I did not go to Rio with any expectations. Not that I am a complete ignoramus about climate– I understand that man-made climate change is an existential thread – but I didn’t understand or appreciate how a conference focusing on philanthropy’s role in addressing climate change could make any substantial difference to the threat we are now facing.

I was prepared to go in with an open mind, and I’m very glad I did. While I was expecting to hear many speeches along the lines ‘let’s give capitalism a chance to resolve the problem it caused’, what I heard were thought-provoking discussions that went beyond recycled talking points.

The F20 Climate Solutions Forum took place between June 4th and 6^th in Rio de Janeiro. For readers who are unaware, the F20 is a group of over 80 foundations that play a pivotal role in climate policy and meet ahead of the G20 reunion to set an agenda for climate action.

With a head office in Germany, the F20 mirrors the governance of the G20 with a rotating chairmanship of leaders from the previous host country, current host country, and future host country. This year Alice de Moraes Amorim Vogas of the Institute of Climate and Society in Brazil is acting as chair of the F20 before handing it over to a future chair in South Africa.

After the customary opening speeches, the forum began with a session on sustainable finance. A glance at the session description said it would focus on ‘the most important rate-limiting factors for investment into sustainability (e.g. renewable energy) and suggest concrete solutions on access to finance and cost of capital.’

Dr. Josh Ryan Collins, professor of economics and finance at University College London, began his speech by highlighting how one of the biggest challenges of climate mitigation is a lack of ambition from the public sector and governance. ‘Market-led initiatives of the last 20 years haven’t worked,’ said Ryan Collins, ‘There aren’t enough incentives because the returns on investment aren’t high enough for private banks. Emerging countries, specifically in the Global South, face challenging levels of debt.’

He then went on to describe the critical role philanthropy has played in funding his research into what he calls ‘ecosystem tipping points’ where an environment is so damaged that it cannot revert back to it once was. His work specifically focuses on the ‘dirty financing’ of companies deforesting the Amazon and South East Asia.

‘Readers of this publication can cite better than I can statistics of the challenges Global South communities face from climate change, and yet Northern foundations fund Global North projects first and Global South projects as an after thought.’

Collins emphasized that although there is a huge push to scale up green finance, there is little evidence that it can transform dirty finance (finance that harms the planet) into green finance. ‘The unit cost of solar and wind has fallen below that of fossil fuels but returns are still less than fossil fuels,’ he said before calling for more investment from government into state capacity.

It was during the second session on sustainable finance that I was introduced to the concept of climate mitigation versus adaptation, and how the Global North embraces adaption while lecturing the Global South about the need for mitigation. From what I could gather, most of the discussion about the need for adaptation takes place comfortably in the Global North, while Global South is expected to mitigate the crisis for everyone else. One half of the globe sits in air conditioning while the other is expected to consume as little as possible.

Of course, adaptation in the Global South goes beyond building air conditioning. It means planning buildings and communities so that over half a million people in Brazil are not displaced during floods. It also means, in the words of Lisa Chamberlain from the Environmental Justice Fund, ‘simplifying climate finance access’ to support community funds working in climate adaptation.

Eat more beans

Normally I would not mention conference food in a report as it tends to be fairly standardized eatable mush that needs a little salt. Still, even before the second day began I made a mental note that the Brazilian vegetarian food was quite good. The subject of what we had been eating at lunch came up in the afternoon session on food security and climate.

Due to supply chain difficulties post-COVID, and the war in Ukraine, food insecurity has become a more imminent global risk. Speakers mentioned that most of the leading causes of global deaths are non-communicable diseases stemming from poor diet and nutrition. Panelists mentioned that every year 50 million children are at risk of death from malnutrition and that poor nutrition within the first 1,000 days of life can lead to life-long health consequences.

Ricardo Abramovay, Professor at São Paulo University and Cátedra Josué de Castro, told the audience that agricultural systems produce 30 percent of greenhouse gases and destroy biodiversity. Seventy percent of all antibiotics are produced for animals, leading to an enormous risk of increasing antimicrobial resistance.

This is when I started thinking of lunch. Asma Lateef, Chief of Policy and Advocacy Impact at The SDG2 Advocacy Hub, mentioned a ‘Beans for Health’ campaign to double bean consumption by 2028. Brazilians are very good at producing greenhouse gas emitting cows, but also very good at spicing beans. The three different types of beans offered at lunch made me completely forget that everything I ate was vegetarian. Lateef told audiences that growing beans can improve the soil by converting nitrogen in the atmosphere and fixing it in the soil. Beans use less water than other crops, and come high in fiber and protein. A diet higher in beans and lower in highly processed food produced mostly from corn would not only lead to healthier people but also a healthier planet.

Motivating discussions

The third day was a closed-door session of representatives from different F20 organisations at the Rio headquarters of The Institute of Climate and Society. I went into this meeting to be nothing more than a fly on the wall but quickly became engrossed in the conversations.

Laura Señán Cagiao, director of strategic partnerships at Fundación Avina, led a very crowded room in brainstorming activities on how best civil society can enact meaningful climate change. I am not a climate expert. Most of what I know about climate change and public policy comes from editing this webpage and scanning articles across various left-wing media outlets. To say I felt grossly ignorant compared to everyone else in the room would have been an understatement, but there I was with a small team of folks from around the world with a marker in my hand thinking of ways to present ideas at the G20.

Much of what happened that day felt vaguely reminiscent of being back in high school and asked hypothetically by a teacher how I would like to change the world, the only difference here being that I felt I was sitting among people who have actual talent and ability to change the world. I left the meeting that afternoon feeling inspired by everyone I had met, and also somewhat optimistic that the things discussed could come to fruition.

The only criticism I have for my time spent in Rio is not with the conference or its attendees, but rather with who was not in attendance. On my last day at the closed-door session, there was only one representative of a Global North foundation that actively funds in the Global South.

Again and again, I heard from conferencegoers that funding Global South organisations to do the climate work they know best how to do is an exception rather than the rule. This needs to change. It is preaching to the choir that climate change disproportionately harms those in the Global South. Readers of this publication can cite better than I can statistics of the challenges Global South communities face from climate change, and yet Northern foundations fund Global North projects first and Global South projects as an after thought.

If any of the solutions proposed at the conference are going to stick, philanthropy needs to wake up and realize that many of the answers to the problems of climate change lie with those at the front lines fighting it. It’s time to step in and fund them.

Charlotte Kilpatrick is the Digital Editor at Alliance