Navigating Carbon Emission Standards and Science-Based Targets with David Jaber of Climate Positive Consulting

Kim Allchurch Flick: Hello everyone. This is Kim Allchurch Flick and I’m delighted to be here with. David Jaber, who is a results driven strategy consultant who has worked with over 200 organizations over 20 plus years on environmental excellence. He is the author of Climate Positive Business, how you and your company Hit Bold Climate Goals and Go Net Zero.

He is also a uc Berkeley instructor, a change climate consulting network member. And served as the first sprint course developer for tara.do, which has the mission to get a hundred million people working in climate. The topic today is the dynamic landscape of carbon emission standards. Big topic, super important.

I’m so glad to have you here. And we met because of TEDu. I was a student and hope to remain a student, and we’re in B Corps circles, so I’m so excited to have you on this podcast. 

David Jaber: Real pleasure to be here with you, Kim. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Thank you. So tell us a little bit of your background and what has been the journey and what values have developed along the way to lead you to this point in your career.

David Jaber: I appreciate that question. As I think about this and have been periodically asked about it in the past. As I suspect you’ve seen, many of us get inspired by our relationships with nature early in life. I think for those of us who work in sort of environments and sustainability related fields, and I’d say that’s almost certainly the root drive in my case.

But just maybe to provide a little more context in that and. I’ll start in college. So in college, as I was pursuing a chemical engineering degree, what I discovered in part because of this, patterning younger in life, is that environment was my real passion and that was what I was really motivated to work on.

And so for a master’s degree, I pivoted to environmental engineering. And for those who are unfamiliar with this in environmental engineering, what you get trained to do, essentially, or what we were trained to do at the time, ’cause I think it’s actually changed since, is to clean up pollution, whether that’s an air, water, or land.

And in the face of seeing a lot of intractable problems. So you set up these systems that were labor laboring for years to clean groundwater or brown fields. And maybe not getting the results that we wanted. That in me inspired this genius idea that maybe we shouldn’t pollute in the first place. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Yes.

David Jaber: And so I looked around at that time, this would’ve been like the late nineties, and I did see that there was this emerging concept. Some were calling it sustainability. Some were calling it green business. Some were calling it pollution prevention. But it all revolved around this idea that we can run businesses better and prosper while preserving and maintaining kind of the health and vitality of life on the planet.

So when I saw this, I’m like, that sounds exactly right. I shifted what I was doing and I, it took a couple years, but I landed a position as a sustainability consulting firm. So a firm that had set itself to do explicitly this. And this was at a time where it was very nascent. There were not many players.

It was hard to find a lot of activity in the space. So this company was not only focused on climate ’cause you had to be broader. So we were doing things like looking at zero waste and site energy efficiency and green building standards and a lot of other things that I would now, I think people would consider beyond pure carbon consulting and the way we do it.

So I built skills at this firm for several years and that provided the basis to build my own firm. The purpose now that I think probably saw from the training of mine that you participated in, my firm, climate Positive Consulting, is to address climate challenges, and that’s working with a key sector.

Businesses. Businesses both have this outsized impact on climates, I think on my read, but I think even objectively, a lot of, a lot of people look to businesses as people driving a lot of the resource use. Businesses have this outsize impact on climate, but also this capacity to move quickly. I think that’s one of the real superpowers of the private sector that a lot of us who work with the private sector really appreciate the fact that if you can get leadership to decide to do something, things can move quite quickly.

Once there’s that, impetus and it’s, you’ve set a goal. So business is this key leverage point. And I, I know I’m not the only one, but that’s essentially kind, you think where we’re at now.

Kim Allchurch Flick: That’s a great quote. In the private sector, things can move quickly. It’s a key point because some people do perhaps feel that things can move very slowly, but that’s very encouraging. Yeah, exactly. And could you elaborate or do you have examples perhaps of an idea like how that might work 

David Jaber: in terms of businesses just moving quickly?

Kim Allchurch Flick: Yeah. What have you seen? Have you created or seen one that moves quickly? 

David Jaber: I think it’s. I think less of an example is just more the quick decision making. Like people get very frustrated with kind of government, for example, because you’re trying to change policy and you’re grinding away from years and it’s this collective decision making.

It’s more about if for your homeowner, you’re an individual homeowner you can make decisions that sort of affect your home very quickly in a way that’s different, that if you’re part of a multi-family and not, I’m not really trying to dump on collective process and cooperatives and things that have become more process around it.

It just, you have more agility. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: That makes so much sense. 

David Jaber: Yeah. And then I guess the problem is that you also have a lot of agility to go into the wrong direction too, which is why businesses are holding, so much of the resource use because they have been able to 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Indeed, 

David Jaber: I would like to say, I would like to say we’ve seen more progress on climate action that we have.

But I guess one example that, that comes to mind that people probably hear a lot about is just Microsoft moving quickly in the carbon removal space. Like they’ve, there’s not really regulation requiring it but they’re like developing this area and later on way we can get into offsets versus reducing emissions.

Versus carbon removals. But carbon removals are this sort of special type of carbon offset that sort of costs more. But it’s a field that needs to be developed more because you’re actually measuring how much carbon that you’re drawing out of the air and that is something that, that certainly needs to happen one way or the other.

So Microsoft has just gone ahead and spent, many millions of dollars to help develop this space in a way that hasn’t happened from other parties. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Wow, that’s impressive. I had no idea. But that’s, it’s like they’re on the leading edge before they’re being pushed to do it. They’re actually being a leader on the 

David Jaber: Exactly.

Kim Allchurch Flick: Conflict of it. 

David Jaber: And businesses can move before regulations where regulations are acquired. And that’s from a strategic standpoint or other reasons, we think that that should be happening. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: That’s a very good point. What are some of the challenges for those companies and also you in the community where there are leaders, but some are not and some are still holding back and waiting for legislation.

David Jaber: Let me maybe provide a little context and just, I’ll also focus it in the basics of what we do, just so this is really grounded and where, my most of my expertise is gonna be. So I think we discussed earlier that we do climate consulting, and it’s specifically how I usually describe that is decarbonization strategy.

And since that’s a little abstract, I’ll just try to break that down a bit further. So what that typically entails is measurement of business emissions. So you’re looking at the operations and value chain of a business to come up with numbers, essentially on different aspects of their operations to come up with their footprint.

So at step one, you kinda measure the footprint. There, you see hotspots in where the emissions are, and that leads you to the second step, which is setting meaningful emissions reduction targets. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Okay, 

David Jaber: so this is you’ve measured your emissions and now you’re setting a goal to reduce those emissions.

And then the third step is to create a plan to bridge, where you currently are, what your baseline emissions are to actually hitting the target. I know you’ve seen from the work we did together, the the standard for those emission targets are what are called science-based targets.

Kim Allchurch Flick: Right. 

David Jaber: And you can essentially think of those as ambitious emissions reduction targets. They are aligned with climate science. The genesis of science-based targets came from the Paris Climate Agreement, which was the. Agreements internationally among countries in 2015 at the cop, those conference of parties conferences that happen every year to, for international discussions on climate in 2015 that was in Paris, so that’s why it’s called the Paris Climate Agreement.

And at Paris countries agreed to limit warming to well under two degrees and make efforts and strive to limit it to 1.5 degrees. So these science-based targets translate those 1.5 and two degrees to percentage of emissions reduction. And so these are ambitious reduction targets because we do need carbon emissions to come down quickly.

The deadline for those targets is typically 2030, and they’re generally asking you to do a lot this decade in, within this decade to bring down emissions. So your question was about challenges. One clear challenge is that, is these targets are challenging to hit, you generally do not have a clear line of sights in 2025 as to how you’ll hit the target even in 2030, let alone 2035.

So the science is telling us one thing you need to reduce your missions. Business as usual is telling us another, a lot of companies are under pressure to grow revenue or at least maintain it. 

Climate targets are telling you that you need to cap emissions. So there is going to be this inherent tension, assuming that growth of revenue is tied to growth of emissions.

Historically, it’s been the case that those two things are tied. But in that last, but that’s really where the answer is. Finding ways to decouple growth of revenue or whatever your growth targets are with the growth of emissions. So that’s one challenge. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Okay. 

David Jaber: Another challenge is more in the structure of how these targets are set up because.

Like government regulations or other, even non-government like rules of operations. It locks you into doing some specific things. And I am, I’m just cautious of like how technical to get it be in this conversation without losing folks. But, the typical way you’ll see target set up is you set a baseline year, as I described earlier.

You’re measuring your mission say in 2020, and then you’re saying in 2030, we wanna reduce it by X. That is one approach. It’s so dominance that it can be hard for people to think differently about decarbonization, but there are different ways that you could think about it. However, science-Based Targets has, if, for those that sign up for science-based targets, it is voluntary, but some 11,000 companies, mostly multinational companies, have already signed up for science-based targets.

So they who are driving a lot of activity and they’re supply chains that are, hundreds of thousands of, probably millions of other companies at this point are basically pulled into this structure. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Okay, 

David Jaber: you’re locked into this, the this approach, but another approach, for example, is you could look at benchmarks within a specific industry and really investigate who’s already exhibiting excellent performance on carbon, who’s already emitting very little given how much product they’re creating or how much economic activity they’re creating to where maybe they shouldn’t have to do anything for targets because they’re already doing performance.

And you should put it all on the laggards. We just want these great performers just to outcompete the poor performers essentially. And there’s other ways we could get into about how to tackle the climate crisis, but I’m just one thing I’m aware of is the structures that we put around goals and targets and create incentives can lock in behavior and activity that might not be the best.

The best sort of actions to take if we’re thinking about the climate crisis broadly. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Indeed, it’s, and what do you see as the possibilities?

David Jaber: I think there’s a lot of possibilities just given how many, how much awareness has taken off in the last, 10 years, but even less around this imperative to act on climates. 

I guess one thing I would say, as someone who works with companies that are voluntarily pursuing this, we now have more regulations coming into place, but it’s really been voluntary drivers, like I mentioned with science-based targets.

Historically, I would say the number one reason companies have gotten involved is because a major customer has asked them to take climate action. So this would be oriented toward B2B or business to business. Companies where you could have just one customer that might be 10 or 20% of your business asking them to take action.

So that might not be a government regulation, but if you view 10% or 20% of your revenue at risk, if you don’t do X, you’re probably going to do X. The reason I think we’ve seen such an uptick in this over the last six to eight years, I would say, is the ri the rise of the ESG investor. And certainly you could objectively look and see that ESG has come under attack and there’s been a lot of withdrawal in the last, one to two years.

But the fact that we had so many investors and essentially the people holding the purse strings, at least signaling that they wanted environmental and social responsibility out of their investees drove. Attention and decision making from boards and corporate leadership in a very different way than it is if it’s just World Resources Institute and World Wildlife Fund, asking companies to, to take action.

Sure. So the, I think the hope is, I think what’s inspiring is to see, how many sectors this thought process and this understanding has. Has become to where you’re driving serious action and serious intention. It’s just that, it’s just running against that challenge of like kind of growth in business as usual.

I think that we’re not seeing as much action as we would we’d like. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Sure. So I’m gonna put myself in the. Framework of a consumer, which I am. Okay, sure. I’m also a service provider, so my impact on environment is just microscopic compared to large industries and yet awareness and education can really help with decisions, and I find as a consultant to B Corps mission driven companies is.

Really seeing innovation and possibility and challenges, and I’m encouraged that. I think it’s been more over the last five to 10 years that there have been more innovations for how I, as a consumer look at climate and there’s the fossil fuels part of it. There’s waste and recycling part of it. There’s.

Toxins part of it, like I was listening to Frontline last night about the carpet industry and the amount of PFAS that go into water that goes downstream and kills cattle. All these things that make the term climate an extraordinarily large issue and to parcel it out, but where I’m seeing innovations is regenerate certificates for agriculture.

A hundred percent breastfeed. Fed beef is way different for the climate and health than factory farming. Also genetically engineered meat that doesn’t have a whole animal that’s a sentient being and is much cleaner to produce and doesn’t have, it has a totally different type of factory plant-based, and also in things like just home cleaning and laundry products.

We used to, everything used to be in plastic, and now I’m seeing several companies that are coming out with plant-based zero plastic cleaning and laundry products that are doing the same. Good job. It’s not a compromise, and the prices aren’t too much higher. So I’m in this place of optimism. Also wanting to learn more and learning how to support these companies that are doing what you’re doing with what, four years left?

It’s 2026 and 2030 seems really close.

David Jaber: Right, it does. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: And I was wondering, as you’re working with companies primarily. It’s encouraging to know that the customer voices in, in B2B are asking them to take action. And how do you see that improving or increasing and is B Corps and a framework with the new V 2.1 that has so much emphasis on these climate issues?

How do you think that will build a framework into the future? For companies and consumers. 

David Jaber: I will answer that if I can just touch back on something you said. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Yeah. 

David Jaber: So I was talking about decoupling business, I’ll call it business success maybe, but more than business growth from carbon emissions.

But you can certainly lay on decoupling from toxic materials. Or Habitat destruction. Or non circularity and look at a lot of different things. For this greater sense of environmental and social responsibility that I was talking about or I was listening to I, Rebecca Solnit, who’s been very influential and I think an impressive writer was talking about, thinking about reciprocity rather than responsibility, which I appreciate ’cause that recognizes you something versus just are gi giving something back and more sacrificial.

So I think whether this sort of these reciprocal relationships where things can be 100% renewable, non-toxic, clean, bio-based, circular that’s the holy grail here, right? And the challenge is working in a system that’s been built around, fossil fuel availability.

And materials that aren’t passing all the sort of the toxicity tests. It’s like we have to redesign ourselves, our ourselves, our businesses, our processes, out of that. And it, that just takes kinda resources and investment. So it’s also part of the challenge. So I know you asked about V 2.1 in B Corps, but I’ll have to ask you to remind me the first part of that question.

Kim Allchurch Flick: In the new standards, there is emphasis on carbon accounting, scope one, two, and three for companies that will be doing their recertifications or first certifications in the new standards, which starts actually today, February 2nd, 2026. This is the launch date. 

David Jaber: Welcome B Corporations 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Yes. 

David Jaber: To the new standards.

Kim Allchurch Flick: Yeah. So it’s all new to all of us. Yeah. And we know the, in the environmental segment of the standards, which have many pillars but environment being one of them, these things that you’re just talking about, carbon accounting, making changes over time and improving is built into. Into the goals to become a B Corps under the new standards.

David Jaber: It is, and at the same time, they B Lab did recognize the burden that this could have put on small and medium sized companies. So they shifted the onus from measuring your missions to just taking climate actions for those that are under the medium threshold, which I was pretty generous as I recall, like 250 employees.

And maybe 75 million in revenue. And I’d have to go back to see what the actual numbers were in the latest, but. And I think that’s exactly right. Another challenge that I didn’t get into earlier is how much efforts for sustainability professionals, it is put into measuring and reporting, but not actually driving improvements.

And there’s reasons for that. Driving improvements means you have to like change systems and get buy-in and kind of work, cross departmentally. We’re measuring, you’re just looking at what was already done without really changing anything and then reporting that you’re just, telling people what you found.

It’s a different level of intervention. But, so the fact that I think B Lab, I think it makes sense to say, okay. For those of you that are smaller and maybe have less resources to drive this forward we just want you to focus on. Taking climate action now buried in that, they say then you basically need to have some way of like measuring or gauging progress toward your actions.

So it, it does suggest you do still need to do some level of measurement and that could still be measuring your carbon emissions and seeing what impact, if you decided where we’re gonna source. We recycled content packaging, or we’re gonna do LEDs in our warehouse, or we’re going to incorporate EVs into our fleets.

Like you’re still gonna need some way. Measure that. And then for the larger companies that you mentioned, they have to go through essentially the process that I mentioned earlier in terms of setting science-based targets. Or the equivalent of science-based targets. They do have like a separate pathway, but essentially you’re setting a science-based target.

You’re measuring your baseline emissions, and then you’re, pushing forward on your transition plan. You’ll see in, for those of you that are B Corps listening to this. There’s the Language Action plan versus transition plan. So action plan would be for smaller companies, transition plan is for larger companies, but essentially it’s the same thing.

Transition plan. Just has a few other features like looking at the financing one. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Yeah. And that makes sense. And it’s good always to recognize sectors are different size. Is different service is way different than manufacturing or CPG consumer products or retail or.

Transportation, things of that nature. So thank you for delineating that for us. I think also wrapping our heads around the fact that the SBA still labels small business as 5 million or 50 employees or less, and to service providers who might be solopreneurs. That feels way different. To be categorized as small as well, and there’s a huge difference in that.

But I think what you’re doing in talking here is so important to, the more we learn about this, the more we can realize who to support, either as partners, suppliers, and who to support as consumers, because we understand that they’re taking transitional measures or they’re moving forward.

And how, what makes you optimistic about that potential? That people trying to wrap our arms around this and understand it, because climate is such a big topic. A lot of times it’s not easy to understand what measuring that even means, but we’re moving forward. 

David Jaber: You’ve mentioned different types of certifications a few times and, I think this maybe gets more to action. So I’ll go back to the optimism importance of question. You had mentioned awareness earlier. I think one thing, and we got into that a little earlier, but one thing that does make me optimistic is mindsets. And I will say as a caveat, so as a person of action, I see myself as someone trying to drive action.

I do believe intentions need to manifest as action, mindset, and awareness isn’t enough. But it is honestly inspiring to see how many mindsets have been shifted in all these directions that we’ve been discussing. So there’s so many people that are seeking, genuine climate action, real reciprocity with communities and employees, seeking ways to ensure everyone benefits from company success.

That could be employee ownership, but there’s other, models of stop auction programs and other ways to look at this. But then maybe even more fundamentally, and particularly with businesses, finding ways to think about more holistic returns and not just financial returns.

So what other benefits are you creating in your pathway to generating revenue? Is that worker and community quality of life? Is that habitat revitalized? Is that cleaner? Air, water, and soil? There are a lot of ways to think about holistic returns. I know we see that sort of in the organic agriculture community.

’cause sometimes there’s pushback. It’s the yields aren’t quite the same as conventional. But you have to look at, yeah, but how are we supporting kind of local biodiversity and local ecology? And human health for those that are concerned about, pesticide residues. I think there’s a lot of different ways to think about return broadly.

And then the trick again is to have financial systems that recognize that. So organic produce, usually you would get a premium on that. And there’s a reason because, people are recogniz ultimately people are recognizing these benefits. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Wow. That, and it’s so encouraging and I think.

We’re seeing kts of that and also globally because the, it’s a global issue. I’m gonna share just a brief thing that gave me a lot of optimism for the first time in seven years, my husband and I actually got to take a vacation outta the country ’cause there was COVID and things. And we decided to go to Costa Rica and stay only in eco lodges.

And regenerative Ag Farms where we ate what they produced on the land and in, in hikes with naturalists to a person, they said that Costa Rica had been down as far as down to 20 per 5% forest, which means about roughly 75% deforestation in a rainforest and mono cropp. Some things that were not done well and over the past 30 years or so, they’ve been really working to reclaim that.

And the tours we went on, the looks we had at it, they are now up to 50% for in Costa Rica. And they, there’s still some things that are monocrop. There’s still some things that are industrial farming, but yet it seems to be working. On a pretty grand scale with a few hectares here, a few hectares there of farmers that are really being biodiverse farmers.

These are active farms with biodiversity. So you have a cacao tree next to a palm tree next to the ground covers that are attracting the pollinators and they’re not in rows. Nature doesn’t plant in rows by herself and. It was fascinating to me, and my background is a biology major and I live in a forest that I’m actively rewilding and it just, it’s wow, there’s potential.

It doesn’t take that many people and it takes, and the people who work on these farms seems so happy and they’re just. Devoted to it. And there was a lodge that we stayed in. We stayed on the two different coasts and one had been just pasture and 15 years later, this this place is not a farm. It’s a resort that’s very.

Very low impact on the com, on the environment replanted and the owner said in the first year, the birds started coming back a few and then more birds than some pollinators took five years for the monkeys to come back. Now the biodiversity is everywhere and so it’s possible, and I think that’s one of the things I wanted to share here, because you started out seeing your.

You love the environment, you wanna care for it for landscapes and possibility. There is possibility and we can all do things. And these are very reciprocal and it also impacts a country and is they’re using more organic and they’re exporting more organic than the basic large industry agriculture that they had just a few decades ago.

David Jaber: So 

Kim Allchurch Flick: What’s as an example? 

David Jaber: Yeah, 

Kim Allchurch Flick: I’m sorry. 

David Jaber: What’s interesting about that is Costa Rica has had this reputation for like ecotourism and taking care of habitat, but the fact that it’s filtered into sort of farming practices. ’cause sometimes those worlds can be very separated, right?

So farmers are just doing what they’ve, what they were doing, and then you have certain nature and sometimes there’s tension there. So if it’s more integrated, that is really promising. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: It really is. It’s I just am so enjoying talking with you about this. It still seems like a very big topic, and yet you’ve helped us parcel down to some specifics which are important.

Is there anything more you’d like to share and also your love of the environment on a personal level what do you see there that you’d like to share?

David Jaber: I find it important to also be place-based. Climate can be seen as a global issue. And it, from a mission standpoint and the way it affects the atmosphere, there’s reasons for that. Although the impacts come down to hit local places, but. One. One aspect of that is just really viewing myself as part of, local ecology.

Being even identifying with sort of the watershed and really just trying to understand you how water and nature and other natural systems kind of work on this kind of local landscape. Realize that I’m just an animal on this landscape, like the other animals I’m observing, whether that’s acorn woodpeckers, California, quail, ground, squirrels, whatever.

There, there are some very functional differences around that because all those other beings I just mentioned they don’t have all ev all the resources they use are locally based. So they’re integrated in a way that those of us who have. Supply chains that are, all over the world are different.

We’re bringing in external resources and so that for one just, boosts, boosts our population. So there’s that much more of us that there wouldn’t be if we were all just harvesting from local landscape. But I think I think there’s ways certainly to be very mindful of kind of your role in the landscape.

See yourself as part of it, not separate. ’cause I think this. My indi indigenous oriented teachers that, that I’ve had and I know have influenced others, I think really have helped us challenge this artificial divide between, kind of people supposing to be in like urban developed ugly spaces and then nature separate over here that’s supposed to be preserved in pristine.

And I think we, we need an integration of those worlds. We need an integration of kind of our, even mindset around that.

Kim Allchurch Flick: Yeah, I can totally concur with that. It’s, there’s so much to learn. Robin Wall Kimer books talk about reciprocity, not extraction, and I started framing purchases or thought processes around if this is extracting, is there another way, do I have to settle? And often the answer is. No, not if I really think about it.

And I, I just love the gentleness that she brings to that thought process. And I do believe there’s a lot of, no matter where we are in the United States, there is ancestral Native American wisdom about agriculture, land, and reciprocity everywhere. And every once in a while. If there’s a book about it or someone local is speaking, and I’ve been lucky enough to capture some of those.

A couple of chiefs have talked about what it was like when they were grow growing up and how different it is and how they were told they weren’t managing their land well enough, even, a few decades ago, and how actually they were managing it quite well. And what that different perspective means.

So it’s very encouraging that people like you are really starting to take a look at what does it mean to be reciprocal? What does it mean to do less harm? What does it mean to think before we act? And what does it mean to be supportive of the heavy hitters who are making decisions? And we can vote with our wallets as well.

David Jaber: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. In making judgements on whether or not someone’s managing lands, it actually comes back to what you’re measuring. Are you just measuring yield of a specific thing or are you taking measures of ecological health? And sometimes I think, some, sometimes people aren’t even aware of what you decide to measure and how you measure it can actually, will drive behavior in specific directions that may not, still not be the right direction to go.

Whether that’s GDP for a country or any number of things. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Yeah. That’s fascinating too. It is. And there’s a film called Serengeti Rules is one, it’s just more global about letting nature reclaim and kiss the ground, and the sequel is common ground. If you’ve seen those, the story of a farmer who decides to change the ways of doing all the tilling, that when you see the dust in the air and the soil is losing, its fundamental ability to be healthy.

And without healthy soil there’s healthy nothing because things grow in soil. And how there’s two farms side by side where one is still doing the standard practices. The way it still looks, brown and dusty and the man who decided to stop and did more of a reclamation, regenerative no-till farming.

And there’s a line that they’re totally different. One looks green and verdant and productive and the other is not. And we can do this, we can think about it that way from the soil upward.

And it can be measured ’cause biodiversity can be measured. 

David Jaber: Yeah. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: It’s really fascinating. What else would you like to share about what you do, who you can help, and how can people reach you?

David Jaber: We’ve mentioned I primarily work with businesses, but for those representing businesses or those interested in the space, you can certainly go to our website, www.climatepositiveconsulting.com. The best place to find me on socials would be LinkedIn, and if you just search for David Jaber, I should come up pretty quick.

Kim Allchurch Flick: Great. Thank you so much. And final question, if you could have dinner with up to three people living or deceased, who would they be and why? So you could have a table of four or less I, 

David Jaber: interesting question and so many possibilities.

I think one person I would want to have there was Wangari Mata.

And I’ll probably stick with this theme of people who have had to face like immense challenges and came up managed to drive things. I’ll also add Gandhi and for my third, let’s go with Abraham Lincoln. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Wow, that’s gonna be an amazing 

David Jaber: conversation.

It would be a pretty interesting conversation. Yes. Have no idea how it would go, but

you definitely have three people there that had a diverse set of like big challenges to tackle. So that’s I think I can see some learning coming from that. 

Kim Allchurch Flick: Oh, that would be incredible. David, thank you so much. Really appreciate this. This is Kim Allchurch Flick signing off.

Be safe. We appreciate you and goodbye.