Pitch letters - ESG silliness, foreign policy and travel writing
I focused today’s writing on practising how I would pitch ideas to a news publication. Below are pitch drafts for:
An opinion piece on Drax, who announced this week that they want to launch wood-powered ships that are supposedly carbon neutral….. You may remember them from last month’s explainer on why they aren’t really a net zero electricity source, and how much it costs the average UK household to subsidise them - £23/year or 3% of energy bills by my calculations
A foreign policy piece on how the UK could use the combined power of Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to promote economic development, reduce carbon emissions and support British energy businesses. Inspired by an upcoming talk at Chatham House where David Lammy will discuss the Labour Party’s “Progressive Realism” foreign policy
A travel piece on historical travel to better understand conflict, inspired by my piece last week on military museums
I’ve followed a loose format of “what is the pitch”, “why now?”, “why does this matter?”, article outline and “why me?”. As always, any thoughts you have on my writing and these pitches would be wonderful to receive.
Pitch 1: Drax and ESG/carbon emissions games
I would like to pitch a piece following news this week that Drax intends to expand its wood-burning operations to the shipping industry.
Drax are already controversial in the UK for having higher emissions than the coal power plants that the government subsidised them to replace. Now they are potentially going to increase emissions in the shipping industry too, through a partnership announced this week with Japan.
I would propose to write this piece as an accessible and funny explanation on how Drax is getting away with high emissions in its power plants (which publications like the Guardian have covered before), and explain why Drax's expansion to shipping will worsen their environmental impact through data on emissions from other fuels. I would make the argument that we should not need to cut down forests to decarbonise transport. For example, Japan has already done this to build renewables projects domestically, when they could be using their low-cost debt to fund projects abroad and claim offsets. I would then propose alternatives in green shipping that we should be pursuing instead, like FleetZero, a battery-powered shorthaul shipping solution.
This needs to be written now in response to this news, and as the government considers renewing Drax’s subsidies or providing carbon capture support. I think it is important to readers in the UK given that their money is funding Drax - by my estimates, every British household pays Drax £23 from their energy bill per year, or 3% of typical energy bills.
I am a credible voice to write this piece as a former energy infrastructure investor at the world's largest alternative asset manager (Blackstone), and I focused my research at Harvard Business and Kennedy Schools on low carbon infrastructure investment. My background in policy, business and engineering helps me take views that are grounded in the reality of profit-making, constraints of governments and the technical details of energy projects.
Pitch 2: UK foreign policy and green infrastructure aid
I would like to pitch a piece on how the government can better use the FCDO's combination of aid and diplomacy to boost the UK's world-leading energy industry, support foreign nations to decarbonise and build influence through infrastructure investment. The "foreign aid via energy investment" angle seems like a missed opportunity to benefit from the merger of DFID and FCO, which was designed to align the UK's aid program with diplomatic and economic interests.
Why now? David Lammy and Rachel Reeves are speaking at Chatham House next week on their 'Progressive Realism' foreign policy and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have both spoken publicly on their plans in the past week.
Why does it matter? Their speeches focus on security and developed nations, whereas energy investments could support lower income countries through the aid budget while also supporting UK businesses who are world leaders in energy infrastructure, i.e. make the aid budget also beneficial for British business and global climate goals.
Piece outline: I would propose to start with highlighting the gap in the discussion on energy transition and the US / Chinese leadership in infrastructure investment globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries. I would then outline the history of DFID and FCO and the rationale for merging them. I would show that this merger has not been capitalised on by the government, at least not in the UK’s strategic industries. I would finally make the case for why energy is an ideal investment theme for the government's foreign policy.
Firstly, the UK is a world leader on offshore wind and battery installations, and could be influential in many emerging markets where governments are considering how to develop their sectors. The same argument is plausible for hydrogen partnerships and transmission networks.
Secondly, energy investment and partnerships has a development impact: reduced carbon emissions and more energy to support industrialisation. The UK could also help offset its own carbon emissions through investments abroad.
Thirdly, this would help the UK compete diplomatically against the US and China, who currently provide significant infrastructure financing to developing countries. They could do so in a way that promotes the UK's own energy system, giving aid funds a multiplier effect on domestic jobs.
I could give specific examples of where the UK's investment would be well-placed, e.g. supporting countries to switch from fuel oil to batteries, helping electricity grids to design markets and trading products, supporting offshore wind development in places like Colombia and the Philippines, partnering with Namibia alongside Germany on their hydrogen industrial park developments, etc.
Why me? I am a credible voice to write this piece given my background as a private sector infrastructure investor at Blackstone, prior work at the UN and IFC focused on Africa, and my education in development economics, policy and business through two masters degrees at Harvard.
Pitch 3: Historical travel to understand conflicts and reconstruction
I would like to pitch a travel piece, or series, on historical travel to understand conflicts in the late 20th century. This is inspired by my own travel interests and experiences living in Ethiopia and Peru where military governments dominated in the '70s and '80s. [if writing to the Guardian:] I also noted that you published a wonderful piece on tourism in Bosnia last year, which is similar to what I propose to write about in other regions and from prior travel experience.
Why now? The wars in Ukraine and Israel are bringing conflict to the front of mind in the UK given proximity to Europe, versus other conflicts of the late twentieth century that feel more foreign and are less well-known. A better understanding of the history of violence and reconstruction post-conflict helps us to empathise with those experiencing modern conflict, and make more informed decisions on foreign policy and security as voters in the upcoming election.
Proposed content:
For a single piece, I would propose a guide on the countries with the best curated historical experiences for understanding their conflicts while also highlighting non-historical tourism they have to offer. Suggested countries to profile are Chile, Argentina, Cambodia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Albania and Ireland.
For individual pieces, I would prioritise Chile (Pinochet government), Ethiopia (Red Terror/Derg) and Albania (Enver Hoxha) as countries where readers may be less aware of the military government's history, and where there are other significant travel attractions.
Why me? Growing up in Australia with British parents, the modern history of military governments and oppression was something I discovered through travel rather than through formal education. Every time I visit a new country, I look up their war museums, in particular any museums that discuss military juntas and memorials to genocide, and I have done this type of travel in all the countries suggested above. My writing background is more in non-fiction (economics and policy), though I have been working on travel writing in Asia over the past few months while on sabbatical.
Are you able to pitch all three? You have enormous credibility to do that.