Entrepreneurs for Impact (EFI) Podcast: Transcripts
#75:
Investing Millions for Carbon Negative Projects — Stacy Kauk, Head of Sustainability at Shopify
Chris Wedding:
Stacy Kauk, Head of Sustainability for Shopify, awesome to have you on the Entrepreneurs for Impact podcast.
Stacy Kauk:
Thanks so much for having me. I'm really excited to be here.
Chris Wedding:
I was just mentioning to you before we pressed record that you're different than most of our guests who are either a climate CEO or a co-founder or an investor. And probably for those listening, you're more like the latter, more like the investor in that you're really facilitating the growth of carbon removal companies through cash, through investment. Well, it's kind of through investment. We'll get into it for sure, but just so the audience knows, that's where we're going.
I think many have already heard of your Sustainability Fund as well as the new Frontier Fund. So, if they haven't heard of those, plus or minus a billion dollars, we'll get into it to spur this carbon removal market, which we need, which doesn't really exist at scale yet. But how about in a sentence or two, or maybe a paragraph or two, let's give the Stacy Kauk version, you’re Head of Sustainability at Shopify. What do you do slash what does this mean to Shopify?
Stacy Kauk:
Sure. So, let's start with the sustainability fund first. The Shopify Sustainability Fund, we partner with tech driven entrepreneurs that are at the forefront of working on reversing climate change. And since our launch in 2019, we've committed $32 million across 22 companies that are building and scaling carbon removal solutions. And so, you kind of touched on it, how this works out is we're looking for companies that could benefit from early revenue. Those are companies that are working on a wide range of solutions, but that are only operating at a small scale. They're doing proof of concept, they're doing pilots, they're innovating on their technology and what they need is capital from a variety of sources.
And so, the function that we're playing in the larger ecosystem is we're basically saying, “Hey, we know it's really expensive right now for you to capture and store carbon dioxide because you're operating on such small quantities, so you can't amortize that CapEx and OpEx across lots of tons, but you know what? We're really interested in paying that early adopter premium and we'll buy whatever carbon removal you're able to actually undertake at your pilot or first-generation operations.”
What that does for these companies is, it gives them a revenue stream way before they expect it to. And so, we try to do this in multi-year contracts where we're increasing the amount we're willing to buy, perhaps the price is coming down because the operational costs are changing for the company. And so, say we sign a five-year contract where we're going to be buying the carbon removal from these companies, what they can then turn around and do with that is get much better equity investment. They can get better debt financing because they already have guaranteed revenue way earlier than they were expected to. What this does is kickstart or accelerate their ability to scale their business.
04:48
And so, that's what we're doing with the fund and we started that in 2019 and what we've realized is it kind of works. We're seeing some success and we're seeing the companies that are in our fund, some of them have managed to 80X their carbon removal capacity, and some of them have 40X their customers way sooner than they ever thought they would. And so, what we're seeing is that this is accelerating their development, but what if we went way beyond $32 million and got together a billion-dollar commitment? That’s where Shopify got involved with our partners at Stripe and Alphabet, Meta and McKinsey to launch Frontier, which is the $925 million commitment to buy carbon removal. So, this is a big carrot that's out there.
Essentially, we'll buy it if you build it and so that is hopefully going to provide more market certainty. So, putting those two tools or instruments together, I think it's going to be a good recipe for actually getting more capital from other sources into carbon removal to really accelerate the entire field.
Chris Wedding:
Yeah, and you actually used the word kickstart in relation to the sustainability fund and as we were talking earlier, in a way that fund is like kick-starter for these carbon removal projects, let's say, where a prepayment for that carbon removal before the project is even built, which is, it's risk for sure, but with that risk you all are taking you're unlocking or you're facilitating other more mainstream capital coming in to fund these projects. So, that's pretty neat.
Maybe just distinguishing the Sustainability Fund where you are prepaying from the Frontier Fund and the much larger new one. With that one, I think I hear you saying, it's like, “Hey, look, if you build it, we will pay. We're not going to prepay, but if you build it and you meet these quality criteria, we will buy that carbon removal.” I wonder if you can go through examples or maybe the list of what those quality attributes for the carbon removal are.
Stacy Kauk:
For sure. So, it's a bit of a long list, but maybe I'll pull out some of the key measures. What we're looking for with our definition of carbon removal for Frontier is a solution that grabs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. First, we're looking not for an end of stack or an avoided emissions project, we're looking for one that using a variety of different pathways is actually pulling the CO2 from the atmosphere. If that were to operate at scale, it's actually drawing down the concentration in the atmosphere. So, that's number one.
Number two, we're looking for that carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere to be matched up with a long-term storage solution that will actually lock the CO2 out of the biosphere and out of the atmosphere for more than a thousand years. And so, we have that permanence definition as well. Then on top of that, we're looking for projects and solutions that in the longer term have the ability to come down the cost curve as they scale up to target a price point of around a hundred US dollars per ton.
08:24
That’s a bit progressive. It's hopeful because right now we've got a lot of early-stage solutions that cost well over $2,000 a ton. So, it's a path to that other price point that's important and that's also combined with a path to scale where we're looking for solutions and technologies that can basically hit the half gigaton level of impact in terms of being able to capture and store CO2. So, those are the four big components in terms of what kinds of projects and technologies we're looking for.
Chris Wedding:
Yeah, it's super helpful. On the $100 per ton as a goal, can you comment on why $100 and then by when?
Stacy Kauk:
Sure. So, the $100 is chosen and the reason it's around $100, we could have picked different numbers, but $100 is something that is reasonable for a wide range of carbon credit buyers. For those corporate buyers in carbon intensive industry sectors who have budgets for this, but also have really large footprints that they're looking to hit a net zero target on, say by 2030, they're not going to be buying something that's $2,000 a ton. So, if we're going to mainstream carbon removal and make it accessible and affordable for most people or companies that are going to be out there looking to buy credits, we want to get it down to $100 a ton.
There's good evidence with the technologies that are out there like direct air capture and mineralization, enhanced weathering, that it's reasonable when you look at the cost curves that we've seen for something like renewable energy or solar or wind power. I mean, the technologies are not the same and they're not directly comparable, but when you start to develop technologies and you have the ability to iterate on the engineering and really apply those learnings in a stepwise manner, you're able to bring the cost down. We think it's going to be reasonable based on the research and understanding we have today, but time will tell and really the time component is a target out past 2030.
Chris Wedding:
Got it. Okay. So, you're not saying you got to hit a hundred bucks a ton in the next eight years. The assumption is it's going to take longer than that. I don't know the answer to this, but you mentioned some of the heavy emitters of carbon think heavy industry. Do you know of any estimates for what they would have to pay almost backing into their cost of carbon to address those impacts on site, those reductions within their boundaries? That is, is a hundred bucks cheaper or more expensive than solving their own problem? Maybe that's a hard question.
Stacy Kauk:
I mean, there's so many layers to that because obviously—
Chris Wedding:
You're welcome.
Stacy Kauk:
No, it's all good. I can dig in. Obviously, it's more cost effective to invest in innovation and engineering to be able to reduce your emissions because it's a lot more cost effective to deal with things that end of pipe or to redesign your systems to not emit. And catching an end of pipe is much more cost-effective because just the simple concentration of CO2 coming out of the stack compared to having to run significantly higher volumes of ambient air through a system to pull out stuff at 400 ppm is very different technology. So, really heavy emitters should be focused on that decarbonization point if you're going to try to do it in an economic fashion, but we're never going to get to zero. That's really going to be difficult for most sectors. There's always going to be that unabatable component.
12:24
And so, it's that unabatable component that we're targeting that $100 price point per ton for carbon removal, because the two efforts are going to have to be combined in order to meet our Paris Agreement targets, meet any of the variety of regulated sectors within different jurisdictions, like to get that cap and trade happening for them. They're going to have to be okay with a price point around that because what we see now are a lot of heavy emitters just buying up forest, just buying land because their strategy is, if we protect these forests, then we'll be able to use that avoided emission against our footprint.
So, I think we're going to see a lot of evolution in terms of what the requirements are for the voluntary market as well as the regulated market in the longer term. It's very convoluted and complicated and it's almost like the Wild, Wild, West, you can do whatever you want. As we see those things get ironed out under a variety of initiatives that are underway now, the clarity around, what kind of credit do you need to purchase or generate to deal with that unabatable portion?
Depending on how that plays out in the long-term, I think will tell us what the price point needs to be because we need to value a ton of carbon in a very consistent way with how it affects our atmosphere, like what it's responsible for in terms of global warming.
Chris Wedding:
Yeah, for sure it's early days and for sure on the voluntary carbon market. I mean, I'm not super in touch with changes to how Verra or VCS, how their protocols basically to decide what counts as a carbon offset. My understanding is they are in an evolution, let's say, maybe they will always be in an evolution.
And so, the rules of the road are changing. They're getting more strict, probably good. Question is will it get too strict and have the unintended consequence of not enough, still good quality carbon offsets to meet corporate demands. But I hear you, the rules of the road are changing. It can be complicated, that for sure.
You also mentioned that the technologies you all back need to have the potential for half a gigaton of GHGs removed. Can you just dig a little deeper on that one? How should entrepreneurs think about measuring that kind of storage sequestration and by when, if you will.
Stacy Kauk:
So, the scale component of hitting half a gigaton or making a half a gigaton contribution to solving the problem is that came from understanding that we need a trillion tons per year capacity by 2050. So, because of that, we don't want to be backing a solution that's really not going to make a meaningful contribution. That money needs to be allocated towards something with the potential to make a meaningful contribution to drawing down CO2 from the atmosphere. So, that's the rationale behind that cutoff and when you're thinking about it, there's so many different ways that you can do this from a business perspective.
We have companies that have come up with the technology, they own the IEP and they're licensing it out. And so, they're going to license it out to multiple companies to implement on their behalf, but that technology, that core technology, when you look at all the different places it's been licensed would add up to contributing in a meaningful way, but that's the business model they've chosen. We have others where they're going to turn out a certain number of plants and their goal is to deploy these in a decentralized way because they rely, for example, on biomass to feed their solution. And so, it makes sense for all of those individuals, smaller units to be lined up with the farming and agricultural industry, which is disaggregated.
16:56
So, when you look at that, again, it's a technology, but they're going to deploy hundreds of these units across North America, for example, but in that case, the business, they're actually going to be leasing out the units. So, it's like, there's so many different ways that you can scale a technology. You can do it in a disaggregated way, or you can build.
For example, when you look at direct air capture and carbon engineering is going to be with their licensee 1.5 building a megaton facility in the Permian Basin hopefully by 2025. So, that is much easier to understand in terms of the scale contribution. It will do a megaton every year for 30 years, so that's one way to achieve scale.
Chris Wedding:
Yeah, I hear that. I'm trying to think about the scale of the problem is so large. I hear you that there are lots of ways to get new tech to market. I wonder, as you think about the timing, we need these solutions kind of yesterday, it does take new tech a while to reach the scale such that you get cheaper infrastructure dollars, more debt, less equity, et cetera. Maybe this is a Stacy question and not a Shopify question. I don't know.
I love the kinds of companies that you all are supporting. I love new climate tech startups and all the potential solutions they're developing, but I worry about the timing to get there. How do you Stacy slash how do Shopify think about we need these solutions at scale like yesterday? It's almost like, do we have time? I think we do, but like, sorry, a little existential, do we have time? So, have fun with that one.
Stacy Kauk:
This is definitely a Stacy question. So, do we have time? I would almost counter that with, what choice do we have? We must try because the scientific findings are very clear. The recent IPCC report was very clear that even if we stopped all of our emissions today, we've still gone too far and we need carbon removal to get us back on track. So, we know we need it if we're going to mitigate the worst effects of global warming and climate change.
In my mind, it's like, “Yeah, we may have wasted a little bit of time. Maybe we should have started 10 years ago, but we didn't.” But any minutes we waste now when we know we've already wasted so much time is really just giving up. And so, I see it as we have to find ways to pull the future forward and that's really what's behind our initiatives. It's taking what we would normally expect to be 10 to 15 years of innovation and trying to do it in three to five. Like it's crazy ambitious, but at the same time, if we can even get halfway towards that goal, we’ll have made such a massive difference. So, in my mind it's, we've got to try.
Chris Wedding:
Yeah, it's almost like that quote, when is the best time to plant a tree? It’s like, well, it's 50 years ago. When's the next best time? Like right now. You all certainly catalyze a lot of interest, a lot of folks knocking on your door, either for the Sustainability Fund or the Frontier Fund. For those CEOs in the carbon removal space, what advice might you give around, oh, well, here's where you're missing the mark, hashtag love you?
20:42
Stacy Kauk:
Yeah, I mean, what I've observed in this space is that usually the CEO or the co-founder is really responsible for the science behind what's going on, has either done the postdoc work or the PhD work in a university and knows the ins and outs of the science and everything behind it. They’re really good at talking about their solution in a technical way, answering all the really hard questions about, how are you going to scale? Like they've got it all figured out, but what I think is overlooked is not the value of communications and the value of communicating in a very meaningful and relatable way.
Then supporting it with all of the engineering and scientific and business know-how, but really being able to tell a story about how your company is going to play a role in a meaningful contribution to reversing climate change. Because, your first investor or your first buyer might be really technically savvy and gets it and is like, “Yeah, okay, I believe in this,” will help them with their storytelling. But your next buyer or you get to your fifth investor and suddenly it's not working so well because you found the people who wanted to find you. And now you need to be able to explain this in a very relatable and understandable way.
You just talked about a tree, Chris, and it's like people get, “Oh yeah, plant a tree. I can see that, I can understand that, I understand the goodness of planting a tree, but do I understand the goodness of building a direct air capture facility and this gigantic fan is sucking air out of the sky and then doing something with a chemical reactor? Then it's going to be a super critical liquid that's pumped underground? Well, that sounds like it might explode.”
You need to be able to talk about these things in a way that people can situate the contribution and the goodness in your solution and in really addressing the problem that we're all trying to tackle. I think that gets overlooked and ends up being something companies spend a lot of extra time on down the road, figuring out how to do that.
Chris Wedding:
I think it's well said. As you're talking, I'm thinking about a tool that I love and often recommend to founders is the Lean Canvas. So, a version of the Business Model Canvas. A lot of what's great about the Lean Canvas is, A, it tells you the sequence with which you might want to tell your story to an investor, but B, it's the focus on the problem and who you're solving the problem for versus just the nitty-gritty of the solution.
I think it's super easy for all of us and I've been there certainly in my first startup, getting really enamored with our solution, our product. But oh, wait, like which problem exactly and for who exactly and what's their title and what's their avatar and have you talked to 100 of them before already? So, that's great advice. I forget whether you all backed Remora or not.
Stacy Kauk:
We did. Yes.
Chris Wedding:
I thought you did. Okay. I recall hearing their story and seeing, we have this deeply technical scientist and I'll blank on the person's name, I would love if you could shout it out, paired with a non-technical entrepreneur. I thought, “Wow, what a great combo that's pretty important to get these new solutions to market.” Did I buy you enough time? Yeah.
24:28
Stacy Kauk:
Totally. You did. So, I think it's Christina is her name, Christina Reynolds.
Chris Wedding:
That's right.
Stacy Kauk:
Yes, she was responsible for coming up with the concept and I believe she did her PhD dissertation on that and she's partnered with Paul Gross. He wanted to work on climate change and was digging around and came across her paper and was like, “Wait a second, this makes so much sense. I really want to work on this,” and that's how Remora was born. Yeah.
Chris Wedding:
I just love that story. The unique technical insights from Christina and then the hustle. I think there are so many folks that want to switch careers and come play a role in climate solutions. I talked to a fair number and often it's like, “Well, wait a second, I don't have any climate expertise or I'm not an engineer or whatever else.” I'm like, “No, great. Bring whatever skills you have in business dev and finance and marketing, whatever, partner up with the right folks.” What a, I was going to say deadly duo. It doesn't sound like the correct vibe for a climate tech company, but anyway, powerful combination, shall we say? Yeah.
Stacy Kauk:
It’s not the only one in our portfolio. Like off the top of my head, I can think of two others that our previous founders who've come into climate and founded a company, brought their business acumen and partnered up with the technical person who had the initial concept or the initial research done. So, I can think of Planetary Tech who do their ocean solution. Then there's Charm Industrial, which work on bio-oil. Both of those founders came from previous companies that they had founded and exited, and then decided they wanted to spend the rest of their life working on climate. So, they were able to bring all of that business acumen to bear on solving the climate crisis.
It’s interesting that you bring this up because yesterday on my lunch hour, I did a quick Earth Week presentation on sustainability and carbon removal to a junior high school. They asked very similar question and I said to them, “Use your skills for good and every job can be a climate job. Like you can be an accountant and work for a climate company. You can be a policy analyst and work for a climate company. You can do so many things, just choose the canvas you want to apply your skills to.” Right?
Chris Wedding:
Yeah, I'm smiling on the inside because my dad is a CPA and I always thought, “What a big disconnect,” but now I'm thinking about it, it's like, well, gosh, you've got like the AI CPA like incubating climate accounting related, climate risk related companies.
I was going to mention earlier too, as a response to your last comment, for folks looking to find a co-founder, to be a co-founder, and/or to switch careers from X, Y, Z into climate, Terra.do, T-E-R-R-A.D-O is pretty awesome on the skill building, sector expertise building and then On Deck. On Deck has a variety of programs. I think they have a first 50 -- I was part of their climate tech program. I think there's a different version of that today, but anyway, On Deck and Terra.Do for those listening, could be other cool resources to get into the space.
28:12
All right, so we've covered a lot of, not all of, what Shopify is doing to stimulate the carbon removal market. Now, I want to switch from Shopify to Stacy. Listeners know that this podcast is certainly about the companies and the investments, but also about the people who make these things possible. I think mostly it's people, human beings, who are listening to this podcast, I'm pretty sure.
So, going to Stacy, if you met your younger self, clearly still super young, we know Stacy, but if you met your younger self, what are one or two tips you might give yourself to be faster, more effective or happier dare I say?
Stacy Kauk:
Yeah, I love that question because I think back on my younger self and maybe I can talk about two different angles. One, only in the past five years have I been exposed to the concept of the definition of a zero-sum game. If one person wins, there must be a loser. I grew up with that mentality that if one kid got the award for the best marks in class, well, then I was the loser. Or if one kid got picked for whatever and it wasn't me, then obviously, I'm the loser.
I never really thought about it in terms of, well, it's just not necessarily what you're good at and spend time getting to know yourself and figuring out what you're good at. Because what I've learned is that I do have so much to offer, but it's a very unique perspective and it's actually the only one that can produce the results that I produce as an adult.
I really wish I told my younger self to spend some time getting to know what makes you, you. What are the things that you're interested in and what are your superpowers? Know that your thoughts and your views are uniquely yours and there is value to them. So, I think that's one part.
Then I'd also tell myself that, it's okay to be weird. It's okay not to like the same things that your peers like, or it's okay to not necessarily be relatable and that's totally fine. Because it's not about necessarily fitting in, it's about figuring out what you actually like. I think that that is a big key to happiness for me as an adult is like, yeah, I love puzzles, not just jigsaws, I love Mahjong. I love playing Minesweeper, that ridiculous game that came with every Windows computer back in the 90s.
Chris Wedding:
Deep dark secrets. Yeah.
Stacy Kauk:
Yeah, I love things like that. I don't know too many others who do, but that's okay. It’s okay to like different things than the going trend is. If it feels good, do it. Well, if I had a little bit of more of that in your life would have been good for me as a kid. I was a serious kid.
Chris Wedding:
I'm not picking up a very serious vibe right now, which I like, that's good. On your first point, coincidentally near my desk here, I've got these two books for visual effect, I'm sure you've seen these. This is more for the audience, who of course can't see anything. One is called StrengthsFinder 2.0 and the other is called StandOut, all one word and both of those books, they're built on millions of data points that is testing lots of us about skills and talents. But the neat thing is that each book comes with a code. You go put the code in some website, you take a test for 20 minutes or whatever and it spits out your top talents.
32:05
When I did it years ago, I was like, “Man, are they tapping into my phone lines and viewing my emails?” They totally read me, but the questions you answer don't seem to suggest something as obvious as deciphering those kinds of talents. But the point is, and for those listening, if you, I'm talking to the audience, less to Stacy here, if you want to be reminded, let's say, or find out some of your top talents, those two books and the super short test, their data-driven results are totally worth it.
I was reviewing it a couple of weeks ago and in the StandOut book, my top two were creator and connector. I was like, holy cow, could they have gotten it more right? I love to create. I love to connect. And your second point, oh yeah, it's like own your weirdness. Sometimes my kids when they observe my weirdness, they're like, “Daddy, you're different than other people.” Now, luckily, they're laughing, but I was like, “Damn right I am and you are too if you own that shit.” Anyway.
Stacy Kauk:
Exactly. It's such an important message.
Chris Wedding:
Own that shit. That's our message for the young kids these days. How about habits or routines, do you have things daily, weekly, quarterly, that keep you healthy, sane and focused?
Stacy Kauk:
So, I'm bad about routines. I'm not a stick with it kind of person. However, maybe it's more of a tripwire. Like I know if I'm super busy at work and having trouble disengaging, I know what the medicine is. I know what the remedies are. So, I think you could say that I practice those regularly, but it's usually after I've diagnosed a problem, it's not more of a maintenance. It's more of a diagnostic tool for me.
So, things that I like to do, one is listen to music. I grew up the headphone kid, always listening to records or my Walkman and that's one way that I just disengage is I'll lie on the living room floor and listen to records and that is super relaxing. That's good medicine for me most Friday afternoon, evenings.
Then I also make sure to get out in nature and that takes a variety of forms depending on the season and what I feel like doing. But I love mountain biking, I love dog walking, I like canoeing, so I will get out and do those things on quite a regular basis. That reminds me two things, that I'm pretty insignificant when I get out there in Mother Nature and it's quiet, it's wonderful, but it's also a reminder of what I'm working to protect and what I want my kids to experience and their kids and their kids' kids. So, that nature component is really important and so is music.
Chris Wedding:
Yeah, I love both of those. I am trying to convince my kids that if you're doing chores, but you have music playing on the speaker, they cancel each other out. You're actually not doing chores anymore, you're just listening to music. They haven't bought that yet, I'm just saying, but I'm working on it.
35:19
The other in nature, so I try to get out for a hike in the woods most days and when I was taking mine just before our podcast today, sometimes I listened to a podcast, other times I don't, but today I was. There was an interview with Ray Dalio, which listeners may know from the Founder of Bridgewater Associates, one of, if not, the largest hedge fund out there, and also a deep thinker.
Anyway, we know that the science tells us when we're walking in the woods, typically our cortisol levels, et cetera, they lower. It's de-stressing. It's forest bathing, but I'm listening to Ray Dalio talk about his new book about how empires rise and fall. He's like, “Yeah, basically there's like six phases. Six is like demise, civil war, et cetera, and America is like in stage five somewhere.” And I'm like, “Oh, Ray, you're killing me. I need to turn this shit off. I'm on a forest bathing walk right now.” Anyway.
Stacy Kauk:
Yeah. It doesn't go together.
Chris Wedding:
No, they don't. Luckily, I'm being recharged by talking to you and all that you all are doing. Totally truthful there. All right, give us some two or three recommendations on books, tools, et cetera, for us to dig deeper into.
Stacy Kauk:
Sure. So, why don't we go with one of my favorite blogs. It's called Wait But Why. You may have heard of it--
Chris Wedding:
You know what is so crazy?
Stacy Kauk:
…with Tim Urban.
Chris Wedding:
I knew you're going to say that. I don't know why. Yeah.
Stacy Kauk:
Really?
Chris Wedding:
Yeah.
Stacy Kauk:
I love it because it’s musings and analysis on technology and politics and life in general. I find the frameworks that he applies enable me to look back on my life for an experience or something that's happening and get significant insight. I usually end up with many ahas and then I see it everywhere.
I love the simplicity of the frameworks that he applies to all of these different things and there's really just a lot of humanity in it too. It's not done in a pompous way. It's not difficult to follow because there's all sorts of fancy words and commas, but it's very straightforward and I really appreciate the style.
Chris Wedding:
Yeah. It's almost like the Ernest Hemingway of blogs, right?
Stacy Kauk:
So good.
37:45
Chris Wedding:
Forget the commas, forget the multi-syllable words, tell a good story.
Stacy Kauk:
Yeah, and use a few stick figures along the way.
Chris Wedding:
I know, right? Seriously.
Stacy Kauk:
Yeah.
Chris Wedding:
I've also tried unsuccessfully to tell our two teenage boys research from the Wait But Why blog, where he’s talking about like, all right, when you leave your parents’ home, your home, you will have spent 95% of all hours you will ever spend with your parents. And of course, I'm trying to use rational thinking to get them to come out of their freaking bedroom.
Stacy Kauk:
Nope.
Chris Wedding:
It doesn't really work very well, but I try to bring data. It's always been my flaw, bring data. No, you got to touch emotions.
Stacy Kauk:
That particular post, I was like, “Well, I'm going to go call my parents.”
Chris Wedding:
I know, right?
Stacy Kauk:
Yeah.
Chris Wedding:
Anyway, if listeners haven't read it, Wait But Why, Tim Urban, and I don't recall the title, but if you google 95% of time with parents, it's going to show up. There are visuals to go along with it. It's pretty easy to interpret and you might cry. I don't know. It's kind of sad, I think. All right, let's change topics. I think you gave us one, right?
Stacy Kauk:
Yes.
Chris Wedding:
There's another, I think.
Stacy Kauk:
So, a book, let's go with a book. One of my favorite books is called The Overstory by Richard Powers. It's such a hard book to describe. The Overstory obviously alludes to the overstory of the trees, but then it's also this interconnected fable of multiple stories that are centered around trees, but the people and how they experience trees. It also ties into historical events around the environmental justice and conservation of the giant redwoods on the West Coast and actual things that happened. Different people and personalities that were involved with all of that and it's woven all together. It's a beautiful literary work, but it's also about trees, which I happen to like a lot. So, I'd highly recommend that. It's a big book, but it certainly can almost fill your heart. It's a great book.
40:09
Chris Wedding:
Yeah. You also are recommending a book that several others on the podcast have recommended. So, for those listening, if this is your first-time hearing recommendations, Stacy's recommending a good one, a crowd favorite, a guest favorite.
Stacy Kauk:
There you go.
Chris Wedding:
Okay. Let's maybe wrap here. Let me ask you if there's a call to action, announcement, anything that you want listeners to come away with as a final point here, Stacy.
Stacy Kauk:
I think I'll just go right back to earlier in our conversation about you asking the question around time and why bother starting, well, my call to action is, yeah, we may have lost some time, but let's make up for it. Let's all use our skills for good and to figure out how we can contribute to reversing climate change with our jobs, with our decisions in our personal life, but let's not waste another second. Let's get at it.
Chris Wedding:
Amen. Great spot to finish. Let this podcast be one of those such tools to rally the troops to an important mission here. Stacy, we're all pumped about Sustainability Fund. They advance prepayments for the carbon removal and the Frontier Fund, the commitments to buy high quality carbon removal when ready with aims for 100 bucks a ton. So, rooting for you-all’s continued success and world’s catalyst out there. Until then, keep those headphones on.
Stacy Kauk:
Thanks so much for having me, Chris.
Chris Wedding:
Hear, hear.
Stacy Kauk:
Bye, everyone.
Chris Wedding:
Thank you so much for listening. Seriously, the world needs you, and I know your time is super valuable. If you want more content like this, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter at entrepreneursforimpact.com. If you liked this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. I read every single one, I promise. These reviews are the number one way to draw more attention to the world-changing climate CEOs and investors that I am lucky enough to be interviewing on the show. And each month I pick one listener review for a one-on-one brainstorming call with me. Who knows what can come of those?
Finally, if you're a growth stage climate CEO looking for a confidential peer group to share best practices, expand your network and scale your business, then please apply to join our Climate Mastermind programs at Entrepreneurs for Impact where our current amazing members have created over $4 billion in company value to mitigate climate change. Until next time, keep on fighting those good fights.