Episode 198: Nicole Systrom, Galvanize Climate Solutions
Today's guest is Nicole Systrom, Chief Impact Officer at Galvanize Climate Solutions.
Galvanize Climate Solutions, launched in September 2021 by Tom Steyer and Katie Hall, is a mission-driven investment platform that will provide capital, expertise, and partnerships necessary to produce and scale vital and urgent climate solutions. Galvanize is purpose-built to accelerate decarbonization efforts by integrating climate-focused investment with global activism.
Nicole Systrom has spent her entire career partnering with investors, entrepreneurs, and philanthropists to accelerate high-impact climate and clean technology solutions. Before Galvanize, Nicole founded Sutro Energy Group to counsel impact investors, philanthropists, and nonprofits on how to direct mission-oriented resources toward innovative clean technologies. With an extensive background in environmental science and a passion for helping entrepreneurs scale breakthrough technologies, nonprofits, foundations, and family offices frequently tap Nicole for her counsel on climate-positive programs. In addition, she is a published thought leader on climate innovation topics ranging from identifying gaps in the cleantech ecosystem, building philanthropic tools for investing in climate solutions, and enabling better state energy policy.
I was eager to have Nicole on the podcast because she has dedicated her entire career to climate. We cover several important topics in this episode, including Nicole's role at Galvanize, the company's theory of change as an investment firm, and Nicole's experience balancing belief systems and passions throughout her career. We also dive into the evolution of Nicole's views on the best climate solutions, key levers for unlocking faster innovation, and the climate solutions that dominate the airtime but are not the most valuable. This is a fantastic episode, especially for those interested in understanding climate solutions better.
Enjoy the show!
You can find me on twitter @jjacobs22 or @mcjpod and email at info@mcjcollective.com, where I encourage you to share your feedback on episodes and suggestions for future topics or guests.
Episode recorded February 10th, 2022
In Today's episode, we cover:
Nicole's role at Galvanize and an overview of the company
What led Nicole to focus on climate and her career path thus far
How conservation and techno-optimism co-exist
Balancing a belief system and passion when determining a career path and how Nicole navigated that herself
How Nicole's views on the best ways to solve climate change have evolved since she first started in climate
The tension between the volume of solutions versus focusing on solutions that will effect change
What dominates the airtime but aren't as valuable solutions
The key levers to unlocking faster climate progress and the role of individual action
The tradeoffs when thinking about tackling the problem of climate change versus adjusting our political system away from capitalism
Weighing equity and social justice with climate stability
The role of fossil fuels from a Galvanize perspective and Nicole's personal views
An overview of Galvanize, how the company was formed, and the firm's position in the market
How Galvanize differentiates between additionality and impact
Galvanize's theory of change
The need for in-house expertise as an investment partner
Time box capital and whether it will inhibit Galvanize's progress from an impact standpoint
Links to topics discussed in this episode:
-
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 listened 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 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 want to 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 Nicole Systrom, Chief Impact Officer for Galvanize Climate Solutions. Galvanize is the mission driven investment platform created by Tom Steyer and others to provide the capital, expertise, and partnerships necessary to produce and scale vital and urgent climate solutions.
I was excited for this one because Nicole has been in climate her entire career. She was the founder of the Sutro Energy Group, which is a consultancy that advises climate tech entrepreneurs and investors interested in addressing climate change. Earlier in her career, she worked at TerraPass, a venture backed startup where she managed a project portfolio that reduced 250,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions across the US. And she's also board chair at Prime Coalition, serves on the board of Activate.org. And is a member of the President's Council at Ceres, a nonprofit focused on sustainability challenges.
We cover a lot in this episode, including what Nicole has learned coming at climate from so many different perspectives over the years. What she feels is the highest leverage solutions for change. And of course, what she's up to now with Galvanize. Where they fit in, where they are on their progress, and what to expect from them in the future. Nicole, welcome to the show.
Nicole Systrom: Thanks for having me. I was just, I was just realizing I think when I first met you, Jason, there were like two episodes of My Climate Journey on the books. So, I feel [laughs]. Just, like it's incredible what you, you know, what you've melted in the interim here. I'm really excited to be here to talk to you today.
Jason Jacobs: Thanks. Well, I'm excited, too. I was introduced to you very early. I want to say it was maybe through a line at Activate, which at the time was not called Activate. So, maybe I've been in climate long enough that I can start calling things by what they used to be called, instead of what they're-
Nicole Systrom: There you go.
Jason Jacobs: ... called now, but we, yeah, we had a brief discussion, but we've never actually just had a, a long form chat like this. And I'm excited, too, because you are seemingly everywhere. You're like the Kevin Bacon of climate.
Nicole Systrom: [laughs].
Jason Jacobs: But, but I have a lot of questions, I, I don't really understand like what you do, and I'm, I'm dying to know. I have, I have so many questions for you.
Nicole Systrom: Great. Well, we could try and figure it out together and it'll be great.
Jason Jacobs: Well, for starters, Nicole, maybe just to frame the discussion, talk a bit about where you are currently with Galvanize, and, and what you're up to, but we won't get too far down that path. We'll then go on the way back machine, but I typically like to start there just to give listeners some perspective.
Nicole Systrom: Sure, sure, sure. So, I recently joined the team at Galvanized Climate Solutions as Chief Impact Officer, which is just, I mean, I'm having so much fun, such a great team of people doing great stuff. So, Galvanize, we are a very recently launched for-profit investment firm but climate, climate driven. Our mission is trying to, you know, accelerate this climate transition that we need to make. Galvanize is being organized as an investment platform. Eventually, this is the vision for the future.
And then my job as Chief Impact Officer is to at the platform level help build an integrated set of capabilities, and perspectives, and skills that we can use to support all of the investment vehicles underneath the platform. So, to be specific, you won't be surprised to learn, one of my major responsibilities is, is sort of setting our impact out look or impact strategy, figuring out how we're going to measure and manage that both for each investment strategy, but then as a firm. I also had our, our science and technology team, which is just awesome and incredible. And we're so lucky to have them on staff. I'm responsible for thinking through how we interact with policymakers, and the sort of intersection of investment and like regulatory affairs, policy work.
And then also, you know, another topic that I'm thinking a lot about, but you know, I'm really at the beginning of my another kind of journey, not my climate journey on, but my other journey is speaking about more deeply, you know, community impact and equity and justice and what Galvanize means when we use those words, and how we're going to be integrating it into what we do moving forward. So, really fun, really big. [laughs]. I get, I get to think about lots of really interesting hard things and, and work with smart people to try and move it forward, so...
Jason Jacobs: Wow, it's so tempting for me to jump in right there because you just like put out the fishing line-
Nicole Systrom: I know.
Jason Jacobs: ... and there's a lot of juicy stuff there that I, I want to dig into it. And in fact, we could have a whole discussion just comparing notes to some of our ambition and plans with MCJ, and-
Nicole Systrom: Yes.
Jason Jacobs: And Galvanize because in some ways, we're like a little, like a little Guppy version of, of Galvanize, but coming from-
Nicole Systrom: [laughs].
Jason Jacobs: ... a very, a very different starting point. But instead, let's go back in the way back machine. Your entire career has been in climate. How did that happen? Where did that come from? Why did that come about? And like, where was it in your upbringing that led you down that path?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah, so I actually, I grew up in the Midwest about a mile from Lake Michigan. So, I always sort of enjoyed the environment and nature, but you know, was really grew up in an urban environment other than the lake. I would say, I first was exposed to how like incredible our planet is when our family, our family visited Yosemite National Park, you know, a couple of times when I was growing up, and specifically Yosemite Valley, which I'm sure many of the people listening will have been to. It's just like an incredibly inspiring, like, awesome place in the real sense of that word awesome.
And so, I think the beauty and how special our planet is was really driven home to me there. I, I think the other thing to say is that the reason our family was going to visit Yosemite National Park was in the context of my grandparents had started a small family foundation. And so, so we were visiting the park as a financial supporter of a, of a philanthropic fund that was related to the park. So, I was kind of introduced to the environment in the context of service and philanthropy and, but I think where that really kind of, those threads kind of coalesced around climate was really in college when I just to fulfill a science requirement, I took a class called Intro to Earth Systems, which was like, just marched through all the great big earth systems like the geological cycle, plate tectonics, ocean circulation, atmospheric circulation, like all the big, like the geologic cycle, the carbon cycle, and I just thought it was-
Jason Jacobs: I should take that. I should take that now.
Nicole Systrom: It's, oh, my gosh. Seriously, Jason, I was like, "Can I just do this every... Uh, can I take this class eight times a quarter for the rest of my time here?" And, and that made me think, "Maybe I should major in this?" And so, I did. [laughs]. So, the, the name of the major was earth systems, but really, at that point, all of my classes were in some ways either very explicitly, or at least a sort of a sub bullet about climate change. And so, I was really kind of very thoroughly indoctrinated that, that climate is the problem, is the issue that is, is at the root of, or at least deeply connected with many of, of all the other problems that we face as a global society. And, and I felt like, well, that's a really good place for me to spend my time. And so, I have been working on climate ever since.
Jason Jacobs: Wow. So, one natural question that, that comes up is correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a lot of your work has been focused around deep tech, technology innovation, the intersection of that and policy, and it sounds like your initial draw came more from a, almost a conservationist perspective. And that conservationism and techno optimism, are they at odds? Can they coexist? Do they go together?
Nicole Systrom: [laughs].
Jason Jacobs: How do you think about those, those two things and where they sit in relation to each other?
Nicole Systrom: I mean, I think they're absolutely complimentary. I mean, like the longer I've worked in climate. I started out my career in climate being like, "Okay, we have to save the mountains, save, save the Earth, save the animals, right? How are we going to do that? You know, let's try this tool. And then, oh, that's what's not quite working. Okay, let's try this tool. Uh, this was not quite, uh, uh, uh." Like, I kept trying to find like the one tool, the one thing that was really going to like get us there on climate.
And I think what... Well, I don't think. I know, and I deeply believe at this point in my career is that, you know, there's no one solution to climate, which like, you just look at all the wonderful people you've talked to. Like, there's so many takes on what we need to do here to, to move the ball forward, and, you know, get back to a stable and safe climate and, and we need them all. I mean, you know, we absolutely have to conserve, and in many places, I think, restore our natural ecosystems, which have all sorts of climate benefits. But then, you know, we also need a bunch of new technologies as well. And so, I think there's room for both, and we absolutely must have both.
Jason Jacobs: I know that you've done a number of things over the course of your career, but talk a bit about the types of things you've done, and how that's evolved. And would also be interesting to maybe contrast that with your belief system on what's important compared to just what gives you energy and what you're best equipped to do skills-wise because I think a lot of our listeners have questions about that for themselves. They, they're trying to balance the spreadsheeting their way to the most impactful solutions versus like the things that they actually know how to do, and that they're good at, and that, and that gives them energy. So, I, I'd be personally really interested to hear about how you've thought about that, and how that's evolved for you over the course of your career?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah, so I have worked... I mean, other than saying, I've done climate. I've been in climate in one way or another for my entire career. Looked at one way, I've done a lot of things. So that sort of like, only recently do they all feel like they sort of get like wrapped up into the one thing and you can see how all the dots connect. So, I'll try and go-
Jason Jacobs: You sound like that Steve Jobs' commencement speech. [laughs].
Nicole Systrom: I know, I'm feeling, I'm feeling Steve Jobs [crosstalk 00:12:49]-
Jason Jacobs: The, the, the dots connecting only in hindsight. [laughs].
Nicole Systrom: [laughs]. For sure feels that way. So, I started my career working on the nonprofit side on forest carbon and forest conservation. And really, what was the precursor to protocols for what have now become the protocols for forest carbon projects at, at least here in California. So, like, that's where I started. I then went to a for-profit company TerraPass, where I managed greenhouse gas reduction projects at, mostly at landfills. TerraPass also had a portfolio of projects at dairy farms, but you know, fulfilled my childhood dream to learn everything there was to know about landfill methane regulation.
It's great. It was very fulfilling and wonderful. Went back to grad school. And then since grad school, prior to Galvanize have been working from my consulting firm Sutro Energy Group, where I've worked with a, a variety of investors, impact investors, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, broadly on how to bring more resources into climate, by which I mean, you know, money, time, philanthropy, like all sorts of resources, but then a special focus in early stage technology development and how we might accelerate that for climate benefit.
Jason Jacobs: And what led you to that focus, Nicole?
Nicole Systrom: What led me to that focus is actually I met a woman named Sarah Kearney in grad school.
Jason Jacobs: I love Sarah Kearney. [crosstalk 00:14:19]. She was one of our early... I think she was like episode four or five or something.
Nicole Systrom: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So Sarah is a, I mean, you know, an incredible woman, a force of nature. And I was... Well, it's funny. I actually, so I met Sarah and was talking with Sarah about Prime Coalition before it was really Prime Coalition. And she said, she said to me, "Hey, if I were you," because I was about to graduate from grad school, she said, "If I were you, I'd call up this guy, Ilan. He's starting this thing M37. You should call him up." So, she actually put me in touch with Ilan Gur who is the founder of what was then M37, became Cyclotron Road, is now Activate.
And so, I actually started working for my consulting firm working with Activate. Although, I guess it was Cyclotron Road at the time. Working with Cyclotron Road as a very early stage team member for a little bit, and then also ended up working at Prime. Was sort of like the first employee after Sarah [laughs] for a while. And so, I had this lovely period of my life where I was working with both the Prime team and the Activate team, which, you know, I mean, you know, are both to incredible, I think really cutting edge organizations on this question of, of how we support the development of technologies, which could be really impactful for the climate and like, that was such a, such a, you know, a really wonderful gift. And I did various things for, for each of those organizations.
And then eventually have now found my way to Galvanize. And I, and I think, you know, you asked about, like, how this is like, what is the role I play? I mean, I feel like one of the themes of my career is I often find myself at an intersection point between two different, between like business and philanthropy, or technology and philanthropy, or technology and that you're like, like, or between different sectors, right? And so I find myself in, in a sort of translator role and trying to often in a role trying to help foster collaboration and crosstalk among kind of different types of people, different types of skill sets. And I think that's partly what coming to Galvanize is so exciting for me in this particular role because it seems like I get to just do that all day. I get to ask the question. Okay, we, what would our science and tech team say about this issue? Like, what would be the policy angle? Like, how might we partner with different kinds of groups to move certain things forward? And so, I mean, that's, that's the role I think I play well, and I'm, I'm lucky that I have the job that, that lines up with that.
Jason Jacobs: Well, that was a really helpful rundown of the evolution of the roles and skill sets and sides of your brain you've used along the way. It'd be great to now have the same rundown about what your worldview was coming into climate about the best ways to address the problem, and how that has evolved and the twists and turns that that's taken as you've had these different professional experiences?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah. Well, I started out my career. I mean, gosh, this was I'm trying to think how old I am now. This was 15 years ago, 15, 16 years ago now. I essentially started out, from a climate perspective, I started out in the carbon offsets world. And I spent the first part of my career working on carbon offsets and thinking about that as like, you know, a really important tool for us to incentivize good behavior. Eventually, though, I think I've just realized that like, offsets, it's a tiny tool. [laughs]. It's doesn't actually address the real problem, right, which is reducing the emissions itself.
And so, it was at that point that I went back to, to grad school, I went to business school. But while I was there, I also got a master's in environment and resources, and focused thematially that work on the energy sector. I felt like offsets were really... Even then, like, if you looked at it, like they were only considered only expected to be, you know, a small percentage of, of the solution set that we needed to address climate and, and I, at the time, when I went back to grad school decided to focus on the energy sector, because that, you know, depending on what you're looking at, is somewhere around 30% of the response. We can trace 30% of the emissions, of our global emissions to the power sector.
And so, that felt like a really high leverage place to be and I feel even smarter now because that was even before the, the electrification of transportation was really a conversation we were having. And so, you know, as that conversation has accelerated, and, and the deep connection between those two sectors has only become more apparent, I just, you know, I feel like I really picked it right. And what I got interested then at Sutro, and I think this is expressed in my work with Activate and Prime Coalition was, was even going a step further and thinking about, um, all of the technologies we still would need.
I mean, this is not at all to denigrate deployments efforts or, you know, deployment of wind and solar, deployment of those technologies that we already have because I think we, we absolutely must do that. But it seemed to me at the time that the new technologies that we are going to need, that we're going to need to get us that critical, you know, last 15 to 20% of the way there on climate, like they just didn't exist, and they were going to take a really, really long time to develop. And so, we had to start being really creative about how we were going to see those things and get them off the ground.
And so, that, you know, that led me to the focus on really early stage technology development work. I still hold a very deep commitment to that in my heart. But I think where I'm at today is, you know, given that we have about eight years or so left on our carbon budget, we have to be, you know, I sort of pulled back outwards again, and have, have taken a more bird's eye view in terms of how we're going to, you know, what can we do now? How can we mobilize the financial sector or the corporate sector? How do we get everybody involved because we're not... We'll need those early stage technologies. We'll need some deep technology development. And those are underway, and we'll need more of that. But in the meantime, we have to be doing everything we can to move solutions forward on all fronts.
Jason Jacobs: So, one of the debates that it seems like occurs, and there's a lot of them, as you know, as you know better than me, but one of the debates that seems to occur is how on the one hand, we just need more. There's so many different types of solutions. There's so many different sectors, there's so many different geographies. There's so many different, you know, nimbyism works different or the consumer appetite works different, or the government setup works different or, or whatever, that just like, there's a big long tail, right? But then on the other hand people say, "But yeah, there's only a few things that matter and, and all the airtime by all this other stuff is a distraction from the things that actually move the needle." So, even your 15% talk, right? Well, well, I feel like the 85% would say, "But it's only 15%. And yet, it gets 80% of the airtime." Like just get it out of the way so that we can make the 85% happen faster. How do you think about that, that tension?
Nicole Systrom: Well, I think we're at a kind of an interesting moment for climate writ broad because I think part of the reason that we've been having these debates about like, "Oh, that's all the deployment or oh conversation, conservation is the thing that we must do, right? Like, like these sort of like scarcity arguments, they come about because for a very long time, climate has been starved of resources, of sort of any axis, right? Whether it's philanthropy or investment, or hello, media coverage. It's just like [laughs] we haven't been in a good situation. If this, this problem, which is like, affects everyone on this planet is so big and huge, and really gets so little, you know, fill in the blank and, and sort of, in any kind of venue you, you want to talk about it.
That's why we're in those scarcity arguments. And I think this is a moment when I think that's starting to flip where it feels to me like an acceleration of interest in climate from the general public. Like people are, there are so many people out there who, you know, get network to me through friends who are like, "I did this, but like climate is the thing, and what should I be doing?" Like there's an influx of people, money, interest into climate. And so, my hope is that we will soon reach the point where there's enough happening here that we can like stop the scarcity arguments because it's just at the end of the day, like, we really have to do everything. We have to do it all. And so, we all, we as a community of people who, who care about this have to figure out how, how to do it all together, and I think stop wasting time trying to compete for attention or support or airtime.
Jason Jacobs: When you think about some of the key levers that could unlock faster progress, where does individual action fit in? And in what form do you think that individual action is useful? And are there any forms of individual action that maybe function in a similar vein to how you're describing offsets where it's like they, you know, they dominate the airtime, but maybe aren't as valuable as people give them credit for?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah, I mean, I think a lot has been written about and said about individual action, and I think everyone has different circumstances which will make it easier or harder for them to take actions that are aligned with, with the climate. And, and I think we absolutely need to take that into account. I think the one action that everyone who has a right to vote on this planet should be doing is voting in line with the climate and sort of telling policymakers their expectations around the actions that their governments should be taking with respect to climate and that means federal, but it also means state and local governments.
I mean, here in the US, we are seeing so much action at the state and local level. The voting power is that's the place I would love for people to focus their individual actions on is, is making sure that, that votes go towards the climate. But in terms of like, should we all be vegetarian? Or should we ride bikes? You know, I think that's really comes down to people's individual choices and has to be, you know, we have to acknowledge that people live within systems, and you can only... Individual choices are only going to go so far if like you don't have bike lanes in your town. Like [laughs], you know, like we have to, we have to figure out how to, how to do things as individuals, but then also point some of that individual action towards changing our communities and changing our, our cultures.
Jason Jacobs: Another tension that I see or, or debate that it seems, takes place frequently is around our capitalist system. And if you look at the capitalist engine, it can be a very powerful engine. And in some ways, it can be a great source for good, and, and it has like anything, it has some unintended consequences, or some negative externalities, as, as well. And there are people that say, in order to fix the problem in a sustained way, we need to change the system. Otherwise, it'll just be more of the same in terms of inequality, in terms of colonialism. And there's other people that say, "Well, do you want to try to bake it all in and try to achieve some idealistic future and end up with a goose egg?"
Nicole Systrom: [laughs].
Jason Jacobs: Or, or do you actually want to fix, fix the problem of climate change? Because if you want to... And it's like, similar to working with the fossil fuel companies. Like, do you care more about demonizing them and sending them to prison or do you care more about fixing the problem of climate change, because you might not end up in the same place as it relates to action So, I guess with both of those, and I mean, we could take them individually, you could bake it into one answer. But how do you think about that tension, and, and those trade offs?
Nicole Systrom: I really appreciate this question. I guess where I come down on it is I think if you care about climate, and you want to solve climate, as you point out in, in the question like you very quickly run into... Well, there are lots of areas where like doing the right thing is, is good, is generally good. And, and the negative externalities are low. And then there are areas where, yeah, we're going to have some trade offs to make. Like I'm right now thinking of, you know, if you believe that, you know, we're going to electrify everything, then maybe you think that that means that we're going to need a lot more rare earth minerals. And so, that probably implies that we're going to have to mind something somewhere. And as we know, mining is not environmentally benevolent activity.
So, there are lots of places where we're going to have to have hard discussions and maybe collaborate with folks in ways that are not, you know, entirely... We're going to have to make some hard choices about how we're going to get there. I mean, where I personally come down is I buy the idea that, you know, we don't have a lot of time to start making progress here. So what I take as a given is that we have the capitalist economic system that we have. We have the governmental systems that we have. And unfortunately, or fortunately, depending how you look at it, like, that's what we got to work with. And so, we, we need to be moving forward within those systems as they are today while having an eye to making the changes that we hope can change would make everything better.
I guess the last thought I would share there, though, is like, if at the end of this work the climate issue is, you know, "addressed" but we have an incredibly unstable social order. Like that, and the world is, is still a place where lots of people, there is a divide between people who have safety and security and resources and people who don't. Like that's not a world that I think any... Well, I don't want to live in that world. So, we, what I very much appreciate is finding folks and working with folks who are willing to face that reality and, and sort of grapple with, with hard choices because I don't think there's any way around it.
Jason Jacobs: So, a natural follow up question is, I mean, you talk about the natural stability, the climate stability, and then you talk about the, the social stability and justice. You didn't say justice, but it-
Nicole Systrom: Yeah, yeah.
Jason Jacobs: ... it's implied that part of that discussion. I mean, how do you stack rank those? And how do you weigh one against another when there's a decision that affects both like so many decisions to?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah, well, I think the first thing... I'm speaking personally now, the first thing I would want to do is obviously look for, look for those places where, you know, climate progress and justice, you know, issues are aligned and do those things. And but then in terms of like, how you would prioritize them against each other. Again, I think, to address the climate, to address this climate crisis is really going to take a huge portfolio of, of actions and solutions and changes. And I think, to me, the climate imperative is the most important thing because if we don't have a safe climate then there's no... We don't have anything. But there are some places where we will be able to make changes from the climate perspective that are aligned with justice, greater justice. There are some places where we will have to make choices where there are negative consequences, and that certain groups of people will feel that more strongly. But then I, I would hope that, you know, we can think of other tools to address that harm, or address the very real concerns that people who care about justice raise, you know. Like, the equity, concerns raised by so many groups in this fight are real. And I, and I absolutely want to acknowledge that, but it's hard.
Jason Jacobs: Well, this next topic is related, and I have no crisp, succinct question so I'm just going to dump out some context and color of things that have been on my mind. And I'm just curious to get your reaction to those things. So, so on the one hand you have elements of the climate movement that say, "We need to get off fossil fuels yesterday, and the sooner we do it, the better. And every day that we wait, the consequences will be worse, and more dire, and more people will suffer." And then you have people, some of them coming from the oil and gas world, which of course, the climate community will say that, "Well, because they're bias, of course, they're going to say this." But they say, "Look, if you ripped out fossil fuels today, like there will be so much suffering. People will die. Like, we are not equipped, our systems aren't ready." And then the climate movement would then retort and they'd say, "Well, of course, they're not ready. But the longer we have it, it's a safety net that, that inhibits our incentive to get ready, and if we took it away, and push ourselves off the cliff, and, and built a plane on the way down or a parachute or whatever you want to call it-
Nicole Systrom: [laughs]. Yeah, yeah.
Jason Jacobs: ... then we'll figure it out faster, right? And then there's this back and forth. And then in an unrelated standpoint, you have some funds that say, "We're not going to take any money from fossil fuel companies. We're not going to invest in any companies that do business with fossil fuel companies. Like, we don't want fossil fuel companies anywhere around us. We want them to die, right?"
Nicole Systrom: [laughs]. Yeah.
Jason Jacobs: And then there's others that say, "Well, well, we understand that we need them for the transition, and we'll take their money, and we'll take their collaboration. And yes, there should be some accountability, and we need to make sure they're serious, but like, they're an essential partner to us." That's a lot. I could keep going. But I'll, I'll stop there. Just how do you, and you can answer it with your Galvanize hat on, you can answer personally, but just how do you think about that tension?
Nicole Systrom: Well, first of all, I am glad that there's a tension and a dialogue at two different points of view on this, and that they, you know, are both out there because I think both are right, right? Like, yes, ideally, we would turn fossil fuels off today. If we do that, that would mean there are whole swathes of this globe where power would not be available. And those are people who need power to keep their food refrigerated, and their homes safe, heated, you know, safe, in a safe sort of heating zone. Like I definitely [laughs] agree that turning off fossil... I mean, just look at it from that transportation perspective. Like, we don't have an EV charging infrastructure, let alone enough, you know, EVs to, to turn off fossil fuels tonight.
So, I come down and what I think of as a sort of a practical way, which is like fossil fuel companies are not going away overnight. And we as citizens, as players in the financial sector need to be thinking hard about how we engage with those companies and, and push them towards the transition we need to make. But I mean, when you just think about the massive amounts of infrastructure that already exists in the fossil fuel industry, just like the miles and miles and miles of pipelines and all, it's just to me it seems kind of silly to not acknowledge that that exists and like we're going to need to do some sort of orderly transition just to, to keep folks safe.
I, I think we can't ignore it. And, and I think, you know, we're going to have to figure out how to work with those folks and hold them accountable and keep them pushing, but keep pushing them in the right direction. And I think you've seen some, some interesting takes on that. I mean, obviously, the big, famous one that got a lot of play was, you know, engine number one's work to tiny little hedge fund, but managed to get a couple of climate friendly board seats elected. And we need a lot more action like that.
I guess the other, the last point I'd make is I think there are a lot of people within the fossil fuels energy sector who, you know, like young people aren't seeing that this is like a 50 year career for them now. It's like, there, I think there are lots of sort of natural forces, which are going to move us away from fossil fuels. And really, the question comes down to how fast we do it. And that's on all of us to make sure that that's moving as quickly as we can both policy change, through pressure as investors in those companies, through citizen accountability. Like, there's lots of lots of tools, but we have to keep pushing and acknowledge that they can't get turned off overnight. Unfortunately, I think that's also a truth.
Jason Jacobs: Now, I'd love to turn our attention to, to Galvanize for a few minutes. And I know there's, there's a lot you can't say. So just say whatever you can say. But when it comes to Galvanize, the people that you're assembling around the table, I mean, these are very experienced, accomplished people. And I already know from your offset comment earlier that you don't think... While there's a long tail, and there's lots of different things we'll need for climate action, that they're not all created equal. And so, I guess my question is, what are the key levers that you and the team looked at before Galvanize was formed that led you to believe that it warranted Galvanize getting formed? And then what is the positioning in the market that you think will both lead to differentiation in terms of financial success, but also differentiation in terms of impact and additionality? And is additionality even something that you, that you care about? And how much should you or how much should anyone weigh that in when trying to figure out what they should do to help?
Nicole Systrom: Oh, gosh. There's so much there. Okay. Let me-
Jason Jacobs: I do that. My questions, I gotta get my questions tighter.
Nicole Systrom: [laughs].
Jason Jacobs: They're a little too, too broad and all encompassing. Apologies for that.
Nicole Systrom: Well, you're excited, and I'm excited. No, it's all good. So, I guess what... I'll just start riffing and then you jump in and ask questions when you want me to, to go a certain place. So, to me, one of the ideas that really like sparked the founding of Galvanize and you know, you can talk to our, our founders. We'll get Tom Steyer and Katie Hall on, on MCJ sooner or later, I bet. But yeah, I think, well, I mean, I think if you ask Tom. Like, Tom Steyer is a person who has spent many decades now trying different ways to affect the climate crisis. And I think we have made a lot of progress, you know, since in that time, but this feels like the moment when the role that the private sector can play in helping to push forward on climate progress is really ascendance.
I think, there's a lot of, you know, I'm sure you've seen the analysis of COP26, which has sort of characterized COP26 as the handoff to the private sector. And, and in the absence of, of like global action, you, you have seen a ton of, you know, big corporate players like making commitments and financial institutions making commitments. And so, I think Galvanize, as a finance firm, as an investment firm is really born in that we are of this moment, right? Where we see the power of... We see the power and the role of the necessity of the private sector being involved in this transition.
Now, as an investment firm, like obviously, investment, and directing capital to places that matter for the climate is, is sort of the central tool that we are using. But the thing that makes me really excited about being at Galvanize and really excited about my particular role is, is the recognition that investment happens within a much broader context. And even if investment is the sort of your main tool, if you can wrap investment and the investment tool with policy expertise, with science and technology expertise, you know, with some understanding of community impacts, with comms and branding expertise. With the sort of ability to think about, you know, hiring and recruiting for climate relevant companies. But also, you know, drive the climate impact of your underlying investments further faster.
And to me that's the really special thing about Galvanize is, is that understanding. And that's reflected in what we're trying to build at the platform level, which is, is bringing expertise and ability around all of those kind of related areas that I mentioned to our outlook as financial investors so that we're able to both... This is the theory, we hope that means that we're able to make better investments from a climate perspective, but then also, you know, enables us to be kind of good corporate citizens, right?
And, and we can both think about our impact at the individual investment level. But we can also think about our impact as a firm and you know, how we, how we show up in policy conversations, how we work with our, our peer investor institutions on broader initiatives to move things forward, how we contribute to, you know, the net zero conversation, which is a whole nother many hours of discussion to go down. But I think we have, we have a lot of ambition to try and be as, as helpful and impactful as we can on, in so many ways. And that's what I'm, I'm signed up to do and on a team that really wants to do that as well, so-
Jason Jacobs: And how do, how do you think about, and I guess correspondingly, what advice might you have for others to kind of think about when deploying their capital how to weigh areas you understand versus areas where capital is less accessible?
Nicole Systrom: Sorry, can you say more about?
Jason Jacobs: So, I mean, every sector needs to decarbonize. And so, there's a different set of expertise in ag versus mobility, versus energy, versus industrial processes, versus aviation, etc. And there's probably domain specific capital in each one of those sectors that doesn't have a climate bent. So as a climate investor, you could go everywhere, but at the same time each category has a different set of expertise. By the same token, there's certain categories, if you look at Prime as an example. I mean, if market based capital's there, they're less interested because they have less of a role to play. So, so I guess I'm asking with your Galvanize hat on what's the philosophy there as it relates to sectors? What's the philosophy there as it relates to additionality?
Nicole Systrom: Got it. I think that question will get answered as we have new... With the individual investment strategies that come on to the platform over time, that question will be different in each case. I mean, I think we don't want to make any investments that we don't think will matter to the climate. [laughs]. Right?
Jason Jacobs: As measured by what, by the way? I know that like EV, for example, has a, I think it's a half a gigaton threshold. I mean, are gigatons the right way to measure climate impact given some of the nuances and overlapping problems that we discussed?
Nicole Systrom: It's a good question. And I think this is something that we are, you know, working on. Again, we're a young firms. So we are getting much tighter on, on how we define what significance is. So to that specific, I mean, we haven't made a gigaton commitment that EV has, which I think is great. But you know, as Galvanize, we haven't gotten to that point yet. I mean, I think we.... So, when we talk about as measured by what, I mean, this is something that we're actively working on right now, and especially now with our, our science and, and technology team, you know, fully on board at this point is we're trying to take a holistic look and sort of figure out where we think that big emissions reductions are needed. And, and then, again, it's I think then it's about designing investment strategies that I think the right approach is, well, let me say this.
I think Galvanize, like we are in a great spot because we, we intend to have investment strategies that aren't just one asset class. So we could sort of think about finance as a tool to address different issues, different impact areas, you know, within the landscape. So there will be some things for which like an infrastructure strategy will make sense. There'll be some things for which public, you know, public equity might make sense or a venture strategy. In terms of, you know, your question on additionality. I mean, which, as someone who I'm currently board chair at Prime Coalition, so [laughs] additionality is like, Prime I think holds a very high standard on what additionality is. I, I do think Galvanize is a for-profit investment firm. So, I don't think we can claim that our investments are meeting the definition of financial additionality. What I do hope we will be able to do is point to how our, our sort of myriad of skill sets here have around policy and science expertise and, and comms, and the rest have, have helped to move the underlying investments forward and in an accelerated fashion. But that's the kind of dimension in which I would think about the additionality that Galvanize would, would hope to bring to the table. Less, you know, we're not in, in the prime category of looking for places where there is less market capital available to fund something that's just, it's just not what we're focused on at the moment.
Jason Jacobs: So, if, if I'm hearing right, it sounds almost like the theory of change is by having a one-stop-shop with different asset classes that a company might need throughout its lifecycle, and then layering in policy help, science expertise, recruiting help, etc, then you can remove friction from the process and stay with these companies as they grow and as their needs expand and it's a more efficient, diligent process, because you have a seat at the table all the way through. Is that right?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a nice way to say it. Like, assembling all of these different expertise, different areas of expertise means that we can both select investments on the, should mean, our hope is that they help us select investments on the front end that are more aligned to the climate, but then also give us the ability to help accelerate the progress of those investments towards the climate outcome where we're hoping they'll have.
Jason Jacobs: And it's early, so you may not have a sense yet, but how do you think about which types of expertise should live with you as the investment partner? Which sets of expertise should live with vendors? And which sets of expertise it's important for these companies to bring in house?
Nicole Systrom: So, that's a great question. I mean, I think, eventually, well, speaking really generally, I think if you're going to be a big player in the climate space you're going to have to have all of these expertise is in house eventually. I mean, as you know, companies sort of develop as they develop, and they, they go from when you have 10 people you have much, you know, different capability than when you have 500. And so, I think the role that... It's early. You're right, it's developing, but I think the role Galvanize aims to play is as an accelerant. So, helping companies with expertise and sort of both directly from our team, I think, another role we can play as in helping connect our underlying investments, to resources and vendors and collaborators that are out there and can bring them some of these, this expertise as well. But eventually, like I said, if you, wherever you are in the company lifecycle. If you're, if you're going to be a big player in climate, or even, you know, just operate, whether or not your business itself is directed at a climate product or service, you are touched by the climate. And so, you, you know, I think if you're going to get to a certain level, you, you're going to have to be able to do these things internally, eventually.
Jason Jacobs: In terms of lifecycle of these companies and time horizons that it takes for them to reach their full form. From a fund standpoint, you have the Silicon Valley firms, a lot of which have, let's say, 10 year life cycles to their funds. You have the BEVs of the world that have maybe a little longer funds. I think there's this 15, or 18, or, or, or something like that. And then you have the Generates of the world that don't even have a fund. Everything's off balance sheet where they're not beholden to any time horizons, and they won't take any time box capital. When Scott Jacobs came on the show, he made a point to say that if any investor wanted to come in, and they're investing out of a pool of capital that's timebox, they won't take it. How do you think about that? And what is it that gives you confidence that time box capital won't be inhibiting from an impact standpoint?
Nicole Systrom: That's a great question. First of all, I think there's room for sort of all of those approaches for sure. And we need all of those approaches. And we probably need more of those. [laughs]. We don't need one Generate, we need six or seven more Generates alo- alongside.
Jason Jacobs: Well, back to the scarcity mindset from early on in our discussion, right?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
Jason Jacobs: Scarcity versus more for everything.
Nicole Systrom: Yeah. So, we need, we need all of those things. And we need more of those things. And I, I would underline the point that, you know, Galvanize, even if we get to be a huge financial firm, we will still be very tiny compared to the, you know, three or $4 trillion investment gap, which is needed to address climate. So, you know, the more the merrier. The more approaches the merrier. I think it's all good, and sort of the, the different takes on what kind of financing is needed at what point in time is all good, and let's get more of that if we can.
In terms of Galvanize, and you know, what makes me confident that timebox capital won't inhibit us. I mean, I think the market has changed a lot. And I, since, you know, maybe five, 10 years ago when, you know, Prime was started. I think seven years ago at this point, seven, eight years ago. There's just the technologies we already have are well developed. I think the kind of corporate attention on this issue and appetite for making change and innovation and sort of changing the way we do business is, is different. I think, policy, although I wish policy was coming faster than it was. I mean, I think the winds are changing there.
I just think there's, there's a lot more opportunity and creativity and an understanding that, you know, this is where we need to go as a global society. And so, I think that there's lots of, there's plenty of investments for any of these strategies or sort of financial structures to engage with and we need all of it. I don't think there's a lack of things to invest in.
Jason Jacobs: And is it fair to say that since you are so impact motivated that the additionality with Galvanize comes from the fact that you're providing post investment versus from the decision to make the investment itself?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah, I think that's fair. We're a for-profit investment firm, so we're not dealing with catalytic capital. I mean, maybe sometime in the future. I mean, as someone who I feel very, personally very strongly about the role of catalytic capital should play. Maybe there's some way far off in the future where we, we could partner more closely with those kinds of sources of capital, but Galvanize itself at this point is for profit. So, again, I just, I don't think from a very strict additionality perspective, the places where we can claim additionality is in our, the way that we plan to work with our underlying investments, and, and hope to accelerate their progress.
Jason Jacobs: And we've talked a lot about the things that are within the scope of your control, either personally, or, or with Galvanize. If you could change one thing outside of the scope of your control that would most accelerate our progress on tackling the climate problem.
Nicole Systrom: [laughs].
Jason Jacobs: What would you change? And how would you change it?
Nicole Systrom: Well, I think the first... I mean, I would point to one thing that I said earlier, which is just around voting. I mean, I wish every voter in every country that had that sort of all levels of government was voting from a climate mindset and that we were all communicating that strongly to our elected leaders.
Jason Jacobs: For voters that are listening that want to do that, are the resources that can help them? Are there organizations that do great work in that area? What advice do you have for people who, who want to do that, but they don't know who the climate candidates are, and they don't know what races they're supposed to vote in?
Nicole Systrom: Yeah, I think the easiest, the easiest place to do that from the US because I'm American is Give Green is probably the easiest place to go where, you know, if you're going to make a direct political donation to, to a candidate, you make your donation through that website, and then it gets kind of like tagged as green or climate or environment. So that, you know, the policymaker understands that that is the reason that they have your support. But you know, there's lots of groups out there that LCV is a great place to start. League of Conservation Voters is another place to start.
For those who have the resources, getting involved with C4 organizations and putting donations there I think it's another sort of underleveraged tool. And there are various C4 organizations. I mean, I think one that has sort of sprung up at the last election is I think it's called Clean Energy for America. That's right, yeah, Clean Energy for America. C4, you know, serving the incredibly broad professional class of folks working in climate related industries these days. So lots of places to plug into. But mostly, I mean, the simplest thing to do is just vote and call your elected leader and tell them that you care about climate. That's the simplest thing to do. You don't have to do anything fancy. It's just these people are, they should be beholden to you as, as their constituents. So, tell them what you want. That's the simplest thing.
You know, but beyond that, I think the one thing I would change is I, I think if we're going to address this problem we have to, and I guess it goes back to, you know, what I think the role I play is, I think we only get there through a lot of collaboration, and understanding that there's every person, every organization, every tool has a role to play in addressing climate and, and the more we can be collaborating with each other to move things forward at scale, I, I think the better.
Jason Jacobs: What about people that you want to hear from? How can we be helpful to you, and who do you want to hear from if anybody?
Nicole Systrom: Oh, gosh, what a generous question.
Jason Jacobs: I try to ask that every time not just for you. [laughs].
Nicole Systrom: [laughs]. So I'm not special is what you're saying [crosstalk 00:54:11].
Jason Jacobs: Every guest is special.
Nicole Systrom: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I want to be partnering with all kinds of folks. But I think right now, who I'm really interested to hear from, and partner with, and learn together from our, you know, other investors who are trying to drive climate impact into what they're doing. And, and I, you know, I love being in conversation with those people as we all try and figure out the best way to, and the most effective way to do that because changing where we, where capital goes and, and what it does is like needs to be a really important tool to make the progress on the climate that we have to make. So, I would love to be in partnership and collaboration with my peers as, you know, climate focused investors.
Jason Jacobs: And Nicole, is there anything I didn't ask that I should have or any parting words?
Nicole Systrom: No, my parting words are it's been such a pleasure talking to you, Jason. I mean, like this work is often very hard and sort of can feel very heavy, and sometimes hard to see the progress we're making. And so, I am always grateful for the chance to, to talk with folks who are all trying to do the right thing. And, and to me, that's what kind of keeps me excited about this work is who I get to do this work with. So, just grateful for this conversation with you.
Jason Jacobs: Awesome. Like, I can't thank you enough for coming on the show. I know it's early days for Galvanize, but I'm super excited to see how things progress for you and the team. And, and in that collaboration vein, would love to be a collaborator with you as well to share lessons learned and deal flow. But, but also, I mean, like around impact. We're trying to figure out that same stuff. Like, you know, what's the right metric for us? And how do we report on it? And how widely do we report and how much information can we ask of the portfolio? And how do we make sure it's valuable for them to provide it? And I mean, there's just a lot of-
Nicole Systrom: [laughs]. Yeah, we didn't, we didn't even get into any of that good stuff.
Jason Jacobs: [laughs].
Nicole Systrom: I mean, that's a juicy question.
Jason Jacobs: Well, we'll have to do a follow up once you're further along, and, and once more is out in the public domain about what Galvanize is up to as well.
Nicole Systrom: Perfect. Wonderful.
Jason Jacobs: Okay. Thanks, Nicole. Best of luck to you and the team.
Nicole Systrom: Thank you.
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. No, 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 you'd 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.
