenge. That’s what the “Reframe” podcast is all about. Join host Jeff Nichols on an exploration of the forces driving sustainability in our built environment. And meet the people who are leading the charge.

Reframe Ep8 - Greg De Temmerman
Episode Transcript

Jeff: [00:00:00] Welcome to Reframe. I'm Jeff Nichols. In our last episode, we broadened the aperture to look at a very similar market, the EV market, and tried to figure out what could we learn and apply to the built environment. Well, in today's episode, we're gonna broaden the aperture even bigger as we look across the globe to really figure out what is it that others are doing out there.
That are, you know, making an impact or making a difference. My guest today has spent his entire career focused on climate change. First as a scientist working on nuclear fusion and now in his role as the deputy CEO and chief scientist at the Quadrature Climate Foundation, which provides a billion dollars in funding on climate related initiatives.
My guest today is Greg De Temmerman. Greg, welcome to Reframe. I'm thrilled to have you on the show.

Greg: Thank you. Great to be here.

Jeff: Let's start with your background, because your background is really science and, uh, you're one of the few people at least that I know in my world that, uh, can really speak about nuclear fusion and just nuclear in general.
Uh, probably to a degree that. That I and the audience will never understand. But how is it that you went from this deep research science background to now the chief scientist and deputy CEO of of at Quadrature? Tell me a little bit about that journey.

Greg: Yeah, so I studied about 20 years ago. I. I wanted to work on energy 'cause I was always scared about energy.
20 years ago we were already talking about climate, but of people were also worried about oil. You might remember that was the time of a peak oil people were getting, uh, worried. So I looked at [00:02:00] what could I do with my background. I'm a chemist actually by background and I. Found some PhD positions around nuclear fusion and became fascinated by that because it's kind of, I don't want to other emphasize that, but it's a bit of the holy grail of energy if you think of it.
'cause it's abundant. Um, it's very energy dense. You don't need much material. It's great. Now, of course, it's also very difficult. So I spent 15 years working on that. But then I started to realize there was a bit of a gap between what I was doing, working on something very interesting, but very long term.
And what I was caring more and more about, which was climate change and, and how to actually help. So I had this kind of internal debates for, for a while and decided, uh, and I was doing a lot of communication. So outreach, trying to explain to people what climate change is, what. Why energy is important, why do we need to transition?
And so I took a dive in 2020 saying, okay, I need to do something else. Created a small think tank in, in Paris looking at early stage climate technology, uh, where we were trying to bridge the gap between the science world and the. The decision making world, making sure people understood what was going on, and I think we'll probably talk about that.
But a lot of things have happened in the last 10 years and it's quite amazing. Not enough, but quite a lot. So wanted to make sure decision makers in France understood that and took that into account. And then I got recruited by the foundation where the pitch was quite easy, which is, well, you want to get a big checkbook and actually try to change the world.
And I was like, but yeah, I don't know how I can say no to that.
Jeff: Yeah, exactly. You know, it's interesting at a time where governments, at least in the us, you know, are pulling back from funding. How do you kind of balance that? If government's kind of pulling back, you know, what role does the private sector have to play?

Greg: So it might be useful to explain what Quadrature is. So we are a big climate foundation. Uh, we are a philanthropy basically. So this is money giving us money for us to give it away. Uh, we don't invest. We give grants. Typically, we don't expect any returns. We only expect [00:04:00] impact. So philanthropic capital is a very interesting source of capital because it doesn't expect any financial return.
This is something which is actually quite flexible. You can take a lot of risk with it. You can also invest much longer term or do things which are much longer term because again, you don't have a time horizon for getting any. Financially financial returns, you expect the impact. Um, it's also a very scarce source of capital.
I mean, people sometimes forget that philanthropy for climate is like 10, 12 billion per year. So it's a lot of money, all things considered, obviously, but compared to the trillions you need for the transition, it's really a small amount. Um, but it is something which is very interesting because you can support NGOs, you can support advocacy campaigning.
So the way I like to describe it is a source of capital you can use to unlock other things. And our mission is actually to unlock solutions. Unlock private money, unlock public money because these are the sources of money which are really needed, but sometimes a little bit of a push, a bit of a nudge can actually help and that's where philanthropic can be very powerful.

Jeff: You talked about the last decade, you've seen a lot of change and walk me through some of that and, and one of the things I'm really interested in is we don't hear enough of examples, things that are actually working. Right. And so I don't know what, what would you maybe point to or highlight for the audience?

Greg: I mean, they have the obvious, I. Solar. Solar is the, the big story of the last 10, 20 years. It's impressive how inexpensive it has become in the last 10, 12 years. The price of PV has decreased by 99%, which is quite incredible. Nobody has seen it, has been able to predict it, and then it has deployed faster than people were thinking, which is quite interesting.
'cause you are entering in a, in a mass markets, uh, era for solar and then things like batteries. This is the other kind of technological breakthroughs that people, I think under. And appreciate because it is going to be critical for the transition. This is what allows us to electrify transportation now, cars, but also trucks.
Um, that's what is going to be [00:06:00] very useful for solar because you, we all know solar and it produces during the day and you need, you need batteries to actually compensate. So I think on, on the technology front, a lot of things have happened. Industry, a lot of solutions are becoming, uh, mature now and are coming to market.
Think about its, uh, there are a lot of data now can work more or less everywhere, even when it. Cold. Of course you lose on efficiency, but it's not the end of the world. You still gain compared to a gas boiler. Um, you also, you have seen also the Verizon fall of hydrogen, which is interesting 'cause people got very excited.
And then I think the market is now realizing that yes, you need hydrogen, but not as much as perhaps we thought. And then the last one is perhaps industry. We cannot realize that. We can electrify much more things than we thought 10 years ago, which is interesting 'cause we know how to produce low carbon electricity and we know now that low carbon electricity is the key to the transition.
There will be need for biomass and some things, but electricity is going to be the lion's share of things. I think on that front, it is amazing to see what has happened. Now, of course, the, the, the downside is that nothing is going fast enough. Uh, we are definitely not on track to whatever the Paris agreement target where, so that's the kind of really bad side.
But we can see also things moving and I, I always describe it as a flux and stock issue. You are trying to replace an energy system, which is massive. I. Where we burn every year, 16 billion tons of coal, gas, and oil. So this is massive. And to do that you basically keep increasing the amount of things you're installing to replace it and takes a lot, a lot of time.
And as we all know from covid, an exponential looks really small for a while and then suddenly took, it takes over quite quickly. And that's where we are. Things are starting to, to.
About 18% of the cars sold in the World Electric, and it's increasing quite fast. So we are seeing things, but we don't see emissions decreasing yet.

Jeff: Right. Yeah. It's interesting. I was talking to somebody in the EV space, uh, the other week, and one of the [00:08:00] stats I thought was really interesting is, you know, once someone purchases an an electric vehicle, they don't go back.
They don't purchase an internal combustion. So I think, you know, you are starting to see the, the tipping scale. So what, from your perspective, like what are the biggest challenges if you know, in your role today? You know, you're looking to be really a catalyst to how do we. Increase this pace of change, like what do you see as the biggest impediments?

Greg: At the end of the day, the energy transition is one system has to die or to disappear or to transform, and another one has to be born. I. And that means a lot of conflicts and, and kind of of trade offs. And by nature of the existing system, the income system will fight back and we can see that everywhere.
So I think there's the kind of political wind, which we know is going to be difficult in the next few years. I mean US elections, but even before that, it was becoming more difficult to talk about climate. I think 64 countries voted last year for national elections. I don't think climate has won any elections, so we know it's not a.
Is making people vote doesn't mean people don't care. It means that this is not the highest priority. So I think this is a big one, which is how do we create. An environment where people agree to do something on climate, even if climate is not the high priority, and there are many reasons why you should do it.
I mean, we know a lot of inflation we have seen is just because of gas prices. So there are many reasons why you want to get away from fossil fuels, air pollution, and so on. The other one is, is to be kind of honest that this won't be easy. This is going to be long. This is going to require a lot of capital.
We know how to do things more or less, but this is going to be bumpy. There are things like buildings, for example, which have a huge inertia. How do you change your building stock? The UK is a good example of a very bad building. Stock balance relation takes time capital. It takes a state to actually be motivated.
And I think it's also a question of equity. If we, I mean, climate change is by nature something which has been caused by a handful of countries. I mean, the US is still the, the historic [00:10:00] biggest emitter followed by China and then the Europe countries in Africa. Emitted anything historically and, and we can't transition in the north.
By just taking advantage of a source of, we, we have to think about how do we get energy access there? How do we allow them to, to adapt to, to climate change, to get finance flowing. So finance is probably the biggest leverage right now. We see a lot of big projects, which can't get funded because investors think they are too risky.
So I think it, it's a lot of those kind of things, which we need to keep the momentum on, but also accept that things are going to fail, learn from it, and then just keep going because otherwise we'll never get anywhere. So, Greg, you mentioned that

Jeff: one of the key things is people being honest about how hard this transition's gonna be.
Can you, can you tell us more about that or what do you mean?

Greg: Yeah, I think we should get away from the view that the transition is going to be a purely exponential or S-curve or those kind of nice, nice narratives. I don't think policy makers or people in power have been totally transparent about that, and perhaps just because we don't know about it, but I find it important to both show that you can change things, change can happen, but also being honest about.
This is not going to be every day very easy. There will be a lot of hard decisions to be made. There's a lot of investment to do, and that means also a strong reorganization of some countries. Some region of a country might lose jobs temporarily, and jobs might be transferred and so on. I mean, if you look at it from a macroeconomic perspective.
Economy might grow, people might be happy, and we know how it happens in history. England is a good example with the coal industry. France are the same, and we know it's not easy and some regions feel abandoned and, and we know what happens when people feel abandoned. They don't necessarily vote for the most, uh, climate friendly parties.
So I think there's something about how do we communicate that difficulty? You have to be clear that it's going to be challenging, but you don't want to keep people down. Right? You don't want to just. Put people down all the time saying, it's gonna be hard, it's gonna be hard, it's gonna be hard. You have to find this balance.
But I think a bit of [00:12:00] honesty is perhaps what we, we, we would, uh, what we would need. And one example is, right now, at least in the UK and in Europe, we have a growing gap between cost and price. We keep hearing about how renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. Electricity prices are not, and there are many reasons for that market construct.
Uh, and, and, and different things. The fact that the electricity price depends on gas, uh, in most countries in Europe, but if you don't explain that, people are like, well, why are we installing investing so much renewables if my bills are not changing? You keep telling me this is cheap. Yeah, this is cheap.
This is you. This is the cost. This is not the price you are paying at the end of the day, which that's why I think a bit of honesty about this is going to be a long road. We can make it, we can do it, and it's going to be great, but on, on the way. To be fair, there might be some days where it's tougher.

Jeff: That's right. Well one, you know, one of the things that got me to dive into this space is I learned about the inflation reduction act right in the us. The amount of funding, you know, for investment in infrastructure and really moving, you know, the needle on fighting climate change still is I think the largest piece of legislation intended to do that.
And now with, you know, change administration. There's still elements of that in place, obviously, but it's being chipped away at. So I, if investment in capital is one of the biggest impediments to making faster change 'cause we we're pacing behind, how do we bridge that gap if it doesn't come for at the kind of the.
State, governmental level. I'm kind of curious how, when you talk to other folks, you know, how do you think about this? Like how do you, how

Greg: do you still try to make headway? So, obviously the US situation is tricky, but I think it, it does show that you. Everything you, you do for climate has to be resilient to political changes.
So we have to find ways to make sure that progress keeps going. Even, even if there are shifting in, in political situations, which [00:14:00] will by nature happen, hopefully they cannot be as extreme as they are now, but things will change. Um, in Europe, I come from France. We are used to getting different types of governments.
I think this is a question of finding. Arguments are things where people agree to move, and there are some, again, energy security is one for which you want to get away from fossil fuels, especially if you're in Europe because you don't have the resources. The US is another story. In Europe, we don't have fuel, so if we don't move away from that, we are just stuck and that's where we have been for a while.
I mean, it's also very important to make sure people understand that this is good for them, just on the kind of air pollution side, but also cost. We can. In principle, reduce energy prices by being smart, but market design and getting more renewables onto the grid by having higher comforts of, of living in houses, for example.
Um, because if you have a well insulated house with a heat pump, it's way better than a leaky house where you have trying to use a gas boiler. And, and what we see more and more is that people start to think about the economic impact of economic benefits because this is probably. A unique opportunity for wealth creation.
Right now, everything you need to actually transition is something which we were not doing at scale. You have to reinvent how you make steel. You have to reinvent how you make cement. You have to reinvent the way you move. So from cars to buses to trucks to public transport. So there is a huge opportunity for wealth creation if countries invest and are realistic about it.
So I think it's kind of this narrative to make sure that people understand that there is something in that from them. Which is difficult. And the US is a very good example. It's a big country obviously, and the places where the new economy will be born is not necessarily the same as where coal power plants used to be, or gas power plants are.
And, and how do we deal with that? So the transfer of wealth can be brutal between states or between regions. We have to really have a plan for that. And I guess that's where you cannot just leave the market, do something. And that was the great thing about the IRA, by the way, is a lot of investments were actually going into states, which were Republicans.
[00:16:00] And the reason for that was to actually try and make sure that they saw the economic benefits and they were a bit less tempted to actually go back if a, a change of administration was to happen. Now we'll see how far it can go, but it is interesting to start thinking about it in terms of policy.

Jeff: Yeah, I, that's one of the things that gives me hope, right?
Is that a lot of the benefit has been shown to go to Republican districts, and so hopefully that, you know, people, at the end of the day, there is some self-interest for these politicians to, to continue, you know, having that funding. So, you know, we've been very focused on the built environment and, you know, how do we really drive decarbonization of our buildings?
And we've kind of been zooming up, you know, the national level and looking at, you know, other sectors such as, you know, EVs. I'm curious more of like. From an outside in perspective, you know, for somebody you're in London, how do people kind of view the US when it comes to climate change and you use the, the, the, the phrase, you know, kind of a tricky situation.
I'm, I'm kind of curious to get that outside kind of perspective and, and unpack a little bit about, you know, what does that mean or not?

Greg: First of all, I, I will say it's hard to understand what's going on right now, and it's hard to just keep up with the number of announcements every day and the number of things which are coming out.
So I, I, yeah, there are kind of, um. As we would say in physics is the signal and noise. And it's sometimes hard to pick up the signal within all the noise, and I hope some of it stays as noise. Um, but a couple of things which might be interesting to frame that is the IRA was a great thing. As you said, it's probably the most ambitious climate legislation ever passed.
I hope some other countries do better, but that's still the biggest one. Yet at the same time, the US was producing more and more oil and gas. The US is actually the largest oil and gas producer in the world. And it's interesting because that means you are, the exported emissions of the US have increased dramatically over the last 10 [00:18:00] years.
Emissions have not declined that fast. So you have an interesting situation where, yes, there was a lot of investment in, its great in the new economy. The old stuff is still getting, getting quite a lot of support and obviously the new slogan being drill, baby drill, it might continue for a while. So I think, I just want to make sure we keep that in mind 'cause it's, it's a bit easy of otherwise to have a polarized discussion about how good or bad the US is.
And many countries have the same, nobody's perfect. We all have our issues to deal with, but I think it's important to keep that in mind. Another question with Trump, which is basically what we are talking about is. What I'm worried about or what many people are worried about is if you look at what happens in science, which is a world I do know a lot of science funding is, is being slashed, right?
I mean, climate is being erased as a world in many, in many websites. I think it's, it's scary on the climate front, but it also is scary on, on, on other fronts. And I guess as an outsider, I, I, I fail to see where. Where, what is the goal? Where is the end point? And I'm sure people know better than that, but when you see all those kind of measures and announcements, it's hard to understand where things are going.
Now you could say there are a couple of ways of seeing that this is a pessimistic view, which is like the US going to, probably going to get out of the Paris Agreement again. It looks like US scientists can't participate in IPCC. We'll see where it goes. So you can say, well, it's probably going to be a bad thing for climates.
At the same time, I think it's an opportunity for other countries to step up. Uh, I mean, I think about Europe as the prime one, but China has a big role to play also. Probably not in the same way. It's probably not going to be the same leadership, but I think there's something to be said about, uh, all new organization, about trade, for example, about long-term relationships.
And I'm not trying to be mean here, but can we, Europeans. Trust the US on an energy, uh, supply side, uh, when things are so volatile. It is interesting 'cause I think it is going to accelerate something which was due to happen anyway. Again, if you think about what the energy transition is, it's a energy system based on oil, gas and coal.
Uh, oil and [00:20:00] gas are well traded. And we had to get away from that. And to do that, we had to start by building new supply chains for different technologies we need for the critical minerals we need. And there was going to be a reorganization of the partnerships anyway because the, the countries producing fossil fuels are not necessarily the countries having minerals.
So I think that was due to happen. It is probably going to accelerate now. Uh, the is aggressively also looking for minerals everywhere. I don't know. I, I, I'm trying to stay optimistic and think that other countries will actually step up and I, and sorry, and I, I also want to specify one thing. When I say the US, I'm not trying to generalize at all.
I think the US administration is going to be less reliable. I think at the state level. There are probably a lot of things which are going to happen at the state level right now, at the federal level right now. It is a complicated

Jeff: Well, and I think what's interesting why I wanted to have this conversation is that.
While we've been very, you know, focused on the us this is an issue that impacts everyone. There are no one size fits all solutions, at least good solutions, right? It's gonna, it's gonna take leadership, uh, on at a lot of different levels across, you know, a broad spectrum. That's, to me, what gives me hope or optimism is it's not about we have to go do one really big thing.
It's how do we make progress across like a thousand fronts? And if we can do that, I actually, I. That gives me a lot of hope. It means we need to energize and get more people engaged and you know, that's still I think, a part of the challenge, but I. Talk to me a little bit. I, you know, in the US you know, there's kind of this cultural belief like, we'll, just like there's a magic button, silver bullet, where, you know, technology will save us.
We don't have to worry about this because we're just gonna, some scientist is gonna invent this magic pill and it'll just be easy. How would you, how, how would you respond to that? Or, you know, what, what are your thoughts on that narrative?

Greg: Well, I could speak.[00:22:00]
Well, first of all, one thing is that we, we have seen climate impacts increase faster than we thought. I think this is one thing we have realized in the last 10 years is, yeah, things are evolving quite fast. The, we, we still cannot fully explain why 2023 and 20 24 4 were so warm. There's a lot of debate in the science committee, but, but why?
There are different, uh, reasons and so on. But it looks like things are progressing faster than we thought, both on the temperature side, but also impacts, we see impacts happening everywhere and, and more and more often in the US is definitely affected like anything else. So, I mean, wildfires is the first example, but there are other examples.
I think the first one is to realize that is we are entering, we were already, but I think we are entering in an era. Era where. It is harder to deny that things are happening. Now, of course people can, some people might see, say, this is not climate change anyway, but we can see more and more extreme events, so we have to deal with them.
So I think we, that means we have to start thinking more and more about how do we adapt to that? Because whatever we do in the next 10, 15 years, climate is going to change until we stop fully to emit any kind of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which is going to be a very interesting paradox, even when emissions start to decrease.
Climate will still keep changing, and that will be an interesting communication exercise to say to people, that's working. That's what we need to do. We need continue. The climate is getting worse. I think there's something there. It is happening. And we cannot just now hope that by just stopping emissions, we are, we are done.
'cause climate has already changed and it's gonna take us 20, 30 years at least to, to get to close to net zero. So I think there's that reality, which is disturbing of course, because that means things are going to be worse before the perhaps get better again. Although we can, we can debate about that. And even if people don't want to believe it, we, we know, for example, insurers and, and reinsurers are having more and more issues, right?
I mean, there is a big insurance crisis because obviously if insurance companies see that you are living in an [00:24:00] area which is going to be more and more affected by climate, your premiums are going to go through the roof. Or at some point they want. Ensure use. I think those things are going to make things very tangible, very painful if they're not planned for, because nobody wants to get into that situation.
So I think it's, it's, even if a magic technology comes, it's not going to happen overnight. And once you talk about energy, you talk about infrastructure, you talk about big things. So even if Fusion was available tomorrow. Even in 10 years, you won't get more than a few percent of the energy system being powered by fusion.
So you still have a huge inertia that you have to deal with. So it's, it's, it's going to take everything, but at the same time, you have to start thinking about the resilience of your ecosystem and resilience of human lives. I.

Jeff: Who would've ever thought insurance companies are actually gonna be the ones that rescue us.
I think that insurance is gonna be a major driver if people can't get insurance. Craig, let's talk a little bit about, uh, the impact that Quadrature has had. Can you talk a little bit about maybe some partners that you've, that you've funded or, you know, organizations that you feel like have really had an impact that you'd like to see more of?

Greg: So perhaps just to remember, not to remind people what we are doing is. Our role is to fund good projects, which are. Aiming at developing, uh, climate resilient future and resilience is for, is key. It's about decarbonization, but also making sure we adapt and that we allow people to actually respond to climate, uh, impact.
Um, so in a way it's, it's a great job because you, you meet a lot of great people with great ideas, doing great thing on the, on the field, and you try to give them the means to actually do more. Which raises the very interesting question about how do you measure your impact, which we could discuss for hours, but I think that for us, we, what we want to see are signals of change because change happens.
Whenever you talk about climate or system change, change is very complicated. It's never one thing which actually does something. It's a conjunction of regulation or of, uh, mobilization from people of technology happening and so on. So it's pretty [00:26:00] hard to actually see where is your full contribution there.
But what you can see is where projects that you support actually going and whether. You see some positive results at the end of it. You don't want to do some attribution because that will be way too complicated and fraud, uh, fraud with a lot of un uncertainty. But what you want to see is that you're actually funding things, which are pushing things in the right direction.
We, because we have philanthropic capital, which is most more patient and risk, uh, seeking, we can just try things. Also, we have a luxury to try things and just see, okay, that doesn't work. What have we learned? How do we do something different? Now, obviously. Like everybody else, we want to have a failure rate, which is as low as possible because this is money which could go some forth, forth to something else.
And we found a wide range of things from carbon dioxide removal, for example. How do you get CO2 out of the atmosphere to, uh, resilience project or adaptation projects? So a couple of things which I'm quite proud of that we have done. First one is we, uh, we funded a, an experiment for parametric insurance.
So in India, for example, when it gets too hot, uh, women can't go and, and, and, and work that will be too dangerous for them. But if they don't go and work, they lose their revenue for the day. And these are people, obviously who are really poor and just one day of revenue is something they can't afford. So our partners actually pioneer the mechanism where.
When the temperature outside was above a sudden threshold, then automatically a woman were subscribed would get a salary for the day, even if it would not work. Sounds like a small thing, but we helped 50,000 women, but we also demonstrated that this can work and this was an interesting thing. And now big insurance companies actually trying to put that at scale with the Indian government.
So this is a very good example where money from philanthropy can actually test things and hopefully you have a much bigger impact there. So it's, it's an interesting story. To try and make sure governments are actually sticking to their, uh, methane pledge. You might remember. So politicians announced a global methane pledge.
Methane is a big, uh, uh, greenhouse gas. Uh, it has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere, but it has a very [00:28:00] strong effect on climate. So a lot of things about reducing methane emission from landfills, from agriculture, from cows. Cows are actually a big source of emissions. How do you do that? And of course you can say.
Don't eat cows. That's one thing, but we know it's gonna be difficult, so how do you feed them differently so that they actually emit less methane? We found also a lot of things, which might sound trivial, but are extremely important. A lot of governments, for example, lack the right level of data to actually.
Design their transition plans. So we found a lot of open data access so that people can get the kind of technology data they need to actually find the kind of solutions that can work for them and they can use some very complicated tools that they would not have access to otherwise. So it's, it's a big part for us to actually provide as much data as possible in a public form so that people can just get all the information they need to make decisions, which are.
Very important decisions. You're talking about your energy system or your building system and so on. So that's, that's, that's a big thing that we are doing. We're also funding some research projects. Uh, we had a very cool project recently looking at how carbon is stored in soils. Our carbon is actually transferred and stored in soil.
And this is very important because if you want to restore soil quality, you have a huge opportunity to store some carbon at the same time. So yeah, just, uh, we also fund some, some, some early stage technologies. So we give some grants. We fund awards for young PhD, uh, students to give them some visibility, allow them to get to their next, the next stage of their careers.
So it's a very broadband thing of. Things which are all small, they can aggregate, but we hope that we all ladder up to something much bigger at the end of the day.

Jeff: Oh, interesting. So you actually provide grants. You're trying to, to kind of promote the ecosystem or talent that is working, you know, on, you know, challenges related to climate change.
That's fascinating. And I, I think kind of goes back to some of the political change, right? I think it's less that the programs and the money right now, but it's more of [00:30:00] the. Kind of the assault on the people, the talent, the scientists, that that's something that it's very hard to rebuild overnight, right?
Like people need to eat and so they will go find other things to do and then it is hard to kind of, to rebuild that, right? Or kind of come back. So that, that's really fascinating. How do we support the people who are actually gonna do the work, that are gonna have the impact? I love that.

Greg: Yeah, and there are, there are many ways of doing it.
Obviously it goes from. And it depends where in, in, in terms of geography. In some cases that's giving, uh, young, talented students the opportunity to go and study somewhere else or to do, uh, to do a postdoc somewhere. But that's also in many countries, building the infrastructure. But you need to take into account where you are, what are the specificities of, of a country.
And and that's a discussion which I know up recently at IC in the, in the US where, um, I mean, do you say, oh. Please. Countries do, do use fossil fuels. We have done this in the past, I don't believe into that. But you have to make sure that you take into account that some countries in Africa have a lot of resources and if we are asking them to not use their resource, these resources, well, what do we give them in exchange?
Right? Uh, and, and this is also true in South America for example, there are plenty of countries having a lot of oil. They pump it and then people say, oh, you should not pump it because it's bad for climate. But that's a source of revenue, of tax revenue. So how do you do that? And it's all about providing the local context, making sure scientists understand what are the specificities of the countries in terms of resources and so on.
But also in terms of how the political system works. So we do support a lot of capacity building, but also true in the mining sector where. Okay. You can say mining is bad, but we need minerals. We need metals to actually build anything and we need actually a lot of mining. So how do you do that in the best way?
How do you help countries to actually negotiate with, with companies? How do you help them assess what will be, what the impact will be for them? How do you help them make sure that they get the most benefits out of that? Because you don't want them to [00:32:00] just export their minerals and not getting anything out of it, which has been happening for oil and gas for a while.
So I think it's all this kind of. Soft tissue infra infrastructure, which we can help, uh, develop. Again, in an ideal world, we would not be needed. I mean, governance will do their job. Uh, wealth would go from the north to the south because that's, that's, that's where it should be going. It, it's, it's not happening like that.
So we are, I guess, at our scale, which is very small, trying to rebalance that in the most effective way.

Jeff: One of the things that I think people are looking for is, is hope and inspiration and what, you know, as you continue to talk to people and you know that you've devoted most of your life to this space, what gives you hope?
What, what inspires you?
Greg: I am lucky and, and and privileged because I meet incredible people every day. Smart people, people just trying hard, as hard as they can to mobilize around them to build communities to actually change the world. I mean, I know it's a big world and everybody wants to, but it is true.
You meet a lot of people who are dedicated and they can do it in very different ways, right? That could be somebody, uh, writing articles in the media, somebody trying to. To look citizen assemblies to try and make sure people understand what climate is. So you meet all those change makers, I guess. I think seeing that every day kind of gives me a bit of hope that yeah, we are not doomed.
We have everything we need to to actually get there, or 90%. So the way I keep saying and reminding people that we have all the solutions we need to decrease emissions in the next 10 years, this is not a technological problem. There are many of our buyers, but we have everything we need. Down the line, going to zero emission is harder, but the, uh, the International Energy Agency keeps saying that we have like 80% of the solutions to get to net zero, and the rest is being developed as we speak.
So it's, it's not a any more technological problem. There are a lot of political barriers, financial, uh, [00:34:00] barriers, sometimes behavioral, just how do we behave? How do we, how do we, what is our relationship with, with emissions, for example? But solutions are still being developed. So there is something there.
It's, it's happening and it's not impossible to do. It's just hard, and we have to just keep at it and just. Step after step and sometimes just accept things don't work and take a few step backs to, to get back.

Jeff: Well, I love that. I, I often say that, you know, based on what I research, this is not a technology problem.
And more and more it's actually becoming less of a capital problem. Like there there is capital, but we've made major strides even in the last five years I would say.

Greg: So I think you're making a very good point, which is we can see that investment. Is flowing in the clean technology and, and this is, this is sustained.
We don't see any sign of weakening in the increase of finance, which is coming every year on the clean stuff. But, but I mean, investors know what they are doing. Obviously they're not doing, they're not investing in projects for the bottom of their art is because they think there's some value there. So the fact that investments in.
The transitional increasing year of a year. I think it's a strong signal that things are coming. It takes time again, but I think most people understand that the future is not about investing in oil and gas. Yeah. Perhaps in the next 10 years, long term it is going to be out there.

Jeff: Yeah. It's a dead end road.
I. I, I think people are looking to maximize what they can out of it, but they know that, that at some point, that party ends. And that's where, for me, what's interesting. I think oftentimes people, they, they don't realize, again, they, they think there's a silver bullet or technology's gonna solve it. The reality is we have all the technology that we need today.
To Right. To make change and we actually have ways to kind of fund it or, or kind of kickstarted at least, and kind of get it going. And so now it really is, it's about, you know, behavioral change and, and the change management and will and, and to me this is kind of values, and I love what you said about, um, you know, one system has to die right [00:36:00] in order for the other.
And I, I did a little research around, you know, what are some of the major trends in history from, you know, the industrial revolution or even, even if you take automobiles right from, you know, horse and buggies had to, you know, go by the wayside for, um, you know, for the automobile. And I think the one perspective that, going back to your TED Talk I really took is that.
You know, any significant systemic change on this level? It does take time. You know, I often think, you know, it's a, it's a generation or a decade, but if you look at some of these major events, it's more like 30, 40 years. I mean, um, that doesn't mean we should wait for that. It's just good perspective that you have to understand.
That's the timeframe that we're looking at here. So,

Greg: and also I think it's probably one of the first time in history where. We change because we have to. Right. I mean, there is an existential crisis there. People like to say. There has never been a, an energy transition in the past, which of course, globally it's true.
Although the, at the level of a country, it's, it's not true. Um, but we never had to do it. We, we always had the luxury to pump more oil, get more gas, get more coal. We, we don't have that choice anymore. We have to change. I think it is also setting the, the, the frame for something which is totally different, which is if we believe we want a future and our kids have a future, we just have to do it.
And that is going to change a lot of the things. And again, as, as the effects of climate change are increasing, it's gonna be more and more obvious. Now, it would've been better if it was obvious to people 50 years ago, but here we, we, here we go.

Jeff: For those that say that we haven't done any similar transition, I would point to electrification.
You know, I mean, I think that is the most analogous kind of transition. You know, you used to, you know, street lamps were, were fueled by oil and, and now they've been electrified.

Greg: There's something very fundamental about electrification that many people don't realize. The energy system right now is about burning stuff.
You just burn things. This is combustion. Combustion is very inefficient. We are get pretty good at getting models and engines working, [00:38:00] but an engine in a car is. 30, 40% efficiency. The best DSL models in the world, which are on big ships, are like 50% efficiency. An electric motor in electric car is 90% efficient.
A heat pump is way more efficient than a gas solar. Everything about electricity is more efficient. So we can think of it as, oh, we have to move away from cheap fossil fuels. Fossil fuels. We can discuss the cheap part. But we are moving to a system which is way more efficient. And that's incredible because it's not requiring any magic technology, it's just things we know how to do.
Batteries, cars, um, and it, it pumps and all those things. And I think if we start looking at it that way, it's like we are designing a better, better system. There is nothing magic about the current energy system, just that it has been built over by industry over the last hundred 50 years or so, and we have been getting extremely good at getting those converters as as good as they can be.
But they are fundamentally limited by physics and thermodynamics and we can get way better with electricity.

Jeff: Hmm. That's a phenomenal point. As we move to wrap up, Greg, last question we'd love to ask every guest as you kind of break out your crystal ball and look out over the next, you know, kind of five years, what do you see?

Greg: Five years? Um, I think I see Europe. Standing up to a challenge and finally doing what it should have done a few years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine, which is double down, triple down on the transition and assume leadership. I see the country, the us, which is kind of regretting not to having done more in the, in the past five years.
So I think, I think there is a potential for countries to really show that it can be done. China will not wait for anybody. They are moving along. This is the first electro state, as many people say, Europe can move on. I think you have an interesting pattern there, but it might require a bit more time. But I think politically it's quite interesting to see what could happen.

Jeff: Well, Greg, it has been an absolute pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you so much for your time and the conversation. We really [00:40:00] appreciate it.

Greg: Thanks a lot.

Jeff: Well, that conversation with Greg was fascinating and my first takeaway is the fact that we still have a gap between the science and decision makers. It directly impacts how well scientific knowledge is translated into policy and actions, and that's reflected in Greg's own career journey. Shifting from frontline science to working more with decision makers and trying to be a catalyst for how we not only combat climate change, but adapt for this new climate future.
My second takeaway is around balancing short term and long term. Greg talked a little bit about that this journey is one that is not a sprint. It truly is a marathon, and so we need to be taking action the short term, but also keep in perspective that this is a long journey. This is gonna be difficult, this is gonna be hard.
We're gonna have setbacks, and yet we've gotta keep going. Another takeaway from the conversation with Greg that I think is important is this concept that for us to achieve our greenhouse gas emission targets and net zero targets, one system is going to have to die while another is born, and that's the truth for us to get to net zero.
You know, we are gonna have to stop burning coal and fossil fuels on the scale that we are today. And it's important that we're honest about that. I loved his point that our politicians are not being honest with us about how hard that's gonna be. And so instead of sticking our heads in the sand and wishing it wasn't that way, we need to tackle that head on because.
The reality is we need to bring those folks into the conversation and help be a part of the solution if we're really gonna make headway, [00:42:00] uh, and make that transition a less painful one. My final takeaway is that momentum is building, as Greg points out, tremendous progress and renewable energy generation, such as solar and wind has happened over the last five years.
The pace of change is accelerating and we shouldn't lose sight of it. Here's the reframe while we talk about how we lower greenhouse gas emissions and get to net zero. One of the things I thought was important that Greg brought up is that we also need to learn how to adapt and become more resilient to climate change.
In the case of buildings, we need to make sure not only are buildings more efficient, but that they are more resilient because the reality is, is. Climate change is already here and is already happening, and even if we dramatically reduce in a short period of time, the amount of emissions. We are gonna be dealing with this for decades to come.
Thanks for joining another episode of Reframe and thanks to my guests Greg de Timmerman. Until next time,

Announcer: you've been listening to Reframe the show about building sustainability presented by Pilotlight. Opinions shared by the Reframe guests aren't necessarily the views of their companies. If you'd like to learn more about the podcast, the show's host, guest.
Or topics, check out this episode's, show notes or visit pilotlight.ai/podcast. Got a question for the reframe team? Drop us a note at reframe@pilotlight.ai. The reframe podcast features original music by Dyaphonic. The show's produced by Robert Haskitt, with Eric Opel and the show's host Jeff Nichols. Before you go, this would be a great place to hit pause in your podcast app and then hit that little plus sign up in the corner to follow the show.
That way you'll never miss an episode. Thanks for joining [00:44:00] us.