Episode 196: Jules Kortenhorst, RMI

Feb 14

Today's guest is Jules Kortenhorst, CEO of RMI.

Since 1982, RMI has advanced market-based solutions that transform global energy use to secure a clean, prosperous net-zero future for all. An independent, nonprofit think-and-do tank, RMI engages with businesses, communities, and institutions to accelerate and scale replicable solutions that drive the cost-effective shift from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables.

Before RMI, Jules was the founding CEO of the European Climate Foundation, the largest philanthropic organization dedicated to policy development and advocacy on climate change in Europe. Before launching ECF, he served as a member of the Dutch parliament for the Christian Democratic Party. During the first 20 years of his career, Jules worked in the business world. He was the CEO for International Operations of ClientLogic Corporation, a global leader in outsourced CRM solutions. Jules spent almost ten years at Royal Dutch/Shell, including managing director of Shell Bulgaria. He began his career as an analyst at McKinsey & Co. Jules currently serves as chair of the WEF Global Future Council on Net Zero Transition. In addition, he is a founding member of the global Energy Transitions Commission, a member of the New Energy advisory board of Shell, and a non-executive board member of the Energy Web Foundation and MiQ.

I was eager to interview Jules because the role of NGOs in the clean future is vitally important. Jules walks me through his career path from the business sector to RMI, RMI's approach as a 'think-and-do-tank", and Jules' current position as CEO. We also dive into the role of fossil fuel companies in decarbonizing the future, lessons learned from cleantech 1.0, and advice Jules has for leaders balancing funding and climate commitments. This is a great episode for those interested in NGOs and decarbonizing the future.

Enjoy the show!

You can find me on twitter @jjacobs22 or @mcjpod and email at info@myclimatejourney.co, where I encourage you to share your feedback on episodes and suggestions for future topics or guests.

Episode recorded January 21st, 2022

In Today's episode, we cover:

An overview of RMI & Jules' role as CEO
Jules' path to RMI and what led Jules to care about climate change
The twists and turns of Jules' path from business to philanthropy
RMI's initial focus areas, how the nonprofit has evolved, and key learnings from an organizational perspective
RMI's scope of work and how the large organization tactically affects change
Big incumbents v. startups in the climate space and who the leaders will be in the decarbonized future
Advice for leaders balancing the truth and severity of climate change with donors
Lessons learned from cleantech 1.0
The US's role in addressing climate change
How Jules thinks about the clean transition in the NGO landscape and how it compares to his experience in the business sector

Jason Jacobs: Hey everyone. Jason here. I am the My Climate Journey show host. Before we get going, I wanted to take a minute and tell you about the my climate journey or MCJ as we call it, membership option. Membership came to be because there were a bunch of people that were listening to the show that weren't just looking for education, but they were longing for a peer group as well. So, we set up a Slack community for those people, that's now mushroomed into more than 1,300 members. There is an application to become a member. It's not an exclusive thing. There's four criteria we screen for. Determination to tackle the problem of climate change, ambition to work on the most impactful solution areas, optimism that we can make a dent, and we're not wasting our time for trying, and a collaborative spirit. Beyond that, the more diversity, the better.
There's a bunch of great things that have come out of that community. A number of founding teams that have met in there, a number of nonprofits that have been an- established, a bunch of hiring that's been done, a bunch of companies that have raised capital in there. A bunch of funds that have gotten limited partners or investors for their funds in there, as well as a bunch of events and programming by members and for members, and some open source projects that are getting actively worked on that hatched in there as well. At any rate, if you wanna learn more, you can go to myclimatejourney.co the website, and click the become a member tab at the top. Enjoy the show.
Hello everyone. This is Jason Jacobs, and welcome to My Climate Journey. This show follows my journey to interview a wide range of guests to better understand and make sense of the formidable problem of climate change, and try to figure out how people like you and I can help.
Today's guest is Jules Kortenhorst, CEO of RMI, formerly Rocky Mountain Institute. Now I was excited for this one. As Rocky Mountain Institute has been a pillar in the climate community for decades as one of the leading NGOs. And Jules has an interesting background in that he spent the early part of his career at Royal Dutch Shell spent a bunch of time in the traditional business community was the founding CEO of the European Climate Foundation, which is the largest philanthropic organization dedicated to policy development and advocacy on climate change in Europe. Now with RMI, which is transforming the global energy system through market-driven solutions to secure a clean prosperous zero-carbon future. They're an independent nonprofit think and do tank, that works with businesses, policymakers, and communities to identify and scale energy systems interventions that will cut greenhouse gas emissions, at least in half by 2030.
We cover a lot in this episode, including Jules's childhood and early career, his motivations along the way, what initially opened his eyes to the problem of climate change, some of the moves that he made in the interim prior to landing at RMI. And then we have a great discussion, not just about the work at RMI, BUT about some of the challenges in terms of where one gets their funding from and the tricky tap dances that occur in terms of what the role oF the big incumbents are, and what the role of upstarts is, and how to engage with incumbents and push them and what the mix is of carrot and stick that's most effective? It was really interesting to hear Jules's perspective on these topics, And I learned a lot. I'm excited for you to hear it. And without further ado, let's welcome him to the show. Jules, welcome to MCJ.
Jules Kortenhorst: Glad to be here, Jason. Fun conversation I'm sure.
Jason Jacobs: Oh, I'm excited for this one. We've had a lot of interesting guests on the show, but RMI is such an important organization. And, and not only that, in doing my prep, you've got such an interesting background as well. Starting your career at Shell. I've heard you say that, that you've got entrepreneurship in your past. And now of course, you're working at one of the most important climate NGOs that there is. So, thank you for making the time. Well, for starters, what is RMI? Maybe just a quick overview.
Jules Kortenhorst: Yes, we are an NGO founded in 1982, so long time ago. And for all of our existence, we have focused on the transition to a clean, prosperous net zero energy future. It's really the wisdom and inside of our founding father, Amory Lovings, who created the institute almost 40 years ago now, um, with that foresight, with that idea that this transition is going to need to happen. At the time it was informed by a whole host of important benefits, acleaner future, more prosper future, a more efficient future. But a over the last years, of course, climate change has become the dominant driver for the energy transition, and our focus has increasingly become to accelerate a transition with an eye on reducing greenhouse gas missions and mitigating climate change.
Jason Jacobs: And what about your personal journey that led you on this path? And you, you can start anywhere that you like, but it's helpful... From my standpoint, it's helpful to understand not only what led you to do the work that you're doing, but what led you to care about this problem in the first place, and when and how did that come about?
Jules Kortenhorst: Yeah. Well, as you saw from my background, indeed started my career at Oil Dutch Shell, um, the oil and gas company immediately after business school. I'm Dutch by origin, although I did my MBA here in the United States. And after spending almost 10 years at Shell, I realized that entrepreneurial blood was not going to get a real chance in the big Shell system. So, I left shell and for almost 10 years, I was the CEO and chairman of a number of private equity back, buyouts in the call center sector, and in industrial electronics and in HR outsourcing. But then when I exited my last business, I took a little bit of time off, a sabbatical, and I enjoyed, uh, some time with the family. I read up on issues in the world, and I also took a journey in Africa, and leadership journey. Together with, uh, seven other CEOs hiked for a week through the bush in Africa, slept under the stars, no cabins, no roads.
It was really an inspirational journey. And I was, at the time reading, Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth. And those two things sort of really banged together during that trip. I realized that we were taking mother earth for granted, and that the risks associated with climate change would put our lives at risk, but even more importantly, the lives of future generations. And even more importantly, the lives of future generations in parts of the world that are more vulnerable. And so it was more or less then and there that I decided to focus my life on addressing climate change. Initially and I would say somewhat naively, I decided that, you know, we need to change the rules. I get myself elected to parliament. Well, turns out that successful chief execs don't necessarily make successful politicians. So, after two years, I turned my attention to climate philanthropy and started the European Climate Foundation, but it's now the largest philanthropic organization of climate change in Europe. And about nine years ago, I was asked to come to Boulder, Colorado to take RMI under my wings, and we've been growing the institution ever since.
Jason Jacobs: Now I'm curious, coming from the business background that you did, once you decided that climate was where you wanted to be. I mean, you mentioned that you spent some time thinking that government would be where you applied your skills, what led you to philanthropy next?
Jules Kortenhorst: Yeah. It turns out that courageous decision making to address a long term problem is really hard for politicians. And what I observed in parliament was that things that were so obvious, um, were not necessarily easily accomplished in the political arena. And as a result, it made a lot of sense in my mind to try to influence the policy making process through the engagement of civil society, through advocacy, through better information and better data, and all of that required funding. And at the time there was still very little in terms of climate philanthropy in Europe. A number of organizations in the US very involved in this subject. The energy foundation was very much the model on which the European Climate Foundation was also founded.
But that didn't really exist in Europe. So, by creating the European Climate Foundation, we were able to mobilize significantly more funding to great organizations like WWF and E3G, and Greenpeace, and others who were able to put out this sort of insights and influence the decision making and advocate for the solutions that would lead to a lower carbon future. This work started more than 10 years ago now, and we've come a long way. And Europe, as you know, now is very much a leader in the energy transition and in addressing climate change. And I would say that, that is in s- no small measure, the results of the amazing work that these organizations have done in influencing the political debate and the public opinion.
Jason Jacobs: And when you think about the work at RMI, maybe talk a little bit about the initial focus areas, and what some of the key learnings have been from an organizational standpoint and how those focus areas and the work of RMI has evolved, if you look at where you are today.
Jules Kortenhorst: Yeah. Well, first of all, it's important to point out that, whereas at European Climate Foundation, a lot of the focus certainly initially was on influencing the policy debate. RMI has always had a theory of change, which is about a market led business driven transformation towards a low carbon energy future. The energy system is all about putting steel in the ground, deploying technologies projects that produce the energy and distribute the energy, use the energy. And so that is very much driven by business decisions, by markets, by entrepreneurial leaders. And that has always been focus of RMI's work. Now, that's not to say that we don't also work in the policy arena, that we don't also try to influence regulations in the energy system. Because much of how energy markets work is driven by policy, is driven by regulation. But our mindset first and foremost is that we to massively shift capital allocation from high carbon to low carbon.
In fact, at this point, we should really not be building any more high carbon asset infrastructure, we should be focusing our capital on low carbon solutions. And that is very much the approach that RMI has been taking right from the beginning. The other thing that has been very much part of RNI's DNA always is efficiency. If you make the energy system more efficient, the challenge of transitioning it to low carbon becomes a smaller one because you create more GDP, more economic growth, more business success with less resources and specifically less energy. So, efficiency has always been a big feature of how we think about the energy transition. And for example, some of the work that we've done historically in the build environment is quite well known for the focus on efficiency. But efficiency alone is not gonna get us there. We have to shift from fossil fuels to clean electrons and clean molecules.
And so a lot of our work now is on accelerating the transition of our electricity system to clean power, using those green electrons to shift to electric mobility, to use more of that clean electricity in our houses, and specifically eliminate the use of gas in the build environment. And then also use clean electrons to produce green hydrogen as a key feed stock, and power or energy provider in the industry sector. And all of that can be accelerated by capital flows, by new technologies, by building the capacity for good decision making in the energy system. And those are additional cross cutting initiatives that we work on. And finally, we recognize that there are opportunities to leverage big data and artificial intelligence to measure our greenhouse gas emissions by asset, by sector, throughout supply change, which becomes a critically important tool. If we're trying to accelerate to change towards a low carbon future, we've gotta measure what we're trying to manage, right?
Jason Jacobs: Now, we've been talking about the belief system about the way the transition should manifest, and also about some of the key pillars or levers, if you will, about what will facilitate that transition most impactfully. So, when you think about the scope of work for RMI, tactically, what is the organization actually doing? With the understanding that it's a large organization, so it's doing a lot of different things, but what kinds of things do you generally do to bring about the change in the focus areas that you were describing?
Jules Kortenhorst: Absolutely. That's important. We are sometimes referred to as a think tank, and that annoys us a little bit because thinking alone is not gonna get the job done. So, our mantra is very much, think, do and scale. Yes, we have our roots in a deep understanding of the whole of the energy system. We are integrated energy system thinkers, and we do publish thought leadership on the future of the electricity system, or the barriers of electric charging, electric vehicle charging, or what is necessary to scale up the hydrogen economy. But the thought leadership alone is not sufficient. It can set out the pathway, but it doesn't mean that we are necessarily moving markets and moving businesses as fast as is necessary. So, then the other thing that we do is we work on demonstration projects, on pilots. We illustrate that the ideas that we have can actually work in the real world. And there are many examples of first offs of pilots that RMI has been involved with, whether it is in the build environment.
For example, almost 10 years ago, the retrofits of the empire state building to become a really energy efficient building. It was of course, quite iconic and attracted the attention of other real estate developers. Or our ability to work with, uh, the utility regulator in New York to create the regulatory framework for what is called a transactive electricity grid, a highly interactive, digitized transactive electricity grid, and so on and so forth. But even that piloting alone is not good enough. We have to get to scale. We have to drive the deployment of all of these solutions at scale. So, what we then do is we very often work with individual companies or with clusters of companies, with industry user organizations, to accelerate the deployment of these ideas, of these solutions, of these new business models and to deploy the capital at scale.
So, one good example of that is the Clean Energy Buyers Association, CEBA. That organization is a spin out of RMI in collaboration with WRI, WWF and BSR. And what we did there is we brought together all the corporates that were buying clean electricity, to learn from each other, to create standard contracts, to build momentum in the market for corporate procurement of clean electricity. And what was five years ago, six years ago, a market of maybe one gigawatt per year, now is a market that is approaching six, seven gigawatts.
Jason Jacobs: So, Jules, I wanna pick up on something that you said earlier in the discussion, which is that when you were at Royal Dutch Shell, you came to the realization that if you wanted to be truly entrepreneurial, that working in a large organization like that wasn't the best way to do so. When you talk about the kinds of initiatives that you're trying to facilitate in the areas that we just discussed, how do you think about the big incumbents versus upstarts or, or new players to the mix? Where do you focus your energies? And if you had to guess once the transition is complete, what percentage of the leaders of the decarbonized world will be the same players of today?
Jules Kortenhorst: That's a very good question there, Jason. Let me first say, and we should come back to this in a moment, but RMI is very much an entrepreneurial organization and an innovative organization by our nature. And much of what we do today is quite different, quite new, quite innovative compared to what we did say 10 years ago. So, that probably also paints a little bit of the picture of the, the mindset that we have about the energy transition. A lot of the innovation that needs to happen is coming from disruptors, coming from entrepreneurs, coming from new companies in all of the sectors of the economy that involve energy, which is pretty much everything thing in the economy. It's very hard when you are a large company to be disruptive, to be innovative, to be creative. And that's partly because large organizations by the end nature are not like that.
But it's also because if you grow up in a big energy incumbent, then the mindset, the learning, the context that you have in the back of your mind, as you are thinking about your business, tends to be the context in the mindset of the past, rather than seeing the future. So, much of the disruption is happening by innovators, by disruptors, by startups, by entrepreneurs. But if you think about the magnitude of the energy system, if you think about the amount of capital that needs to be deployed, then we are going to need energy incumbents and incumbents across the economy as well. To give you just one example, the largest container shipping company in the world is Maersk. You've undoubtedly seen pictures of some of those very large container ships. Very hard to imagine how an entrepreneur can launch the next shipping company, can deploy the amount of capital that is necessary to build out a green shipping fleet.
Fortunately, Maersk is one of those unique companies that has early on understood the magnitudes of the climate crisis, and has decided to be a leader in the transition and has now placed an order for 10 methanol ships, ships that will sail on green methanol made from green hydrogen. And that is a big breakthrough for the industry. And what that implies is that there are incumbents that have the capabilities to innovate and to disrupt themselves and to change, but it's not easy. And certainly when you think of the oil and gas industry, you see that challenge, right?
Companies like Exxon and Chevron are finding it really hard to imagine that the future will look dramatically different from the past. On the other hand, there are other companies more the, the European oil and gas companies that maybe hesitatingly, and may, and certainly not fast enough, but that have embraced the energy transition, and have come to recognize that if they want to be energy leaders in the future, it's gonna have to be not on the basis of their existing fossil fuel competencies and resources, but on the basis of green electrons and the technologies and solutions of the future.
Jason Jacobs: So, when I think about what needs to be done for these large players, I mean, there's an education and modeling, like, it, it sounds like you do some of, and, and there's a helping them with the first of a kind plants and, or demos, like, like, like we talked about. And so there's kind of a helping and support, and get them information they need and make their lives easier, but then there's also calling out out their ways, laying out the bare facts, uh, to put outside pressure on them to move. So, it's, it's almost, I don't know if these are the right words, but kind of carrot and stick. So, when you talk about, or describe your role when you engage with these players, especially given that I see some of them listed as your funders, how would you describe that relationship and your role in the ecosystem in that regard?
Jules Kortenhorst: So, first of all, you're absolutely right. In our world we sometimes talk about it as the inside game and the outside game, but they carrot and the stick is another good way of expressing it. We need to put an inordinate amount of pressure on energy incumbents to accelerate the pace at which they're transitioning. And organizations like Greenpeace or Fridays for the Future or 350.org, do an amazing job in that sort of outside pressure work. We see our role more as the inside game, working with these companies to push them to accelerate and to show them the way in which they can be successful in a low carbon energy future. Force them to make the decisions, the commitments, the investments to transition. Now, that does not mean that we're necessarily close friends with these energy incumbents. I often find myself speaking truth to power.
And yes, you're right. Some people think, oh, how do you do that? Uh, maybe my Dutch stubbornness, Jason. But I have absolutely no problem telling my old colleagues at Shell what we believe the future is. And for example, that that future is a future without an abated gas. A future where we will not be burning natural gas in the next 10, 15, 20 years, unless it is with carbon capture and storage. And we say it's highly unlikely that that will emerge as a really viable and competitive technology. So, you better make the transition to green hydrogen and to be an electricity provider as well. And the first time I put out those perspectives in front of people at the senior leadership team at Shell, it wasn't always welcome. People lo- scans at me, people debated it with me, people argued with. But I think now people at Shell will say, oh, it turned out that the guidance and the insights that we got from RMI were actually quite accurate.
Jason Jacobs: And this is not meant to be any type of gotcha question. So, if, if you don't wanna go here, that's fine. But, uh, I'm sincerely curious about just how to do the tap dance of speaking truth to power, but also with the responsibility for your team, for example, that if significant amounts of your funding were to be pulled, then people's jobs would be lost and you would have less resources to have the kind of impact that you aspire to have. So, whether it's specifically with R- with an RMI had or, or urge generally for anyone that's trying to do that tap dance. How do you think about that? And what advice do you have for other leaders that are in similar shoes to yours?
Jules Kortenhorst: It's a very good question. Thank you for asking it. Let me first clarify that it is not the case that a large part of the funding of RMI comes from the fossil fuel industry. 99% of our funding does not come from the fossil fuel industry. But it is true that we work in certain programs with energy incumbents, because we think that engaging them is useful. So, for example, Shell and BP are two of our corporate partners in our clean tech incubation program called Third Derivative. They pay for the privilege of being part of that ecosystem and seeing clean tech innovations, and being able to invest in those clean tech startups. And similarly, a number of gas producers have certified their gas production under our methane intensity quotient, MIQ, and MIQ is geared towards reducing leakage of natural gas, of methane in the production of oil and gas.
It's critically important for us to address that methane leakage. So, yes, we do work with these energy incumbents there. But once again, it is a moderate part, but be the only way we can work just simply from the passion we have about this subject is to speak truth to power. To be crystal clear with a company like Exxon, that we are appreciative of the fact that you are certifying your gas productions to show that you're reducing your methane leakage, but in the meantime, we are not happy that the announcement you recently made that you will be net zero by 2050 only covers your scope one and two emissions. That's a nice start, but that's not good enough. You need to start addressing what is called scope three emissions, the emissions associated with the burning of your product. So, we feel comfortable speaking truth to power and being crystal clear that we don't see a long term future for unabated natural gas, but that in the meantime, while we're still using natural gas, we need to make absolutely be sure that it doesn't leak.
Jason Jacobs: And when you look at the wave of innovation that has been coming and is seemingly accelerating, I know that a lot of people that have been around, you know, like you and like RMI have, get a bit of PTSD about when all the capital flowed in last time, and, and then a bunch of it, you know, got burned into nothing. And then there was this kind of dark period and hangover, and, and some of that still lingers today. So, so how do you feel when, when you see this capital, and not just capital, right? Because it's newcomers like me or, or others from, that have come out of the Stripes, or Facebooks or wherever who are looking to reorient themselves in climate. This talent and this capital that doesn't have the, the battle scars, if you will, is it dangerous? Is it exciting? You know, does this, are you, does this time feel the same? Does it feel different? Like, how are you feeling at this moment when you see all this star- start starting to happen?
Jules Kortenhorst: First of all, it's a very important and good point. Many people got burned in what people sometimes refer to as Cleantech 1.0, the period in say 2008 to 2012 when the first wave of investments came in. And when particularly most of those investors weren't fully appreciative yet of the difference between venture capital investing in hard technologies, capital intensive technologies, like climate tech, compared to investing in digital technologies, social media, IT. I think we're much more aware of that difference now than 10 years ago. But the world looks very different today than it looked 15 years ago. And several major trends in our minds mean that the transition now is going to happen more consistently, more quickly, and that early stage clean tech investments have a better chance of doing well. First of all, there's a completely different understanding of the challenges of climate tech or clean tech innovation, particularly this capital intensity as a big feature of clean tech.
And there is an industry now of clean tech VCs that have learned how to make successful cleantech investments. Secondly, there is a much greater pool for the technologies that are coming out of clean tech and climate tech than there were 10 years ago. Energy incumbents in particular, understand that the world is changing very rapidly, and are keeping a very close eye on the innovations that are coming out of the entrepreneurial world, and are ready to invest. And all that means that, uh, exits are quicker and easier, finding customers in the energy arena is easier, still not easier, but it's easier. And so the momentum behind Cleantech 2.0 is significantly higher. The third thing that I would say is that 10 years ago, in most of the world, there was uncertainty about the policy agenda behind climate change and the energy transition.
In most of the worlds, now that policy momentum, that policy agenda is pretty darn clear. I say specifically most of the world, because of course, the United States maybe, with Australia, one of the very few countries where there are still students to be significant confusion in the political arena around what the direction of travel is when it comes to the energy transition and climate change. I can talk at lengths about why that is, but it is certainly clear in our minds that the confusion in Washington D.C. is quite unique and very different from what you see in most other capital around the world.
Jason Jacobs: And I know that the US getting its act together, given that it seems pretty obvious this is where the world is going, is in the US best interest. But one question I have for you is, does the US getting it's act together matter as it relates to the global energy transition? Like is the US as important as the US thinks it is?
Jules Kortenhorst: I do think the US is important. Maybe not as important as it used to be, but I think the US is important. But it is incredibly important for the US to get its act together, right? This is going to determine-
Jason Jacobs: That seems clear. That seems clear. The other part about how important the US is to everyone else moving forward, that part I'm not as sure about.
Jules Kortenhorst: Yeah. So, the US is still one of the most innovative economies in the world. And to the extent that the direction of travel on the energy transition and climate change becomes clear and more consistently clear carried across the political spectrum, that will mobilize that entrepreneurial capability in this country. The second thing is that the US is still a very important leader. In the past, we often said the US is the indispensable leader. That was an expression of Madeleine Albright when she was the secretary of state under a President Clinton. The indispensable leader. I'm not sure whether on this subject, the US can still claim that crown of being the indispensable leader, but an important leader for sure. And we saw that in the impact that Secretary Kerry's team had in the run up to, and during the Glasgow Climate Conference.
We saw that around the enthusiasm with which the announcement between China and the US, that they're going to work together on climate change. The enthusiasm was that, which that announcement was welcomed. So, I believe the US is still important. It may not be as important anymore as it was in the past, because China is getting on with the transition, India is getting on with the transition, Europe is definitely getting on with the transition. Many other developing countries are starting to realize that their future is a zero carbon future. So, to some extent, the risk that the US is not on board is less now than it was before.
Jason Jacobs: Uh-huh [affirmative]. And going back to one point that we talked about before about the, the Shells and the Exxons of the world and how increasingly the innovation is coming from upstarts and, and disruptors. But given their might, and footprint, and expertise, and balance sheets and, and things like that, that they're gonna be im- an important part of the transition too. Now, compare and contrast that to the NGO landscape, for example. Because you mentioned that RMI is super entrepreneurial and I believe that, and you also have a stellar reputation in the marketplace, of course. But you're also one of the giants from an NGO standpoint, you've been around for decades, right? You know, maybe been doing things kind of rooted in a, in a way of doing things for a long time. How do you think about the transition as it relates to the NGO landscape? Is your answer the same as the, the big energy companies, or do you think about it differently?
Jules Kortenhorst: Let me first say that if you look over your shoulder about and consider the progress that we have made, I think the world owes a better gratitude to organizations across the NGO landscape, that all have played their different roles, that all have fulfilled in important roles in making this transition happening. Whether it is the powerful activism and public voice of organizations like the Sierra Club, or 350.org, or Greenpeace, or the savvy political operation of the league of conservation voters or NRDC, or the important role that the environmental defense fund has played in putting the methane subject on the global agenda. All of these organizations have done amazing work, and we, we wouldn't be where we are without them. But you're right, the world is changing very quickly and we have to innovate. And we're also faced is a huge growth opportunity, which in some ways is also a challenge.
At RMI we've been in growing more than 50% a year, and our organization is now facing a significant challenge to bring on board, to attract and to retain the talented and passionate environmentalists, and leaders and energy experts that are so crucial for the work that we do. Fortunately, and I think this is also true for many of my colleagues leading NGOs, we are blessed with people who are driven by the mission, who show up every morning because they know how incredibly important it is, what they do. And they may not get compensated as a well as they are when they were to go to industry, or they may sometimes be fighting bloody hard when they're not seeing enough progress, and that may sometimes be a bit disconcerting or, or challenging, but they put their heart into this fight. And I think as NGOs that is undoubtedly one of our greatest advantages that we have deeply passionate people who are also very capable and competent leading this work.
Jason Jacobs: And we've talked a lot about the factors that are within your control. What about the factors that are outside of your control? If you had a magic wand, for example, and you could change one thing that would most accelerate the progress of RMI and your work, and the transition overall, what would you change and how would you change it?
Jules Kortenhorst: That famous, if you were king of the world for one day question. The answer to that has been consistent and clear from the get go. And I think most economists, I'm an economist by training. Most economists would answer that question the same way. If I was king for a day, I would put a global price on carbon of say $150 at ton CO2. And that price, I would apply consistently across all the major emitting sectors all around the world. Now, people would say, oh, by golly, how, how would that impact the livelihoods and the financial situation for those most vulnerable, those at the bottom of society? And the way to structure it would be to return the revenue associated with that carbon tax in some form to people at the bottom of the income scale, to the most vulnerable in society, You can do that through reducing income taxes, reduce the tax on labor.
Every economist I talk to says that would be actually a very smart way of doing it. Or you could do it in a way that has been discussed here in the United States as a dividend. So, it would be a tax and dividend scheme. But some mechanism whereby that doesn't necessarily all flow into new government programs, but that tax on carbon would be used to reduce the tax burden on those that can at least afford a higher price for energy, so that they wouldn't be a resolve on the whole. That would be my king of the day for the whole world's answer. I'm also realistic, Jason. I don't see at the moment, the momentum behind that idea in the United States that would be necessary. Carbon pricing is working well in Europe, is the emissions trading system. China has now implemented the beginnings of an emission trading system and has ambitious plans to scale that up. But there are still plenty of parts in the world where that is not yet in place.
Jason Jacobs: And anyone who might not be familiar with or might not be as familiar with RMI and your work will certainly get a good sense from listening to the podcast. But if you were just in an elevator with someone and they had some extra capital floating around and they were super concerned about climate, and they were looking to be philanthropic with that capital, but they really don't know one organization from the next or even one issue from the next, for that matter. What would you say to that person in terms of whether that $1 or $100 or $,1000 or whatever the number is of capital would be, would be a good fit to ago to, to RMI? What's the pitch?
Jules Kortenhorst: The pitch would be that as an organization, we have demonstrated an ability to make really tangible progress around the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly by engaging with the leaders of the business world, with industries, with the financial community. And that I can assure anybody who is considering deploying that capital, that if they put money behind RMI, we would make very good use of it to drive that future of a zero carbon prosperous and lean energy future.
Jason Jacobs: And two final questions. One is just, given the, the diverse and strategic nature of our audience, and they all share this or the vast majority of them. I can't imagine they'd be listening if they weren't climate motivated. But just hit them between the eyes in terms of both kind of a rallying cry or parting words for them, but also just how can they be helpful to you and the work that you're doing at RMI as well?
Jules Kortenhorst: Yeah. We are facing a planetary emergency and everybody needs to wake up every morning with the deep realization that the choices that we are making over the next 8.5 years will determine whether we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by the end of this decade, and whether we're on course for a net zero energy future by the middle of the century. Those milestones are critically important to safeguard this planet for future generations. In light of that emergency, go to www.rmi.org and look at all the good stuff that is happening. We have the technologies, we have the business solutions, capital is starting to flow. We just need to roll this ball down the hill much more rapidly. And at RMI, they're now 450 deeply committed experts on the energy system working day in day out to drive that future and to safeguard this planet for future generations.
Jason Jacobs: Okay. Well, Jules, this was such an awesome discussion. You're doing amazing work. So, I can't thank you enough for coming on the show, and I'm wishing you and the whole RMI team best of lucking your important work.
Jules Kortenhorst: Thank you very much, Jason. It was a pleasure to be here.
Jason Jacobs: Hey, everyone. Jason here. Thanks again for joining me on My Climate Journey. If you'd like to learn more about the journey, you can visit us at myclimatejourney.co. Note that is .co not .com. Someday we'll get the.com, but right now, .co. You can also find me on Twitter @jjacobs22, where I would encourage you to share your feedback on the episode, or suggestions for future guests like to hear. And before I let you go, if you enjoyed the show, please share an episode with a friend or consider leaving a review on iTunes. The lawyers made me say that. Thank you.