[unable to retrieve full-text content]

For the past year and a half, the Build Back Better agenda has been on a roller-coaster ride — and I am not talking about those easygoing kids' rides either. I’m talking about the rides that spin you upside down and twirl you around, only to flatten out, giving the impression it’s over, and then take you for another thrilling set of twists and turns. Here is a perfect example of what I mean. Last week, I reached out to Joe Britton, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA), a federal coalition focused on advocating for 100 percent electric vehicle (EV) sales by 2030 with corporate members including Tesla, Rivian, ABB and EVgo. I wanted to speak with Britton, given the news at the time out of Capitol Hill that the Build Back Better bill was completely dead in the water again and all that remained was a health care spending deal. ZETA has been at the frontlines of all things federal EV policy since launching in late 2020, so there’s no one better to speak to than Britton and his team. Then just like a roller coaster, prior to my interview, news broke that Build Back Better was not fully dead, and Sen. Joe Manchin, who has held up much of the progress on passing a meaningful bill, supports moving forward on some version of a bill after negotiations with Sen. Chuck Schumer. Oh, and now the bill was no longer called the Build Back Better Act, but instead is The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. If you take Manchin at his word, then apparently he was never really out of the deal, despite media reports to the contrary. "Remember when I told you I didn’t walk away? I never walked away. I’ve never walked away from anything," Manchin said in an interview with Punchbowl News after announcing a deal has been struck on the new bill.  In this piece, I don’t plan to recap the well-documented twists and turns of Build Back Better. Instead, I want to look ahead and help make sense of what transpired these past few days because this may be the planet's best shot at meaningful climate policy passing in the U.S. Even as I write this, I would be lying if I said I am not holding my breath on whether Congress will be able to pass it.  Specifically for climate, the bill sets aside $369 billion for energy security and climate change compared with the previously allocated $550 billion. While we are nowhere close to what President Joe Biden initially proposed in 2021, passing this legislation will put the U.S. on a path to roughly 40 percent emissions reduction by 2030, short of the original U.S. goal of 50 percent by 2030 that is needed to meet net zero by 2050 — but a whole heck of a lot better than nothing at all.  As it stands, the bill will bring in $739 billion and will invest $433 billion in energy security and climate change along with an Affordable Care Act extension.  The previous version of the bill passed by the House last year included a total $1.75 trillion.  Specifically for climate, the bill sets aside $369 billion for energy security and climate change compared with the previously allocated $550 billion.  The bill includes several incentives for EVs, including maintaining the $7,500 purchase incentive but removing the tax credit cap after automakers hit 200,000 EVs sold. Removing the cap would make GM and Tesla vehicles once again eligible. Additionally, the incentive moves to the point of sale instead of applying as a federal tax credit.  A few firsts: The legislation also includes $4,000 for used EVs and up to $40,000 for commercial trucks that weigh more than 14,000 pounds.  For those interested, here is the one-pager on all the various spending breakdowns and the full text for all my fellow policy nerds. Also, make sure to check out GreenBiz’s recent piece on the The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and its impact on climate tech by our own Leah Garden.  Given my incredible conversation with Britton, and how helpful it was to dive deeper into the legislation, we have decided to publish the full interview, edited for length and clarity: Vartan Badalian: When I first reached out a couple of weeks ago to schedule this interview, we were in a much different place compared to now. A lot has transpired over these last couple of days. It is like a 180-degree turn on Capitol Hill. We first thought all hope for meaningful federal climate policy was lost after Sen. Joe Manchin signaled he would not support any bill that focused on climate. It now appears climate is back in, and Build Back Better is called The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Please walk us through what transpired over these two weeks to get us here.  Joe Britton: Well, there is the inside baseball kind of answer that [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer felt like he was clear that the deadline was August, and Manchin felt like the deadline was Sept. 30. So they had a little bit of a conflict on, was there time to push this past August or not. So there was a little bit of just timing. Manchin is the energy chairman, so he recognizes that climate change is worth addressing. … So I don't think he intended necessarily to kill the climate provisions in the way that those conversations had appeared. I think it was basically a recognition that, all right, we're disagreeing over dates, and that is not a justification for giving up on climate change and emissions reduction. So they just continued the conversations and figured out a way to agree on things that were under consideration.  Badalian: From an EV and climate perspective, what is and is not in this bill compared to the previous version? What should consumers and company fleets be aware of? I know there is a slight change to the EV tax credit compared to before, correct?  Britton: There is a lot [different]; they are different bills. If you stack this bill up against previous aspirations for Build Back Better, you are sort of disappointed in certain areas, certainly. But on the EV side, the new EV credit is probably the biggest change. So in the House bill, they had the $7,500 base credit for EVs if you purchased a new vehicle, but they also had an extra $500 for domestic content, and then another $4,500 if it was manufactured with union labor. We kind of identified that the union adder was going to be a problem for many political reasons, so it came out. So it is now the $7,500 base credit. The thing that is most interesting about the new credit is that there is embedded in there, maybe not direct, but certainly indirect industrial policy. So for half of the credit, you [the automotive company] need to make pretty serious strides on reshoring critical minerals. So $3,750 of the $7,500 is dependent on the next 2½ years, for the automotive company to reshore critical mineral supply chains and pull them out of China. That can be in North America and also allies that we [the U.S.] have free trade agreements with. Like Australia, Chile, and others. But that is going to be difficult to do. You cannot just take the vehicles in the supply chains that we have today and assume eligibility, I think there will be a lot of work to reshore minerals. For the other half, $3,750, you [the automotive company] have to have your battery components not sourced from China. And so again, that is going to be a challenge, it will force manufacturers to reach and do things a little differently. Thankfully, we have done a lot on batteries.  We have 700-gigawatt hours of battery manufacturing announced in the U.S. now, so certainly there are huge incentives put in place to reshore more of that for the future. But the bill also does not just say, "Here are some new targets," and leaves it up to manufacturers to just figure it out. It also puts a lot of resources behind helping manufacturers do that. So there is $10 billion in battery and advanced manufacturing to help manufacturers reshore, there is $20 billion in loan authority, there is $2 billion for automotive facility retooling — so it is helping to support manufacturers to achieve these metrics. So the way I have been describing it is that they are tough metrics: They are going to require some real effort on the supply chain side, and it will take some time to do. But if we get it right, not only will we be making eligible vehicles and accelerating transportation electrification, but we will be creating jobs for minerals, batteries, components, parts and everything else. So, it is an incentive that has industrial policy baked in it.  Badalian: So it changes the current incentive for the $7,500 where it now puts more onus on the automotive company to make themselves eligible, whereas before the only major onus was whether the company had sold 200,000 EVs or not to be eligible.  Britton: So while it requires some difficult supply chain management and manufacturing changes to reshore and pull out of China, many of these manufacturers had already hit the cap [200,000 consumer sale cap]. Without this bill, they had zero chance of offering a consumer incentive period. So that cap is now gone under this bill, and instead of the cap, it makes contingent your eligibility based on the metrics discussed. So, against a baseline where you [the automotive company] had no credit, having a credit that, albeit is conditional and may take some work, I think folks are going to see and endeavor to make the $7,500 credit available to their consumers. And so it will create some manufacturing and critical mineral supply chain changes, but for good reason, and hopefully, those changes will be good for the American worker too. Badalian: And there is also a component for fleets right? So there is a truck incentive as well that is pretty sizable — up to $40,000.  Britton: Yeah, it is a 30 percent investment tax credit, that one is big and that one is new. … The other is the used EV credit, which I think is a really big game-changer. 70 percent of Americans are not in the market for a new car. And so this will now make a used EV credit available at $4,000 to folks that are looking to purchase a used car. Previously we had left out 70 percent of the market, and now those people are eligible for a used EV credit, so that is a big deal.  The other one that is a really big deal is a $35 per-kilowatt-hour battery production tax credit. So, if you take, for example, a 100-kilowatt-hour battery, Tesla Model X and some others meet that, there is a $3,500 value that goes to the manufacturer to produce that battery in the U.S. So if you think about that $3,500 plus the $7,500 vehicle consumer incentive if you are doing this work in the U.S., and you can secure your supply chains, pull them out of China, you might have $7,500 for the consumer and $3,500 for the manufacturer. And all of a sudden there is [$10,000] or $11,000 in value to reach and surpass price parity with gas-powered vehicles. So that is a big, big change.  Badalian: This is not the only thing that will positively impact the automotive industry, correct? The Senate recently passed the CHIPs+ Act, which will increase the production of critical semiconductor chips in short supply (which is causing supply chain delays). Walk us through the importance of this bill for the EV industry.  Britton: So this is interesting… one of the biggest chokepoints we face in supply chain constraints has been the chip shortage, so being able to invest $50-plus billion in chip manufacturing in the U.S. will again restore some of those manufacturing jobs and capabilities, … Also, if we didn't have a domestic supply chain for chips, we may have fallen prey to some of the manufacturing bases in Asia that were just not gonna make them available. So it was a real vulnerability for us [the U.S.]. So that investment will boost volume and supply domestically, but ideally, do it at a price competitive point. So that [CHIPS+ Act] combined with this bill [The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022] is going to be an enormous accelerant for transportation electrification.  The other thing that we didn't mention going back to the reconciliation bill [The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022], that we have been working on for months and months is the U.S. Postal Service electrification. Previously, Postmaster [Louis] DeJoy came out and said 10 percent of the fleet might be electric under his plan. We spent a lot of time and I testified before Congress, challenging the assumptions that they use. [After all the advocacy, the U.S. Postal Service] recently committed 40 percent of the fleet to be electric. So we got them to quadruple their commitment.  [Want more great analysis of electric and sustainable transport? Sign up for Transport Weekly, our free email newsletter.] But there is also $3 billion in this bill to further electrify the U.S. Postal Service fleet. So that's a big deal. One of the estimates was that it was going to cost $6 billion to electrify the Postal Service fleet. So if you think about the 40 percent they've already committed to plus another $3 billion, you can envision getting the 90 to 100 percent fleet electrification for the Postal Service. The other thing is that they are also sending $15 million to the postal inspector general to conduct oversight on the postmaster, to ensure that they are doing this in the right way. Badalian: What do you see as the timeline for moving The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 forward?  Britton: Well, Plan A is that they start voting  [Wednesday or Thursday]. And it then goes to the president's desk next weekend. So that is Plan A. But, Congress and politics are not without twists and turns. So it is not a slam dunk. And there will be a lot of work to do between now and then. But that is the goal.  Badalian: How soon can we expect the revived EV incentive to be ready and available to consumers and companies?  Britton: Well, there is an implementation period, so I think Treasury and IRS probably have to put out some guidance. So there will be some different junctures. But what I would recommend is, come next weekend, we will have some finality on the policy and we have gone through the amendment process. And then ZETA will be putting a lot of work into public awareness, working fleet operators, and those that might want to buy a commercial heavy-duty EV and certainly a consumer-facing vehicle. So we will have the material and the content to know where the policy lands, and then folks should start to see how and where they might be eligible. Badalian: Beyond The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, what more does the U.S. need federally to achieve 100 percent EV sales by 2030, or are we now on track?  Britton: So I think it is a three-pronged approach. We get in place the right federal policies, which this bill is directionally a huge accelerant. … So that is the federal policy. No. 2 is the manufacturers produce product and segment offerings that more and more Americans can see working for their families, which they are doing. The third is a huge public affairs campaign. Not every American has the time or bandwidth to unpack the credits and eligibility. … There needs to be a huge public affairs campaign aimed at bringing to communities all across America the benefits of electrification. Go into those families and say that electrification is good for you, it is good for your family, you will save money at the pump, and you will be catalyzing domestic manufacturing and jobs in your community. Adblock test (Why?)

Within days, Congress is expected to vote on a historic investment ($369 billion, to be precise) in climate and clean energy. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) represents a huge step forward, moving both the U.S. and the world toward our climate goals. In total, its passage could mean a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 — unprecedented progress that can make or break our progress toward climate goals.Companies have a big opportunity to be on the right side of climate history by speaking up loud and clear for this bill. The corporate voice is essential to securing this win for climate — and employees will take note of whether their company is vocal or silent. We got to this juncture in part because of clear vocal support from some in the corporate sector. Now is the time for all climate-positive companies to speak up and help get this bill over the finish line.  What if we fail? The consequences of inaction are steeper than ever, as the goal of holding warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius drifts slowly out of reach. And while the private sector is tackling major challenges and making remarkable progress on many fronts, it is also clear that bold public policy is a necessary accelerant to drive the rapid economy-wide decarbonization we need. The Inflation Reduction Act is not perfect — but it will dramatically accelerate progress across the U.S. economy, speeding up the emissions-reduction efforts of the private sector and scaling them across the economy. The private sector should find it cheaper, easier and faster to meet its own emissions targets with the IRA policies in place. We have the know-how and the solutions to address this crisis. We need federal policy to supercharge change, a fresh force that can move the ball further down the field across every sector of the economy — and rapidly. (The climate game is all about speed and scale.) And as this bill encounters the inevitable buzzsaw of opposition, in this time of deeply divided and polarized government, the business voice can cut through the noise and be heard clearly on both sides of the aisle. If we are headed into tougher economic times, policymakers will be even more inclined to listen to job creators. Business needs to up its game on the climate policy front in these closing moments. During the year-long struggle to enact climate provisions as part of the Build Back Better Act, even "pro-climate" companies offered only cautious support, while allowing their trade associations, including the fossil fuel industry-dominated U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to run roughshod over the legislation. Overall, it wasn’t an inspiring display of corporate leadership, but in this battle we saw promising hints of what true corporate engagement could look like in the future. Companies have a big opportunity to be on the right side of climate history by speaking up loud and clear for this bill. Take Salesforce as an example. As the climate battle in D.C. reached its dramatic final months, the company stepped up its leadership and visibility in several ways. CEO Marc Benioff participated in what was essentially a White House pep rally for federal climate legislation back in January. In February, Salesforce signed a New York Times ad organized by Project Drawdown calling on Congress "to act now." In June, Salesforce Vice President Suzanne DiBianca took to CNN in a strong op-ed backing federal investments in clean energy. And just two days after the introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Salesforce became the first big Tech firm to support it in an article in Protocol. Beyond putting their full support behind this particular legislation right now, we need companies to do three things to continue to advance bold climate policy and help us cut emissions in half by 2030: Lobby for clean energy, pro-climate legislation wherever they operate. States and localities are weighing big pro-climate policies such as electrification and mass transit investments. There will also continue to be a massive federal regulatory battle over climate. Companies should be out front on both of these. Leave anti-climate trade associations. Time’s up for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, both of which ferociously attacked the Build Back Better Act. (And both of which announced their opposition to the Inflation Reduction Act less than 24 hours after it was rolled out.) Now is the time for companies that say they care about the climate crisis to walk the walk by finding the exit door from these dysfunctional trade association relationships. There were reports earlier this year that the Business Roundtable is under pressure from tech firms to shift to a more pro-climate stance. If they don’t, it’s time to leave that group too. Keep up a drumbeat of public statements about climate policy. It took years of activists calling for gay marriage to be legalized for that to become law, and in the end it happened in part because companies made themselves heard. It will take years to address climate change at scale, and companies need to use their bully pulpit — CEO blogs and op-eds, press announcements, social media, speeches and television interviews — to keep up the pressure for public policy to address this existential crisis facing their customers and employees. In the meantime, let’s all join together to make climate history. To quote always-wise Bill McKibben, "zeitgeist matters." Adblock test (Why?)

[unable to retrieve full-text content]GreenBiz's buildings analyst explains why buildings are the lynchpin of our climate future.

[unable to retrieve full-text content]GreenBiz's transport analyst lights the road to electrifying transportation.

After almost two years of uncertainty and the ever looming threat of losing the congressional majority without passing any major climate legislation, Democratic Senators are finally ready to support a bill that offers incentives for crucial climate technologies. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced July 27 their intention to introduce the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA22) to the Senate floor. The main objective of the bill is to cut inflation, meaning impacts will be felt at every startup and legacy company with a large overhead and limited amount of capital. And hopefully, by every American. The intricacies of the bill itself can be read at a plethora of other outlets already eloquently covering the general proposal. Instead, this article begins the process of asking questions about its potential impact on behalf of every stakeholder within the climate tech sector — the scientists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and all related employees within clean energy. Before asking initiative-specific questions, some initial queries: Will the bill’s proposed tax credits benefit emerging technology companies or bolster already established corporations with a track record of steady production and economic stability? If both, how will that money be allocated? Will the ability to take advantage of the financial incentives include diversity and equity requirements? As explained in the most recent Climate Tech Weekly newsletter, the number of funding deals for women-led businesses is still abysmally low, and the current data doesn’t break down the number of businesses led by entrepreneurs who are Black, Indigenous or people of color.  Will the rollout include accessibility standards and education initiatives, ensuring all Americans can understand and benefit from the bill and thus the technology being created? On Manchin's official website, he published a lengthy statement declaring, "...[to ensure] our country invests in the energy security and climate change solutions we need to remain a global superpower through innovation rather than elimination … As the superpower of the world, it is vital we not undermine our superpower status by removing dependable and affordable fossil fuel energy before new technologies are ready to reliably carry the load."  Manchin’s phrasing left little to interpretation. The West Virginia senator requires the preservation of coal plants and use of oil for an undetermined time, alongside solar, wind, hydro, hydrogen and nuclear power generation nationwide. There is no specific mention of natural gas, but it's safe to assume it’s inclusion within the fossil fuel category. These fossil fuels (and potentially hydrogen) require pipelines for transportation, adding a new category of questions to be considered. Follow-up questions: How will pipeline infrastructure be addressed? Is there a technologically innovative way to create pipeline infrastructure ensuring minimal environmental and cultural impact (like the protests that erupted in the wake of the Dakota Access Pipeline plan), and can old infrastructure be effectively repurposed? Who will oversee the permitting and pipeline development process? Federal agencies? Government contracting to private corporations? Or will it be on a state-be-state basis? It was reported that Alaskan land and the Gulf of Mexico will be available for new oil and gas drilling leases. Will the influx of previously unavailable fossil fuels impact the market for renewable energy, slowing down development and integration of available renewable technologies in deference to the familiar oil and gas? If yes, is there a contingency plan in place to combat that particular effect on the market?  Next, the bill claims that it will cut America’s GHG emissions 40 percent by 2030. The Washington Post reports that one path towards that goal includes $30 billion in production tax credits to increase U.S. manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and critical minerals processing, alongside $10 billion in investment tax credits to ensure that climate technology is built in the United States. Follow-up questions: What does the word “manufacturing” mean in this context? Literal construction of solar panels and wind turbines? Or does it also include infrastructure development vital to the distribution of this clean energy (including retrofitting older systems and grids, upgrading, if not overhauling, current energy infrastructure, and ensuring clean energy is available across the U.S. regardless of geographical location)? And will some of these funds be dedicated to technological innovation of this infrastructure? As GreenBiz previously reported, utilizing the power of green hydrogen, for example, requires the ability to safely and efficiently transport the hydrogen. Do the incentives apply to companies focusing on those transportation needs or solely to businesses creating hydrogen-fixing engines and other “green” renewable energy alternatives?  Will the federal government require companies taking advantage of tax incentives to submit annual or biannual reports reaffirming their eligibility for the incentives, ensuring taxpayer money is efficiently and effectively used for renewable energy and climate technology production? If yes, what will that look like? How will an auditing body be chosen? What will be required of companies choosing to engage in this process? Will it require additional resources to legally and regularly comply?  One of the more surprising aspects of IRA22 is the inclusion of a 15 percent corporate minimum tax for companies generating more than $1 billion in annual revenue. The likes of Amazon, Google, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and Alphabet will take a financial hit. Each of these major tech companies also invest heavily in climate tech creation, funding numerous innovative climate tech startups and funds to produce much of the renewable energy and mitigation technology supported by IRA22.  Jamie Beck Alexander, director of Drawdown Labs, further elaborated on the complicated dilemma the corporate tax introduces. Referring to conversations held between Alexander and the big tech companies, Alexander said, “The same big tech companies [stated] if you remove any language around corporate taxes we can maybe support [the bill] but we cannot, we will not support anything that has a corporate tax like that on it.” Alexander further stated that employees working with and for these multibillion-dollar companies should remain vigilant, adding pressure from within to ensure each company’s publicly stated environmental and social values remain an equal priority with their economic bottom line. Follow-up questions: Will the proposed 15 percent corporate tax impact the willingness of multibillion-dollar companies to invest and continually support climate tech funds and startups?  Will Amazon, Google, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet and other companies covertly lobby to kill the bill secretly? Or, will they benefit from it because of all of the work and money already invested in the climate tech startup sector?  Or, most realistically, will it be a little bit of all of the above? Lobbying against the tax while also taking advantage of the benefits for their climate tech work?  These questions are just the tip of the iceberg. As the bill is 725 pages long, it will take time for all of the details to come to light. If/when IRA22 passes the Senate, it still needs to go through the House of Representatives for President Biden to ratify. Policies will change, numbers will be slashed or engorged, and industry lobbyists will apply external pressure. Until the bill becomes a law, the climate tech sector can only follow developments and prepare accordingly. And GreenBiz will continue to ask questions. Adblock test (Why?)

This week's run time is 38:32.WEEK IN REVIEW (4:45) FEATURES Leadership Lessons: Bess Winston, The Winston Agency (17:40) This spring, the WSLA Alumnae Group recognized 11 women at the forefront of the sustainability profession. These leaders have made a difference by advancing new technologies or strategies, by overcoming personal and professional obstacles and by committing to mentoring other women. Meet one of the 2022 honorees: Bess Winston, founder and owner of The Winston Agency, a strategic advocacy and communications firm in Washington, D.C. Highlights from VERGE Electrify (23:55) Patti Poppe, CEO, PG&E — On the role of EVs in balancing the grid and how PG&E makes the business case for electrification  Martin Heinrich, Senator, New Mexico — Electrification as a strategy for cutting off revenue for autocratic regimes Jigar Shah, Director, Loans Program Office, Department of Energy — Demystifying the concept of a green premium Saul Griffith, Founder, Rewiring America; Founder and Principal, Otherlab — How electrifications makes communities inflation-proof (IN) *Music in this episode: Lee Rosevere: "And So Then," "Quirky Small Town Characters," "Quizitive,”" "I’m Going for a Coffee," "Let That Sink In." STAY CONNECTED To make sure you don't miss the newest episode of GreenBiz 350, subscribe on iTunes or Spotify. Have a question or suggestion for a future segment? E-mail us at [email protected]. Adblock test (Why?)

This article originally appeared in our Circularity Weekly newsletter. Subscribe here.Imagine if a significant portion of the textiles that cannot be reused in their current form could be recycled. That’s part of the vision for the base-case and upside-case scenarios laid out in a recent report on textile recycling in Europe from the consulting firm McKinsey. Here's the base-case scenario: 50 percent of post-consumer household textile waste in the 27 European Union countries and Switzerland is collected, up from today's 30 to 35 percent. In the upside case, 80 percent is collected. A lot has to happen to get to either of those scenarios. Fashion companies need to set ambitious targets for recycling textiles and designing for circularity. Textile manufacturers need to invest in equipment capable of working with recycled fiber. Investors need to support new ways of making textiles. The public sector needs to expand infrastructure to support textile collection and recycling. And there’s more that each of these stakeholders can do. It’s clear that the fashion industry, which is highly resource-intensive and waste-generating, is not at the point where eliminating all textile waste is a viable option. That’s why the innovations with textile recycling feel necessary. Here are four takeaways from the 75-page report: 1. There are three factors driving the push to scale textile recycling. Those factors are regulation, consumer demand and environmental awareness among investors (on the brand and solution sides of the textile waste equation) and shareholders (on the brand side). The report points to recent European policy initiatives that urge the fashion industry to move toward enhanced waste collection and more circular models. “For example, Article 11(1) in the Waste Framework Directive states that member states are required to set up separate collections of textiles by 2025,” the authors noted. 2. Textile recycling is just one of the solutions the fashion industry should use to address its waste issues. “It's without any question that reducing overproduction and reducing consumption are environmentally superior to recycling,” said Karl-Hendrik Magnus, senior partner at McKinsey’s Frankfurt, Germany, office and leader of sustainability in its apparel, fashion and luxury group. “If I am able to prevent waste in the first place, that will always be superior to recycling the waste.” (Magnus is one of the authors of McKinsey’s recent report.) 3. It’s going to take some serious cash. Earlier this month, Circ announced a $30 million funding round. “I think when you look at what it's going to take for the industry [to reach textile recycling at scale], it's going to be billions and billions of dollars to do it, but we need to do it," said Circ CEO Peter Majeranowski. To reach the scale laid out in the base-case and upside-case scenarios, McKinsey estimates that “capital expenditure investments in the range of 6 billion to 7 billion euros would be needed by 2030.” And that’s just for the industry in Europe. The numbers needed for a global shift for textile waste is likely much more. If I am able to prevent waste in the first place, that will always be superior to recycling the waste. While it’s not the same industry, I’m reminded of a point Keefe Harrison, CEO of The Recycling Partnership, which is focused on other recyclable materials like packaging, made during Circularity 22. She said the price tag for fixing recycling in the U.S. is $17 billion — those dollars would be spent on building the necessary infrastructure and addressing accessibility. “Don’t freak out because it’s doable,” Harrison said. “We can stop having this conversation in five years if we just did that.” 4. For textile recycling to work, collaboration is imperative. The textile collection and sorting ecosystem is fragmented, according to the report. McKinsey recommends that businesses across the textile value chain, investors and public sector actors come together “in an unprecedented way to engage in a highly operational joint effort to overcome the barriers to scale.” That would look like stakeholders from these separate parts of the value chain such as collectors, sorters and recyclers connecting to ensure more textiles are available for recycling. The report pointed to two emerging textile-waste platforms — Reverse Resources and Refashion Recycle platform — that could help with fragmentation by connecting textile-waste sellers to buyers. During an interview, Magnus said that fashion companies have a big responsibility to invest in recycling, but also invest in other measures to improve their garments and the industry as a whole. That includes investing in extending the lifetime of the product by ensuring quality and providing care instructions for garments, helping consumers make conscious choices about buying new items, and balancing the trade-offs with newness and sustainability. “That takes transparency,” Magnus said. “And that takes support and openness of communication from the brands.” Adblock test (Why?)

Date/Time: July 28, 2022 (1-2PM ET / 10-11AM PT)As companies pledge to improve on ESG goals, it’s time for leaders to show progress toward those goals. ESG leaders can find powerful allies in their finance teams for building investor-trusted, audit-ready reports that show stakeholders not just what your environmental, social, and governance goals are, but how you’ll achieve them. In this webinar, Chris Ruggeri, a principal at Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics LLP, and Mandi McReynolds, head of ESG for the business reporting platform Workiva, will share practical steps for ESG and finance teams to drive value, how technology can enable stronger decision-making, and, results of new surveys of ESG and finance leaders. After this event, you should be able to: Recall strategies for prioritizing ESG goals, actions, and resource allocation Describe how technology can be an engine to help leaders make strategic ESG decisions Explain how to shift the focus from reporting on past performance to analyzing those reports to inform longer-term, forward-looking strategies Moderator: Joel Makower, Co-Founder & Chairman, GreenBiz Group Speakers: Chris Ruggeri, Principle, Deloitte Transactions & Business Analytics LLP Mandi McReynolds, Global Head of ESG, Workiva If you can't tune in live, please register and we will email you a link to access the webcast recording and resources, available to you on-demand after the live webcast Adblock test (Why?)

So the first half of 2022 has certainly been … something. From an unprovoked Russian assault on Ukraine, to a supply chain crisis, to rising inflation, to astronomical gas prices, to an accelerated rate of natural disasters, to the Supreme Court … you know what, I need to stop before my fifth stress ball of the year explodes. 2022 basically saw 2020 and responded with a defiant, “Hold my drink.” And because all these crises are happening at the same time, the venture capital landscape has taken a hit. But what about startup investing? Specifically, climate tech startup investing? How does that fare in our end of times?  Looking back to look forwardIn the first half of 2022, climate tech startups raised around $19 billion across 500 venture deals, according to both Powerhouse Ventures, a leading early-stage venture capital (VC) firm, and Climate Tech VC, an online database detailing the intricacies of the present climate investment market. For perspective, a total of $40 billion was invested in climate tech startups in 2021, putting $19 billion at the halfway point of 2022 on track to match the previous year’s incredible haul.  However, the overall market slump did manage to rear its ugly head in climate tech circles. Growth (late-stage) funding absorbed the majority of the hit, decreasing 39 percent from ~$10 billion in H1 2021 to ~$3.9 billion in H1 2022. But the number of seed and Series A VC funding deals and capital investment in H1 2022 skyrocketed to 310 deals, nearly doubling in number from H1 2021.  Pour one out for the ladiesPitchbook reported that U.S. startups with one or more female founders raised $20.8 billion in the first half of 2022. That number is not specific to climate tech, but it still is an important fact to internalize given the resilience of the climate tech sector this year. While the overall number of funded female-run businesses is still disproportionately, abysmally, depressingly (insert any appropriate adverb that conveys vast disappointment) low, the total VC deal count at the halfway point of 2022 is already higher than the entirety of 2021. I’d start crooning Bob Dylan’s famous song about changing times, but there’s still plenty of 2022 ahead to be completely let down as a woman in the United States.  How’s the rest of 2022 look?It’s safe to assume growth funding will continue to bear the brunt of a slower market. When I spoke with Climate Tech VC Co-founder Sophie Purdom, she declared that the time for $500 million late-stage megadeals is behind us. But, Purdom continued, based upon the numbers from the first half of the year, seed and Series A investing will remain constant in their upward trajectory. Shaandiin Cedar, an associate at VC firm Powerhouse Ventures, reaffirmed this prediction, stating, “Investment [in early-stage ventures] remains strong because the business case for climate innovation remains strong.”    Viability of emerging sectors?Emerging climate tech sectors such as carbon, climate management and industry (to name just a few) raced out of the starting gates of 2022. Some companies exemplifying interest in these verticals include Heirloom’s $53 million Series A funding (carbon), Carbon Equity’s $1.8 million seed funding (climate management), and Helios’ $6 million raised in seed funding (industry). Those deal-doubling numbers in seed and Series A funding I mentioned? Yeah, most of that activity came from these newer sectors.  Specifically, the carbon vertical has emerged as the heavy hitter of the year, closing 25 deals and counting in the first half of this year, compared to 13 in the first half of 2021.  In CHC (cold hard cash, not an official abbreviation, but one I quite enjoy), those deals were worth a total of $397.6 million in the first half of 2022.  This trend will likely continue. PitchBook ​​rated climate tech in third place — behind fintech, and artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), which can arguably be folded into the climate tech sector depending on their application — for the emerging technology most likely to disrupt capital flow from investors in the next five to 10 years.  And, as stated above, verticals can overlap. Early-stage investing group Female Founders Fund (FFF) predicts sustainability enterprise software with the ability to quantify, understand and reduce carbon emissions will emerge as a popular investment opportunity. In fact, FFF specifically states, “advanced technologies such as AI/ML have the potential to help corporations, as a whole, generate between $1-$3 trillion in value through cost reductions and increased revenues by 2030,” thus engendering the good spirit and deep pockets of VCs. What is dry power and why does it matter?Venture capital firms store money like squirrels collect nuts for winter and call it dry powder. According to Octavi Semonin, technical director at Powerhouse Ventures, “In climate tech, it’s pretty much *all* dry powder. The biggest climate funds have all been raised in the past year … [Powerhouse’s] own deal flow hasn’t meaningfully changed to date, with maybe a slight moderation in valuations.”  With these funds raised already, startups can rest assured that investing capital remains in abundance. According to Powerhouse, a total of around $20 billion remains in investable climate tech dry powder.  Which external factors can signal a positive or negative impact on the climate tech investing sector?Im’a let the professionals wrap us up: Semonin: “If oil and gas prices start coming down, that might be because clean energy and mobility solutions are having a real impact on long-term expectations of demand for fossil fuels.” Natalie Geise, innovation analyst, Powerhouse Ventures: “Many of the large federal, regulatory, policy and fiscal initiatives, including the SEC’s corporate emissions rule and the decision in West Virginia v. EPA are having huge impacts on the market and climate investing, and will continue to do so moving forward.” Adblock test (Why?)