Eight Questions for Jonathan Pershing, Climate Diplomat and Hewlett Program Director
/
Jonathan Pershing
Name a diplomatic climate milestone from the past decade and there’s a good chance Jonathan Pershing had a hand in it.
He has helped secure agreements with China, India and the European Union. He was an architect of the 20-country effort to expand clean energy funding, known as “Mission Innovation.” Most notably, he played a key role in negotiating the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement — and putting it into action at home.
He’s also a grantmaker. In March, after his latest stint of government service concluded, a one-year term at the side of Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, he rejoined the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, once again as environment program director. He previously spent four years directing the program. It’s clearly a complementary role: He was part of Kerry’s team during the launch of the Global Methane Pledge, for which Hewlett President Larry Kramer helped recruit philanthropic backers, though Pershing did not work with the Hewlett team on the effort.
I spoke with Pershing early this month, while the fate of the Inflation Reduction Act was still uncertain. It has since passed, making the largest single U.S. investment in climate action to date. Combined with last year’s infrastructure bill and the recent CHIPS and Science Act, the U.S. government is now expected to spend more than $500 billion over a decade on climate action, according to a recent RMI study. Along with surging private investment in clean energy, and a growing roster of new climate philanthropists, it’s easily the most significant period for climate spending in the nation’s history.
In the interview, which was edited for length and clarity, he told me about the lessons for climate philanthropy from his most recent time in government, whether foundations are getting the balance right between elite and grassroots climate strategies, what causes him to “worry deeply” — and the star status of his beard.
We’re talking at a historic tipping point, with a landmark climate deal potentially near passage, but still awaiting a vote. We’ve also seen major climate funding through two other bills, though there was a setback at the Supreme Court. What can climate philanthropy learn from what led to this point?
This is not coming out of the blue. This is the product of a lot of collective work — informing the public, thinking about policy options and choices, doing analytic work. One of the clear lessons is, this is a time-consuming process that requires sustained, long-term engagement. We make a mistake when we think, “By doing this one thing today, it’ll happen tomorrow.”
The second thing is the polling data we’re now seeing of how widespread public support is for action. The public, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, actually think it’s a good idea. A part of that is a message about how the problem is more obvious. But the second part is connections between what they are seeing and the underlying issue of climate change. That’s a function of information and campaigns to help people understand. And those have been a product and part of philanthropic work and all the institutions that have sought to elevate that conversation.
The dynamics of how this bill seems to be moving, as well as the infrastructure bill, have often devolved implementation to a local level. The federal government has elements that it will undertake, but a lot of it is going to be passed down. That suggests that a continuing need to think about implementation and how local communities undertake the implementation is going to be essential. A lot of energy has gone into the big picture of how you design a big policy. We now need the same kind of energy going into how you effectively implement the resources that are provided and create facts on the ground rather than commitments and targets. That’s a newer area that people have begun to think about, but needs more work.
Do you think that means philanthropy should put greater focus on those states that have historically not had political support for these types of measures?
It’s inclusive of that. You wouldn’t say, “Let’s switch all of our attention to states that haven’t done this.” It’s a question of, “What are the models?” I am struck by how many state collaboration ideas have been effective mechanisms for states to learn from each other. I look at the Western Governors’ Association, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, work done in the Upper Midwest to bring coalitions together on greenhouse gasses. A lot of the ideas might be developed, disseminated and then copied. No one state is going to have an answer for every other state, but collectively, they probably can do that. Philanthropy wants to be and has been historically part of that.
There are some big targets now. What will it take to help them implement? What are the barriers? Sometimes they are information, sometimes capacity. You end up with a state government which doesn’t have anyone who’s made this their portfolio. They may come to it now; there’s a lot of money on the table. But where do they come from? They come from the academic community, sometimes think tanks, sometimes the business sector that has ideas about how you implement something. That kind of more diverse and diffused process is going to be part of what we have to think about.
You came back this March from a year-long stint working with Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, your latest turn in a distinguished career as a climate diplomat. What new lessons for Hewlett and climate philanthropy did you come away with?
The first one is that we tend in the U.S. to look too narrowly at the climate problem. A lot of us are focused on, what’s the U.S. going to do? Well, the U.S. is just 10% to 15% of the problem. At least 85% is someplace else. And yet, philanthropy is more heavily focused here than elsewhere. On the impact side, we’re like 5% of the [world] population. It’s a much smaller share, with some capacity to manage the downfall. On the mitigation side, that means you’ve got to play with the big guys: China, India. What do you do with Brazil? How do we think about Indonesia? How do we support South Africa? These are places that are growing rapidly with significant emissions, and yet our philanthropic support is more modest.
The second thing we really have to grapple with is, what is it that government can do? And what can it not do? At the end of the day, a lot of this is about implementation. That gets into things that government influences, often with rules, but sometimes not as directly as philanthropy. Why is it that a company will act? It will act because there’s a rule, but it will also act if the purchaser of their goods and services feels that it’s important. That’s a public information campaign. It happens because a technology comes out of universities and technical establishments, sometimes supported by government, but just as often supported by philanthropy. That’s a huge driver of change. You get dynamics in which popular opinion doesn’t support government action. So there’s no urgency, it’s put off for 30 years. That prioritization is also something that philanthropy can play in.
The one last thing that I would say from this past year: It’s a very difficult process right now. It’s always been difficult. But it feels remarkably difficult because of polarization in the U.S. It used to be bipartisan. We had Kerry and McCain run for the presidency against each other and both said climate was important. Today, most Republicans say it’s not a priority. Most Democrats say it is a priority. That’s not that long ago. It does imply it can shift back, but it’s a radical shift. It’s not just in the U.S., it’s global. We’re seeing disinformation and misinformation campaigns that are rising.
A recurring debate in climate philanthropy concerns how much support should go to technology and high-level agreements versus funding local communities and grassroots movements — sometimes imperfectly summarized as top-down versus bottom-up approaches. Do you think Hewlett and philanthropy is getting the mix right?
Two comments: The first is that emissions should have been down at this point at a global level, and they are not. In fact, they’re probably in a plateau. But they’re not coming down as fast as we know they need to. From that perspective, we’ve not done it right, not done enough of it.
The second question is, if you’d done something differently, what would have flipped the balance? You have to look at it as a global question. Can I imagine an advocacy campaign in China that would actually be an effective campaign given the dynamics of Chinese governance? Could I have imagined a different model in the U.S., where a technology play would have moved more expeditiously in the Trump administration? The balance is going to be a continually evolving question.
We need to build public buy-in and awareness. The polling data suggests that it’s happening. But we also need to build an elite strategy. I can get 65% or 70% of the American public thinking this is important, and still get no policy out of Congress. So there’s not just an advocacy campaign, it’s a question of, “Who are you advocating with? And what are the concerns they bring to the table?”
We often demonize both the holder of those concerns and the process, which doesn’t help us persuade people. If we can’t persuade people, they don’t move. And if they don’t move, we can’t get the action we want. I worry deeply about the polarization. I worry deeply about the kinds of campaigns that we run. This is in no small measure a persuasion campaign.
Do you feel like philanthropy is funding climate action like they really understand the risks of climate change?
The fact that some of the world’s wealthiest individuals have made this a priority in the last few years suggests an increase in attention to the problem. Then we get into the other underlying issue: What’s the cost? And how big a role can we play in the solution? You’ve got net worth that’s measured in the hundreds of billions collectively. But this is maybe a $2- to $3-trillion-a-year problem. So no matter how much philanthropy puts into this, it’s going to be a small part of the total cost. Then the question is, what things does it do that are useful? And is it big enough?
No, it’s nowhere near big enough currently. The more you can do now, the more you can avoid. So we’re not there. The fact that it’s still heavily dominated by American and European philanthropists is hopefully going to shift, so we see more philanthropy coming out of China, India or Africa. There are wealthy individuals and capacity. Those are places that need homegrown solutions. The philanthropic community needs to be globalized.
I’ve heard a critique that leaders at the biggest climate philanthropies, like yourself, have often spent their careers working on international agreements, so their focus is typically on such elite-level efforts, which critics say are essential but not enough. What do you make of that perspective and the role of your background?
It’s a legitimate critique. The idea that there is a singular solution, and it’s through an elite policymaking decision process, is insufficient. Does one’s background influence? Of course it does. One of the things that I’ve appreciated in particular about Larry [Kramer] as the CEO here is the focus on finding people with whom you disagree to engage. Not to say, “I heard them, and I dismissed them.” But to say “What is it about that argument that resonates? How do I take that into account in my thinking, and be a better partner, and a better thought leader with that in mind?”
I’ve had some diverse experiences. I’ve worked in the private sector, I’ve worked in government, I work in the NGO community, I’ve worked with international organizations. I’ve also lived in rural Alaska, I did some work in Arizona, I grew up in part in Alabama. I’ve got a history that is more diffused and diverse because of those experiences.
I try to approach problems from a starting point of, “This is the thing I’m trying to solve. What are all the various ways that it could be addressed?” As opposed to saying, “Here’s the hammer that I’ve got, and therefore I’m looking for nails everywhere.” I don’t find that is persuasive. I am more persuaded by, “Let me look for the saw, hammer and pliers,” and think about the entire array of tools at my disposal.
There seems to be a growing number of participatory grantmaking projects in environmental philanthropy. Is that something Hewlett has considered?
The way we’ve thought about it at Hewlett is that we’re a pretty small team, and we’re not likely to grow. We don’t feel that we understand the diversity of localities, geographies, sectors in ways that giant teams might do better. Part of the advantage of that is that it means that we will rely on others. We work in partnership and collaboration with people who are placed-based; organizations that help us think about Africa, Europe or China. We can’t bring the depth of the expertise that a team of 50 could bring.
The second thing which we’ve done is, we’ve done some RFPs where, instead of saying, “This is the answer,” we’ve said, “We don’t really know the answer. But here’s the question.” The third thing is to do periodic strategic reviews, and to invite broad commentary and input. We ultimately have to make a decision — we’re hired by the foundation to do that — but we seek to make decisions building on an understanding that is derived from those kinds of interactions.
On a lighter note, your beard once had its own Twitter account. Will we see that again?
Yeah, it was called the Beard of Pershing. I didn’t actually put it together. It was done, I think, as a spoof. Although whoever did it was really clever, because it did sound a bit like me, at least the way others perceive me.
When I came in as the envoy to the State Department, I had our communications people talk with Twitter, because it wasn’t me. I don’t know whether it stopped because the word got out that I was upset about it or because Twitter did something. Having said that, I read some of them. Some of them are very funny. [Unfortunately, it does not appear there are any surviving posts to link to. —Ed.]
