Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:00]
A
Good evening. Good evening. Welcome to the lse. Thank you for giving up a portion of your evening. I don't know whether the next hour counts from your perspective as a philanthropic donation of an hour's attention, but maybe we'll revisit that at the end of the evening to figure out whether. Whether that might be true. We're here to talk about power, philanthropy and inequality. And it's always struck me, since arriving at the LSE and being committed to working on this kind of mysterious and slightly obscure asset class called philanthropy, which on some measures is a couple of trillion dollars of assets worldwide, we why we talk about it without also talking about inequality. So we thought we would put a panel together this evening to have a conversation about what we mean when we talk about philanthropy and how it relates to the bestowing of power and the perpetuating of inequality. So that's kind of what we're here to do, and we have two very distinguished experts to talk about it. But I thought I'd start just for a minute or two to remind us of what people say about this thing called philanthropy. Those of you who pay attention every January will know the numbers that Oxfam is publishes every year. Okay. And I should say that these numbers are disputed. Okay. They may be out by a bit. And they compare things which aren't really that comparable. But broadly speaking, how many humans own roughly half the world's wealth? Who knows the number? Does anyone know the number? Okay, don't say anything because you know the number. So those are. The rest of you don't know the number. Right? Give me, give me, give me some guesses. Shout out less than 100. Less than 100. Any advance on less than 100? Who said 200? I can't hear that, sorry. No, we're talking about number. So we've got 100. We got 200. Sorry, we've got less than 100. We got 200. A thousand. Any advance on a thousand? Going, going, gone. It's 26. Okay. You get bought the drinks tonight. How many men, and I mean men, on the same analysis, own more than the entirety of the African continent's women?
- [03:01]
B
24.
- [03:03]
A
That's very good. Who said. Yeah, I can't see. Who said 24? It's 22. Okay. By the way, that's an example of anchoring. The Last answer was 26. So no one was going to say a thousand. Just. But that's a different seminar. There are about. Well, it depends how you measure it. Somewhere between 1 and $3 trillion of assets there's about a trillion dollars of assets in the US Alone in this thing called philanthropy. So it's important that we also tonight take a kind of just a minute to pause and think what it is we talk about when we talk about this thing. When you give to Comic Relief or when you support someone in your local community, is that philanthropy or is that charity? Do you want to call that philanthropy? Who says yes, some nodding. We all philanthropists, when we look after somebody, when we give time, when we give money, or only philanthropists, people who are very rich and give away a very large amount or have their own foundation. I mean, there is no right or wrong answer to this. But it's important that you keep that in mind as we talk about it. Those of you who've paid attention will know that philanthropy has had a bit of a beating over the last couple of years. Interestingly, as a focus on inequality has risen, so has a critique of philanthropy. And that critique, very roughly speaking, goes along the following. This is unaccountable. In other words, if it goes wrong, what's the mechanism for firing Bill Gates? Well, there isn't one. It's unelected, okay? We didn't seek it out or cause it to happen. It happened, as it were, of its own accord. It's untransparent. It's quite hard to get to grips with what it actually is and does and how it behaves. And it has some strange rules, the strangest of which in many people's eyes, is that in a very large foundation, there's a pool of money that is invested to maximize return to the foundation bit, which gives away the income. So you can be in a very strange position in which you can have a foundation which invests in fossil fuels in order to generate returns in order to mitigate climate crisis. That's a slightly strange thing. And a lot of people, including people who run foundations, find that strange. So that's the critique. I mean, I've simplified radically, but that is, roughly speaking, the critique. What's the defense? The defense is that states find it very difficult to make radical experiments because it's hard to go to the electorate and say, we think this may well fail, but we're going to do something because we don't like that. We don't like that, particularly in countries like ours. So this is a kind of capital that allows you to test whether certain kinds of vaccines can reach the neediest people in the world or whether certain kinds of interventions can support whatever the issue might be, let's say financial inclusion so we've got this. We've got this thing going on where our intuition as altruistic humans is that supporting each other, being kind, being generous, giving time, giving money is a good thing. We've got another intuition that says there are lots of things which are scary and difficult and problematic and we need to do something about them. And then we've got another intuition which says we're a little bit suspicious of people who get really, really, really rich, okay? And then do stuff apparently in our name over which we have no control. And those are incompatible intuitions, and they are at the heart of what we're going to be talking about tonight. So those of you who study US politics will know Alexandria Cassia Cortez, aoc, easily known as aoc. Her advisor was very widely quoted a month or so ago the line that every billionaire is a policy failure. Okay? So keep that in mind as we talk tonight. So we're very lucky to have, on my immediate right, LSE colleague, urban anthropologist Luna Glucksberg, who has pioneered a kind of work which is extremely unusual even in anthropology, which is to do a kind of ethnographic work with the very rich, to kind of live with and alongside elites and develop an understanding of what it means to transmit that power and money and privilege. And on her right is my friend and colleague Sonia Medina, who is, I think it's, am I allowed to say, Europe's leading climate funder, someone who knows a lot about, and cares deeply about the climate crisis or the climate emergency and who deploys really very significant funds in respect of that emergency. And what I'm going to do is ask each of them just to give us a sense, a flavour of what they do and why and how they do it. Then I'm going to ask them a couple of questions, and then I'm going to ask you to ask them questions. So start thinking as you hear them, what you'd like to hear from them. We have to wrap up at 7, so over to you, Luna.
- [09:18]
B
Thank you, Stefan, and thank you for inviting me to be here. It's a privilege, as you can see there. I'm from the International Inequalities Institute here at lse. That would probably give away my position to an extent that the Institute and I myself are concerned with inequality. So therefore I come at the idea of philanthropy somewhat critically. What our position in general is to do with legitimacy and democracy and where and how assets should be deployed. And what where? When inequality grows, what do we lose as a society in terms of democracy? My work partially looks at how philanthropy can be used and mobilized by families to maintain themselves in positions of power. Which is not to say, of course, that those philanthropic actions may not actually result in all sorts of positive outcomes. I would like tonight to try and develop a position that goes, that is a little bit more nuanced and goes a little bit beyond what could be very simple polarizing statements. And so of course, without a doubt, an awful lot of what philanthropy does is incredibly good. And certainly in the case of something as important as the climate, that is undeniable. But having said that, for us and for me, the issues that I care about are around plutocratic philanthropy and the amount of power that philanthropists end up having. Especially in this case. I specifically am thinking and talking about elite philanthropy. So I'm not talking about somebody adopting a, a cat in Battersea or, you know, giving money to the local hospice because they took care of their granny. That's not what I'm talking about. The issues, as I was saying, about the non democratic nature of philanthropy. Who gets to decide what the priorities are? And why should something that Bill Gates thinks is important be really the thing that is important? And the fact that it's not and cannot be a structural solution to inequality, which is what we are searching as what myself and as an institute. Because if the problem is not poverty, but inequality, which is the gap between the top and the bottom, philanthropy cannot help that because what you need to do is reduce that gap. And if the top keep on accumulating assets, which as Piketty has demonstrated happens over time, then we have a problem. Although the reality is that at the moment, the public doesn't seem to see that as a particularly striking priority. Public opinion does seem to be, and this is recent research produced here at LSE Case, with focus groups with different people from different social demographic groups that seem to find a rather relaxed attitude towards wealth and a clear differentiation and appreciation of wealthy people who give through philanthropic vehicles and create jobs. So my position certainly has to be tempered by what is the reality that we operate in.
- [13:18]
C
Thank you.
- [13:19]
A
Thank you, Sonia.
- [13:22]
C
Thank you, thank you. And Luna, it's a great pleasure to be here. I obviously represent the elite philanthropy that is being critiqued.
- [13:35]
B
So.
- [13:38]
C
Let me tell you why I think it's still a really important role that plays in society and what has been my experience of having been in this world for the last seven years. I work for the Children's Investment Fund foundation, which was founded 18 years ago by a very successful hedge fund manager in the city, Sir Christopher Hon. And we have $6 billion in the endowment, which are ethically invested, I should say. And we have already given out about a billion dollars dollars on the activity of the last 18 years. And we give out $350 million roughly a year on a number of issues. We cover work on child protection, on adolescent sexual and reproductive health, girls empowerment, treating severe acute malnutrition in countries around the world. And we, as my title suggest.
- [14:48]
A
We.
- [14:48]
C
Are very keen to also help in addressing the climate crisis. And we have been working on this issue for the last 10 years and is one of the fastest growing areas. Within the foundation we have an active grant portfolio of about half a billion dollars of work spanning the European continent and far beyond, across Africa and Asia, not in the U.S. i would argue that it is work that is disruptive, is work that it wouldn't have happened otherwise with governments. And we feel a market, a government failure or a market failure in addressing some of these issues. We still see lots of babies even born in this unparalleled global wealth that are born with too low of a birth weight and that is actually a great predictor of stunting unemployed brain development on their future. Or children that are trapped in slavery, or girls that don't have access to the education that they need and are either bonded into servitude or they end up being adolescent mothers that were not prepared for that outcome. But we also strongly believe that all of those outcomes are severely made worse by the climate crisis, which is the area in which I would like to focus the rest of what we talked about. Because it's today's youth that will have the right not to inherit an uninhabitable planet, which is where we are ended going. We know that when it comes to the climate challenge, we need to do half emissions by 2030 and then move to nearly net zero by the second half of the century, 2050. That is very hard, it's not impossible. And I think governments around the world need all the help that we can get them. And that is just the reality because there is many countries that just don't have the capacity to get there yet. Even the very rich ones. Now, even though it is a very difficult issue and we think that emboldening and empowering the next generation to solve these very difficult challenges is core to our agenda. There is actually very little money of philanthropic capital in the trillions of assets that you are mentioning. Less than 2% of philanthropic funding is actually dedicated to, to addressing the climate Crisis. Less than 2%, that is less than $7 billion a year Apple spend $5 billion on their new headquarters in California. You know, it's really tiny.
- [18:07]
B
And.
- [18:09]
C
The US election, every single candidate will spend at least a billion dollars on just running their campaign. So it is peanuts. It's really, really small. About 20% of that $7 billion comes from foundations and about 80% comes from individual giving. So but it's growing. We're working in growing it. And it is important to recognize that we can do a lot more with more resources. Now, I do think as well that climate philanthropy is slightly different to other type of philanthropy. And I'd like to share with you some of the lessons learned of why that climate philanthropy is slightly different to the philanthropy. On the seven years that I've been working on this, and I hope you would agree that that is a role that is very different to what individuals alone can do or what governments alone can do. We actually very strong believers in the role of the state. And we think that public policy, very well designed public policy that learns from the best experiences of other countries or other institutions, having designed them and implement them, is one of the best ways of achieving scale in the changes that we need to make to our economies and societies in addressing the climate challenge. So advocating for good public policies is something that only civil society can do with the support of philanthropy. Educating policymakers on what are those best outcomes, supporting climate leaders in government so they can get access to the information and the connections that they need. Turning ambitious pilot projects into national programs, all of that is enabled by philanthropy. It is, we know, and we have evidence that solar was made cheap by policies that were designed with support from philanthropy. So it is these type of outcomes that are very powerful and for all of us to see. Decarbonization of the power sector is now undeniably happening at a much wider scale because renewables are now so cheap compared to coal and other fossil fuels. And that was enabled by good public policy, enabled by good civil society understanding what we were asking for. It's also really important for climate philanthropy to fund what I call the connective tissue. And what do I mean by connective tissue? It is, you know, bringing together coalitions of actors that really care about the issue. It actually doesn't happen unless you fund it. You know, you have to actively fund and get this corrections coalitions to advance the research that is necessary to inform better public policymaking, fund strategic communications. It is not in everybody's knowledge what you need to do as an individual or what policymakers need to do. If you are new to your job As a new minister or as a new leader, as a new mayor or so all of that needs to be done. But also these very important media campaigns that put pressure on corporations or governments to do the right thing. Again, that media pressure it is also needs to be funded by philanthropy. And we do so how mobilized and made voices of the young generation hurt again when people mobilize on the Fridays for future. The infrastructure that it requires to get those hundreds of thousands of people on the street that needs to be funded. It requires funding and that is really important. That comes from philanthropy as well. Climate philanthropy is also quite different in the sense that long term commitment to institutions is really important and we, we do take a long term view on the civil society groups that we support because as we know the climate crisis is a multi decadal fight and we are not going to get there tomorrow. So I can tell more about that also because the amount of money that is in climate philanthropy is so tiny, less than 2%. Collaboration among philanthropists, with civil society groups, with the governments that need to implement it, with those leaders that have been identified in other parts of society is the way in which a strategy is made is how priorities are designed. It's how funding requests gets seen by my team and how we craft those policies. So we have 100% transparency policy on the grounds that we make and we don't think that you can do it in any other way just by one measure. On US lobbying dollars alone, we are outspent by the fossil fuel industry 7 to 1 just in the US so we have to punch above our weight because the fossil fuel industry, when they are advocating and lobbying for the state of school, they are outmatching us 7 to 1. So collaboration is key. Also we believe that climate can be isolated from other issues. So what we are talking about is strategic communications, et cetera. We deeply care about inequality and girls empowerment and and children's outcome, as I have mentioned earlier, $200 million of the foundation's budget every year to spend on those issues. But we also think is the way in which we can win on the climate argument. Climate alone is not an environmental issue. It is deeply a human issue. It is our planet that is going uninhabitable for us. So we need to make connection with social equity and justice and jobs and how we're gonna actually continue to be a society that stays together through these very rough times. And then the last thing I would say is that Climate Financial must have a global mindset. A lot of philanthropy has a very community lens I would argue, and that is what is comfortable. As we know, the climate crisis is a global problem. It doesn't matter where the CO2 is emitted, it just goes to the same atmosphere. So this is the reason why our portfolio of work is so global. We operate in China, in India and Southeast Asia, and in other emerging economies where we think the policymakers are serious about what they want to do. There is champions that we can support. We have really good examples of public policy that can be implemented, can be scaled, where either the reduction of emissions or changes in the outcomes can be achieved at this scale and then in the time frame that we need. So I hope you agree with me that I think philanthropy has a very particular role in society and we have a very important role to play. And I think it's quite differentiated with what we can achieve with other outcomes, with other actors in the work. We are here to make the world a better place and that's how we like to think about it.
- [26:07]
A
Thank you. So very powerfully from Sonia, an argument that it's part of the solution and not committed on whether it's also part of the problem. But, but can I ask just, I mean, an entirely rational Martian who arrived on planet Earth would see as the single biggest presenting problem this gathering climate crisis, and would then ask why 98% of one source of capital was indifferent to that crisis. Can you explain that? Can you, I mean, is there some, is there there a good answer for why that is?
- [26:48]
C
I wish I had a better answer. But let me, let me tell you what I think has, what is happening. I mean, I think it's gathering pace now, but it's coming from a very low base, as you have seen. So philanthropy is not new, but climate philanthropy is very new as an area. The climate crisis is, has only become really mainstream and understood as an area of giving very recently. So it's been uncomfortable for a number of philanthropists because it's big, it's global and it's very new. So they didn't really know how to go into it. And it also felt like it's not our role to play, it's perhaps the government or others to do it. So there is a lot of education that needs to be done on that. I also think it's partly because civil society organizations, we don't have enough of them in many parts of the world. I mean, a lot of environmental groups have been operating in, in the US or in Europe, but coming from a very environmental lens, which is clean up industrial pollution or clean up air or water. Pollution that is needed and there is a lot of co benefits. But addressing the climate crisis requires a complete reject of our economic or our economies and how we actually produce products and services. And so our civil society groups need to be retooled to do that. So there hasn't been enough investment on those institutions. And also because philanthropy does a lot of one year investments, you know, one year grants that get renewed, they don't have, they don't give them the long term visibility, they need to actually retool and think about what a strategy needs to look like. And finally, the other question is that as you can see, really going deep into climate philanthropy means getting dirty and knee deep into the politics of a country, into understanding the political economy. What groups are going to be better off, what groups are going to be worse off. And some philanthropies find that uncomfortable. They don't want to be seen as pushing their governments into any one particular direction. You may actually have to take aim on the industrial policy of a certain country. You may have to take aim on the foreign policy of certain country. And that can be seen as something that is a step too far into what you should or could do with your philanthropic donors. There's ways to do it about it. But of course it takes a type of philanthropist that doesn't care about its name to go on a particular piece of paper or building or whatever and actually be risk friendly enough to actually take on those tough questions and battles.
- [29:54]
A
Thank you. So I said of Sonia that she definitely is arguing that this is part of the solution and has left it for, I think, Luna to argue that it's also part of the problem. So Luna, I'm going to come to you and ask you the ask you a kind of really simple question which is do you think there's a linear relationship between the presence of philanthropy and the presence of inequality? And if so, do you therefore believe that if we reduced one, we would reduce the other?
- [30:33]
B
To answer the first one, you'd have to give me some parameters of where, when, at what point in time, because that would be a bit difficult to answer, I think, well, can we have.
- [30:44]
A
One without the other? I guess is another way to put the question.
- [30:48]
B
Well, by definition you can't. You need to have surplus in order to give it. So if you had perfect inequality, which is obviously impossible in real terms, nobody.
- [30:59]
A
Would have perfect equality.
- [31:00]
B
Perfect equality, sorry, nobody would. And certainly not if we are talking about, as I think we all are, about giving at scale. We said at the beginning that we weren't concerned with giving a little bit, we're talking about big philanthropy. So you can't possibly have it if we all have more or less the same. I suppose in a very simple sense, if you're talking about corporations that need to do the right thing, for example, I think, I wonder what these corporations doing the right thing would look like. Because really corporations are businesses and the reason a business is set up is to make profit. It's not a bad thing, but that's what it is. It is whether it's making it for itself or for its shareholders, that is fundamentally what it's there for. So if we want businesses to do certain things, the only instrument that we have really at our disposal is the law. And that is in the hands of the state. It's the playing field that has to be leveled and has to be changed and regulations have to be implemented so that businesses incidentally can also operate instead of taking losses because they're choosing to do certain things differently and then end up in a cycle whereby they'll end up losing out. So that, to me that kind of. Of course the role of civil society is important, but you know, from anything from, you know, the symbols that, that you have in your food, in the supermarket, where the industry is asked to self regulate in terms of how much fat or salt or calories you should have in your food. It doesn't work and why should it? They need to have. There need to be things set in law. And if we think that we can get to halving emissions by 2030 by corporations doing the right thing, I think we realistically that's a bit hard to imagine. And as states and democratic societies, we need to demand that laws are put in place.
- [33:25]
A
I agree, though I'm not sure that's a philanthropy problem. That's a regulation of corporations problem.
- [33:31]
B
Yes. So I don't think it's not the role of philanthropy to tell corporations to do these things. The climate needs to be addressed through legal instruments.
- [33:41]
A
Take a slightly different example. It is clear that we have a system in which one individual, let's call that person. Just for the sake of simplicity, Bill Gates can take what many humans would assume to be, as it were, excess returns out of a bunch of risk risk. Capitalism, but then as it were, transforms the nature of vaccine interventions. Okay. On the African continent, in respect of a bunch of diseases that we all wish didn't exist. Okay, now what we've got here is this really awkward paradox because on the one hand, I suspect if we poll everybody in this room, they would Say, wouldn't the world just feel a lot nicer if we could cap those returns to that individual? There's something wrong with the ratio, with the multiples. Okay, I suspect. I mean, give me some nodding. If you. If some people, broadly, along those lines, are we nodding? Don't tell me if you disagree profoundly yet, we'll do that later. So then the question is, all those same people, presumably, are nodding when we say that we would like to see the end of malaria, as we saw the end of smallpox, as we would like to see the end of pandemic risk, and so on. And you have people, as Sonia described and as I'm describing, who have made genuine commitments towards mitigating those threats. What do we do with that paradox? What do we do either emotionally or intellectually or from a policy basis? Do we slowly, as it were, create attrition to the returns? One argument. Or should we just say, look, it's okay for me to be 100 times richer than you, but not a thousand, let's find some equilibrium. Or do we say, it's okay for you to be a thousand times richer, but we're going to take all of that in tax and we're going to do Gavi or whatever, whatever the intervention is. Where are you on that kind of. On those positions?
- [35:51]
B
Well, I'd start by saying that it doesn't need to be an either or, that we can certainly move in one direction and approach the problem from.
- [36:02]
C
All.
- [36:03]
B
The directions that we can all think of. We certainly need more thinking and more imagination to deal with these kind of challenges. I would, quite simply because it's a book that has made such a difference that probably people might be familiar with it. But if you think about all the research that's gone into making the Spirit level, the book that showed that pretty much, for any kind of bad outcome that you can think of, if you line up the countries from less unequal to more unequal, the outcomes were worse for the unequal countries. So that, I think, should give us pause for thought, that decreasing those ratios does seem to make a lot of difference.
- [36:52]
A
That's hard. I mean, as it happens, I agree with you. The critic would say we've also lived through the removing of. Well, again, it depends how you count it. Let's say 2 billion people from extreme poverty as a consequence of the exact same machine that generates that inequality, which we might as well call it globalization, capitalism, whatever. Give it a. Well, it has. Yes. All right, let's call it capitalism has created the inequality machine at exactly the same moment that it's created the take 2 billion people out of extreme poverty machine.
- [37:28]
B
Well, again, I know that this is not supposed to be a kind of a technical talk, so I don't want to go too deep into argument, but certainly if anyone is interested in this kind of thing, there are academics like Jason Hickel who would certainly argue with those numbers and would certainly argue about the ratios at which this supposed poverty that we have lifted people out of sits and whether two or five or eight dollars a day should be caused to celebrate. I would argue not.
- [38:00]
A
Well, yes, I mean, I think you'd be half.
- [38:02]
B
So the progress that we have made or that is claimed to be made might not be progress at all. If we say that it's fine if somebody starves, but they starve a little less and if we know that actually those things matter in terms of their socio economic ability to function in society. Society. Not sure.
- [38:22]
A
In a minute I'm going to ask you all to ask us perfectly well, not ask us, ask guests these perfectly honed questions. But I just want to hear Sonia on this question. You know, if there were a defensive inequality, okay, the one that is usually mounted is the one that says it's precisely these distorted incentives that create the surplus, that allow us to do experiments, that allow us to address questions of disease and extreme poverty and so on, do you think that's a plausible. I mean, Luna, I think is saying very clearly that's a busted flush, that argument. Do you want to go that far?
- [39:13]
C
So, a couple of thoughts. So I would say that we are conflating the taxation regimes of countries and the incentives that that brings to accumulate wealth with philanthropy. There is many, many, many billionaires, probably most of them that don't touch philanthropy. They just accumulate their wealth and they sit on it and they're very happy doing that. And they buy football clubs and they buy, you know, paintings and whatever they buy with it. And so they have no interest in improving the outcomes on society whatsoever. So I get very upset with the taxation regime in the US I think is very flawed. And the fact that you can actually get a tax break in changing the political outcomes in an election, that seems deeply wrong. I got extremely upset when I read in the newspaper that Elon Musk is eligible for a $50 billion bonus if the, if Tesla reaches a certain valuation.
- [40:39]
B
Oh my.
- [40:42]
C
That, you know, I mean, like what is that? That is. That is 50 times more money than philanthropy has been able to gather every year for the last few years. So, you know, we should differentiate that taxation Regimes should change and we should actually have strong advocacy that changes those outcomes because the role of the state is absolutely crucial in order to get us out of the climate crisis.
- [41:12]
A
Do you mean, sorry, just to be clear, do you mean taxation that he should be taxed on the 50 billion or do you mean that we should also address the taxation, the philanthropic tax, the tax on philanthropy Foregone, because there are.
- [41:26]
C
Philanthropy is foregone, you know, and let me address that in a moment. So I think it's deeply wrong that either a $50 billion bonus is even a thing.
- [41:37]
B
How is that thing?
- [41:39]
C
I mean, I just don't get it. So that is deeply wrong. And, and he shouldn't be able to accumulate that, but I think his shareholders should be able to anyway. So that is one thing that we should address. Now if you are taxed on your assets, if you have a high tax.
- [42:00]
B
And.
- [42:02]
C
You could still be extremely wealthy and be willing to be part of the making your community and your world a better place. And for that to take a tax break is appropriate, provided that you do it well, there is fake philanthropy and there is right philanthropy and we should be able. So I think that there is some philanthropies that are not transparent enough. And that is wrong. We need to address it. Because in the same way that civil society holds to account corporations, corporations and governments on what outcomes we want them to do to shape our lives, we need to be able to hold to account the philanthropies that are fueling civil society. But let's remember, societies don't operate if we only have governments and corporations. We need civil society. And it doesn't matter how equal the society around you. It is in the Nordic, in the Nordic countries, in Norway, in Finland, in Denmark, where it's which is the most equal societies that we have in the world, philanthropy still plays a crucial role of human of cohesion and solving problems that have nothing to do with the fact that there is less inequality in that society than in others. There is still pollution problems and there is still kids that don't have the ability to, you know, they've been, they're orphan, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There is just many, many things to resolve. So a smart philanthropy is important.
- [43:26]
B
Important.
- [43:26]
C
Keeping philanthropies holding them to account is absolutely crucial. Not allowing fake philanthropy which is like put it aside and never spend it. That is not philanthropy doesn't get it to that. But I would argue that societies cannot operate without civil society. And civil society needs to be funded where does the money come from then? Because they cannot be captured by corporations and governments because then they are going to be compromised on what they are actually arguing for.
- [43:59]
A
There's nodding on the panel, which is the cue for you to ask the question.
- [44:04]
D
I have to agree.
- [44:06]
A
You were nodding. I know you were agreeing. Absolutely. I meant nodding of assent, not of imminent sleep.
- [44:15]
B
I'm definitely not.
- [44:16]
A
Okay. I don't remember who the first hand was. I think it was you there. Well, I'm pointing at you and then you go second.
- [44:32]
E
I just wanted to pick up on Sonia's point. And if you, if we're thinking practically for a minute about development without philanthropy and the sustainability of development organisations at the moment, as somebody who works at a development organization that is trying to diversify its funding at the moment it's high income government departments of international development, philanthropists, a little bit of public fundraising and then a bit of service income. And I just don't see with the current climate of US and UK politics without philanthropy. You know, you're then at the whim of politics as we've seen with the like USAID global gag rule. So I think there is something to be said for even though philanthropists have like their ideas and their way they want to deliver stuff, there is a sustainability there that isn't there with other sources of income. And I just wanted to know especially what Luna thought of that.
- [45:41]
B
You go, okay, well Luna is going to come clean first of all, because it won't. You're all intelligent people and it won't take you long to see how the institute is financed, which is, surprise, surprise, philanthropy. So I am not here, I am not unaware of the paradox and I'm certain, certainly not unaware of the fact that especially foundations that give very long runs of funding allow certain things to exist. Because something like the International Inequalities Institute is the first of its kind pretty much in the world and it comes from philanthropy. So.
- [46:23]
F
And you should.
- [46:23]
B
The paradox are not lost on me. And it is obviously true. There's. There is. And that contradiction is in there and it's in everything we do. Which doesn't stop me to say that I don't think that on a systemic level going forward, what I would want is for more, for less inequality and therefore less need for philanthropy. But the reality of the world as it is and everyone chasing funding from everywhere, I understand that.
- [46:54]
A
And it's just worse. Adding apropos Atlantic, the funder of your institute is that that is what in the jargon is called a spent down foundation, which Means they have gone from being fully funded to having. I mean it isn't nothing but imagine they just entered, they just gave it all away. Which mitigates some of the intergenerational risks. That is one of the critiques of philanthropy. Sorry to with Interact interrupt. Sonia?
- [47:21]
C
Yeah, I just wanted to take on that, to say what I consider and we do think about it like this at sick. It's really incumbent upon philanthropists to demonstrate that the results that we're achieving and the funding that we provide is head and shoulders in terms of outcomes beyond what development aid can achieve with our taxpayers dollar. At the end of the day, we are getting a tax break on the funding. So I consider that seed funding is not only the philanthropies. 50% of it is taxpayers money. So if the, if the result, if I'm going to end up funding the same thing that DFID would have funded, it's a waste of time. A waste of time. I may as well have just given them the money. So it is really important in how we design programs that we are doing things that neither governments, not corporations, not civil society alone will have the ability because of the long term disability, because of the college that can be brought together, etc. So it is on that strategy design that is really important. But not all philanthropists think like this. And so I think it's part of how you need to think about it. You have to give a double return to society for philanthropy to have a right to exist.
- [48:47]
A
Okay, where are we going? Actually, I promised you next because you were the very first at the front. And then we'll go to the man in the white shirt in the middle at the back and then you. Hi, thank you for the very interesting talk. Sonia, my question is directed towards you.
- [49:06]
B
So you mentioned there was only 2%.
- [49:07]
A
Of funding going into climate change and also the need to rethink the lens through which you evaluate the different climate.
- [49:17]
B
So would it be from like a investment return perspective or more on the.
- [49:23]
A
How would you measure the return?
- [49:26]
B
And also the other question is what.
- [49:28]
A
If Elon Musk donated the $50 billion to philanthropy, would you be okay with that?
- [49:35]
B
Thank you.
- [49:37]
C
So I would totally be. I prefer that Elon Musk paid a very high tax on $50 billion. But figure that I will accept a very large donation above that and I'm happy to, you know, administer this. And your first question was about how do I measure success? Yeah, I get it. Sorry. I just remember how do we measure success? Well, we look at what change needs to be adopted. And sometimes we really think from a policy perspective, what policy has been adopted, that it wouldn't have been adopted otherwise. So for example, when we fund C40, C40 is a club of the leading cities around the world, largest in the world, 25% of GDP. And in how they want to commit to decarbonized. So when C40 puts out a coalition of the biggest cities in the world committing to procuring electric buses and changing completely the fleet, and that wouldn't have happened without C40's existence. For me, that's a. It's not return on investment because we don't. Our dollars are grants, we call them investments. But it's a return on society's capital. And there are many examples. There are many examples like that. For example, we also fund litigation, huge amount of litigation, environmental litigation, again to hold to account with corporations and governments that are not keeping us safe and healthy. 95% of children around the world breathe toxic air. We have taken to court, not sipped directly, but we have funded the litigation that have taken the UK government to court on the breaches on air quality over the last 10 years. So every time that we win in the Supreme Court, I think that's a win.
- [51:34]
A
Thank you. I think right in the middle at the back there.
- [51:43]
F
Hi. Thank you. My name is Naveen. Very good evening for this interesting talk. Sorry I'm going to mix topics, but I think that's how the world is. When I read power, philanthropy and equality, I read human, Human, human because I believe humans have power. You know, they do philanthropy and humans only create inequality. My question is why do we even need climate philanthropy? For that matter, do we feel that, you know, it is the failure of the state that we're talking about philanthropy. Because when we talk about climate, that should be on our first agenda, you know, no matter who that is. Because it shouldn't not be a brainer that we should nurture nature for future. So why, why is that we are even talking about philanthropy there? Like are we addressing questions or issues on surface? Why are we not going deep below, like on individual levels? Thank you.
- [52:42]
A
Thank you. Do you want to take that?
- [52:47]
C
I do think that failure to address the climate crisis is a government failure, That government needs to be halted accounts. And there are many reasons why that failure exists. It's lack of knowledge on what the solutions are. Frankly, there is no country in the world, no city in the world, no small community in the world that is net zero today. So frankly, we just don't know what it looks like. And therefore it's very difficult to implement something that you have never seen, that we have never experienced. And what makes climate crisis works is that we don't have, as we know, 300 years to figure out. It is undeniable that the direction of travel is that we're going to have clean air because we're going to have electric vehicles and we're going to have renewables and we are going to have clean industry. You know, I mean, I think this is kind of human progress. But if that was just to let its normal course, it would take us 200, 300 years. That means a lock in of 3, 4 degrees of warming. And if we want to reduce the impact on society, we need to accelerate that. And to accelerate that, we need to be as disruptive and as bold in the acceleration of that tunnel as we can. And for that today, governments are not necessarily ready and they need any help that they can get.
- [54:17]
A
Thank you. Did you want to add.
- [54:20]
B
Yes, thank you for the question. I certainly agree with what Sonia has said. I would also mention the word that caused a little bit of a stir here, which is capitalism, which is a system of production under which we live. And it's the reason why the extraction that we have and the kind of level of growth that we have has generated what we know, without any doubt, the fossil industry is responsible for. And the fact that these corporations are too big and the state cannot fight them is possibly something that needs to be addressed in that space. And I fully understand that. I think the problem here is a conflation between the fact that it's private money that pushes the fossil industry, for example, and any other of kind, kind of extractive industry. And it's also private money that pours into philanthropy to mitigate these things. And I certainly take the point that Sonia made, which is that yes, in order to be a big philanthropist you have to be a billionaire, but there are plenty who don't do it. So it's not a black and white either, or all the goodies and all the baddies, without a doubt. But the fact that these corporations are too big for the state to regulate is, I would argue, a political problem. And in order to break these corporations down, for instance, to make them of a size over which then states can have an impact, and if not states units like the European Union, then again, that is a problem of democracy which needs to be nurtured and for which four examples, civil society is crucial. So it's complicated.
- [56:06]
D
Good evening. I think I'd like to anchor my comment question on terms that both Luna and Sonia have used. One of you used the term return to society. We've bandied about the word capitalism. So there's return on investment. The latter is usually associated with some share price, a dividend, some kind of monies, the return to society in the terms that we're discussing here, you know, clean air, clean water, a planet that is habitable for ourselves and for the generations to come. So my question is, how do we.
- [57:01]
B
Get.
- [57:04]
D
The billionaires that are taking their billions of dollars and purchasing yachts, etc. To have a greater awareness that essentially, you know, shrouds don't have pockets, you.
- [57:23]
A
Can'T take it with you. So how do we get the billionaires we want rather than the ones we deserve? How do we get the billionaires we want?
- [57:33]
B
Well, I'm just going to start from what you said about shrouds don't have pockets, but they have children. And what kind of happens. And the thing I'm looking at in intergenerational wealth transmission is what drives some of these families, especially the successful ones, and what they are about is maintaining the wealth for the next generations, maintaining and rebuilding it and remaking it anew each time. And that drives that kind of accumulation behavior that otherwise is very difficult to understand. Just as a very simple example, if I have a billion, say a maybe I inherited it, whatever, and I have three children and they have three children, that wealth is going to get diluted through the generations. And so in order for my children to inherit the same, I need to treble it. And that is without considering inflation and taxation and a divorce and a couple of things that might happen and go wrong and mean that that wealth disappears. And so the accumulation is driven in a lot of ways, but is concern, which feels very strange from the outside, but once you think about it, kind of makes sense. And how do you get through that? I don't know. My personal position is taxation. And you regulate and you regulate the tax havens and you regulate and you keep filling philanthropy if you can, a pure and clean space where you can only access if you have paid all your taxes. If you are doing the right thing, then fine. But first of all you need to know, and not just say, well, yes, my office does that. No, no, no, you need to know where are your assets, in which jurisdictions are you paying taxes, which structures are you using and why are they so opaque? Why do you need so many? Because usually when they are that opaque is because of something to hide and then enter a space that you want to feel good about. Because you're helping by all means, but that should be the flaw.
- [59:38]
C
I completely agree. I think taxation on assets, really, you know, I think you either use it for philanthropy or you lose it. They shouldn't be able to buy.
- [59:47]
D
And you think we have to take it to the that extreme? I guess I'm somewhat of an optimist and I would like to see, somehow, I don't know if it's through the educational system, the creation of a culture of planet philanthropy, of philanthropy, that individuals, you know, ambitious individuals, are motivated to make money. However, motivation to give.
- [60:13]
A
Thank you. Unfortunately, we've run out of time. Just before we close, I would like to thank Sonia and Luna. This conversation could run and run and probably will run and run. The thing I've appreciated most about it is that it's very easy in these conversations to turn them into simple binaries. Philanthropy, bad. Inequality, bad. What you've heard tonight is quite a. It's quite a nuanced treatment of a big, complex system level set of interlocked problems that touch almost everything. So thank you both very much for that subtlety and thank you.