Like the Rockefellers, We are All Heirs.

Like the Rockefellers, we are all heirs to the planet and its wealth of resources. We are also all heirs to the legacy created by our reliance on carbon-based fuels.  While sacred texts may teach us that “the meek will inherit the Earth”, without bold action to counter climate change our “inheritance” may not be fit for life as we know it.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is taking an appropriately bold public step toward reconciling the source of their philanthropic resources and acknowledging the complexity of the process.  In my reading of history, oil was not the only resource that led to the breathtaking accumulation of Rockefeller wealth: A visionary leadership style and the invention of an entirely new business model for extracting and distributing that oil was an important part of the story.

Although a fraction of the 300 thousand-plus marchers in last week's Peoples’ Climate March, faith leaders marched and sang and prayed with one voice throughout the day.  That evening, a multifaith service was held at the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine.  The service captured the spirit of gathering, “Religions for the Earth” which was convened by Union Theological Seminary and many faith leaders: Leaders who have been deeply committed to raising their voices to reverse climate change, in some cases for decades.

Every institution must do the complex soul searching that Rockefeller Brothers Funds’ president, Stephen Heintz and the Funds’ trustee, Steven Rockefeller, have done.  We must commit to a fuller understanding of, and responsibility for, the source of our own wealth and resources and then make choices as investors, employers and consumers. With examination, like the RBF, we may find areas that no longer represent our mission and purpose.  We can then begin in earnest the work of reconciliation.  This work will not be simple but can be uplifting, especially when guided by our faith.   Whether called toward the complex work of engagement in the corporate sector, or more public actions of divestment and advocacy, the call to act has never been more urgent. We must fully commit to ensuring that our work is focused with more intensity on healing the world.

For some, like the faith and values-driven investors that participate as members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, that means examining the call to influence corporations through dialogue and engagement. Like John D. Rockefeller, many years ago ICCR found a new way of organizing as shareholders. And they found a way to make their voices heard.  Since then, the “wealth” created has been measured by an enduring record of demonstrated influence on corporate policies.  

These days, new questions are being asked. As a coalition committed to reversing climate change, is it possible to reconcile the wide range of approaches organizations are called to deploy?  We know that the impact of climate change has hurt the human community and exacerbated the breadth of justice issues that drive everyone's day-to-day decisions.  Food and water scarcity is increasing while fueling geo-political unrest across the globe.  Weather related events are fiercer and more unpredictable, taking an enormous economic and emotional toll on communities, particularly those already climate and resource-stressed. 

Last week, as the Cathedral sanctuary shimmered with the intensity of a shared  and renewed commitment from the faith community to use their moral authority to call for the responsible stewardship of God’s creation, we were all aware that we were forging a new pact where meekness would no longer have a place. Like the Rockefellers, we were acutely aware that our inheritance was in grave peril and the day of reckoning had arrived.

Across the Pond and Ideological Divide: the Climate Bridge

You know climate change is beginning to capture everyone’s attention when two leaders with opposing political philosophies make compelling points on the issue in different speeches. In London this past April, committed conservative Lord Deben, spoke at the Church Investors Group conference held at CCLA headquarters in the shadow of St. Paul’s cathedral. He made the point that since the British were instrumental in bringing the industrial revolution to the world, they had serious responsibility for cleaning up the mess. He asked important questions: Why aren’t we developing technologies that could be an answer to the carbon problem? Why aren’t we working harder to develop massive batteries to store electricity from renewables?

Three months earlier in an equally auspicious setting, American labor union leader Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL- CIO, suggested an answer to a few of those questions in a recent speech of his own at the United Nations. Trumka said what is keeping powerful democracies like the United States from acting more aggressively on climate change is lack of real political will. People are afraid. He didn’t mean apprehension regarding next year's super storm or the carbon problem. The fear is basic: change can and does bring massive unemployment. No matter what, people don’t want to lose their jobs. And it’s impractical besides. If climate change policies make working people lose their livelihoods, it will undermine the political will to deal with the problem constructively.

Having worked with companies and investors for 30 years, I know both men are onto something. The climate conversation needs to be different to spark any progress on climate change while getting more from companies and the general public. More dire warnings won’t do it. Nor will inaccessible scientific pronouncements.

We need three things to move the needle on this issue upon which the future of the planet depends.

One, we need to deal with the overriding issue of fear.

Two, we need to devise a new way to measure what companies are and are not doing on climate change – and if they aren’t responding to the issue, demand change.

Finally, we need to research to pay for a worldwide transition away from carbon fuel

First and most important, deal with the fear.

-- Scientists agree we created the carbon problem and we can fix it. Most companies agree that something must be done. Most investors agree that there are plenty of costly risks to future profits if we don't find solutions. We all know there will be plenty of profitable opportunities if we find ways to solve the problem.

We can’t keep demanding nations solve the problem of climate change without the same energy and commitment to solving the problem of the economic upheaval that such a transition will create. These are two problems that need solutions- not one. And they are interrelated; we can’t hope to achieve one solution without the other.

— We need to demand more of companies. I work with investors who have been successfully pushing companies toward more transparency for decades. Responsible investors are convinced that “we” are doing our part by asking companies to recognize and measure and reduce their carbon footprint. That's a good thing but unfortunately, it's not enough.

The questions must be different moving forward. A simple metric with easy to understand questions applied to every company is a critical next step. Questions such as: What resources are you spending on research for real solutions to the problem of climate change? And, what resources are you spending creating jobs that represent real solutions to the problem? No doubt many will quibble over the definitions of the three "r's", resources, research and real; and any reasonable definition is welcome. Ratios are always desirable for comparisons so, revenues or market capitalization could be used as the denominator. The sooner we ask these questions of all companies, the sooner we’ll start to get answers.

While we work to figure out how to avoid burning the unburnablecarbon, we need real money to pay for real research to figure out how to put some of the 400+ ppm already in our atmosphere back and to develop alternatives.

It is no secret that the way we live in developed nations depends on generation of power that is capital intensive and our fuel largely carbon-based. That doesn't help make the transition to new energy sources easy. Developing nations are just beginning to access the energy intensive lifestyle we've enjoyed. Solving this problem regionally is not an option because when it comes to the carbon problem, our region is our planet. Both the livelihoods and the lifestyle to which so many aspire were made possible by the carbon-based fuel that drove the industrial revolution.

Now it’s time to find alternatives that will be good for both the planet and the economy. We need money for research into both. Doing one without the other is not an option.

Difficult? Sure. But look at it this way. If Lord Deben and Richard Trumka can agree on climate change, there is reason to hope.