Ep.17: Finding a voice for corporate climate policy action

With 2030 climate goals fast approaching and 2050 targets no longer seeming so far off, we’re amid a pivotal decade for climate action. Meanwhile, 2024 is on track for being the hottest year on record, with extreme weather having devastated communities across the globe. Yet, climate is at best a secondary issue in the presidential election discourse — and few companies are speaking up to advocate for stronger climate policy action.

As global temperatures continue to rise and we see the negative effects of a warming world, it’s becoming clear that businesses can’t address the climate crisis through voluntary action alone. Businesses need good policy to shape the rules of engagement that unlock private sector innovation to tackle tough sustainability challenges like climate.  Many companies with sound corporate sustainability strategies aren’t speaking up in the policy arena for fear of alienating customers, investors, employees and other stakeholders. 

In this episode, Mike speaks with Bill Weihl and Deborah McNamara of ClimateVoice, a nonprofit that leverages the power of corporate influence from climate-positive companies to win crucial policy battles. Without getting too political, we explore the challenges companies face around advocating on climate policy, and the opportunities they face in ensuring that they back up their sustainability communication with policy action.

You can also listen to this episode on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music and YouTube.

TRANSCRIPT
Mike Hower: As global temperatures continue to rise and we see the negative effects of a warming world, it's becoming clear that businesses can't address the climate crisis through voluntary action alone.

Companies need good climate policy to shape the rules of engagement that unlocks private sector innovation in a way that tackles tough sustainability challenges, like climate, at scale. Many companies with sound corporate sustainability strategies aren't speaking up in the policy arena for fear of alienating customers, investors, employees, and other stakeholders.

What's worse is sometimes companies that have really great sustainability programs, maybe they have some net zero goals and they're putting out great reports and communication, when you actually follow the money of the government relations initiatives, sometimes they're undermining their own sustainability efforts by supporting certain politicians that are anti-climate or anti-sustainability.

Today I'm excited to have on the pod Bill Weihl and Debra McNamara of ClimateVoice, a nonprofit that leverages the power of corporate influence from climate positive companies to win crucial policy battles. I've known Bill for many years, and actually when ClimateVoice first started I was volunteering, helping out a little bit with the communications around their launch.

Policy has always been one of my first loves. That's why when in college I interned on Capitol Hill, and then in grad school I went back to DC and I studied public affairs and sustainability and climate communication around that. And I really do believe that we need sound policy to advance sustainability initiatives at scale in the limited time that we have left.

So, today we're not going to get super political. But, we are going to talk about policy and how companies can do better to engage in policy action and advocacy to ensure that there are more policies out there that are going to advance sustainability at scale. 

Thank you so much for being here today, Bill and Deb.

Debra McNamara: Thanks for having us.

Bill Weihl: Mike, let me start by letting your listeners know that I cannot speak. I have ALS and among other things that has completely taken away my ability to speak. So, listeners should know that I'm typing whatever I'm saying and then generating audible speech later, using a synthetic voice derived from pre-ALS recordings of me.

And then you're editing that into the audio for the podcast. The irony of me founding an organization called ClimateVoice. And then losing my voice is not lost on me.

Mike: Bill, thank you so much for that great introduction. And thanks for letting our audience know that we're synthesizing your voice. I'm really amazed by technology and that we're able to do that. And this is the first time that we've tried it. 

It really is an honor to have you on this pod. I really look up to you and honestly somebody that I like to emulate in my career. So, I'm truly honored to have you on here and I can't wait to learn more about what you're working on and how we can get more companies to speak up on climate action in the policy realm.

So, the first question is for you, Bill. And this is pretty simple, but I think a lot of people in corporate sustainability are wondering, why is it so difficult for companies to speak up on climate policy and why are they so hesitant?

Bill: First, it's important to be explicit that we're talking about public policy, legislation, regulation, court decisions, et cetera.

I've often found that when I say the phrase “climate policy” in the context of companies, people think I'm talking about their internal policies for their operations. We're focusing on public policy at all levels — local, state, national, even international. Second, some companies do speak up, some occasionally and some frequently, and some belong to trade associations that are quite vocal in supporting good climate policy.

Also, the fossil fuel companies and their allies aren't afraid to speak up. They've spent millions for decades to obstruct progress on climate policy because they understand that climate action has to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that requires cutting our use of fossil fuels, which would hurt their bottom line.

So, they are very motivated to speak up, just not in society's interest. But many companies are silent or speak up very rarely. And when they do, it's pretty quiet. When big trade associations , like the U S Chamber of Commerce, are vociferous in their opposition to climate policy, spending millions on lobbying, political contributions, and marketing campaigns, the silence from many companies is not neutrality, it's complicity. 

Mike, you asked why they're silent. Some honestly believe that it isn't their role. They speak up when the policy at issue has a direct impact on them and otherwise they stay silent. I disagree with their philosophy, but at least they're consistent.

Many who are silent, however, do speak up on other societal and public policy issues that do not have a direct impact on their business. LGBTQ rights, racial equality. gender equality, reproductive rights, et cetera. So why not on climate? So the short answer is indeed fear. This is especially true for large companies that are affected by a wide range of government regulations that benefit from a range of tax breaks or that derive significant revenue from selling their products to fossil fuel companies.

They're afraid of losing that revenue if they are vocal in supporting climate policy. They're also afraid of pissing off policymakers who might deny them tax breaks or enact laws and regulations that hurt their business. Those risks are real and easy to quantify in terms of potential impact. When weighed against the benefits of speaking up, which are huge, but longer term and more indirect, many companies choose silence.

The consequences of those choices by so many influential companies played out over years have been devastating. Michael Mann says we're in a war. The other side, if you will, knows that and acts like it. The best way to lose a war is to deny it's going on. I hesitate to call it greenwashing when a company is signing PPAs for gigawatts of clean power.

But if at the same time they're obstructing the policies we need, it's hard at this point in time to see it as anything but greenwashing. It's used to distract and deflect from the immense harms they're causing.

Mike: That's really interesting. I think you're right that fossil fuel companies and their allies have never been afraid to speak up.

So it's almost like a one sided fight here where certain companies feel like they can't say anything without getting political, but it's already political. And it's interesting because I have clients that, behind closed doors, they tell me they would really like to do more and to speak up more, but for various reasons, like particularly I have some clients, not even just my clients, but people that are focused on engaging consumers, the way that it's gotten so politicized, they're afraid of alienating certain groups even though this should not be a political thing, as you mentioned.

Bill: Here, here.

I'd add that companies are worried about alienating stakeholders. That's been a big issue with the anti-ESG and anti-woke push from the right. I think corporate silence will begin to alienate climate-concerned people, especially young people. And that risk will be huge. Being authentic is, in the end, far more effective than cowering in the corner.

Mike: That's the reason I wanted to have this topic on my podcast, because it is a major communications challenge that companies are facing of, “How can we authentically talk about making a dent in climate, putting out sustainability reports, putting all this communication around sustainability?”

And then you go over to our government relations page and we're saying the opposite.

And this has happened in the past where I've seen even my time as a reporter for GreenBiz (now Trellis), where I'd have companies pitching me on all this great stuff they're doing to address sustainability challenges. And then you can do a little digging and they're GR teams are definitely not on the same page (chuckles) and, um, and they're pretty much just trying to find those policymakers that are maybe more favorable for their tax policies.

But I think that needs to change. And I remember, I think Bill, this was, I think you mentioned this at a GreenBiz (now Trellis), probably pre — right before COVID started — I remember you were on a panel, and I heard you talking about how this was going to be like the next greenwashing, which I totally agree with.

Companies might have great corporate sustainability goals and reports and doing all that, but then if you follow the money are supporting politicians that are not advancing this.

So, Deb, the next question is for you. What are the three things any company could do right now to influence climate policy?

Deb: Thanks, Mike. And I first, I just want to say that it's so important that companies continue to work on their own internal sustainability goals and cleaning up their supply chains and their operations, setting science based targets and working to achieve those. However, I think that is not enough. 

And the first thing the companies need to be thinking about when it comes to climate policy is how they are using their influence to either support climate policy progress or obstruct climate policy progress. And I'm going to answer your question and give a total of three things companies can do. But first, I just want to build on what Bill was just saying a bit earlier, just about companies and how they are participating in policy, even if there's this discourse around, “Oh, let's not be political.”

Climate policy and climate change has become politicized in a way. And I think it's important for employees and companies to understand that even if they think we're not political, we're not getting involved in politics, your company is lobbying.

And unfortunately, most of the private sector is ending up lobbying against climate policy progress. And this ties in with the number one thing companies can be doing to advocate for policy is to use your influence. So, I just really quickly wanted to say that right now in the United States, we have trade associations that are unfortunately aligning their lobbying positions with the oil and gas industry.

And I'll give the U. S. Chamber of Commerce as an example. So, the U. S. Chamber most often aligns, with their lobbying, with American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association. So this is really problematic because the fossil fuel industry is only one subset of its membership. However, when the rest of the private sector is joining the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and it's not just the Chamber of Commerce that's obstructing climate policy progress — it's also the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, and so on — but I just use the Chamber example because I think it's so important, and it's the largest trade association.

So, the Chamber is not representing the values and priorities of all of its companies when it comes to climate policy. And unfortunately, this trade association and others are actively obstructing the climate policy progress that we need. So I just want to make sure that listeners understand that dynamic and that when you're an employee and you're a business and you are letting trade associations do your lobbying for you, you are inherently influencing policy and you are unfortunately inherently obstructing climate policy progress.

So that ties back into why it's so important for companies to be taking action to, to send, with trade associations? Can — 

Mike: Can I actually ask a question on that before we move on? 

Deb: Yeah. Yeah.

Mike: So the U S Chamber of Commerce, uh, I know this is a hot topic for ClimateVoice, and I love seeing all the stuff you put out around this.

Why are they like that? I know they've, over the years, they've been putting out communication about caring about ESG and sustainability. Is it ‘cause, is there a ton of fossil fuel money involved or why won't they come on board with climate action in the way they want?

Deb: I mean, I think we would all love to know the answer to that Mike. Ummm, I don't know, but I do know that their track record for decades has been aligning with the fossil fuel industry.

Mike: Okay. So it’s fossil fuel influenced?

Deb: The number one answer that I have is because as of right now, the U S Chamber is aligning more with the fossil fuel industry than it is with its other private sector members.

Mike: Got it. Okay. That makes sense.

Deb: Yeah, and just to be clear, you know, I want people to understand when I, when I'm talking about this obstruction, it looks like the U.S. Chamber coming out against the Inflation Reduction Act, which was the most important legislation — 

Mike: Hmmm. I remember that — 

Deb: You know, in 2022. It means fighting EPA power plant rules. It means fighting against methane standards. It means suing the Security and Exchange Commission [00:13:00] over the FCC's proposed climate emissions disclosure rules. So I just want listeners to have tangible examples. This is what the obstruction looks like.

And if you're a company sitting on the sidelines being silent about all this, but saying internally or, you know, publicly, “Oh, but we care about climate where we have our net zero goals,” yet not doing anything about this lobbying dynamic, then, unfortunately, you're contributing to the obstruction. 

So, I would say just getting back to your question, the most important three things that companies can do is number one to use your influence and your voice.

So, you know, obviously, Bill founded ClimateVoice. The premise is our voices are so important. We make up organizations, employees make up companies. When employees use their voice and advocate for climate policy progress, that is a first step. And it's not just the employees, it's the leaders, it's the companies themselves need to be taking these public positions.

So, that's number one, use your influence, lobby for climate policy progress. Do not obstruct it. And when you see the obstruction, speak out against it. So that's number one.

Number two is really tackling this trade association dynamic. So, look at who your trade associations are. Do an audit. Be really transparent. Where are your relationships? How are your policy priorities aligning or misaligning with your trade associations and make that information public. So that's number two

And then number three is aligning political contributions with climate leadership, climate policy leadership. And joining or leading coalitions that are actively working towards climate policy leadership

Mike: All right.

Thanks Deb.  Bill, anything to add to that? (Shakes head)

All right, we're good. All right. Next question is also for you, Deb. So, you know, I spent a lot of my time helping companies develop and deliver communication strategies, focused on sustainability. I would say generally climate policy is not part of that, although I would love to find ways to encourage them to include this into that.

And increasingly more companies, I would say, at least in their sustainability reporting, they'll have a section about public policy, and that's good that that's becoming more of a norm, at least in reporting. But there are some companies such as Ben and Jerry's that do a lot of advocacy and that's part of their brand identity.

I don't expect every company to be [a] Patagonia. 

How can companies interject sustainability communication into their client policy and vice versa? How can they factor in advocacy in a way that fits naturally with what they're doing from a storytelling perspective and also without getting too political to the point where they might alienate stakeholders? 

Deb: So again, I would say thinking about influence and how the company is using its voice and influence publicly would be the first thing I would urge your listeners to think about. So making public statements in support of climate policy progress should be woven into any good communications plan.

That's certainly what we want to see more of. I would also say, a second thing, is just is to really be mindful of the greenwashing. And I think we all are. But, I think, unfortunately what's happening is that many companies are talking a good talk about pro-climate, pro-sustainability values, and having positive statements, and setting really ambitious goals, but then unfortunately the action isn't lining up with those values, and as we all know, emissions keep rising, for example.

So I would say another piece to consider is just making sure that there's the alignment between the publicly stated values and comms [communications], you know, the outward facing comms strategy and then the action, which sounds so obvious, but unfortunately it's not though, right? So I guess I would just say urging integrity is really important.

And then the last two things I'll say is I think having a comms strategy that's focused on the climate risk is also really important. So, making sure that companies are considering how climate change poses a risk to business and operations and supply chains and so on and communities and employees and speaking about that.

And there's also a legal risk, too. So being more open about that, I think, could be a really positive step. Then also focusing communications around climate in a way that is not partisan, reiterating that this doesn't have to be a partisan issue or a political issue. Climate change is happening, we're already feeling the impacts, and everyone has a responsibility to do something about it, including companies.

Mike: Yeah, that's very interesting to me. And it's, it's honestly, I've also seen this happen unintentionally where some of these major companies, they silo their department so much that the sustainability team might not even know that their company is giving money to these groups because it's not really in their remit.

And then when they find out, “Oh, wow, there's a government relations website under our company's name that is telling our employees to vote a certain way that is counter to what we're doing here in the corporate sustainability team.” So, finding ways to break down those silos and encourage people to participate.

Deb: Yes, definitely. And I would say, yeah, I'd love to add that too.

So, it's not only just what the communications teams are doing, but making sure that those teams are aligning with what the sustainability teams are doing and then the government affairs teams, like there just needs to be more communication across all of those channels and coordination and that's how you're going to achieve the most integrity when it comes to authentic action.

Mike: And I know, I know I'm going to ask Bill in a minute about specific examples of companies doing a good job on this, but before we do that, I'm curious your thoughts on, I often tell people. sustainability communication can be a lot like Fight Club (film). I don't know if you guys have seen Fight Club, but you don't have to talk about Fight Club, you don't have to talk about sustainability or climate to get people to do the things that you want them to do or to persuade them the right way. 

So, if climate has become such a politicized word, when we're talking about climate policy, can we use different words to encourage people to care about these issues without actually talking about climate specifically?

And even if you look at it, and we're going to talk about the Inflation Reduction Act in a minute. If you look at it, the Inflation Reduction Act does not look like a climate policy, right? And I'm sure that was intentional. 

How do you think companies can even create the outcomes they want around climate action without talking about climate?

If they have a CFO that's, that's like, “I don't want to deal with climate issues.” Could you convince that person to come on board in different ways without using these words?

Deb: I know the way I personally approach it, when speaking to different stakeholders that have different priorities, I think focusing on healthy communities is really important and that resonates more broadly.

I think focusing on pollution reduction is also another, it's part, it's the same end goal, right? But I think it, it can resonate with a broader subset of people. So, focusing on health, well-being, healthy environment, healthy air, and pollution reduction, I think those are all strategies that I would recommend.

And then, also, again, as I said earlier, focusing on risk, you know, if we don't want to call it climate risk, we can call it extreme weather risk.

Mike: Hmm mmm.

Deb: We can call it environmental risk, but I think, yeah, I do think the framing is important and, and there are ways to resonate because I think, you know, everyone ultimately is in support of a healthy unity and clean air, at least I hope.

Mike: Yeah, that's right. And alienating stakeholders is probably one of the biggest worries I see from companies I'm working with and just who I've been talking to over the years. Particularly companies that have lots of business being done in certain states where politics are different or, especially consumer-facing brands, they don't want to get canceled. 

Being authentic at the end is far more effective than cowering in the corner. I totally agree. 

Every episode I've mentioned this and reiterated this, that authenticity is key to effective storytelling today because we live in an era where you can't hide anymore. The truth comes out. It always does. And so you're better off just owning it.

 And I like to say that the old school, corporate communications mentality was really rooted in the Mad Men (TV show) era I like to say of communication, where it was just only talki[ng] about the good things and downplay the bad things, and especially my generation, I'm an older millennial, and Gen Zers are even stricter than we are about just telling the truth. And it tells a better story because people want to hear about companies that, you know, admit that they're not perfect and they're doing their best to improve. That's really kind of the elements of effective storytelling.

You don't want to hear a story about somebody who's perfect, right? You want to hear about their struggles and how they overcame them. 

And yeah, I agree that companies that are silent aren't thinking about the long-term risks of climate change. It's something that I think, it's frustrating to all of us here is that this is not something that we can just pretend doesn't exist and it's just going to go away. It's happening every day. 

I grew up in the Bay Area and when I was a kid, we didn't have crazy wild —  I mean, there's always been wildfires in California — but not like what we see today. And it was just amazing how we've just normalized these extreme weather events already. And we need to make sure that we don't. 

I've been even reading some recent articles that say even the crazy stuff we're seeing today is going to be considered mild by the time I'm retired. Who knows what it's going to be like.

All right, Bill, next question's for you. So, which companies that are not called Patagonia are leading on climate advocacy at the national level and what can we learn from their example?

Bill: A few large companies are quite vocal about climate policy nationally, and also state, and even local. I'll name a few, but there are certainly others. Unilever and Ikea have both been consistent vocal supporters of climate policy for years. So has Mars. Salesforce has been increasingly vocal the last few years, and there are hundreds of small and mid-sized companies that are consistently vocal, both individually and collectively through trade associations like the American Sustainable Business Network.

Patagonia, Ben and Jerry's, and Aspen Snowmass really stand out for me for their clear principled stances, their commitment to advocacy, and their understanding of how and why climate is a key material issue for their businesses. 

What can we learn from these? First, they're honest about the importance of climate as an issue for society and for them. They take a broad systems view and understand that systemic change needs to start now to avoid worsening climate catastrophes 5, 10, or 20 years from now. They're focused both on near-term financial performance of their business and on understanding and managing long-term risks and opportunities, especially ones like the climate crisis, which requires public policy to create the speed and scale of systemic change that we need.

Most companies that are silent aren't unaware of the long-term risks of the climate crisis or the need for public policy. In fact, many of them make high-level statements to that effect, especially around the annual UN climate COP meetings. They say that governments should do more, but when governments try to enact useful policy, the companies mostly keep quiet.

If high-level statements about public policy are not backed up by vigorous advocacy for specific policies, they're just performative. I think these companies are just too afraid of short-term risks if they speak up to stick their necks out. 

You mentioned authentically talking about the good and the bad, not just glossy, glowing sustainability reports.

Aspen's sustainability reports are amazing for their honesty and systems thinking. I highly recommend that listeners check them out.

Mike: Great. Yeah. Aspen, I haven't checked out their sustainability reports, but that's generally the advice I give everybody who's reporting is to make sure that you're disclosing the good and the bad.

I know it's been interesting this year, in particular, there's been a lot more legal oversight over what goes in and what doesn't go into a report, which I think is a little different. But it's actually a good thing because even reports I've worked on, we've actually had to have that extra layer of validation to make sure the claims we're making are true.

And so, I think that's the step in the right direction, even though it can be a little frustrating sometimes when you're trying to create these reports. 

All right, Bill, how can companies earlier in their sustainability journey start activating on advocacy now?

The examples you shared are companies that are a little bit further along in their journey and, you know, I wouldn't expect a company that's just starting out on their sustainability journey to jump immediately into picketing on Capitol Hill, but a lot of the problems that bigger companies face with changing to be more climate policy-friendly, they're bad habits that could maybe be avoided if you address this earlier in the sustainability program creation.

So, if you're a company that's just starting out, which a lot of companies are now because of regulatory requirements, are now starting sustainability programs, how could they factor this into what they're doing right now and not have to just do wait ‘til they're more advanced and then deal with it later? 

Bill: I often hear people say they have to walk before they can run, that they have to get their own house in order before they can advocate for public policy. I understand their thinking, but I disagree with it. Deb made the vital point earlier that companies need to clean up their own footprints. It's not policy advocacy on its own.

Not policy as a panacea, it's policy advocacy, in addition to internal action. We all need public policy to level the playing field and to set market rules that decarbonize the entire economy at speed and scale. Policy is the foundation and the accelerant for economy-wide decarbonization to take the amazing work companies have been doing and scale it rapidly across the economy.

If we wait for individual companies to make significant progress on decarbonizing their own operations and supply chains, before very many of them joined together in advocating for the policies we need, we will move too slowly. Instead, companies early in their journey should admit that systemic change requires bold public policy and step up on advocacy at the same time they work on their own operations.

It's advocacy and internal operational work, both together, not one and then the other. They don't have to do this alone or figure it out by themselves. Groups like Ceres work with companies to help them advocate for key policies, providing them with briefings on the policies and organizing joint letters of support and joint lobbying trips.

Trade associations like the American Sustainable Business Network advocate directly and help their members advocate individually. I recommend that companies engage with both Ceres and ASBN and work together with their peers to speak up together. I'd add that they may belong to other trade associations already, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and those orgs may be obstructing progress.

So they should engage positively with Ceres, ASBN, and others. And also ASBN stopped being complicit with any obstruction done by their existing trade associations. Get them to change soon or leave.

Mike: I love that idea. Public policy sets the rules of engagement that unleashes private sector innovation.

And, a lot of people forget that we're not playing on an even playing field right now. The subsidies that fossil fuel companies receive, and other non-environmental friendly companies receive, it's pretty remarkable. And I always think it's funny when people complain about any kind of tax breaks or subsidies to nurture climate-forward technologies.

It's like, “Do you actually see what the fossil fuel industry is getting and what these other industries are getting?” And yeah, Ceres is great. They've been around for a long time. American Sustainable Business Network, I'm aware of them as well. Really good for companies that are just trying to start out to definitely learn more how they can get involved.

I think the big problem a lot of companies face is that they don't have the time or energy to really go all out into advocacy, like some of these other companies, but I think what's great about Ceres and ASBN is that they can do a lot of the work for you and you can really, even if it's just financially supporting them, you can still make a difference that way, even if you don't have the manpower to devote too much time to this.

That's a really good point about engaging with your existing trade associations, in particular the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, because I could see it being a hard fight for somebody at a company to try to convince them to leave the U. S. Chamber, but if you could be a vocal voice saying, “Hey, if we're going to stay in this, you need to change these policies or if we're out, that could be the next step before just flat out leaving.”

And then, hopefully, if enough companies make a, make a ruckus, the Chamber will change. 

So, Deb,  moving on to the next question, I really wanted to think about what are specific climate policies that are currently being proposed? 

So a couple of years back, I joined EDF Action, which is a great advocacy group, and we were in D.C,  I forget, this was probably 2017 — I'm an EDF Climate Corps alum, so they got a bunch of us alum, I think they were trying to lower the median age for the people out advocating — but they had us join a bunch of professional lobbyists to go and talk to some senators and other policymakers, and we got this big packet of all these different environmental policies that were currently being debated in Congress. 

And it was really interesting to me because, you know, I consider myself a pretty well-read — I stay, I stay on top of the news or at least I try to — and a lot of these things that things I'd never heard of, but were actually pretty impactful. One of them had to do with the methane rule.

There are some other things — we can't expect everybody to read Politico or know, like everything that's going to happen every day around sustainability and climate action. 

So, I guess I have two parts of this question. First is we’re, we're about to have a major election, I know we're not going to get into the politics of that, but what are some policies under discussion that are either currently being discussed or in the pipeline that would have a big impact on climate action?

And then also how can companies, but also individuals, stay on top of some of these policies that, you know, that maybe they don't make the national headlines, but if you're somebody that wants to stay on top of what's happening, I guess maybe follow your newsletter would probably be one fun place to start, but yeah, just anything you have to say about that would be interesting? 

Deb: Yes. Well, first of all, yes, we would welcome everyone to sign up and pay attention to ClimateVoice’s updates because we do include calls to action when there are policy battles underway or policy issues being considered. 

So you mentioned the election and we don't know what the result will be, but I will say that two issues that are underway right now that won't go away are the ongoing, and I mentioned it earlier, the Security and Exchange Commission.

Mike: Mm hmm.

Deb: Their climate disclosure rule and the ongoing lawsuit with the U. S. Chamber of Commerce — having sued them and so on. So that's one issue I would urge people to pay close attention to. It will be really important for us to have strong climate disclosure rules, especially if we want to keep up with the direction that the rest of the world is going.

So, that's one policy issue that's sort of hot right now. And then I would say the IRA is, is a second area that, it's really important for us to be tracking what's going on. How can we move things forward where support is needed? And then how can we make sure to defend the IRA and for any efforts to repeal parts of the IRA?

So, those are two issues on my mind that I foresee going into the future, regardless of the outcome of the election. I will say, though, that there are some priorities that I think should be on everyone's radar. Again, regardless of where we end up in November. So, we need to drive down the cost of wind and solar energy, we need to drive down the cost of EVs, and some of these initiatives are already underway.

We need clean car and truck incentives and standards. We need to increase electrification. We need grid infrastructure investments. Again, some of these things are underway, but we need more. We need more action here. We need clean energy standards, increased energy efficiency, and then also strong pollution standards.

I know I mentioned those earlier and, uh, earlier this year, there were soot pollution standards that were passed and I'm still interested to see how those all play out. And unfortunately, there were at least 25 states that we're suing over those soot pollution standards. The trade associations were largely opposed to those soot pollution standards.

So that's something I think we should all be paying attention to, what's happening with these pollution standards. Who's opposing? Where is your company standing? That was certainly one of our calls to action at ClimateVoice. We wanted companies to be speaking up in support of those standards. And of course, the methane rules.

You mentioned those, Mike, too. All of those issues are on my radar and hoping to see more action to tackle all of them.

Mike: So Bill, the Inflation Reduction Act — otherwise known as the IRA — has just turned two years old recently. Most of my listeners probably have heard of it if they're working in sustainability. I think even people who aren't in sustainability have probably heard of it. 

What has come from it so far and where do you see it going in the near future? 

I don't think, I personally haven't seen tons of coverage of — what are the actual impacts of this legislation yet? 

But can you just go in a little bit of detail of what's happened so far and maybe what's still down the road that will come from this policy?

Bill: I can address that briefly. It's important to think of the IRA, the huge infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act, as a package. From all three, we're already seeing major new investments in manufacturing in many regions. across the country, especially for climate solutions. I don't have the data in front of me, but it's significant amounts of public money being leveraged for much more private investment that's creating thousands, many thousands of jobs and driving scale on battery manufacturing, heat pumps, et cetera, which is driving down costs.

We're also seeing wind and solar continue to grow exponentially. That makes the grid cleaner, and because they're technologies, not commodities we mine, drives down their costs. We're just seeing money starting to flow for incentives for things like heat pumps, so maybe not huge direct impact yet. It took time to write the rules and in some cases for states to enact their own rules for how to disperse funds.

But I expect the impact there to grow massively in the next few years. That's a taste, lots of impact, lots more to come. But these policies are the start of a real transition to a clean economy, not the endpoint.

Mike: Thanks for that breakdown, Bill. It's super helpful. And it's very encouraging to see all this activity happening.

And it's interesting as I was thinking about your answer. A lot of the critics to policymakers making investments in new industries like this is that, “Oh, we'll be wasting our money. Is this not going where it could be the most useful?”

But if you think about your average venture capitalist is investing billions of dollars, let's say they invest in 10 companies — they expect nine of those to fail and then one to pay off — we don't get mad at them for doing that. 

The government is putting public money into industries that grow. Even if only one of them blows up in a good way, that can create all new areas of innovation, job creation, things like that.

And not doing that is not going to help anything, not the planet or people living on it. It's a classic example of just the idea that the government has always been influencing how society forms, right? Even, even the automobile, when it was first introduced, all the infrastructure that was required to make it possible, policy is what made that possible, right?

And so now we're basically saying we're creating a world right now that is not livable for humans — we need to recreate this — and so the government does play a critical role in making that happen.

It's great to see the IRA getting out in the world, because I think for a lot of people it can feel nebulous. It does happen slowly and in a way that's not dramatic, which is how it should be, but it is happening, it is spurring innovation.

And I know it's definitely in the Bay Area. The climate tech sector here has been going pretty strongly. I know there was a slight downturn last year, but it's more or less, there's lots of stuff happening. So, that's also very exciting. 

So Bill, kind of going back to the topic that we've been beating around the bush — this whole episode so far — is that climate change has become incredibly politicized.

And to me, it's very frustrating that this is the case that it's 2024, almost 2025, and before I was even born, we've known this as a problem. And people forget that it was less political 20 years ago, and we're almost backtracking on that front. 

People forget that Republicans had a climate policy, McCain had a climate policy, Romney had a climate policy. We've almost gone backward in that respect. 

But, in this environment that we're in right now, it's not just climate that's politicized, we're in a very just polarized moment in American politics. In that environment, it's already difficult, but what role can businesses play in helping to depoliticize this specific issue of climate and in a way that creates cover for more companies to take action?

Bill: Let's face that bush head on — no need to beat around that. 

You framed the question in a way that points to the root of the problem. Climate didn't just become politicized, it was intentionally politicized to create risk for companies, encouraging them in the process to stay on the sidelines and to create gridlock on Capitol Hill.

The intent here was to obstruct progress, throw in a steady diet of dis and misinformation, and, well, here we are. 

What can businesses do about this? They can make clear that, for them, climate is not political and doesn't have to be partisan. They can speak publicly about the risks posed by climate change.

To them, to their customers, and suppliers, to their employees, and to the communities they live and work in, they can also speak about the benefits of climate action, both their own direct actions, and public policies that have broader impact on jobs, clean air and water, reduced risk of extreme heat or mega-storms, et cetera.

They should do this individually and also as part of groups of businesses. There is risk in speaking up. There's also safety in numbers. A loud business voice that counters the dis and misinformation and explains the risks and opportunities in the climate crisis can help cut through the partisan mess we're in.

The other big thing companies can do is leverage their trade associations. 

I don't expect the fossil fuel industry to change anytime soon, but right now, as Deb mentioned earlier, several large cross-sector trade associations, including the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the National Association of Manufacturers, mostly follow the lead of the fossil fuel industry on climate policy and on public messaging.

Many, perhaps most, of their member companies are in favor of bold, climate policy and faster climate action. But they acquiesce when their trade associations obstruct progress in their name and with their money. Companies that care about climate need to be more vocal. They also need to leave trade associations that are obstructing progress and provide more financial support to groups advocating for real progress.

This will weaken the groups that have intentionally politicized the issue.

Mike: It's interesting as a sustainability and climate communicator, I get frustrated by the fact that the anti-climate forces have done a much better job of controlling the narrative and really framing this in a way that benefits them. 

I have heard in things that I've read, that even the word climate change is something that was introduced to even downplay the threat of global warming because climate change doesn't sound as threatening, and I think this is a challenge that all sustainability communicators face as the language we use around this is hard to describe because what we're really describing is everything — society needs to change, business needs to change, people need to change — and sustainability isn't just this thing we do on Earth Day to feel good about ourselves, but words are also what get people to understand complex scientific issues like climate. 

And so we're constantly needing to figure out what the right words are for this.

I've seen this work out well in California, in particular, where we've had the business community go to Sacramento and talk to politicians about how certain policies will create jobs in the districts of certain representatives. And it's actually changed minds. Even at the local level, people said, “Oh, this is a good thing. Of course I want this!”

And because everybody's human, they fall into the disinformation themselves because they don't take the time to look at the issues deeper. I think getting companies to be more vocal is very important and that's why I'm glad to have you all on this podcast, because I think there aren't really that many organizations that are focused on corporate sustainability specifically and ClimateVoice is really doing a great job on that 

Bill, that leads into the next question, at a GreenBiz (now Trellis) event early this year, there was a really great onstage moment where you were there and you announced the Lead Statement, which I'd love for you to talk a little bit about, and I'm hoping we can get some of our listeners to sign on to that, I know I signed on to that immediately. 

Can you tell us a little bit about what this Lead Statement is and what does it seek to achieve?

Bill: Definitely. And thank you for signing. I launched the lead statement in February at the GreenBiz (now Trellis) conference. I was inspired by dozens of conversations I've had with sustainability professionals over the past few years, where it became clear that most of them believed we needed much stronger public policy, and that their companies should advocate for it, but very few ever said that publicly.

We drafted the Lead Statement in January. It calls on companies to step up on climate policy, to leave obstructing trade associations, to elevate climate policy as a company priority, to advocate publicly for effective binding climate policies, and to demonstrate real commitment to the collective action needed to achieve the just and equitable transition from fossil fuels agreed on at COP28.

66 sustainability professionals signed the Lead Statement before we launched publicly in February. Today, over 1, 000 professionals have added their names to a still-growing chorus. Our hope is that more will sign and that this clear call to action from the experts who do this critical work every day will help more companies realize how critical it is to lead on climate policy and help them find the courage to step up and speak up.

I think we're already seeing change. I've heard from dozens of people who agree with the Lead Statement but felt alone. Now that they know that over a thousand of their peers are right there with them, they're being more vocal in their companies. And the job of a sustainability professional is in part to see around corners, to anticipate risks and opportunities.

Many have raised climate policy as an issue internally in the past and been dismissed. The Lead Statement has given them courage to raise it again and ammunition to make the case that their company can't ignore this issue.

Mike: Yeah, this is awesome. I know, yeah, it was a really inspiring moment at GreenBiz (now Trellis) when you unveiled this and I know you actually had reached out to me to be on stage before that, and I hadn't gotten back in time and I was so bummed because I was like, “Oh man, I wish I could have been up there with you all!”

I've been telling everybody I know about this and I think it's, it's so needed because this kind of — it's something that's always bothered me in corporate sustainability, is that before ClimateVoice was formed, no one's really gotten around to trying to organize these voices the way you have and its so needed, but so many corporate sustainability professionals are feeling frustrated right now that they're not having the impact they want to have.

Some companies are backtracking. Meanwhile, we know that we need to do more. So I think having ways to express their voices this way, it's very therapeutic even for people working in this space — it's more than therapeutic, it will lead to. greater action, I believe that — but just having this opportunity to say in a way that is not incredibly politicized, but it will still hopefully create action, I think is really great.

I'm seeing this change also and there is the power of networks and the power of community. I think that it gives people courage to speak up more when they know they're not alone. And I think that's been the biggest challenge. I haven't seen people really have the courage to come together to really speak out on climate action, especially those in the corporate sector.

So, I think this is definitely a good place to start and so anybody interested in learning more about the Lead Statement, we'll include a link to that in the show notes, and hopefully it'll inspire you to sign on.

I love what you guys are doing. I'm really honored that I was able to help out with Climate Voice when it first started a little bit back in the day and I guess it wasn't that long ago, a couple of years ago (laughs), but it's great to see how the organization's evolved over time and keep up the good work. Everyone working in sustainability is rooting for you and we're there with you. 

So everybody, if you don't know what ClimateVoice is, give them a look, check out their Lead Statements, we'll keep all those links in the show notes.

And remember that this election coming up is super important. One of the most important things you can do as a citizen interested in climate is to vote. 

So get out there, vote, and keep up the fight. No matter what happens during this election, we got to keep going.

Bill, thank you so much for coming on today. Deb, thank you so much for your insights.

Deb: Thank you, Mike.

Bill: Mike, truly a pleasure. Thank you.