Alex Honnold wants to scale more than just massive cliffs. Honnold Foundation, the charity the Las Vegas-based professional rock climber founded in 2012, gives nonprofits small, unrestricted grants to fund solar installations — mostly in developing countries, but also in West Virginia, New Orleans and Brooklyn. The foundation added a venture capital arm last year that provides networking and developmental training to help grantees scale up. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. How do your practices differ from other climate philanthropies? The biggest difference is probably just the scale, the fact that we're working with community-led organizations at a smaller scale. We're supporting projects that they want to be doing. A lot of climate philanthropy right now is focused on big-bet tech sort of things like carbon capture. But there's less money going into the things that can be done here now, that actually help people. That's our emphasis on solar — this is an issue right now that's easy to fix. Let's just fund it, for not even that much money, as opposed to betting on the future with, like, small-scale nuclear fusion sort of stuff. It's great that some people invest in those types of things because yeah, maybe that is the future. But that's bypassing all the people that can benefit right now. What do you think of all that climate tech stuff? I'm into it. I mean, I love sci fi. Like, I think it's cool. But I just don't know if that's the best use of philanthropic money. One of my favorite rants about philanthropy, in general, is when people donate to the opera, and they call it philanthropy, and you're like, 'That's not philanthropy, that's just supporting your hobby.' And some of the big-bet climate tech stuff sort of feels like the same thing. The for-profit sector can fund that stuff just as well, because whoever winds up with viable small-scale nuclear things, they'll make money off it, like, governments will purchase it, submarines will be using it. Do you have any thoughts on any particular policies that could help? For example, do you care where the solar panels that your grantees are using are sourced from? I don't care that much. I think what's more important is how they're used. Policy is probably the first step on all climate solutions and is probably the most important starting point, like, any kind of carbon tax or carbon dividend, anything. There's so many policy things that could accelerate the transition to a more environmentally friendly world. But no matter what solutions we implement, there are always some people that are sort of left behind. I feel like that's the role for philanthropy, is that there's always somebody who's not benefiting from the current system.
|
How are you feeling this year with all the rain, do you feel better about fire season at all? The whole desert is blooming. It looks downright lush right now, which is cool. But I try not to get too caught up in any particular season. I mean, here's the policy thing. California water policy kind of makes me sad, because it's been like 'crisis, crisis, crisis,' for years. And now it's like, one year, the reservoirs are half-full again, 'Great news. All good. Let's resume as normal.' Yeah, it's going to be terrible again next year, or the next year. The Colorado River stuff, with water allocation and water rights down the river, you're sort of like, 'None of these issues are ever going to get better.' Like, in our entire lifespan, these will only get harder and more difficult decisions and tighter supplies, and you're kind of like, 'Why are we not a little more proactive about that?' Well, it's politics: Arizona versus California. I know. It's just crazy, though. It's like, why grow random shit in the desert that we don't need? Why not save the water? We do grow a lot of alfalfa. And, like, feed for animals that we don't really need that's all priced weird and subsidies for agriculture that's encouraging people to grow shit that we don't need. Those are major policy mismatches, I think. And you can see how they all occurred, because you're like, 'Cool, I want to support farmers,' but then you're like, 'Wait, I don't want to pay farmers to grow stuff that we don't need in a place that should be dead.' I want to support farmers, but maybe we should teach them how to code or something, not grow alfalfa in the desert. You sound pretty interested in policy. Is that an area you'd ever want to get into? If I thought that I could do more good through politics or policy stuff, then I would be open to it. Because I do feel like that's potentially the best way to have an impact on the world. There's so many things about the shape, the way we live, that nobody has really decided: 'It's just the way it is.' And you're sort of like, 'Oh, man.' I think [about] that with renewable energy stuff. Or now, with the gas hookups, and natural gas versus electricity stuff. Nobody cares how they cook their food, as long as it's relatively easy, relatively cheap. That's really basically a policy decision of what gets put into new homes. That gets into the significance or importance of individual actions over policy. I feel like individual action is a bit of a luxury in a way. If you're an individual who's capable of acting, that's great, and you should. But realistically, most people are just getting by and just dealing and they don't have the bandwidth to educate themselves on every little issue, and even care. You can't really expect people to care about every last thing. That's the place of good policy. Agricultural subsidies are a good start. If the prices in grocery stores reflected the environmental damage of growing and selling certain products, then people would just buy different things and it'd be fine, people would still be eating. There's a wealth of food in this world, particularly in this country. That's where policy comes in. You can't expect people to do all the research themselves, and then choose not to buy the thing that's cheaper. I like what you said about how donating to the opera is not philanthropy. I hate that stuff. 'Oh, what a big donor.' And you're like, 'Dude, that's because you like going to the symphony.' Like, if you see your name on the chair at the end, it's not philanthropy. I hate that stuff. Same with donating to educational stuff. You know, it's like, 'Oh, I gave $10 million to Yale. And now the stadium bears my name.' And you're sort of like, is that philanthropy? You're just, like, giving to your alma mater. Do your projects have your name on them? Definitely not. That'd be deeply embarrassing. As it is, just having the name the Honnold Foundation is sort of embarrassing, but when I started it, I was like, 'Well, if you're trying to encourage other people to donate, it's probably the best way forward for now.' I'd be open to changing it, though. Basically, if anything else seemed like it would raise money or accomplish more, then I'd be totally fine with that. That's why I would be open to politics or policy stuff, or whatever, if I thought I could do more that way. But I think currently, I probably couldn't. And I hate the day-to-day of that kind of stuff. I mean, if I was elected president, if someone just tapped me, I would accept that. Like, 'Oh, I think I could do more good there than at home.' [Honnold Foundation staffer Peter Walle chimes in:] There's a grassroots ticket for Honnold/[fellow rock climber Tommy] Caldwell. I don't know if I would pick Tommy as my vice president. He doesn't have enough of a detail-focused...a lot of big things would slip through cracks. But I mean, if you were just selected, yeah, you could probably have more of a positive impact on the world than anything else you could do, basically. Like, I would do that, but I'm sure I would hate the day-to-day. Unless they carve out a couple hours to go to the climbing gym every day.
|
Comments
Post a Comment