Good Morning
What we’re reading this week:
David Wallace-Wells’ “Electric Vehicles Keep Defying Almost Everyone’s Predictions” (NYT)
The Greendicator
Top Deals of the Week
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9027e079-b3ee-43f4-8fa8-553f7766f2d8_1600x937.png)
Silicon Ranch, an 11-year-old Nashville company that operates solar and battery storage systems, raised a $375 million round from previous investors including Manulife Investment Management and others. (BW)
Capella Space, a six-year-old San Francisco startup that provides Earth observation data on demand through sensors deployed across its fleet of custom-built satellites, raised an additional $60 million Series C round. The U.S. Innovative Technology Fund was the lead investor. (SA)
Caban Systems, a 4.5-year-old, Burlingame, Ca.-based energy storage developer, says it has raised $51 million in Series B funding led BCP Ventures. (CS)
ReelData AI, a three-year-old Halifax startup that is developing technology to improve the efficiency of land-based aquaculture farmers, raised an $8 million Series A round led by Buoyant Ventures. (PRN)
Open Forest Protocol, a startup allowing forest projects to measure, report and verify their forestation data, raised a $4.1M pre-seed round led by Shima Capital, Übermorgen Ventures, Not Boring Capital, and more. (PRN)
Project Eaden, a Berlin startup founded this year that is producing plant-based meat alternatives using a proprietary fiber spinning technology, raised a $2.3 million seed round. Creandum, Magnetic, and Atlantic Food Labs led the deal. (TC)
e.pop, a startup aiming to replace paper receipts with a digital alternative, raised a $1.6M seed round. (BW)
Green Theory
[Give to ]Earn to Give Part II
Last week on Green Theory, we explored reasons people stay in socially destructive jobs, even with the choice to leave, and why offsetting business harm with charitable donations sets up a shaky bargain that might not pay off. We ended on a few questions that may linger for the aspiring socially positive-job-seeker, questioning Earn to Give and Effective Altruism:
How does one assess an organization’s social impact? What if all the good people leave the “bad” sectors? Why don’t these existential risk-focused, vegan/vegetarian philosophers [leading Effective Altruism] demand their highly educated, skilled followers pursue climate action?
This week, let’s unpack those questions holding smart people back from their own opportunity to find a more inspiring career (through Ed’s Sustainable jobs, Goodgigs, Climatebase, My Climate Journey, or elsewhere).
Is the world better with your business in it?
Put on your imagination cap, and think about the world where your employer’s business has suddenly vanished. What’s different about this world: is it better, worse, or about the same? Former Unilever CEO, Paul Polman, who delivered unprecedented shareholder returns over his decade-plus tenure, puts this question to the business community. He and his co-author are challenging businesses to become “net positive.” Underpinning his imperative for more communally responsible business thinking, Polman makes a financial case for social net-positivity in firms: “Courageous Companies Thrive By Giving More Than They Take,” the subtitle elucidates.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F041e5da3-1051-4ac0-b2ee-23af8060390e_2656x1382.png)
Though talk of net-positivity reeks of shoddy Earn to Give logic, with plenty of ways to earn money without creating value for society, getting businesses to truly generate net-positive externalities would be a large step forward. Instead of isolating altruists in offices to do different rent-seeking tasks and earn philanthropy money, genuinely socially positive companies can aggregate desire for a positive personal impact. Thriving together, these altruists could find the shared goals, space for teamwork, deeper intrinsic motivation, or skew toward compassion bring value for one’s working life in a way that sending checks to a charity after clocking another soul-crushing week could never.
“Influencing Change from Within”
Every day, people join companies that seem socially okay. Maybe the core business raises questions, but there’s a “sustainability arm.” Maybe the company focuses on something socially ambiguous, but suggests plans of pivoting to helping the world later. Especially with the promise that new employees may get to work on more socially positive parts of the business in the future, hiring managers at these companies prey on goodwill. These practices’ bait and switch lures people into working for businesses they otherwise wouldn’t, often until they realize they must quit their societal business goals to serve a career at the company, or quit the company to actually serve their societal goal. Meanwhile, the pressure to specialize further dampens the urge to return to a previous career intention.
![Whistleblower Stock Photos, Royalty Free Whistleblower Images | Depositphotos Whistleblower Stock Photos, Royalty Free Whistleblower Images | Depositphotos](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbda8339e-6cc3-48a7-9a67-495ef5a144f8_600x600.jpeg)
There’s another path: those who hang on to the dream of influencing change from within. Some succeed at leveraging a morally compromised position to undo some of the harm of the organization. Still, restructuring the core values of a corporation presents enormous challenges. If that wasn’t hard enough, from-within influencers also need to perform their job in a way that, for the time being, advances the very values they’re trying to change, perhaps at further expense of personal morals, sparing cases of elaborate or short sabotage. Another suggestion from EA founder Peter Singer: altruistic insiders can quit and expose sensitive information that would have otherwise been hard to obtain. This action may undo some implicit harm caused while on the job, but brings us back to…quitting and finding another job. Whistleblowers will have an especially hard time finding other offers in their industry, and while their defiance is commendable, doesn’t it seem easier to have worked at a company that’s not causing more problems than it solves, if you can help it?
More Effective Altruism: Donations vs. Doing Something
Effective Altruism leader Will MacAskill isn’t telling people to adopt Earn to Give for no reason. His foundation explains topics such as “why this century is so important,” and the case for reducing “Existential Risk.” Shockingly absent from the alarmism (and case for donation) around other threats to humanity, his organization consolidating and driving the Effective Altruism movement doesn’t view climate change as a top problem.
Rather simply, they posit: “it looks unlikely that even 13 degrees of warming would directly cause the extinction of humanity.” Undoubtedly much to unpack in their analysis, but let’s assume it’s correct. Is the complete annihilation of the human species the reason fighting climate change matters most now? Not really. Even if some humans could survive, there’s a lot of people to save from death or suffering by shaving down each degree of warming.
![Opinion | 'Longtermism' lures philanthropists away from human needs right now - The Washington Post Opinion | 'Longtermism' lures philanthropists away from human needs right now - The Washington Post](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8348e29c-ffc5-4078-be16-a3cd8df45639_1800x1200.jpeg)
MacAskill and his billionaire friends are fine letting the planet be ravaged by climate change for two reasons. First, only complete extinction concerns “longtermist” utilitarians like MacAskill, who sum up all the potential happiness of thousands of years of future humans to outweigh our squabbles and trifles we concern ourselves with today. Following his logic, as long as enough humans survive to keep the chance of colonizing other planets alive, keep the party going! The second reason speaks more to why that party sounds fine for the most elite in society: they’re the ones preparing bunkers for protecting their own while choking the planet with their greed. To avoid a whole world of Bezos Jr.'s (or worse…), we might have to wake these Effective Altruists to the depth of differences between that world and our own.
If climate change doesn’t present an existential risk, it at least poses a real and ongoing danger of catastrophic human suffering. Some Effective Altruists themselves argue that immense suffering risks could be worse than existential risks.
Fasttrack to Influencing Change
A socially positive career, industry, or company awaits those stuck in uninspired positions at ambiguous or damaging firms. Instead of waiting for the shot to change from within, they can join an organization with better values that may outcompete it, and offer a more fulfilling work experience along the way.
Rather than spending mental energy dedicated to amassing wealth while shrinking the pie of human welfare, they think about a way to apply their career’s time and effort in a role that amplifies the chance to make a direct, positive difference. If they still want to make donations to their favorite charities, no one’s going to stop them.
Finding a job isn’t easy, but it’s perhaps never been easier to find a job in a socially positive business working on climate change. If you want to fight against irreversible harms humanity wreaks on itself, Ed’s Sustainable jobs, Goodgigs, Climatebase, or My Climate Journey offer great places to start a search.
Will the world be better off with your career in it?
The Closer
@indigofoliage captures the Transamerica Pyramid being struck by a lightning bolt from their office window.