It all began at the start of 2020 when Mike Schroepfer, then Chief Technology Officer at Meta, found himself with an unprecedented amount of free time in his career. In moments that should have been filled with business trips, socializing, or his children's school activities, he started pondering a question: How can humanity unite in the face of a severe crisis?

However, this experience also reinforced his perspective: humanity's performance in dealing with slow and severe disasters like climate change is not good, and these are mostly latent crises.

As his understanding of global warming deepened, Schroepfer gradually believed that he could make a difference: by leveraging his technological expertise and financial resources, he could accelerate key research and help society develop tools and enhance awareness to prepare for the escalating natural crises.

Advertisement

With his attention to the climate change crisis taking up more and more of his time, in 2021, Schroepfer decided to resign from his position as Meta's Chief Technology Officer to commit to addressing this challenge through philanthropy and investment efforts. (He remains a Senior Researcher at Meta.)

"I am willing to take the risk that these efforts might not work, and I am willing to endure people mocking me for just wasting money, but I will persist and keep trying."In May 2023, Mike Schroepfer announced the establishment of Gigascale Capital, a venture fund supporting startup climate technology companies. The investment targets include startups committed to commercializing fusion, reducing emissions from landfills, and reducing methane pollution from cattle.

That summer, he also launched the "Carbon to Sea" project, a non-profit project aimed at accelerating ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) research with a scale of 50 million US dollars. By adding substances such as olivine, basalt, or limestone, more greenhouse gas carbon dioxide can be absorbed into the ocean.

This year, as first reported by MIT Technology Review, Schroepfer initiated Outlier Projects, providing funding to teams engaged in the following three areas of research: removing greenhouse gases from the air, preventing glacier collapse, and exploring controversial solar geoengineering - a method of cooling the Earth by reflecting more heat back into space.

Last week, Schroepfer was interviewed by MIT Technology Review at the Gigascale Capital office in downtown Palo Alto, California, discussing his approach to solving climate issues, why he is willing to spend money on controversial climate intervention measures, and what the progress of artificial intelligence and presidential elections means for clean energy.The content of this interview has been edited to ensure conciseness and clarity.

MIT TR: Is there a consistent philosophy in your work on climate change?

Schroepfer: My most fundamental philosophy is that when you gather a group of people and have them work towards the same direction, and they wake up every morning saying, "We are going to solve this problem, nothing else matters," you will often find that what they can accomplish is astonishing. Another philosophy, which has been a theme throughout my career, is that technology is the only thing I have seen that can eliminate limitations.

At Meta, I have seen this over and over again. By reducing costs, improving efficiency, and developing new technologies, previously insurmountable limitations have been eliminated.

With the proper development and deployment of technology, we can eliminate either-or decisions and move towards the world I hope for, which is a vision of both: how can we raise the quality of life for 8 billion people to the level of the West, while also ensuring that my children have a planet to live on? That is the real question, and the only answer I can see is technology.MIT Technology Review: There are various potential methods for ocean carbon removal—ranging from sinking kelp (which seems to be less effective), to iron fertilization, and other approaches. So, why choose enhanced ocean alkalinity? Why is this the direction you decided to delve into?

Schroepfer: After reviewing the various methods, I found it to be the most promising, most scalable, most cost-effective, and most permanent, but also the least understood approach. So, if it works, it will have an extremely high impact, but we need to learn more.

I have no preconceived bias about this. I like kelp and all these methods. I am not the kind of person who only pursues a single solution. I hope as many methods as possible can work.

As an engineer, my understanding of technology deployment is that relatively elegant and simple solutions will ultimately become scalable solutions. And enhanced ocean alkalinity (OAE) is almost the simplest method.

MIT Technology Review: Let's change direction and talk about a sensitive topic: solar geoengineering. What makes you think this is an important field and want to support research in it?Schroepfer: We are actively seeking issues that are defined as high-impact and high scientific uncertainty. I believe these issues are within our comfort zone and areas of expertise. In this search process, in addition to carbon removal, there are two other issues: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and glacier stabilization.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) feels like an orthogonal solution, it is a method that can achieve rapid cooling when necessary - if this turns into a humanitarian crisis. We have already lost too many lives due to high temperatures, but the situation will further deteriorate to the point where people can no longer bear it. The question is: what should we do then?

Humans perform well in crises, but I think we should start taking action now. Really start doing rigorous work to understand "Is this effective? What are the safety risks?" Be prepared before the crisis comes.

MIT TR: You mentioned glacier repair, why is this a problem you want to work hard to solve?

Schroepfer: Suppose we have solved all other problems, removed all carbon, and achieved full electrification. But as long as the glaciers are still moving, we will still face the problem of rising sea levels.One method is simply to pump water from the base of the glacier to remove the lubricating layer that causes the glacier to move. We have some glaciers that are internally drilled with boreholes and highly instrumented, and they are already moving. So placing a water pump there and pumping out water is a very low-risk activity, which answers some basic questions, such as: Is this method feasible? Is it really effective? Or is it simply not feasible due to energy or cost limitations?

MIT TR: Regardless of the method, we are talking about an extremely expensive large-scale infrastructure project. On the other hand, if the Thwaites Glacier (sometimes referred to as the Doomsday Glacier) slides into the sea, then every city in the world and all low-lying countries will have to undertake these large-scale infrastructure projects. Can we, as a global community, address this issue in the most effective way, or will we leave everyone to deal with it on their own?

Schroepfer: I think this is where people underestimate the power of prototypes or proof of concept.

We can discuss it theoretically. I can invite scientists who will say, "I will explain to you with a spreadsheet how expensive this will be."

I don't know. Maybe they are right, maybe not. Instead, let's get on a plane and go see the glaciers that used to move so fast. After we did this treatment, the movement speed has become like this. This is the water pump, and we are pumping water out.I believe that my task in this world is largely to promote all of this. I am willing to take the risk that these efforts may not work at all, and I am willing to endure people mocking me for just wasting money, but I will persist and keep trying. I hope to add a series of evidence points to this blank field, so that when we need to make decisions on these issues in the future, we will not start from scratch, but from a starting point that has already made progress.

MIT TR: Do you think that with greater certainty and clarity about what the risks are, how feasible these solutions are, how much they cost, and how we can achieve these goals, the status quo can be changed, and in this case, suddenly you can see that under many uncertainties, countries can unite, which is hard to imagine.

Schroepfer: Yes. Or the situation may go in the opposite direction, and you will realize: "Hey, we have had a lot of crazy ideas, but none of them work, so we must find another way."

As you said, other options include large-scale population migration or building large seawalls, which will quickly become unaffordable.

My career has been about constantly adding tools to the toolbox. My job is to enrich this toolbox so that when we need it, it can be put into use at any time. I am adopting the same approach here, which is to think: "What are the things I can help advance in some way, so that if we need them, or need to understand them, we have already gone further than we are now?" Right?MIT TR: So far, we've mainly discussed your philanthropic endeavors, but you have also established Gigascale Capital, a venture capital fund. How does your investment strategy and approach differ from traditional tech venture capital firms? For instance, is your investment time span longer than the standard five to ten years?

Schroepfer: Our goal is to demonstrate that if you choose the right climate technology companies and the founders of these companies are suitable, it will be an astonishing business opportunity. These companies are disrupting trillion-dollar industries, and you will reap substantial returns from them. This is precisely the necessary condition for many people to open their checkbooks and truly take out the trillions of dollars we need annually to address these issues.

Therefore, we will look for those companies that we sometimes jokingly call "Green Discount." These trends are like freight trains going downhill, which are hard to stop.

— Mike Schroepfer

It's like, "Hey, this is a better product." [Whispers] "By the way, it's also better for the environment." It's like a footnote reading at the bottom. The starting point is that consumers want it because it offers many benefits; businesses want it because it's cheaper. This is the selling point of all the products we support. And it happens to have lower carbon emissions than any alternative it replaces, or even zero carbon.MIT TR: You mentioned "green discounts" which reminds me of Bill Gates' "green premium" (the co-founder of Microsoft's argument that significant investment is needed in climate technologies to reduce their cost premium over polluting products over time). Some products, such as green steel and green cement, have more expensive alternatives. Does this mean you do not invest in these areas, or just hope to eventually reduce these costs?

Schroepfer: Technology takes time to incubate, so no new technology is better, faster, and cheaper from the start. But within the life cycle of a company, which is generally five to ten years—I must believe that, after scaling up, you can be cost-competitive or have a cost advantage over alternatives. So, this means, yes, we only invest in things that we believe can be cost-competitive or have some additional benefits that decision-makers value.

This is why I am very clear about separating philanthropic work, from which I will not get anything—we will donate money, hoping to create public benefits, papers, and knowledge.

And the venture fund is: "No, this is a capitalist endeavor, to prove to people that if you smartly choose the right solutions, you can make money and fund a low-carbon economy." This is what we are betting on.

MIT TR: Given your recent experience leading technology and AI at Meta, I am curious about the potential tension between AI energy consumption and clean energy and climate goals. There has been a lot of news on this front. What do you think companies need to do to ensure their climate commitments as data center energy demand increases?Schroepfer: Regarding this issue, I have two thoughts.

AI is a foundational technology that can bring many benefits to our future. Part of the reason I still have ties with Meta is that I have done a lot of work there on Llama, which is our open-source model, allowing many people in the industry to use this technology. I believe that the openness of foundational technology is one of the ways for humanity to move forward faster and for more people to prosper, which is something I care about.

In terms of energy consumption, my starting point is that we should advance the development of artificial intelligence as quickly as possible because I believe it is beneficial. During my time at Meta, we achieved several orders of magnitude improvements in efficiency or power consumption on multiple occasions.

So, I think the industry is currently doing its best to create the best possible products, which requires a lot of electricity and energy consumption. If we reach a point where we need to optimize from an efficiency standpoint, there are many means available.

Regardless of AI or not, if you want to electrify everything and remove all fossil fuels, we need a large amount of clean energy access to the power grid, right? This issue exists regardless of AI. So, I think it's a bit of an overemphasis on a secondary issue, and the real core issue is: how can we connect tens of gigawatts of clean energy to the power grid as quickly as possible each year? How can we get more solar, wind, and energy storage? Can we achieve the implementation of fusion energy?For me, these are humanitarian game-changers, and they are the keys to unlocking many other things.

MIT TR: I don't want to get into politics, but given the recent Supreme Court ruling on the power of federal agencies, I'm curious what you think a Trump victory in November could mean for climate and clean energy progress.

Schroepfer: Simply put, I'm not sure.

MIT TR: Well, then maybe the answer to my next question is the same, which is: Trump has indicated that he will try to repeal the incentives for electric vehicles and other aspects in the Inflation Reduction Act. What do you think this could mean for financial opportunities in this field? Do you think this would weaken the rationale for private investment in these areas?

Schroepfer: This goes back to your previous question, what do we believe in? What do we invest in?Essentially, it must start with the business case: my product is better or cheaper. I believe this investment case is resilient no matter what. I think policies like the Inflation Reduction Act can accelerate things and make things easier, but if you remove them, I don't think it would eliminate the fundamental advantages of certain technologies.

One exciting aspect of this world is that electric drive systems are fundamentally much more efficient in vehicles than internal combustion drive systems—three to four times more efficient. So I should be able to produce products that are very cost-advantaged, and these gasoline-burning things will pale in comparison. There are a bunch of issues with scale production and customer acceptance, but the fundamentals are in my favor.

I think we are seeing this trend in many ways. Solar energy is the cheapest form of energy ever, and as we massively increase manufacturing capacity, this trend will continue. The cost of batteries has also experienced an incredible downward curve. Every year, the number of batteries we produce is setting a new historical record.

One of my favorite concepts is Wright's Law: as production scales double, there is usually a reduction in cost. The specifics vary by product, but for batteries, every time the production scale doubles, the cost drops by about 20%.

If my product's cost decreases by 5% to 10% every year, at some point, I will win. These trends are like a freight train rolling downhill, and it's hard to stop.