SPEAKER_01: All right, everybody, welcome to the Sunday edition of This Week in Startups, the show that

SPEAKER_00: never leaves you hanging over the weekend. And Molly has a great question for me for VC Sunday

SPEAKER_02: School. She had a friend who wouldn't invest in first time founders. They like to have seasoned founders. And she asked me this very important question about, hey, is that a thing? Should you only invest in second, third time founders or first time founders? It led to a wonderful discussion that's very candid and that most VCs will not have publicly. That's exactly

SPEAKER_01: the beauty of this show. And then because in the news right now is this inflation reduction bill that nobody saw come and Joe Manchin surprised the world by signing on to a bill that includes $369 billion for climate. I called my good friend Jay Coe of the Lightsmith Group to say, hey,

SPEAKER_04: that seems like it's going to be good for us climate tech investors, right? Yeah. Nice

SPEAKER_08: newsy conversation about that. This is exactly the discussion I've been waiting to hear because I've been trying to take apart this bill. And congratulations to President Manchin on getting this through getting this to the finish line or apparently close to the finish line. We hope.

SPEAKER_10: We hope. It feels like it's getting there. Hopefully, Vice President Sinema won't screw it up for all of us. But yeah. Well, she might also save us on our interest. She probably will. We talk about that,

SPEAKER_12: too. We talk about the built-in sacrifice. I like it. I like it. It's no sacrifice for me.

SPEAKER_16: Or you, Molly. Win-win for me. Win-win. It's a win-win for you. Molly, you're winning so much.

SPEAKER_18: I mean, right? Great year. But we break down the important work in this bill to give credits for

SPEAKER_19: EVs and how that works and how that simulates the adoption of these great technologies. And Molly and I obviously have strong feelings about this. It's going to be a great show. Stick with us.

SPEAKER_21: This Week in Startups is brought to you by OpenPhone. As a startup founder, a lot of mistakes are easy to roll back. But using your personal cell phone number as your company number isn't one of them. OpenPhone makes it easy to get business phone numbers for you and your team right on top of your existing devices. Visit openphone.com slash twist to get 20% off your first six months. Masterclass. Learn from the world's best minds anytime, anywhere, and at your own pace. Get 15% off an annual membership to Masterclass at masterclass.com slash startups. And Odoo is a fully customizable and fully integrated suite of business apps that lets you build and scale your stack as you build and scale your business. Your first app is free forever. And right now, Odoo is offering $1,000 off your first implementation pack at odoo.com slash twist. That's odoo.com slash twist.

SPEAKER_24: All right, everybody. It is Sunday. It's time for me to get my learning on BC Sunday school.

SPEAKER_01: What's on your mind? So this was super interesting. I was talking to a friend connecting who is an angel and a scout. And, you know, so we were comparing notes. What do you, who do you want to talk to doing that? Like networking thing. And he made this really interesting comment. Like he was talking about his kind of filters. And he said that a filter of his as a former founder is that he never invests in first time founders, because he says he was one, and he thought he was too stupid to make it work. And so now he just really optimizes as an angel for founders with some experience. And we have some stats on this, like apparently, according to a Harvard Business School study, first time entrepreneurs have an only 18% chance of succeeding. Whereas entrepreneurs who previously failed have a 20% chance of succeeding, which doesn't seem that different, I guess 18 to 20. Feels like statistically insignificant, potentially, but maybe not. And then a VC backed entrepreneur who starts a company that goes public has a 30% chance of succeeding in their next venture. So I just wondered what you thought. So this comes up a lot. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03: It.

SPEAKER_08: There are a lot of biases, and one of them is survivorship biases, right? And when people see Zuckerberg and Gates, and Steve Jobs, knock it out of their park with the first company, they assume first time founders, because we have these outrageous examples,

SPEAKER_02: examples are what you should bet in. And the thinking there, again, this is people with confirmation bias saying, Okay, we saw this, what was it? Oh, they have a fresh mind, they don't know how hard it's going to be. They have a disruptive worldview, whatever it is, they come up with all these reasons to explain the success, what they don't see is the other, you know, 10,000 companies that had no success, modest success for every Bill Gates, right. And so the truth is, after each successive failure, I would say you get 50% better at running a company at the very least, yeah, at the very least. And this makes a ton of sense. Now the problem is, if you've done a company

SPEAKER_34: in your 20s, then you do one in your 30s. And now you're in your 40s. Maybe you got one more in you,

SPEAKER_19: but you got kids, you got a family, you got a mortgage, you don't have the energy level, you get

Jason Calacanis: more tired. Also, you know what you're in for. And so you feel you dread it slash pull back on certain parts of it that you know, are going to be really hard as opposed to when you're young and

SPEAKER_37: dumb and strong.

SPEAKER_02: Exactly. So the the young and dumb and strong and energy. Again, this is age bias, I understand is what most investors would say behind closed doors. Now, but the truth is, you get kind of like, old man,

SPEAKER_19: old lady strength, a different, you know, get mama strength, you get, you know, yeah, dad strength,

SPEAKER_02: you become a master multitasker. Yeah. So this is like a different level of of sophistication, which is, you know, you're not good at something, you know, you don't want to do something. So you just hire somebody amazing. You know, how to lead people, you know how to hire people, you know, when to sell. And you may not have that cutthroat insanity of youth, and that just never ending

SPEAKER_08: supply of energy, but you're also don't have the spastic nature of young people. Now also young

SPEAKER_41: people maybe will bend the rules a little more. They'll not be like, Oh, there's copyright law.

SPEAKER_08: Oh, there's Airbnb, Uber, local regulations, Coinbase, Theranos, you know, you can make a long list of people who have just, you know, not really paid attention to that. But the truth is, the optimal age is probably somewhere in the 30s into your 40s. Because you still have energy, but you got some experience. That's what most people believe. So I'm putting aside my thoughts on it, I'm telling you what the industry has experienced and what people say behind closed doors, which kind of what this segment is about. Totally fine to invest in first time founders, you may, if you look, if you lose, you were their first backer, so they may come back to you for the next one. Now remember, Travis Uber was his third, I interviewed him when he did scour, we had been friends when he was doing red

SPEAKER_45: solution, you know, on the margins, you know, we had hung out and jammed on different ideas and talked about stuff. And so my relationship with him for the third led to that. I was an investor in reportive and then his second company roles was superhuman, right? So the first company sold for maybe 2030 million, you know, superhumans worth a lot more than that. I won't say exactly what the valuation is, because I'm not sure if it's public. But I secured my position in superhuman by I think

SPEAKER_19: being, you know, one of his best investors in reportive. So there is that benefit of backing a

Jason Calacanis: first time founder, right? Is that relationship? And if you think that founder is great, even if their first company is a dog, their second one might be great, and you still want to know them.

SPEAKER_45: Yes. And there was a study again, back to Harvard Business Review, HBR, which does a great job, by the way, they had done some research, and they found the average age at which a successful founder

SPEAKER_08: started the company was 45. This is what it's about. You know, if you look at somebody like Mark Pincus, he had a beer started a bunch of different companies and then just continue to have great success into his 40s or 50s. Elon falls into this category, you know, Tesla came after Zip2 and PayPal, right? And PayPal was obviously a unicorn too. So it's very successful. So you just have a greater chance. And then also what happens is, there is a personality consideration here. Some people love working with young founders. Other people find them annoying. And they don't want to deal with people who don't know how to run a board meeting or don't know how to hire people. And they don't want to mentor. Sacks started Yammer when he was 58. You know, 10 years ago, I'm sorry, 38. He just looks 58. He's not that old. He's younger than I am. In fact, I mean, which is crazy. When you think about it, I look so spry and young, and he's, would you ever guess Sacks is older, younger than me by a year? Crazy, right? Yeah, it's kind of crazy. You know, it's that hard Republican living.

SPEAKER_51: You should stop now. It's clearly aging to become a billionaire.

Chamath Palihapitiya: It is. It's the GOP lifestyle. You know, it is that GOP lifestyle.

SPEAKER_18: Yeah, it is. It's kind of like dark crystals. You're just so filled with hate. You absorb that dark crystal energy. I was about to say it's like the Skeksis.

SPEAKER_56: Sex, Skeksis? Sex, Skeksis?

SPEAKER_58: The Skeksis.

SPEAKER_60: Yeah, I mean, you know. So anyway, that's, that's as much as I can tell you about this

SPEAKER_62: topic. Well, it sounds like what you're saying is like, don't worry about it. Right? I don't worry about it.

SPEAKER_04: That we do. There, there are some metrics that could guide you. But it sounds like what you're really saying is like, there's no reason to have that. If you're an angel, and

SPEAKER_01: it's your money, and you're trying to be as like, you know, I mean, and I'm not saying we're not trying to return the most we possibly want to reduce downside is something you want to reduce downside. And so you could imagine that if you were trying to reduce downside, that might be a useful filter, of course. So what

SPEAKER_02: your friend is probably doing is they want to have a simple life. They probably want to invest in serial founders, because they don't want zeros. And they don't want people calling them when they run out of money. They just don't want to deal with the shenanigans of youth, the folly of youth. I kind of like the folly of youth. I like hanging out with young people keeps me young. I tell people I'm 51. They're like, No, yeah, I'm like, well, hang out with a bunch of

SPEAKER_74: kids. I'm like, Oh, is that why you act like a child? Like, sometimes, yeah,

SPEAKER_18: personality is more fun, or it's personal. I'm just, you know, I don't want to grow up. And so I, I do think if you wanted to reduce the number of

SPEAKER_02: zeros in your portfolio, I talk about this at Angel University, which has raised over $200,000 for charities, Angel University, to see the list of charities that we've donated to that course I teach, I tell people, Hey, for your first 20 investments, invest as little as you can, 12345 K per deal. If you're an accredited investor, and investing companies that already have their products in market with 10 customers, you've got diverse, diversification, you're diversified. And number two, you're not betting on product market fit, you're betting on going from product market fit to strong product market fit and scaling an organization. So you just eliminate a lot of zeros. So I like zeros, because I know how much I can lose, like in the accelerator, we lose 100k, we lose 100k. Okay, I'm okay with that. Let's take a lot of chances. Now, if it was a million dollars each bet, okay, wait a second, I gotta really think this

SPEAKER_45: through. So bet sizing matters. This is why in poker, which we got to start a poker game for folks who, you know, for folks who want to

SPEAKER_02: learn, within a poker game, if nobody raises before the flop, and

SPEAKER_45: you've got any two cards, and you're in position, you can pay, you know, if you're playing $1 $2, and it costs you $2 to see a flop, why

SPEAKER_02: wouldn't you see it? It doesn't cost you a lot. Now, if it's raised to $20 or $50, like, well, I don't think there's a really good cards, I think I'm behind, I'll wait for better cards, I can muck these cards and wait for better ones. So you know that that's what you're trying to do here is wait for a good hand that you can make a good bet on. And we see this now in our organization. Because we have so much inbound, we were calculating it on Tuesday's investment call, you know, just I gave people the

SPEAKER_08: idea of the funnel is like, Well, we're kind of sorting through 15,000 companies and meeting with, you know, this many thousand companies to make, you know, 100 bets. And, you know, it's less than 1% we bet on, you know, and that's really the more companies you can meet with, the more you can qualify. The more you can check in on, you're going to be selecting from the best of great options. And that's really what you want to do. Yeah, you want to be picking from, you know, 10 really great opportunities this week to make an investment, not picking, you know, the best of 10, okay, opportunities. Really, that's why process matters so much. That's why you and I are talking every Sunday on VC Sunday School, about the process of becoming a world class investor. And I'm learning that in the public market time, people get to see me with J trading, learn that process. It really is about thinking about thinking your cognitive biases, all of these different modalities of thinking, building the architecture and a framework for the company and the model, the business model, the market, the founders, when you can construct that in your head, and

SPEAKER_87: you've got in your head, hey, serial founder, great, they're not going to make as many mistakes. Oh, but they're going after a tiny market, or oh, they're going after a vanity virtue

SPEAKER_02: signaling play. Oh, okay, you know, you start to build these models. Oh, there's a young founder, but look at the execution. Oh, they have great energy. Oh, they've made a couple of mistakes. Oh, they learn from the mistakes. And so that's what I look for in young founders, just to, you know, wrap up here. When I work with a young founder, coachability, and the ability to ask great questions and listen, some of the, you know, most extraordinary founders I've met will ask me questions constantly. And I'm amazed by them taking notes and their follow up questions. It's like talking to a great journalist who or a great interviewer, I'm like, Oh, this person really wants to learn. They're asking me a, you know, a series of questions, and they're writing down the answer. And then they're asking me who else they can talk to about the same topic. Okay, they're collecting a lot of information, because they haven't made this decision. And a founder who doesn't, that's where I get concerned, you know, I've had founders who are like, you know, they just unilaterally make a decision to do something. And it turns out it's risky. I'm like, Well, do you want to talk to someone right here, man? Well, not even me. Sometimes I'll just I like to play it humble. Like I learned having rule off both on my board from Sequoia. You know, he would ask me probing questions, but he would kind of lay back and say, Oh, do you want to

SPEAKER_45: talk to somebody about this topic? We might know somebody in our portfolio or on our team who's actually addressed that

SPEAKER_19: issue. When I had crazy ideas of things I wanted to do in my youth. And so I think that's one of the things I like to look for with the young founder. On the program today is Doreena

SPEAKER_95: Coolia. She is the founder of open phone. Welcome to the show Doreena. Thank you so much, Jason. Great to be here. Now what mistakes do most founders make with phone numbers in their

SPEAKER_99: startups? Really delegation, right? Because what ends up

SPEAKER_100: happening is that as a founder, when you're starting, you do everything, you're the salesperson, the support person,

SPEAKER_34: the you make the coffee, you do HR, marketing, sales,

SPEAKER_101: recruiting, everything. But then eventually you you have you have people joining the team. And what ends up happening is if if as a founder, your phone number, let's forget about the privacy, the spam, all that problem, let's say it doesn't exist. But you're not going to want a year into your company two years into your company to have all the support calls or all the questions come to you because now you've just hired your support team. Why did you hire them? Yeah. So that's another reason why having that separate number makes so much sense because you can always delegate those calls to your team as you grow.

SPEAKER_103: All right, everybody, here's your CTA the old call to action

SPEAKER_34: twist listeners 20% off any plan for your first six months. Just sign up at open phone.com slash twist. If you got an existing number, no problem. They'll put it right over open phone.com slash twist o p e n p h o n e.com slash twist today for

SPEAKER_05: 20% off. It's not necessarily disqualifying to be a first time founder.

SPEAKER_01: There are probably it's not. And it's interesting. It's just clearly it's like it's about looking for those other signals that suggest that this person may be a first time founder, but they're also a really, you know, competent executor, you know, very technical, whatever it is on top of that. And then also, depending on your personal circumstance, we have the power

Jason Calacanis: law on our side. So more failures can be tolerated. If you're an angel sounds like it's just a different calculation in

SPEAKER_04: some ways. See, now we're getting into like, not just rules, but the subtleties.

SPEAKER_08: It's a lot of subtlety here. This is out and a lot of people have different strategies for

SPEAKER_02: winning multiple strategies can win in the stock market. I'm learning some people like to buy options and put and some people like to short stocks, some people like to trade stocks daily. Some people like to hold them for just over a year and you know, make their decisions. So they hit short term capital gains and are taking taxes into account. Other people like to

SPEAKER_45: buy and hold some people like to buy index funds. All of these people can have different levels of return for different levels

SPEAKER_08: of effort. Yeah, right. Yeah, what I'm trying to do is just really understand all of those as many of those as we can. If you really understand investing, and what you're doing in investing is, you're finding a team that's building a product. And then

SPEAKER_45: that product is this is why I always focus on team product customer TPC, you know, the team, the product, the customer, that

SPEAKER_08: will never change in my mind. And you're always going to have that discussion, no matter what company under what circumstances we're talking about, we're talking about, you know, Warner Brothers and HBO this week on this week in startups. And we were talking about Amazon the week before, and Disney the week before that, when we're making J trade, talking about stitch fix. Okay, tell me about the team. Oh, Zaslav. Okay. Well, really good. Oh, tell me about the product. HBO Max, kind of kicking ass. Tell me about the customers. People like to pay for streaming. Okay, great. I'm building this model. Yeah. When when when when when? Yeah, and you don't really have to overthink those three things. Those these three things, you can believe what you're experiencing, you know, that's what I like about them. Because a lot of the people I meet are, they're, they're drawing lines on a chart, or they're building, you know, models or projections. And I'm kind of like, Well, this is in the

SPEAKER_02: ether, you know, it's abstract, it's okay, great, I guess it's valuable. But the product, and the customers, and the team, like that's real reality for me. Yeah. And that's what I just keep leaning into. And the public market now is making me think about that even more. Okay, there's a new CEO at Disney, there's a new CEO at Amazon. What decisions are they make? Oh, there's a new person running HBO. What decisions are they making? What have they done in their careers? Oh, this person ran parks. Oh, this person grew discovery into a jug or not. Oh, this person was, you know, Bezos is right hand. Okay. You know,

SPEAKER_45: I'm starting to feel confident in those leaders. You know, wartime CEOs, perhaps in some cases, you know, cutthroat, you

SPEAKER_02: know, not afraid to make hard decisions. So then when you're meeting entrepreneurs, when you're meeting a young entrepreneur, what do you tell you? Hard to tell, right? So you're getting this unbounded energy, you're really squinting. Like when you meet a 15 year old or something, and you're like, I wonder what this person is going to be like, as an adult, you know, and we all do that with our kids, right? Like, yeah, oh, yeah, it's 12. Are they going to be a fashion designer or the president

SPEAKER_05: United States? Or are they going to be a barista? Or give me the give me the Snapchat filter that shows what you're going to

SPEAKER_117: look like as a future founder. Exactly, exactly. So I love

SPEAKER_45: this question. I love this question. I love this observation. I think it leads to a really good discussion. And

SPEAKER_08: the truth is, you're going to see great success from both groups. But you will have you'll contend with different things in the investment, the investment. And ultimately, what we do as capital allocators is, we're finding the best companies we can. And then we're placing a bet on them. And you can't lose sight of that, because you're placing that bet at a certain valuation. To get a certain return, you could find a company you love at too high of a valuation, there's no chance for a return, you can find a company that you have, you know, concerns about, you're kind of in the middle, but it's a great price, and they're starting to execute, it might be a good bet to see, you know, if they actually it's a long shot. But, you know, if it does hit, it could be great. And you got another right price. So maybe it's a risk worth taking, right? And you have to just evaluate each one of those, but never forget it's an investment. And that's the problem. We're sitting here talking about personalities, Molly, right? We're talking about who is this person? And what are they going to be when they grow up? And what have they done if it's a seasoned entrepreneur? And, and don't forget, it's a bet. It's a financial bet. Yeah, made in comparison to other opportunities you have, or the ability to not place a bet this week. Right? There's no gun to your head that says we have to make a bet this week, if we wait, we have no bets this month, and we make twice as many bets next month, we're okay with that. We're not in a rush here. Let's let's find the great opportunities. Because these things take 10 years, man, I can

SPEAKER_42: tell you, if I had two or three instances where I made bets on

SPEAKER_08: the wrong people, and you know, it didn't take years off my life. But it was nice of sucks out months of like, yeah,

SPEAKER_45: yeah, sucking my time, which is all we have at the end of the day. Yeah, great, great, great episode, I think.

SPEAKER_01: Well, speaking of investment, on this week in climate startups, actually, I've got a great investor just long time. I've know, I've been interviewing this guy forever, Jay Co, who is the co founder and managing director of the light Smith group, which is an investment firm that focuses specifically maybe the first to focus specifically on adaptation and resilience. But we're on the news on this week in climate startups, because he came on, he works with the UN also. And so he came on to break down the details of the Inflation Reduction Act, the parts of it that would be a huge tailwind for climate investing should it pass. So it's like, I really want to hear this tactical super, he's just a really, really knowledgeable guy as all the numbers. And it's in again, you know, it's like, when you combine like, private industry can get a lot done, no doubt about it. But if you get a big policy safety net, and the government has a huge buyer behind you and incentives, it's like tailwind galore for this investment category.

SPEAKER_42: I was delighted to see in this in fight inflation act, which

SPEAKER_87: seems like the wrong name, I don't know why they name these things the opposite of what they are. This is like energy climate act, right? This is mostly climate.

SPEAKER_52: It's a lot of climate is $369 billion worth of climate.

SPEAKER_01: Yeah, okay, so maybe it's not mostly I mean, but it's a big chunk of climate, but it's a huge, it would be the single largest investment the US has ever made in climate.

SPEAKER_08: Yes, which is great. And I really liked I know Freeberg was like, let the free market decide on all in last week, I disagreed with him. Yeah. I like the subsidies specifically for EVs. Yeah, you guys to talk about that, I assume I asked,

Jason Calacanis: yeah, I asked him specifically, I was like, what about this idea from some people that the that we don't need any government

SPEAKER_136: intervention, and it just perverts the incentives? Yeah, yeah, interesting. I want to hear that answer.

SPEAKER_01: You know, the truth is like, no, it creates it not only does it create stability, but Jay makes the point that, you know, it's government's role, a big part of what this does is make sure that these solutions are available to people who are disadvantaged, who are feeling the effects of climate specifically private. That's not our job. Right. But that is the job of government is to help the people who need the help the most, because our solutions are going to start expensive and get cheaper over time.

SPEAKER_08: And this what I was delighted to see was, you and I are not getting the $7,500 credit for our cars, because we make too much money, you have to make under I hate to reveal your salary, but you have to make under 100,000 or 75,000, I think to qualify for this $7,500. So if you're making more than $100,000 in your household, I don't think you qualify for this, which is great. I don't want to qualify for it when I got my EV credits previously, I mean, I, I think I collected him in two out of three times or whatever. And one time I was just like, whatever, you know, I'm not even fill out the paperwork for 2500 bucks. But I really liked the fact that, hey, yeah, it's, it's not for $150,000 supercars, it's only I think it was $75,000 or cheaper. And you had to make under 100,000 in your household. So this is going after the middle class or below in terms of maybe giving them a

SPEAKER_01: chance to buy an EV. And to make solutions that are so valuable, affordable to people, Jay also made the point that, you know, we have somebody in the chat saying it's the government picking winners and losers when Tesla is clearly the winner, he made the point that the last time we made it a climate investment, that was a fraction of this size, $500 million of that money went to Tesla. Exactly. Yeah, like, get started.

SPEAKER_02: If they hadn't done those, because there was a Solyndra, I think was the big dog in that I think Fisker, I think Fisker and Solyndra, they lost all this money. Um, yeah, you know, but the five 500 did go to test this was Obama's, you know, bet on energy. Yeah. And Tesla paid it

SPEAKER_18: back early with interest. Yeah. So again, if it's low, it's not a knock on Tesla. It is a good was great for Tesla. Yes, started

SPEAKER_01: something that created an EV market in America. That's what government investment can do when it's done well.

SPEAKER_41: So what can this do? This can push down? Hey, not everybody can afford a plaid model s not everybody can afford a model y for 70k or a model three for 50k. But now hey, if these 50 to 75k

SPEAKER_08: cars can be $7500 cheaper and 10% or 15% cheaper, hey, that could be the difference, right? That could push some people to give it a shot, right? It could get some people into some showrooms. And that's what we want. And if it makes, you know, other because now we have Lucid and Rivian and BMW, which one did you get

David Friedberg: Polestar Polestar you got what is the what did the Polestar go for? Was it under 75 or over something?

SPEAKER_01: It's just under Yeah, I think you could probably you could get it up to 75 but 60 60 ish, like they're a lot of them sit in that 50 to 60 range right now, which is not that affordable for a long range, right? You know, for people, the bolt is more affordable, but you're gonna start to again, this is how prices come down. And this is how prices come down for solar and batteries and all the things that actually make the grid operable when it gets super freaking hot, like now like it's, it's a it's a game changer or if it passes.

SPEAKER_08: I and I also think that they're presenting these things, they don't do a great job with the marketing and PR on these things. The other thing you can think about this is energy independence. Yeah. And so we do need to take into account, energy independence, and climate. And if you look at energy independence, do we really want, you know, countries to be dependent on Russia, Venezuela, you know, Saudi Arabia, whatever country it is that has oil, we don't stand

SPEAKER_51: for lithium. I mean, it's not even just oil, right? Like, we

SPEAKER_01: need to be extracting lithium, we fully freaking do and other rare earths and all of those opportunities are available to us. And yeah, energy independence is a huge part of this and grid resiliency, like creating an energy system that can work.

SPEAKER_87: Yeah, look at Texas keeps going down. I mean, Texas, it's, you know, I was thinking about moving to Austin. I looked at the monthly chart. It was over 100 degrees every day this month. I

SPEAKER_37: was like, 108 degrees. I've got to rethink this Austin plan is just going to keep going up. Like we've got natural air conditioning right out the window, bro. Exactly. Exactly. All they cannot wait for this great job. These climate are

SPEAKER_91: this climate interviews are just really piling up. And it's really becoming a nice collection. It's really well done. It's

SPEAKER_163: great. Listen, Masterclass is the best way to learn from

SPEAKER_34: world class instructors at the top of their fields. I love this product. We use it in our household. We've got a yearly subscription. And they're amazing courses include my guy Steph Curry teaching shooting and ball handling legendary and former Disney CEO Bob Iger teaching you about business leadership and strategy. That's a great course. I've watched it. And I recently watched Chris Voss, a former FBI lead hostage negotiator, teach the art of negotiation. Now you may have read his book, you may have done the audio book, whatever. Those are great. I love Chris Voss. I've heard him be interviewed on podcasts. But when he sits down and does a masterclass, that is

SPEAKER_02: the pinnacle of him sharing information. And it is so well done, you're going to learn a ton. Each one of these looks like a movie, the production value and the joy of watching these, you're going to really enjoy the aesthetics while getting all of that amazing information have 11 categories with over 150 instructors now and the lessons are about 10 to 15 minutes long. So they can fit into your busy schedule. And you can get unlimited access to every single masterclass. That's the big innovation here for 15% off an annual membership, go to

SPEAKER_167: masterclass.com slash startups, masterclass.com slash startups for 15% off jaco. Welcome back to the show. I'm

SPEAKER_168: excited to talk to you about this bill that I think we all hope passes.

SPEAKER_169: I'm excited to talk to you to thank you, Molly for having me. So

SPEAKER_04: now I understand you have recently been in DC. What is the what's like the scuttlebutt? What are what are you hearing?

SPEAKER_172: Well, there's two things going on. There's a lot of sort of surprise for sure. And then a lot of fingers that are crossed because, you know, we haven't landed the plane yet, as they say. So there's still a bunch of work to be done. But you know, obviously having something to talk about rather than not is a big deal on the size and scale and number of things that are in the bill is really pretty exciting. So I think people are really cautiously excited and optimistic.

SPEAKER_01: Not to put you on the spot too much in terms of, you know, reciting the contents of the bill back to us. But what are the

SPEAKER_04: headlines for you? Like, what are the things that you saw in there that you were, you know, thrilled to see a little disappointed in?

SPEAKER_177: I'd say that if you if you wanted to unpack it, there's probably

SPEAKER_172: three components that are really interesting that are ways to kind of get your arms around what's going on here. The first is it's really big, like very big, you know, three point three,

SPEAKER_177: three hundred and sixty nine billion dollars. That's like four

SPEAKER_172: and a half times the size of the 80 billion dollar stimulus that went through the Department of Energy in the last financial crisis. So if you remember back then, if you go back in the way back machine to then, you know, among the things that were funded during that time period was 490 million dollar loan to Tesla. And if you went back and talk to yourself at that time, you would have said, oh, electric vehicles is so speculative. Who knows what will happen? And now you think this is an inevitability and the trend line is going to be really strong. So imagine four and a half times the amount of funding that created very different long term trend lines now being applied at scale in in this particular piece of legislation. And then beyond that, I think there's, you know, two kind of nuanced new areas that are really interesting as a matter of focus. And then, you know, several different components of what the

SPEAKER_181: what the federal government is doing here in terms of unlocking what I think will be a much, much longer and clearer trajectory for where these things are going. What are those?

Jason Calacanis: Wait, you said that they're kind of like two other big trend lines in here. Yeah. So this is not your father's like

SPEAKER_177: renewable energy bill. There is plenty of renewable energy and clintech. Did my father get a renewable energy bill? Well, somebody did. But I think that the two things that are that are really interesting that are a bit different this

SPEAKER_172: time around are one, it is, you know, very squarely focused in part on the users of the technology on consumers and particularly disadvantaged populations in the United States is a very strong equity and justice component here, both in terms of getting clean technology access to poor communities and disadvantaged communities and also getting access to these types of technologies in a way that actually just genuinely does reduce the cost of them adopting these technologies among different sets of consumers today. So it's not just a broad program. It's one that's really looking at how is the distribution of the benefit of these types of technologies going to occur. And the second piece is there is what we would describe as sort of a climate 2.0 awareness in the building where there is real resilience and adaptation and new categories like, you know, $20 billion for climate smart agriculture. That's a totally new category, $5 billion for forestry, $2.6 billion for coastal communities. And then woven through the rest of what's in the bill are considerations about the effects on the environment and on people of the impact that we're now unfortunately seeing continue to unfold because of climate change. So those two kind of different flavors are I think something that's new and novel and very

SPEAKER_181: important about how this bill is being put together.

SPEAKER_01: Right. So it's a little more sophisticated. It's not just a blunt instrument to say we're going to incentivize as much solar as possible or we're going to incentivize as many, you know, electric cars as possible. It's a slightly more targeted intervention. It

SPEAKER_04: sounds like of the type that is appropriate for government to do rather than maybe private industry.

SPEAKER_172: Yeah. And I think the way that I think about it in part is that this is almost the second half of a dialogue or a conversation between government and industry, right? So if you think about the

SPEAKER_181: infrastructure bill that got done last year, which is law and has components of building resilient infrastructure and communities in it, it has other components that support parts of the clean energy transition, you know, in the space since we've been talking about this in the last year and a half, one of the responses to the new administration, I think has been, I think to date, I think that the count is something like $50 billion now of private equity and venture capital focused on climate and a much broader set of commitments that were made in November in Glasgow by financial institutions, companies, global stakeholders to really thinking about the net zero transition. And then this, if it passes, represents kind of the other step backed by the government saying, look, this is going to be a scaled, supported, much more long-term, much more comprehensive pathway to responding.

SPEAKER_01: How important do you think it is to have these two things acting together? Because I think,

SPEAKER_04: you know, when we all thought this was dead, which was not very long ago, there was, you know, this moment of like, okay, well, it's going to fall on us. Like, here we go, everybody, like, try to innovate our way out of this. But that was never going to

SPEAKER_01: provide kind of immediate broad based results, right? It's not our job to invest in things that are accessible and easily affordable to disadvantaged communities. It's maybe our job to invest in things that might be, you know, and I'm generalizing here, but some things that might be expensive at first, and we'll hopefully get cheaper over time as technology does. But that's not

SPEAKER_177: the only basket of solutions that's needed. I think that's right. And I think, you know,

SPEAKER_172: when you look at the tools that the government has now put in play here, they come in kind of three flavors. One is there's direct now funding and support $2 billion for breakthrough technologies and clean technologies out of the national labs, right? But then multiple ways that they are trying to basically leverage or incentivize everyone else to adopt and accelerate the pathways that we have

SPEAKER_181: in various parts of the clean economy, whether it's investment tax credits, production tax credits to accelerate the adoption of products or to build more manufacturing, sort of follows on thematically

SPEAKER_172: what would happen in the semiconductor industry. But then finally, the government itself as a market actor, I mean, the government buys a lot of stuff, right? So $3 billion to buy zero emission postal vehicles out of $9 billion of overall allocated procurement. I mean, that's a big amount of stuff that the government itself is going to buy to pull through demand. So it's pushing on the technology

SPEAKER_181: side that will get picked up, I think, by innovators and entrepreneurs and investors in early stage investing, venture capital, growth capital, and so on. It's incentivizing folks in the market broadly to pick up the products and services that are being generated by that technology and entrepreneurship. And then the government itself is, you know, moving the market because it buys stuff all the time. And

SPEAKER_180: if it's buying stuff that helps with the trajectory, it's at least not buying stuff that's going to slow

SPEAKER_34: the trajectory. Yep, totally. Before we get to the ad, it makes our team so happy to see our partners

SPEAKER_02: celebrate big wins. And I was so thrilled to hear about this huge funding round for our partner, Odoo. Really great stuff from Julian and the team, especially in this crazy venture market, it speaks a lot to the incredible product they're making. And you know, right now you've got a lot of SaaS apps, maybe you don't need all of them. Check out Odoo suite of business apps because you're going to save money and you're going to get more done with less effort. Using Odoo means you don't have a bunch of different SaaS subscriptions weighing you down. Everything you need is already inside of Odoo. All you have to do is flip a switch and turn it on when you're ready. And they'll only charge you for the apps you're going to use. Odoo has over 40 main apps and over 16,000 apps from their open source community. We're talking about sales, accounting, marketing automation, HR, website builders, and so, so much more. You can have one customer support contact, all your data in one place, and all of your apps will be supported by that same customer support team, not 20 different ones. And here's the best part. Your first app is free forever. And Odoo is offering $1,000 credit on your first implementation pack. Amazingly generous $1,000 right now. Odoo.com

SPEAKER_05: slash twist. Odoo.com slash twist. How big a deal is this for our industry? I mean, we've seen just

SPEAKER_01: like you said $50 billion in private investment there, you know, there have been questions about whether this might be impacted by the recession. I personally have the opinion that it's not an

SPEAKER_191: optional investing class, but you never know. But I wonder, like, how big of a tailwind is this all of a sudden? Odoo.com

SPEAKER_177: Well, again, you know, fingers crossed on this, but I think it is pretty, pretty, I should say, could it be pretty substantial. And I think, you know, I would sort of divide,

SPEAKER_172: divide that impact into, you know, two major components. One is the direct effect,

SPEAKER_181: right? So you have this push on research and development that will then yield different types of technologies that will be commercialized in a few years. There's a direct impact from the government buying stuff right now that is going to create a more stable view of what the market opportunity really is. And then there's all these other programmatic activities that are going to incentivize industry and communities and individuals and other parts of the government

SPEAKER_172: really to accelerate that transition. So we're, you know, we had some of the initial down payment in the infrastructure area last year and capital being raised to think about how quickly this transition is going to happen. I think the direct effect is, you know,

SPEAKER_181: much clearer programmatic support for different parts of renewable energy, but also the creation of these new areas like agriculture, like forestry, like coastal regions, and this emphasis on really how this is going to happen. I think the indirect effect might be even larger, which is what this does is create a sense of stability and sustainability that is very different than the situation was, you know, a month and a half ago, right? Where you start to think, okay, well, again, you know, take yourself back to your gut check in January 2009. Like, did you think electric vehicles was an inevitability? And the answer is no. Now, I think there's a much higher probability that people think that that's the case. And this really, really cements that. And the question is, what other things become really clear or really start to feel inevitable, get to that critical mass as a result of this type of spending, right? So agriculture really making a transition and focusing on the effects of climate change in the resiliency sense and the environmental impacts on people, right? The human element emerging in the bill itself. I think all of those things create, you know, just a more clear forecastable future in which you can make these investments and follow on. I mean, it's a de-risking.

SPEAKER_172: I think it's, it's an, it's a, it's a, it's a stabilization of the environment and an acceleration of that environment, right? I mean, $369 billion is a lot of, is a lot of money. And, you know,

SPEAKER_181: the question that I think we poked around in our last conversation, which is, okay, all this stuff goes into early stage tech investing. This last wave of capital has been raised or very late stage investing. What happens two or three years from now, when all those early stage companies like get into junior high school, like who's going to fund that? And will they really, you know, is there really a pathway for them to continue? I think this creates a teenage phase. Oh, exactly. Through, through middle school and, uh, all that shyness and at the school dance. Now I think you have a clearer view that this is going to continue to roll out for some period of time with some heft to it. And the signals that are being put into, uh, into the market, the support, you know, in the pushing of technology with the national labs, the pull through and actually buying stuff. And then all the leverage in the middle, you know, at this scale, I think,

SPEAKER_180: creates a very different environment in which you're going to actually, uh, move these technologies at

SPEAKER_168: the opportunity set forward. I mean, we've been talking for a long time and you sound

Jason Calacanis: a little more positive. I mean, again, fingers crossed, fingers crossed, we're not across the finish line yet. I don't want to get ahead of ourselves here, but yeah, I would say, um, I am,

SPEAKER_177: I am cautiously optimistic and I'm more optimistic, certainly than I was a few weeks ago. Um, and that

SPEAKER_172: is because the shape of what has emerged, um, is, is, uh, is, is, is a kind of evolution of where we've thought about where this could have possibly gone, right? Like, so, you know, if we went back to the

SPEAKER_181: early days of discussion about, um, where we were in the clean tech space or in climate tech, or broadly saying like where we were in the transition, you know, I'd said before, look, there's three things to think about. One is prioritization. Um, you know, the third thing that president Biden did was, you know, reaccede the United States to the Paris Agreement. The second thing was people, the number of people in the government and the administration that actually know, um, how different programs work and how to, uh, make the machinery government oriented in this direction was really, um, gave grasp for a lot of optimism. And the third piece is the policy, like, what are they going to do? So you got part of that last year and now you have a, you know, much different scale, uh, of actual activity. If it, if it happens, um, the qualitative stuff that makes me more excited, uh, than I might've guessed I would have been, you know, had I not seen this is I do think that there is a genuine, uh, you know, money where your mouth is aspect to the resilience components, to the adaptation components, to, um, really focusing it on, uh, populations that are really taking it on the chin, um, and then broadening the scope of what we think about in the transition to agriculture, to forestry, to coastal regions, to, uh, environmental impacts, uh, and, and to this idea that, you know, we are going to now plan in a more serious way, not just for, uh, to start the beginning of a low carbon transition, but one that really takes

SPEAKER_180: account of the fact that we're going to live in a very different, um, more climate affected, you know, adapted and more resilient world if we build it that way.

SPEAKER_01: Right. I want to ask you about that in a minute since of course that's what you specifically do, but before that, like, what do you say to the idea that, that, that markets would have gotten this done anyway, markets would have led us in this direction no matter what, because it is the natural way of economics to seek maximum efficiency and that, you know, when government comes in with these incentives, you get like perverse, uh, outcomes sometimes, or that you can have the rug pulled out, like happened in the first clean tech investing boom. Uh, so I think I would take a

SPEAKER_177: little bit of issue with the premise of the question that the, the rug was pulled out of us

SPEAKER_172: in the first clean tech, but there's certainly things that didn't work for sure. So I'm not saying that that didn't happen. Uh, but I'd also say that, um, you know, the economy, uh, is not a perfectly self, um, managed machine, right? Like we have, you know, uh, our flashback to the 1980s, we have a Top Gun movie, there's a war with the Russians and we have inflation, right? Uh, and then questions about, you know, economic stability going forward, right? So, um, it's not a, you know, self oiled machine in that sense. Uh, and the activity that led to the last stimulus was, you know, the global collapse of the economy almost. And we're in a situation where again,

SPEAKER_181: you have inflation issues, you have, you know, choppiness in, uh, all kinds of parts of the economy. And there's a time for the government to intervene. The other side of it is the government

SPEAKER_172: does stuff all the time. Like we got to buy trucks for the postal system. So we're going to buy ones that are going to drag, um, the economy in a particular direction or accelerated in different

SPEAKER_181: direction. Um, are we going to support other parts of our foreign policy or economic engagement with the rest of the world, um, in a way that actually supports, uh, our ability to build relationships and lead on climate and build technology in the United States, or are we going to sit back on our hands and sort of watch the rest of the world, you know, go forward and get to it. So I think, um, the idea that this is all going to happen at the right efficient pace, and there's no other distortions in the economy, whether it's, you know, subsidies, uh, for the fossil fuel industry or, uh, ways that we're actually buying and selling things in the government itself as an actor, um, I think is not entirely correct. So I would say that the, the difference is, you know, the rest of the world wasn't standing still either, you know, $50 billion was raised to deploy capital in these areas. This creates a different part of the conversation, um, that can continue now. And even though the federal government, uh, was sort of offside, uh, during the Trump administration in the climate context, broadly speaking, you know, New York state, uh, and other, uh, states and municipalities were deploying, uh, utility scale solar and wind, uh, and we're really moving forward with innovation and driving a lot of activity forward. Some of that, you know, catalyzed or facilitated at really critical points in time by the last two of us, for example, um, but, you know, parts of the world were moving. What I think this does is creates momentum and stability around, um, how that trajectory is going to go as opposed to a lot more uncertainty about whether it's going to be two steps forward, one step back or two steps back. I think this says, okay, we're really going to move in this direction in a, in a reasonably sizable way and do it in a way that's not, um, that's multifaceted, that's more thoughtful.

SPEAKER_01: Right. I mean, it feels to me, it's just an accelerant, right? Which is frankly what we need. So if everybody is now rowing in the same direction, it makes our investment seem less like outliers. It, you know, it has this effect of creating a large safety net and like you keep pointing out a really big market. I don't see a downside really. I mean, we need government to get

SPEAKER_177: in the game here. I agree. And in government to get in the game again, you know, the small pieces,

SPEAKER_172: the government's like going to buy a bunch of trucks and, you know, spend money on clean tech as a, cause it's going to buy vehicles and, you know, runs a hospital system and runs a transportation system through the, you know, VA system and through, um, the postal service anyway. So we, we're doing that. So why don't we do that in a way that actually is supportive of this, but by creating incentives so that the rest of the economy does, you know, make it more efficient and uses those incentives in a way that actually accelerates, um, the transition. And I think, you know, the, the

SPEAKER_181: recognition that this could be a major, um, competitive advantage for the United States going into the next, uh, decade, because, you know, the one thing, as we said before, that I have more certainty about than less anything else is climate change is going to continue. Uh, and so what this says is, okay, now we're going to give you a clearer picture of what we're doing as we see that environment change and the needs of that environment change about how government policy is going to unfold with real resourcing, uh, in support for technology, purchasing of actual activity, and then creating incentives for the rest of the economy to, uh, to drive forward in this

SPEAKER_01: direction. Yeah. All right. And now let's talk about adaptation and resilience. That's what you do at your firm. That's how I came to this, uh, kind of area basically as a journalist back in the day, which was like, how are we going to survive this? Um, quite literally. So what does it mean? I mean, when I started covering it and I'm sure when you started investing in it and throughout, it's been this

SPEAKER_04: kind of like unloved part of the conversation for a long time or it was, and now people, there's this

SPEAKER_01: realization that no matter what we do, there are effects of climate change that we are not going to be able to evade anywhere in the world. And we do in fact have to survive them. So like, what kinds of technologies do you think are enabled? How exciting is it that this is such a big part of

Jason Calacanis: the bill, um, as proposed and then what kinds of technologies could it enable that could really do

SPEAKER_177: a lot of good? So I think it is, it is pretty, pretty exciting, really pretty exciting. And part of it

SPEAKER_172: is because as I said, you know, the two thematic differences are this orientation towards

SPEAKER_181: disadvantaged and impacted communities, right? Which are the people that are, are being impacted really dramatically, uh, by the effects of climate change right now. If you look at the heat events, the flooding events, the storm events, the impact of wildfire pollution, um, the people that are getting impacted today and will be disproportionately impacted are the people that, uh, are going to be the focus of a lot of the activity that's supported by, uh, this bill that moves forward. And it's been the focus also at the state and local level and in the international context and developing countries. So I think it's great that that is a clear, explicit priority, this idea of environmental justice or climate justice and equity, uh, because that is, um, the humanitarian piece and the equity piece of what's going on here. Um, the second piece is, you know, woven through the energy transition components as a clean tech components of it are now much clearer considerations, uh, about that effect space, right? So we're not just going to deploy, uh, clean technology or renewable energy. We're going to do that in support storage. We're going to have a smarter grid approach to it. That's going to deal with the fact that we might have spikes in demand for air conditioning because of heat events. Uh, we're going to, uh, think about the impact on, uh, environmental pollutants, which get much higher because of humidity or temperature increases. And so woven into the way that this is moving forward, um, are these considerations of like a 2.0 approach to, uh, impact on climate and then new categories. I mean, $20 billion of support for climate smart agriculture is a big deal. Um, support for, you know, afforestation and, uh, trying to deal with wildfire impacts, uh, looking at coastal community vulnerabilities in the billions of dollars, uh, range is, you know, new activity that is really squarely facing up to the reality that we're all unfortunately facing right now, which is flooding, storms, fires, heat events, effects on human health as a result of that, the effects on the economy as a result of that. Um, and I think, um, you know, this is a big step in that direction.

Jason Calacanis: Mm-hmm bugs. Don't forget bugs. There's going to be pestilence. Um, somebody years ago mentioned

SPEAKER_04: to me the fact that like climate change is going to come with a whole lot of insect activity that we're just not prepared for. And I was like, Oh, okay. Um, so that was a tangent though. So where does this put us in the, like on the global stage or enough that you are in addition to being the co-founder and MD of the light Smith group, uh, an official partner of the UN secretary general's aid to our climate resilience initiative. Are you feeling a little better about showing your face in that crowd or will you be when, when this passes, when this passes and let's have a foot foot,

SPEAKER_177: you know, yes. Um, we're going to manifest it. I, I, I think absolutely this, um, you know,

SPEAKER_172: reasserts a U S a strong U S leadership position in the global context. Um, and I think the two things that are interesting about it are one, it's not merely saying, um, that the U S is really willing to put capital against this or funding or taxpayer dollars against it. It's saying we are going to be very supportive in a set of nuanced ways in transitioning multiple parts of the economy in this direction. So if you want the opportunity to, uh, innovate and to invest and to develop technologies and solutions, then the U S is going to be a much clearer destination for those, uh,

SPEAKER_181: entrepreneurs and technologists and capital, right? So, you know, $370 billion of support, um, you know, direct for technology pull through by purchasing. And then a lot of incentives in the middle for production, for investment, uh, for communities to look at things means that, um, the scale of what the U S is offering as a destination for these types of solutions to be created or to be applied, is much clearer now if it happens, uh, than it was, uh, two months ago. And then in the broader context, I think it's very important, uh, to be able to, to deliver on, um, what, you know, had been the priority piece at the beginning of the administration and the people in place. So the policy showing up, um, and we did some of it last year in the infrastructure bill, but really this moving forward, I think, uh, enables the United States to assert, uh, that it's really putting its money where its mouth is.

Jason Calacanis: Yeah. That's great. I like the idea that we could become a destination for the best and brightest

SPEAKER_191: too. Once again, like, let's do that. Let's go, let's build. Um, why do you think this was so secret

SPEAKER_177: just from your perspective? Um, well, I think that's kind of the surprise too, is, is, uh, it, you know, I don't think I certainly had no anticipation of, uh, what might've happened. I think

SPEAKER_181: it's a, it's a very challenging time to get a lot of different things done. It's a very complicated environment. I think, you know, uh, there, I think there will be effects on affordability of energy access of consumers and different populations being able to adopt, uh, and be part of the energy transition without, um, having to be impacted as much by all the other increases in inflation we're seeing in other places. So I think, you know, crafting this, so it meets this moment as opposed to we're just going to fund a lot more of, um, you know, clean technology and it'll be, it'll be good for everybody. Don't worry. I think, um, what's probably an important part of, uh, what made this possible. And then I also think, you know, that, uh, there are some, again, like nuanced and creative elements in this that took some time to think about, um, in the broad political landscape, um, you know, things are challenging and complicated. Like I think when this was discussed, you know, climate action last year, uh, as part of, you know, bull back better or other strategies and, you know, amounts that were maybe three times as much as we're talking about here or two times as much, um, you know, it was a different, a different set of, uh, economic conditions and uncertainty that's out there. So I can't really speak to the politics of capital help per se, but I think what you have is, um, something that is, uh, is crafted for this, this moment in time, right? Which is, you know, um, how do we actually have this affect the average person and the populations that are most affected? How do we create an environment where it shows, um, the leadership that the United States can have and supports the places where we have the biggest advantages, like in technology and investment in, uh, in these other areas.

SPEAKER_01: Do you think last question, as this moves toward passage, that this also just becomes the kind of economic argument that can get lots of different constituents

SPEAKER_04: behind it because it clearly, we see this as a big, you know, climate is the biggest human story, but also the biggest business story on the planet. And the, it seems to me that the economic benefit, uh, in terms of, you know, us innovation, entrepreneurship, investment in a future where like, most of us make it through this, which is good for keeping our country strong, all of these benefits that are sort of fundamentally pretty mainstream. Everybody would agree that those

SPEAKER_01: economic benefits are strong. Does that start to create enough? Do you think pressure to keep this from being like, I mean, yes, I'm dancing around the issue of like, when are Republicans going to realize that this is actually just a good economic argument, but does it make it harder to walk away from a bill like this? When it's like, look, it's going to lower prices. It's a great investment. It's going to push a lot of, you know, investment in private equity money. At what point does it just

SPEAKER_24: get too hard to say no to?

SPEAKER_172: Well, um, I think what's interesting about the way that, um, those two thematic changes, um, have played out in the bill is that I think it makes it, uh, more compelling and more relevant,

SPEAKER_181: right? So it's one thing to say, oh, you know, solar and wind is really important and electric vehicles are going to be great for everybody. And there'll be a better investment climate and we'll have entrepreneurship and technology development. And that's all great. What this is also saying is, okay, we know people are getting hurt right now by fire, by floods, by storms, living in coastal communities, living on farms. Um, and we're going to actually direct meaningful chunks of funding towards those areas, because that's part of how climate is really going to be experienced by, by humans, by people that actually care about these things. And that's a constituency that's beyond, you know, uh, technologists only focused on solar energy or wind energy. I think the other piece of it is by creating, um, kind of a clear pathway and momentum over, over kind of duration. So it's not like just this year, we're going to do this. It's saying, what programmatically we're going to deploy, you know, $369 billion over a number of years in the early stage of supporting more technology right now and buying things that actually embed this technology and the middle by creating incentives. Well, that also tells you is that if you're, you know, in high school and you want a good job, or if you are working in the fossil fuel industry and you're trying to figure out what happens next, or you're trying to advise your kids, like, Hey, this is not something that is a questionable trajectory in the way that it was before. This is an industry shift. That means good jobs can be created in these places. If we deploy a ton of offshore wind, that set of wind farms is going to have to be maintained by people going out on boats for 20, 25 years and making sure that, you know, transmission lines work and that the wind turbines are spinning, electricity is being generated. And those are great long-term, uh, commitments to communities, uh, that can provide good jobs, good employment, a pathway that isn't, uh, kind of a speculative, well, maybe that'll happen to me that won't, right? So, you know, the idea that a good job in the automotive sector could be, you know, being in the EV sector, um, was again, like in 2009, like, really, maybe, and today seems a lot clearer. And I think going forward, other parts of, uh, the, uh, economy are going to look clear or clearly along this pathway. So I would say the, the human focus, right. On, on people being affected right now and how that's going to happen across many different communities, agriculture, forestry, coastal communities, disadvantaged populations. And then the fact that now you've created, uh, and reinforced, as you said, the trajectory or the acceleration here, uh, means that you can really think about this as a clearer future, uh, for people to get good long-term jobs. And I think that is, you know, always a pretty persuasive, um, constituency supportive mechanism is to make people think, look, this is, this is a real future. It's not a future for a small bunch of people that are, you know, would like to do something that's good for the world. It's like, this is part of a real, reinforced transition, uh, that's going forward. Right. Like Joe Manchin, you could say a lot about

SPEAKER_01: Joe Manchin, but was on Fox news the other day saying like, look, this is, this is a bill for America.

SPEAKER_04: It's a red, white, and bill blue, or red, white, and blue bill. That's good for the country. And if you love the country, why wouldn't you support it? And I was like, I'm going to give you this one,

SPEAKER_172: just this one. Um, I think, I think it's good for American, uh, entrepreneurs and technologists.

SPEAKER_181: I think it's good for investors that are looking, uh, to, uh, think about what happens next and where the future is going to go. But I also really think what's great is it's affirmatively good right now for a lot of the people being affected right now, and that'll be increasingly affected right now. Um, and I think, you know, going back to your point about the global context, you know, you can pick last year, we're talking about, you could pick your continent, uh, to get flooded out of, right. It could be China. It could be New York. It could be, you know, uh, Europe. It could be anywhere this year. It's like pick your continent to be lit on, you know, have like fire affect your future. Um, and unfortunately I think those things are going to continue by, by saying, look, we are going to, you know, create much more momentum here. Um, it creates a pathway for, you know, industry and technology and entrepreneurship and investment. I think here in the U S that, you know, uh, really helps all those, all those folks. And then directly is targeting a lot of that benefit, uh, at the people that are being impacted right now, which I think is, is, uh, a meaningful change in the way that this is being oriented.

SPEAKER_01: Jayco is the co-founder and managing director of the LightSmith Group, the first private investment firm focused on climate resilience and adaptation. Thanks for coming back.

SPEAKER_171: Thanks for having me, Molly. It's great to be here.

SPEAKER_01: And also let's manifest.

SPEAKER_171: Yes.

SPEAKER_01: You're a congressperson.

SPEAKER_171: Yes.

SPEAKER_01: Especially in Arizona. All right, everybody. Thanks for tuning in on a Sunday.

SPEAKER_02: Yes. Molly is out next week, just like I was out for a couple of days on the river. Molly's taking a little trip and I'm sure we'll get some updates from her when she gets back,

SPEAKER_18: but we have a ton of great content for you next week and some surprise co-hosts coming in for

SPEAKER_57: what has been a ridiculously active August.

SPEAKER_04: I like that. RAA. Ridiculously active August. We banked some interviews. I'll still, y'all be peeking into the feed here and there. I won't be like completely absent, but yes, nothing live for me. All right. We'll see you Monday. Adios.