Aspen Ideas Climate 2025

Policy

With climate policies in flux domestically, the conference discussion focused on how to sell the benefits of climate-focused technologies and strategies to the American public. As was repeatedly emphasized, American voter interests center on prices, not policies. At the same time, research on US voters’ perceptions (by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and others) continues to emphasize that a majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and are seeking information in predictable patterns, including about potential solutions to climate impacts (and action from policymakers) that effect their lives.

Bipartisanship

The meeting was US-focused and bipartisanship was an emphasis throughout. Morgan asked a question from the floor in the “Future Proofing America’s Natural Legacy” session.

Check out responses from the panelists and moderator and share your perspectives on the question:

“Is biotechnology a potential source of hope and bipartisanship?”

Speakers repeated a theme of economic competitiveness (echoing the findings from the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology’s recently released report), urging stakeholders to frame their work as helping the United States avoid falling further behind the international climate economic market.

An additional line of discussion focused on the need for standardization, especially when talking about monitoring, reporting and verification methods. Multiple panelists pointed out how, in the case of carbon accounting, a lack of accepted standards has created a major challenge, to the point where the cost of accurate measurement is increasingly overwhelming the actual cost of the climate mitigation and/or adaptation strategies. At Connecting Genetics to Climate, we have frequently heard interest in, and confusion about, carbon markets from folks across sectors.

Finance

Despite government pullback from funding research in the United States, there is still financial interest in supporting sustainability. A challenge for researchers and startup ventures is identifying these sources of capital. Panelists pointed out that foundations and philanthropies are actively asking venture capital funds to invest in impact around climate change, using resources such as the Global Impact Investing Network and The Platform for Agriculture and Climate Transformation. In order to optimize these interactions, funders and technologists need to be on equal ground with respect to both financial and climate literacy, an opportunity that is not yet being met by current systems.

Several panels featured representatives from large corporations, which play a huge role in driving sustainability efforts through their impact on market forces. Speakers touted their sustainability initiatives (such as the Walmart Acres for America program), which help them strategically invest in climate-related projects. While concerns were raised that corporations might be using their funds and leverage to engage in greenwashing, subsequent discussions pointed out that such efforts still represent a net benefit for sustainability efforts.

Livestock Methane Emissions

Morgan spent a day immersed in the topic of livestock methane emissions with a field trip organized by Environmental Defense Fund to Lenkaitis Farm and roundtable dialogue. When you have a chance, please thank a farmer in your life for their willingness to be educators, engineers, experimentalists, and allies in environmentalism, in addition to feeding us. A few key learnings:

• We can all celebrate that increased efficiency of milk production has already reduced climate impacts of the dairy industry. And then we can continue to tackle the ongoing work of doing more to mitigate livestock methane together.
• If you are thinking of targeting feed with your technology know that cows are incredibly sensitive to any changes in their diet. For example, farmers gradually switch between silage bales in order to not disrupt feeding and animal well-being.
• Farmers need climate tech solutions that are cost-neutral or positive for their operations and improve (or don’t impact) the health of the living organisms they are growing. As an example, Bovaer, the first federally improved chemical feed supplement to reduce methane from cow burps, currently costs >$100 per cow and we don’t know yet whether it improves cow health (a higher bar than safety testing, and one that farmers care about) and/or milk production. In some instances, Bovaer will be subsidized by governments or large corporations, sometimes through carbon credit markets. For wide adoption, farmers generally need low risk “climate-plus” products, not “climate-only” products.
• Farmers are frequently contacted by technology developers of all types. Before you reach out, have a plan to be respectful of farmers’ time and know and utilize other folks they rely on for information and connection to technologies and farming practices (farmer-serving organizations, veterinarians, nutritionists, extension agents, etc.).
• Did you know? The price that US dairy farmers receive for milk is determined by a combination of outside public and private entities, is variable, and does not correspond significantly with consumer milk prices. There are lots of deep dives on this topic from many sources if you want/need to learn more (here is one).