Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Chapters 1 & 2

I was struck in the Spinner’s End chapter by the parallels between the “good” and “bad” sides of the wizarding world. Our titular protagonist was saved by a mother risking everything to save him. Now the mother of one of his principal adversaries is . . . risking everything to try to save her son.

Spinner's End

Similarly, the “good” side spent the entire previous book beleaguered by infighting and politics: who has the right of it, who can be trusted, etc. And now here is the “bad” side . . . beleaguered by infighting and politics: who has the right of it, who can be trusted, etc. And of course Snape in the middle of it all! It makes me really want a scene with Voldemort cartoonishly saying to Harry, “Are we so different, you and I?” πŸ˜›

***SPOILERS BELOW***

In response to a theory from another member of my Harry Potter book club that Bellatrix is so angry at Snape here because she is in love with Voldemort, I must . . . disagree. I find the Cursed Child‘s plot point of her having a child with Voldy to be a preposterous mischaracterization. I think Voldy would have been effectively asexual, finding love/sex with mere mortals far beneath him. Possibly in his younger, Tom Riddle days he might have used sex as a way to beguile someone into giving him something he wanted (although even in the case of Hepzibah Smith his malicious “charm” is never indicated to go nearly that far for Hufflepuff’s cup). However, by the time he became horcruxed Lord Voldemort, I don’t think he would have even been capable of sex.

I also never read Bellatrix as sexually attracted to Voldy. Her behavior seems very in keeping with any sycophantic underling who is jockeying for the position of “favorite” of someone who is very powerful. I see her antipathy toward Snape as jealousy – he didn’t even have to go to Azkaban and yet he is still so “inner circle” to Voldemort that he gets access to privileged information . . . IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!

But there is certainly nothing wrong with us each having our different head canons! πŸ™‚

Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix Movie

We finally finished reading Harry Potter 5 with our toddler, so here are some thoughts about the film adaptation before we move on to Half Blood Prince. Below I’m going to post my thoughts chronologically, but let me start with a few high-level points to add some context for the specifics to follow:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix movie poster
  1. This was the last movie I saw without having read the books. I always intended to read the books, but, after seeing this movie, I felt I had to because I was left so confused about so many things.
  2. Although I am going to be very critical of this film in my subsequent comments, I did actually like it. It’s a one on the binary scale for me and has some really, really good things to recommend it.
  3. That said, I kind of “resent” this film because it was the beginning of the David Yatesification of the franchise, which I don’t think was a good thing. Yates, if I recall, came from directing TV, not film, and I think it really shows in this and the following movies. They are all serviceable films that hit the major plot points, but they just seem less . . . well . . . less. They seem to be more formulaic Hollywood-style movies that focus more on big set pieces and – gasp – shocking moments rather than deep character development. They are also just less . . . magical (whimsical, charming) than their predecessors, for which, again, I fault the director.
  4. One of the great faults I find in this film in particular is how much was cut. It is the shortest film in the series and is based on the longest book! WHY??? “I’m a fan of the HP series, but I sure wish the movies were shorter,” said no one ever. “We have serious budget constraints so have to shorten the movie even though it is guaranteed to make $1B+,” said no sane person ever. And, per some of my comments below, some of the choices of things to cut just make no sense. The plot suffers a little, but the characters suffer even more.

OK, I think those are my big thoughts out of the way. Now let’s delve into the minutiae!

  • My HP book club leader, Becca, made a good point about Dudley being a very heavy-handed, mustache-twirly villain in this film. That’s odd, given that Umbridge is such a compelling villain. Of course, she’s pretty mustache-twirly, too, I suppose; she’s just much better at it.
  • Why, you ask, are Dudley and Harry (and not the other boys because . . . reasons) running through fields and into a tunnel? For the same reason that shortly afterward Harry and Tonks fly low along the Thames in the heart of London (which Moody would never allow): because Yates is more preoccupied with cool visuals and set pieces than he is with intra-story consistency.
  • That said, I do like the London flight sequence as it showcases something this movie does very well: the music! Nicholas Hooper does a really good job introducing some new, memorable themes in this film and that is no small task when you’re following in the footsteps of John Williams!
  • The introduction to #12 Grimmauld Place falls really flat for me. Rather than build the world and the lore with its interesting backstory and the Fidelius charm, they just show up, it expands, and we’re done. It’s emblematic of this movie’s whole “go go go, no time to stop and tarry” thing, which is a shame.
  • I think Sirius is woefully underdeveloped in the movies. Most of his development happens in PoA (but most of that is a red herring with a twist near the end), he is all but forgotten in GoF, and he still gets minimal screen time in this film. The end result is that his death isn’t nearly as emotionally meaningful as it should be.
  • That said, Gary Oldman kills it in the little screen time he has. I love the subtle wink he gives Harry at the dinner table at #12 and I have always wondered if he had to practice that in front of a mirror for hours on end to get it just right or if he just nailed it the first time. Either way, most of what is positive about Sirius in the films is due to his acting adeptitude (not a real word, but I think you know what I mean).
  • Helena Bonham Carter gets the same kudos: she does a lot with very little screen time and her portrayal of polyjuiced Hermione in the final film is just exquisite!
  • I don’t love Gambon’s Dumbledore during the “hearing.” I don’t find it nearly as offensive as his infamous moment in GoF, but he just doesn’t seem to capture Dumbledore’s Dumbledoreness at all. Book Dumbledore establishes an overt superiority to everyone in the room, but then tempers it with over-the-top politeness. It’s charming in its way and very in keeping with his characterization.
  • Gambon instead seems harried, impatient, and frustrated by the proceedings. Some of the fault lies with the director, of course, but I can’t help but miss Richard Harris at moments like this.
  • There is no Quidditch. None. And its absence is conspicuous. Not only was it a significant bargaining chip used by Umbridge in the book that leads to a very convincing abuse of power, but its absence contributes to a bigger thematic issue as well:
  • The minimization of Quidditch, O.W.L.s, and Prefects remove a lot of the “kids at school” feeling in this adaptation. As you know, I subscribe to the classification that Harry Potter stories are British Boarding School Mysteries disguised as Fantasy. The former gives the series so much of its charm while the latter gives it its gravitas. Without as much of the “kids at school with things that matter to kids at school” feeling (and with what little there is – like the Cho love subplot – being poorly done), it loses much of its relatability.
  • On a related note, I would have loved it if the career counseling scene between McGonagall and Harry with Umbridge interjecting had been included.
  • This movie proceeds so quickly. Again, I think that’s the hallmark of a movie that strings together vignettes and fills things in with exposition instead of taking time to develop characters and arcs. As we have been reading the books to our kiddo, we have been blown away by how many pages and chapters go by before we get to any real action. The action isn’t what makes these stories work; it is the characters.
  • And again, I don’t get why these sacrifices were made; the movie-going public would have accepted much more runtime than what we got. It’s not consistent, either: Imelda Staunton does a BANG-UP job as Umbridge and she is the most compelling villain we see throughout the entire film series! I just wish as much care had been taken with the other characters as well.
  • I find Filch’s portrayal in the Yates films to be grotesque and wholly unnecessary. He is portrayed as a bumbling fool in this film and, if memory serves, is addressed directly as an “idiot” by a protagonist in the last one. For a series that tries to advocate for treating everyone well, this is a big misstep.
  • I love the look of resolve in Neville’s eyes as he puts down the Prophet, having just read about Bellatrix’s escape. We can see a spark that will become an ember and eventually a raging inferno of Gryffindor by the last film. Well done!
  • On the topic of Neville, though, the omission of the hospital scene is just such a missed opportunity. SO much character development and back story could have been accomplished instead of cheap exposition.
  • I love the patronus montage – again a great use of music.
  • Poor Dobby. He is basically written out of multiple movies so that, when he reappears and SPOILERS dies, it’s hard to care that much. In the books, he has been much more consistently involved so readers are much more invested. Obviously many people watching the movies have read the books, so there is some carryover, but I try to evaluate movies on their own.
  • Add another check to the missed opportunity column: the Dumbledore escape is really underwhelming. They could have done so much more with this scene to earn Shacklebolt’s comment that Dumbledore’s got style rather than just poof-he’s-gone.
  • Grawp is . . . I don’t know, he just doesn’t work for me. On top of it all, his CGI was really bad at the time and it hasn’t aged well. I come back to this again and again, but a movie that should have a practically infinite budget has no excuse for bad effects.
  • The Snape memory sequence is really ineffective for me. In the book there is just so much more dimension to it. As someone who lost his father when I was young, I know what it’s like to hunger for more time with him, even if it’s just through the memories of those who knew him when he was younger. Maybe I’m just projecting, but in the book I really get that same feeling from Harry during this sequence.
  • That makes it all the more heart-breaking when this cherished time “together” with his father turns out to be far less idyllic than hoped for. It forces Harry to confront much more complex emotions. Instead we just get a one-dimensional, overacted bullying scene that is over quickly and then NEXT!
  • I’m more sympathetic to this omission than the others because I’m sure it would have been a huge effort, but still, I’m disappointed that we didn’t get to see more of the Department of Mysteries in this film. The extra rooms in the book did a great deal to expand the world, stimulate imagination, and instigate fan theories.
  • The Veil is totally misused in the movie to the point that I’m not even sure why it’s there. Bellatrix hits Sirius with the killing curse, so he’s already dead; his floating back into the Veil is inconsequential. This eliminates all of the omgmaybetheressomewaytobringhimback response from Harry, which is such a natural and relatable feeling. Instead, all we get is the cliche “NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!”
  • The prophecy is totally bungled. Here again, Yates trades any nuance at all for a straight forward plot point: “You have to kill Voldy.” Gone is any of the ambiguity around Harry and Neville or the realization that Voldy may have created his own nemesis, which I thought was very interesting in the book.
  • I know they had to choose a visual language for the fight scene in the Death Room but I think they could have done better. All the smoke-flying around and random bangs seemed pretty meh and it also doesn’t make sense how all the adults got there. If you can just apparate in, willy nilly, what’s the point of any of the Ministry’s security? When I watch really good action films that use action to tell a story through battle, I’m reminded of how meh this one is.
  • The Dumbles vs Voldy battle is a little better because at least it has some visually interesting spells, but it’s kind of the same in the end: all sizzle and no steak.
  • Final gripe: the movement away from robes to modern attire rubs me the wrong way. One way we know this is a funny, whimsical, magical world is that the characters wear funny, whimsical, magical stuff. Take it away and it becomes less . . . magical.

Becca likened this film to a trifle – with some delicious layers and some . . . filler – which I think is spot on. There are some flashes of brilliance in this film: Umbridge, the score, the confrontation scene between McGonagall and Umbridge on the stairs, for example. But so much of the rest of it just seems to be paint-by-numbers pasting together different plot points as if we’re in a hurry to be done and on to the next thing. And that’s . . . just not what I’m looking for in a Harry Potter film.

Harry Potter and the Order of The Phoenix Chapter 38

Quick side note: does anyone else feel like our relationship with Moody in books 5, 6, and 7 is sort of fake? He’s this member of the Order and he’s looking out for Harry, so we’re supposed to feel something for him – but the “Moody” we actually got to know in book 4 wasn’t actually Moody at all! It’s a small point, but I feel like JKR kind of glosses over this and expects us to care for Moody as if he were actually the character we spent so much time with in book 4.

Now more meaty discussion (with minor spoilers): I think the two-way mirror is a really interesting authorial choice by JKR. Yes, she needed Harry to get it as it will play a role later, but there are a million different ways Harry could have come by the mirror. The specific way she chose resulted in Harry being guilt-stricken about having forgotten it and, hence, being manipulated and, hence, going down a path that ultimately lead to Sirius’s death. That’s dark stuff! She deliberately chose to inject crushing guilt and remorse that is not necessary to advance the plot into our hero’s characterization.

I think this is where JKR really succeeded. She had a runaway hit with the first book. She could have kept the tone of the first book, rattled off several more volumes, and no one would have complained. Instead she chose to ratchet up the maturity and darkness and it just adds so much more depth to the characters.

Not only that; it also makes our hero’s journey over the course of the series that much more resonant. Most humans have been through an arc in their own lives in which things started out happy, innocent, and whimsical but then became more serious and heavy as they got older. That’s what JKR has captured so deftly in her progression of the HP series, and I think her choice to make the mirror more than just a convenient deus ex machina is emblematic of it.

Harry and the mirror, Copyright 2008 Hilly Minne

The Poorest of the Poor Revisited

Today marks the 12th anniversary of the day I spent in Nairobi’s Korogocho Slums with some of the world’s “poorest of the poor.” I was profoundly affected then and still am – but I have some new thoughts.

Korogocho slums in Nairobi, Kenya

In hindsight, this experience, which I found to be so special and impactful at the time, feels a little problematic. I realize now that bringing affluent, [mostly] white visitors into contact with poor, Black locals is a clichΓ©, and it smacks of both volunteer tourism and white saviorism. I wonder how my Black and African classmates felt about it. Did they feel the same? Or did they feel it was exploitative? Or . . . other? Rather than getting so caught up in my own emotional journey, I should have spent more time on that trip seeking out their perspectives.

Reading through my blogs for the entire Kenya trip, I’m more than a little ashamed of the hubris with which I described “challenging” and “advising” Kenyan business leaders. Did we really believe that our privileged education in one of the richest countries in the world gave us any clue how to solve problems in such a different context? We – many of us, at any rate – were so colonial!

That said, I did learn a lot, which was the purpose of the trip – and I definitely returned more motivated than ever to be the change I wanted to see in the world, resolving to “give it all I’ve got.” So, 12 years later, how am I doing? Am I driving positive change or were those just hollow words?

GIVEWATTS

Shortly after this trip, one of my dear friends and IMD classmates moved to Kenya to launch GIVEWATTS, a nonprofit deploying solar energy to off-grid schools and clinics throughout East Africa. I joined the GIVEWATTS Board of Directors and created/led the USA organization. In 10 years, we have:

● 40,000 solar lamps and 10,000 solar stoves deployed
● 142,000 tons CO2 avoided
● Improved health outcomes by eliminating fumes from kerosene
● Improved education outcomes by enabling homework outside of daylight hours

To be clear, I am just a very small part of the entire GIVEWATTS team, but I am incredibly proud of what we have accomplished. GIVEWATTS is now run by a crack team of Kenyans based in Nairobi and is self sustaining / growing with minimal foreign help.

Third Derivative

Reading through my blogs from the Kenya trip, I’m reminded how unsustainable growth in the region was (is?), how disproportionately affected by the climate crisis they were (are!), and how important entrepreneurship was (is!) to solving it.

The region was being exploited for its resources – minerals, arable land, and fish and wildlife. It was growing economically but making the same mistakes that we already made in the west: dirty energy, dirty infrastructure, inefficiency, etc.

Our meeting with the Executive Director of Climate Network Africa demonstrated that they were already feeling the effects of the climate crisis and were seeking help in combating it. At the time, I was defensive about the blame she was throwing at the developed world for our outsized role in creating the climate crisis, but . . . she wasn’t wrong!

That discussion inspired me to think through climate solutions in the East African context. Multiple technology breakthroughs would be necessary but my project on Kenyan entrepreneurship revealed that there were significant barriers in the way of entrepreneurs and innovators there: business education, access to capital, gender inequities, and many more.

So, we need to solve climate, we can only do it together through global collaboration, and supporting entrepreneurship is critical to getting it right. That leads me squarely to Third Derivative, a fully integrated, global engine of climate innovation. We are working not just to deliver climate solutions everywhere in the world, but to source them around the world, too, so that everyone can participate in the unprecedented, multi-trillion-dollar opportunity of climatetech.

Climate Justice Is Social Justice

From one of my blog entries: “The dichotomy of Kenya is strong. We have met with wildly successful entrepreneurs and we have played with those rejected and forgotten by even the poorest of society. Perhaps I am naΓ―ve in thinking Kenya is exceptional; perhaps such disparity exists everywhere.”

Just how naΓ―ve I was has become abundantly clear in the ensuing 12 years and especially recently in the US. I don’t have to travel halfway around the world to see systemic inequality; it is right here in my back yard.

I also marveled at the tribalism in East Africa: “Whenever one tribe is in power, it commits atrocities against the others. When the others are in power, they want revenge. The tit-for-tat cycle continues indefinitely and I have no idea how it could be broken.” Is our current state of US political polarization so different?

At Third Derivative, we are still figuring out how to embed diversity, equity, and inclusion deeply into everything we do but, in the meantime, I take solace in the idea that climate justice is social justice and in being part of a larger team working to that end.

When I returned to Switzerland from Kenya, I wrote that, “I feel so safe and comfortable.” When I returned to the US from Switzerland, I did it for patriotism and to fight on the front lines of the climate fight. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it has put me right into the fray of the social justice fight as well.

When I moved across the country to launch and lead a major new weapon in the climate / social fight, I wrote of living a life not of comfort and complacency but of service and adventure. I may not have solved climate yet, but I do think I am living up to my commitment of 12 years ago to “give it everything I’ve got.”

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Chapters 32/33

WARNING: THERE BE SPOILERS BELOW!

These chapters further my beef with Dumbledore’s occlumency plan. By the end of the 7th book, we really come to view Dumbledore as a true chess master. He’s thinking years ahead and anticipating what many pieces on the board will do in response to the moves of others. Indeed, he is even willing to sacrifice pieces if it gets him closer to victory.

Dumbledore the Chess Master

With that in mind, it seems like an un-Dumbledorian blunder to think that Snape’s lessons would actually help Harry prevent Voldemort from invading his mind. How could such a wise chess master miss such an obvious flaw in the plan?? That’s what bothers me about it.

Or . . . duh-Duh-DUH . . . what if it actually WAS Dumbledore’s plan for Voldemort eventually to enter Harry’s mind and lure him to the Ministry? What if it WAS Dumbledore’s plan that members of the Order be put at mortal risk? What if he saw all of that as an acceptable loss in order (pun intended) to bring Voldemort out into the open? And he needed Voldemort out in the open to motivate Slughorn to [with lots of coaxing and a little luck from Harry] divulge his memories to get the full horcrux picture.

This explanation is a bit of a stretch, but it’s the only way I can reconcile such a consistent chess master making such a seeming error in playing chess: it’s not an error; it’s a feint.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Chapters 30/31

The Occlumency subplot of this book seems a little wonky to me. Was Snape really the ONLY person who could teach it to Harry? Especially considering how bad of a teacher he seems to be!

Considering that the main thread of the book involves a group of students learning magic beyond their years and teaching it to themselves, why would that not have been an option? As precocious as Hermione is at basically everything except flying, I find it not improbable that she could learn at least passing legilimency to practice it with Harry.

Also, the entire premise of the training seems to be misguided. I’m not sure how effectively practicing intentional, proactive occlumency against overt legilimency would translate to passive occlumency (while sleeping!) against a remote threat.

Also, does it seem odd to anyone else that the centaurs would be so possessive of the Dark Forest? After all, they are part horse, so I would think they would prefer open plains for galloping around. And they spend so much time gazing up at the stars that I would think they would prefer a dwelling with a less obstructed view of the sky!

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Chapters 28/29

Can I just say that I love Fred and George here? Their uprising against evil, authoritative rule is inspiring – vive la resistance! It’s sort of neat, too, how we get multiple examples all at once of kids out-magic’ing grownups: Fred and George’s uprising, Hermione’s sneak pimples. (Is this the first time we’ve seen evidence of students out-magic’ing adults? I can’t remember.) And then everything/everybody from Dumbledore’s locked office to the Hogwarts teachers to Peeves conspire to support them. It really is a beautiful turning point in the series.

The James and Sirius bullying Snape scene is so gross. It reminds me so much of the Death Eaters levitating those muggles upside down in the air so that you could see their underwear at the Quidditch World Cup – and I’m sure that similarity was intentional by JKR.

My Harry Potter book club has speculated before about how a wizard from each house might “go dark” and this is probably what it looks like for a Gryffindor, letting power and glory go to their head. This is probably the best reminder we get that, although James and Sirius are “good guys,” they came from wealthy, old, pureblood families and may well have grown up as spoiled, entitled pricks.

Of course adolescence can be a dark, confusing time for any teenager and we do have evidence that later in their lives they matured into more thoughtful adults. Frankly, the character journey of them becoming thoughtful adults given this low starting point is a tale I would like to know. Regardless, it gives Sirius real gravitas when he tells Harry that the world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters; he knows first hand what it’s like to move along that spectrum.

My heart really, really breaks for Harry through this, though. A boy who never knows his father has a tendency to idolize his memory and, ugh, what a cold slap in the face that his romanticized version of his father might not quite be real. This entire series is about growing up and this right here is one of the biggest “innocence lost” moments of them all.

We Built Something Big: RMI Launches Third Derivative Climatetech Accelerator

Two weeks ago, I announced that I had become the co-founder and CEO of Third Derivative climatetech accelerator, a new joint venture between Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and New Energy Nexus. Now that we are fully live, I couldn’t be more excited to share what we’ve built.

It still feels a little surreal. Two weeks ago I described how the universe conspired to bring me here β€” how two world-class organizations happened to be envisioning exactly the thing I had been dreaming about, at exactly the moment I became available. We took Third Derivative from PowerPoint to soft launch in less than 90 days, in the middle of a global pandemic, with a team that has never been in the same room together. If that doesn’t capture the urgency we feel about the climate crisis, I don’t know what does.

Right now, Katie and I are mid-move to Boulder, Colorado, with boxes everywhere and a two-year-old who has opinions about all of it. And in the middle of all that beautiful chaos, we’re also standing up what I truly believe is the most important new climate organization in the world. The climate isn’t waiting, and neither are we.

Today, RMI published the official launch announcement on their website. My co-author is Elizabeth Hartman, one of the sharpest people I’ve had the pleasure of working alongside. Here is the original article on RMI.org, republished below in full:


RMI Launches New Climate Tech Accelerator

By Elizabeth Hartman and Bryan Guido Hassin | June 4, 2020

Faced with the rising urgency of the climate crisis, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and New Energy Nexus are proud to announce the launch of a new joint venture called Third Derivative (or D3, for short) β€” built to accelerate the rate of climate innovation. This program works with startups from around the world to connect them with the resources needed to commercialize and scale more rapidly than ever before.

Reflecting the systemic nature of climate change, D3 takes a systems approach to building the comprehensive ecosystem needed for climate technology innovation to succeed, connecting four essential elements: an accelerator, funding, global corporate partners, and unique market and policy expertise.

Accelerator

D3’s accelerator is designed to support the specific needs of climate entrepreneurs:

  • Global: we are built on New Energy Nexus’s experience running and collaborating with 100+ climate innovation programs all over the world.
  • Virtual: our global entrepreneurs spend their time and resources building their ventures, not relocating or traveling all over the world.
  • Bespoke: we tailor the program experience to the unique needs of each startup; climate is such a broad category that one size could never fit all.
  • Systems-oriented: by bringing 30-50 startups into each cohort, many occupying different parts of the same sector’s value chain, D3 supports system-level innovation.
  • Outcome-focused: our startups are urgently seeking breakthrough deals and so are we; this program is less on curriculum and more on coaching and connecting.

Funding

Climate entrepreneurs often have large capital requirements and face long paths to market, which has historically made fundraising difficult. D3 reduces the time and effort entrepreneurs spend searching for funding by bringing climate-focused venture capital investors directly into the program. D3’s investor partners help select startups for participation in the program, which comes with an optional $100,000 seed investment, and then work closely with them to define milestones and targets to unlock follow-on funding. This gives D3’s investors unprecedented access to de-risked deal flow aligned with their investment theses.

As of D3’s soft launch on May 19, there were five committed investor partners spanning three continents and representing more than $300 million in capital. And as the wave of climate tech investment swells, more investors are joining all the time.

Corporate Partners

Commercializing climate innovation often requires navigating sales to, partnerships with, and investments from large, complex corporations. Such corporations are not organized to rapidly find, test, integrate, and scale the types of early-stage technologies that will be necessary to help them meet their bold climate commitments.

D3 brings these corporate partners directly into the program, assessing their early-stage technology needs and facilitating their interactions with leading edge innovators. When a startup is still too early-stage to close a commercial deal with a large corporate, D3’s investor partners β€” emboldened by that corporate’s interest β€” step in to fund the startup’s acceleration along the maturity curve.

D3’s corporate partners span the globe and represent sectors as diverse as technology, communications, finance, and energy. This diversity is necessary to address the diverse climate challenge and provides corporate partners with the additional benefit of learning from each other as they share ideas for increasing innovation internally and developing more ambitious corporate strategies.

Expertise

With nearly 40 years as a recognized expert in climate and energy, Rocky Mountain Institute provides unparalleled market and policy insights to all members of the D3 ecosystem. Entrepreneurs, investors, and corporate partners working on buildings, cities, electricity, industry, finance, mobility, and more climate-related sectors have access to RMI’s broad knowledge base and staff of 250 experts. Combined with our strong global network across business, finance, NGOs, and policy, RMI can deliver precisely what is needed for a particular climate technology innovation to excel.

Join Us

D3 is now accepting applications from startups, investors, and corporate partners to join our inaugural cohort. Join us as we accelerate the rate of climate innovation together!


That’s the official word. Now here’s my unofficial, personal addendum: I’ve spent over 20 years in this fight, founding and leading climate ventures, learning hard lessons, winning some, losing some. The one constant in all of those experiences was that the system was broken. Great climate technologies were dying not because the science was bad or the founders weren’t talented, but because the ecosystem wasn’t there to carry them across the four valleys of death that climatetech uniquely faces.

Third Derivative is our answer to that broken system β€” a fully loaded, integrated rocket ship. Startups, investors, corporates, and policy expertise, all pointing the same direction, rowing together. We’re not just running an accelerator; we’re rebuilding the infrastructure of climate innovation from the ground up.

It won’t be easy. Nothing worth doing ever is. But I have never felt more ready, more resourced, or more surrounded by the right people to take this on.

If you’re a startup, an investor, or a corporation serious about climate β€” come join us. The urgency is real, and so is the opportunity.


Have thoughts about what we’re building? I’d love to hear from you in the comments below.

No Requests

It has been 30 years to the day since my dad died. 30 YEARS! 3/4 of my life! I don’t know which is more sobering, that it is the 30th anniversary of his death . . . or that it has already been 10 years since I pondered the 20th anniversary of his death! It’s crazy to me that many of my younger friends and colleagues never even lived at the same time he was alive, never breathed the same air that he did.

As I do every May 28th, I listened to recordings of Dad’s memorial service and it is so heartwarming to hear from those who knew him at different stages of his life. They all had very different relationships with him, yet clear themes and commonalities are evident throughout their stories.

Were Dad alive, he would be 75 now – and I can’t help but wonder how he would be! He was already quite unyielding; would he now be a crotchety old man, set in his ways? What would he think of the life – and family – I have made for myself? How would he take to his role as grandfather? Would we call him Nonno, after his Italian mother, or Big Daddy, which is what we called his father – or something else entirely?

Crotchety or not, I have a feeling that Dad would have warmed to his grandchild in ways that he never felt permitted to with his son and I really wish he were alive if only to see that side of him – and for all the other reasons, too! I wish he could have met my amazing, brilliant, strong partner. I wish our joyful, rambunctious, cheeky two-year-old could have met him.

Our child does get to know him a little bit through pictures and music. On May 28th we always play recordings of Dad singing his favorite folk songs. It helps me remember his voice and makes it possible for my partner and child to hear the voice of someone important they never had the chance to meet in real life.

Our toddler is going through a phase, though, in which the only music he ever wants to hear is different versions of “Wheels On The Bus.” I’m sure Dad could have done a hell of a rendition of “Wheels On The Bus” and the fantasy of him singing it dotingly over and over again to his utterly rapt grandchild brings a smile to my face . . . but the sad reality is that Dad just isn’t able to take requests anymore.

Why We Built Third Derivative

I mentioned in my prior post that I shared our rationale for building Third Derivative on LinkedIn; here is the full text:

Leading a climate tech startup is tough. You often have greater capital needs and longer paths to market, making it harder for you to compete with software ventures for funding. Commercializing climate tech often necessitates navigating complex, slow-moving corporate customers, where it might take a year just to figure out whom to talk to. All of this is set against a regulatory and policy landscape that favors incumbents, not you β€” leading a climate tech startup is tough.

Unfortunately many traditional accelerators – which nominally exist to make things easier for startups – divide startups from investors and corporate partners. They hold the investors and corporates up on a pedestal while parading startups in front of them to beg for money or favors on demo day – all while ignoring the critical role of markets and policy for startup success. Given the dearth of climate tech success stories β€” especially the hard science innovation we need to combat the climate crisis at scale β€” coming out of accelerators, we believe this model as a lot of room for innovation / improvement.

Third Derivative is introducing a new model: bringing everyone together as equals in a fully integrated accelerator powered by New Energy Nexus, the leader in global climate tech acceleration. While startups in our program are building their ventures, corporates in our program are buying and deploying their products, and investors in our program β€” motivated by the corporate demand they see β€” are funding them. All the while, Rocky Mountain Institute’s unparalleled market insights and policy access are giving all participants a superior advantage.

How much does this unprecedented value cost the startup? Not a penny. Participation in our program comes with an optional USD $100,000 seed investment from our investor partners with privileged access to USD $100,000,000+ follow-on funding – but you decide whether or not to take the investment. Either way, our 16-month program is entirely virtual so you can focus your time and money on building your venture, not traveling around the world.

At Third Derivative, we know how tough it is to lead a climate tech startup because we are climate tech investors, corporate executives, market and policy analysts, and β€” most crucially β€” entrepreneurs. If you want to be part of something bigger than just accelerating your venture β€” if you want to accelerate the entire rate of climate innovation β€” then come join us in solving the climate crisis together.