Who We Are

Climate Change can be addressed now with a multidimensional approach.

The solution to Climate Change is not some silver bullet that will just suck up all CO2 emissions from the air. Those plants are way too costly. Financially irresponsible, sorry.

The sources producing Climate Change are multiple, why would the solution be of a single facet? Or be let’s all stop right now the use of all fossil fuel… Unrealistic on so many levels.

Solutions exist now. They need implementations within realistic sustainability. And sustainability definitely HAS to include financial & economic sustainability.

The companies that make 90% of everyone pension funds & assets and create 90% of all jobs are for profit entities. The financial conditions for profits to be made from facing Climate Change have been reached, finally. Carbon Credits or income and Penalties for polluters or expenses are all part of what for profits companies can understand. But there is more.

I am over simplifying here big time, but Climate Change and increase of temperature, transformation of carbon into electricity and food plants into meat and so on all have one thing in common: Energy. Let’s try to stop thinking that someone is in the train business but instead into the transport business. All of us with this little planet of ours are in the Energy business. The gas emissions from millions of unregulated landfills and 1.5billion cattle are energy just as much as gas wells. Feed for that cattle come from another source of energy consuming business which is agriculture. Show an oil company that it is possible to make profits for its shareholders (all of us) by getting involve into landfills bio-remediation, protein farming (insects farming) to feed cattle instead of large corn farming, and algae farming to reduce methane emissions from cattle all in order to get exchangeable for cash carbon credits and I believe they will get involve.

Of course it is not that simple. Sometimes good intentions get in the way.

Take Waste to Energy plants for example. If you have $60M+ in your back pocket, yes good idea. If rich countries and their tax payers are ready to build all those for free in terms of capital input in developing countries, yes great idea but of course this will not happen. Technologies exist that do not need crazy amount of startup capital to be 70% efficient in reducing gas emissions. A solution that can be applied for 80% less capital with an efficiency of 70% is many time better that a solution that cost 5 times more but has an efficiency of 90%. Business wise… in order for real change to take place this decade… the best laboratory way of reducing gas emissions does not necessarily translate in the real world. That is what I meant by good intentions get in the way. Organics from landfills do not have to be converted into biogas; they can be converted into fertilizers which are still a form of energy readily available for local farmers. The waste to Energy plant is NOT the encompassing solution that is made to be. Financial & scientific realities together will have an implementable solution. This is not a perfect world is it?

Poorer countries do not have the luxury of choosing the best technology or solution: their citizens are often struggling to make a living. But they are also living with the internet. Yes they would love to have their actions impact positively Climate Change, but don’t have the financial means in term of tax base to do it. Bring in for profits companies in the equation and the results can be immediate.

A lot of the wealth that was created the last 20 years had to do with applications and uses of internet everything from e-commerce to social media. The next 20 years main creation of new wealth might just be from Climate Change solutions when considered in terms of Energy business.

Our Foundation is focused to tap into this deep trend.