For many Californians eyeing the state’s future, especially those concerned about the outsized influence of powerful tech giants and wealthy individuals, Tom Steyer might seem like an unexpected, yet compelling, candidate. A billionaire himself, Steyer built his fortune founding Farallon Capital Management, once one of the world’s largest hedge funds. However, his path took a significant turn in 2012 when he stepped away from the financial world to embrace philanthropy, political advocacy, and particularly, climate activism.
Now, he’s entered the crowded field of contenders vying for California’s governorship, aiming to advance past the June primary and secure a win in November. His candidacy is particularly interesting given California’s prominence in issues like AI development, climate change, and immigration enforcement – subjects central to publications like WIRED. Steyer’s unique position in this race has earned him descriptions like “class traitor” for seemingly distancing himself from his fellow elites.
He has openly supported California’s contentious Billionaire Tax Act, a proposal that has reportedly caused figures from Sergey Brin to Peter Thiel to consider leaving the state. Steyer’s campaign focuses heavily on affordability, robust climate policies, and a pledge of immunity to corporate influence. As a billionaire who has reportedly poured over $130 million of his own money into his gubernatorial bid, one would certainly hope he’d be immune to external corporate sway.
From Finance Mogul to Climate Champion
My conversation with Steyer began by delving into his significant career transformation. He recounted a deep personal connection to wild spaces, having spent his youth working outdoor jobs, from ranch hand to fruit picker. A pivotal experience came in 2006 when he returned to Alaska with his wife and four children, only to witness firsthand the stark reality of climate change.
“It’s one thing to read about it on a page,” Steyer explained, “but it’s another thing to physically see where there used to be a mountain of ice and now it’s a valley.” This profound observation spurred a fundamental reevaluation of his life’s purpose. He expressed a burgeoning fear of leading a “life of no meaning,” feeling that accumulating wealth alone felt hollow.
He clarified that his departure from Farallon wasn’t solely for climate activism but was part of a broader shift towards pursuing endeavors with genuine impact. Steyer sees climate action not just as a moral imperative, but as a colossal opportunity for America to lead globally. He envisions the nation harnessing its technological and financial prowess to drive sustainable clean energy, foster new businesses, and demonstrate economic success while doing what’s right for the planet.
Navigating Past Investments and Future Policies
The conversation inevitably turned to Steyer’s past at Farallon Capital Management and persistent questions about his financial ties, particularly to fossil fuels. Steyer firmly stated that he divested from all oil and gas investments in 2012, citing this as a key reason for his departure from the firm. He explained that he felt unable to shift the organization’s investment philosophy while remaining at its helm.
“Anything that’s left there, you have to get me out of anything related to fossil fuels and a number of other things. I just can’t have it,” he recalled instructing at the time. He acknowledged the long process of disentanglement, emphasizing his commitment to ensuring a responsible transition for employees and the pension funds, endowments, and foundations that had entrusted their assets to Farallon. He stressed that the notion of him still having fossil fuel ties is “a decade and a half out of date.”
Addressing the broader criticism that his wealth was built in a world many progressives deem immoral, Steyer offered a nuanced perspective. He explained that he once embraced the mantra that capitalism, combined with democracy, was the engine of progress. While still acknowledging its capacity for good, he realized it’s “not always true,” and when it isn’t, “it can be spectacularly not true.” This realization prompted him to fundamentally change his approach to investing and his life’s work.
The Billionaire’s Dilemma: Innovation vs. Equity
Steyer also confronted the contentious question of whether billionaires should exist at all. He championed California as a hub of innovation and creativity, a place where groundbreaking ideas transform the world, particularly through software and information technology. He posed a challenge to critics: “If someone comes up with an idea that can be turned into a business that can change the world, that can actually do immense good, should we just put a lid on that?”
His stance suggests a belief in incentivizing world-changing innovation, even if it leads to immense wealth, while also acknowledging the need to address the systemic issues that can make capitalism “spectacularly not true” in its outcomes for many. This delicate balance—advocating for policies like the Billionaire Tax while celebrating the potential for wealth creation through innovation—highlights the tightrope he, or any future California governor, would walk. The task for California’s next leader will be to skillfully navigate these complex issues, from fostering AI advancements without alienating its creators to taxing the wealthy without driving them away, all while addressing the state’s urgent needs.
Source: Wired – AI
